Divine Command Theory: For and Against

[@samali786]

Dear Professor, hope you are doing well. It's been quite a while you have put a lecture on youtube. Hope you are in good health and will be posting soon.

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

Thanks! I’m fine-just a busy semester in which I’m teaching an overload. I hope to start posting again next week!

[@luisivanstrelow2184]

Thank you!!!

[@Usd217]

Dear Dr. Bonevac! Thank you for the given opportunity to reach you out through the comments section! It might be a strange topic, but a very interesting one! Is there any possibility for you to make a video on how philosophy views such paranormal studies as occultism, astrology and symbolism of tarot cards? It would be a unique theme and you always explain everything brilliantly! My best wishes and sincere regards, Alex.

[@frogandspanner]

Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and other Professional Thinking Persons approach: 1) Assert that morals exist 2) Assert that morals are absolute (in the Physics sense) 3) Produce a complex argument that shows that such absolute morals need God 4) God exists. The scientific approach: 1) Observe that morals do not exist.

[@thomasccail7607]

2) Sweet grant money experimenting on little subhuman children

[@alittax]

11:55 What are some solution attempts?

[@andrew.schaeffer4032]

I read your logic book and recommend it all the time! Cool to see you have a channel. Great points in this talk. Reminds me of the is vs. Ought distinction and phillipa foot's stuff. I tend to think ethics come from a social contract that is arbitrary. But haven't researched it in depth. Have also come to think the argument that "but if God doesn't exist, there's no objective morality and we'll all turn into savages" isn't an intellectually honest reason to defer to whatever morality that being has. If gravity (no objective morality) exists then i could trip and scrape my knee(become a moral monster). I don't want to scrape my knee. Therefore, gravity does not exist or we shouldn't think it does. That's my indirect counter argument to the above. Fortunately, it seems those who think there's no objective morality are about as harmless as anyone who thinks otherwise.

[@abdelalimouhssin6907]

VIELE DANKE

[@tomollie]

Hey Dan! Any way we can get a video on Animism ? Thank you sir

[@GeorgWilde]

Once we have "God owns the world because he created it, so ... " as a step in the argument, the argument is rendered circular. We need an ethical theory in the first place to understand what ownership is. Another one is "God is the perfect being so his attitudes are the attitudes to have." Again circularity, because "you should strive for perfection" is a moral judgment. It has to be posed as a set of brute dogmas and nothing else. It's impossible to coherently argue for and against. Best bet is the Kafka trap of claiming that questioning God's command, even thinking about it's validity, is immoral in itself :-D This is a persuasive fallacy.

[@natanaellizama6559]

In a way you are correct. To judge or question implies to do so from a different standard. To do so in a sensical way implies a higher standard. You judge a lesser standard with a higher one(you judge a distance with a more accurate tool as accuracy is a higher standard than eyesight; you judge an action based on its virtue as virtue is perceived as a higher standard than wanton desire). What can possibly be a higher standard than God? By definition there can be no higher standard and hence one cannot rationally justify judging God. What one can do is judge what is said to come from God, but not God as God for there is no greater-than-God

[@chad969]

@@natanaellizama6559 Can you define what you mean by “higher”?

[@natanaellizama6559]

@@chad969 A standard that is deemed superior. Words and language have a limit. I am using higher. and superior in their usual sense.

[@GeorgWilde]

@@natanaellizama6559 Agreed! This reminds me of metalanguage vs object language and use vs mention in study of formal logic. Analogous problem arises in epistemology - the problem of criterion, or the Munchhausen Trilemma. I think these problems make the is-ought problem less relevant, because there is a problem with the "is" anyway. The "is" knowledge doesn't seem to be really more certain than some "ought" knowledge.

[@enfomy]

God being good brings up the Epicurus quote. The normative question is seemingly even weaker for divine command theory than for human convention and nature because we can at least question humans and observe nature, we can do neither for god. But even asking a random adult why they should care about ethics is somewhat unfair. Ethics is related to language, logic, psychology, economics, statistics, art, history, politics, and a few other subjects. One doesn’t need to be an expert in each subject, but one does need to have a good sense for truth. I don’t think the average person is so well versed, on top of also understanding and performing ethical deeds. Certainly there’s way more to be said, but this is enough.

[@natanaellizama6559]

However you question the individual if you don't have the proper frame for questioning the questioning becomes void. You can also not question nature and absent God nature needs not be geared towards our wellbeing or anything intrinsically worthy. Asking why should we care for ethics or what is socially constructed as ethics is something we should definitely ask as ethics contains its prescription.

[@enfomy]

@@natanaellizama6559 I agree that the framing of a question can direct the search for an answer. The notion of void questions is doubious, however. All questions seem to have answers of some kind. U are mistaken about me claiming nature can be questioned. Sorry if it wasn’t clear. I said nature can be observed, unlike god. Also, nature could not be geared towards our wellbeing even if god existed. It could be god’s nature or attitude that nature not be geared towards our wellbeing. There’s no major contradiction in nature being callous towards life, though. There is a contradiction in an all loving god allowing nature to be cold and indifferent. Again, u seem to have misunderstood my statement. I’m not saying the question of the significance of ethics is unimportant. Im saying there’s no value in the opinion of someone who hasn’t studied the subject or denies it with no justification (unless ur goal is statistical analysis or something like that).

[@iyobosasereenabulele1056]

I believe that the statement"God owns the world because he created it, so" as a step in the argument, the argument is rendered circular. We need an ethical theory in the first place to understand what ownership is. Another one is "God is the perfect being so his attitudes are the attitudes to have." Again circularity, because "you should strive for perfection" is a moral judgment. If I’m being honest I don’t agree with this theory at all due to the simple fact that many people don’t believe in the same god or any god at all. This whole theory is biased towards those who adhere the the religious practices

[@myothersoul1953]

Divine command theory for: no need to take responsibility you can always point and say "god said". Divine command theory against: it's irresponsible.

[@oldtimeycabins]

No gods exist