/lit/ - Literature

evil isn't your morality

I don't know what all this is about what you exactly are refering to with these terms but I'm geussing it has to do with a very limited human mind questioning the nature of a possible creator of a universe?

>>20409333
Why why why couldn't you have states a little of what the eurrothpya dilemma is...? Why wouldn't that have seemed the right and natural thing for you to do? I care much more about it being done than an answer to this question, certainly you would naturally gather that

>>20409353
Possibly. Are you going to go on to say that trying to understand such a being in human terms or concepts is a useless endeavour?

>>20409333
Christianity is not monotheistic.
Christianity I the modern sense worships at least 3 dieties.

>>20409361
>eurrothpya
kek literally me when I try to spell this god forsaken name

>>20409361
Apologies anon, I forgot that the "start with the greeks" meme is just a meme and this board doesn't read.

dilemma = whether God commands us to do the right thing because it is right or is what God commands us to do the right thing simply because God commands it? In other words, does morality exists outside of God or do his commands determine what moral truths are?

It raises a few questions and sub dilemmas:
> If morality is independent from God, how can he be all powerful if he is subject to moral laws?
> conversely, if morality is simply whatever God commands, moral duties seem to be based on nothing more than his arbitrary whims
> furthermore, if there is no autonomous system of ethics and morality is whatever God chooses, in what sense can God be considered "good"?

>>20409366
>at least
who are the other supposed / tentative deities?

>>20409433
Would you kill a dog to save a cat?

>>20409524
for sure.

>>20409362
>Are you going to go on to say that trying to understand such a being in human terms or concepts is a useless endeavour?
No just a human saying: God must be like this therefore god must do this and be like this so God certainly has to be like this way therefore it is impossible for god to do this.... May be a faulty endevour

>>20409433
Ok I see, maybe God made the universe to learn about all sorts of potentials, morality being one of them, so God is updating is understanding about circumstances and motives and justifications.

I think the general idea is, we generally experience goodness and the good and it is our best most stable long lasting and long giving and fruitful states, so we imagine God, smart creater of the universe, would prefer us to live in our goodness, than just be like other wild animals (most animals are generally quite good, and not always or often quite wild)

>>20409558
But isn't killing things wrong?

>>20409333
Here’s an explanation of what OP is talking about since OP is a faggot and didn’t care to explain it himself.

>>20409582
>we generally experience goodness and the good and it is our best most stable long lasting and long giving and fruitful states
So what I experience as good is good then?

>>20409582
>God made the universe to learn
According to the Abrahamic religions, God is all knowing so he technically cannot learn anything. Omniscience is a necessary attribute of God

>>20409333
Morality = what is good and preferable to me.Following God’s commandments leads to good and preferable states, therefore I should follow them. There is no dilemma here. God simply shows us what’s good for us. It all depends on how he created the world along with our endowed preferences. All problems in morality are solved with this framework. Without personal preference, there is no morality, period.

>>20409617
>Morality = what is good and preferable to me. Following God’s commandments leads to good and preferable states, therefore I should follow them.
I'm the sole decider of what is good and preferable to me. I decide my own personal preferences. So if God tells me to do something that I don't want to do fuck him. You've made morality totally subjective and put God in an advisory role.

>>20409617
So no objective morality?

>>20409626
>>20409632
Morality is subjective, yes. But if God exists and we have souls etc. then we all prefer heaven, and that’s why God has given us these laws. So compared to other species our laws are different, because morality is subjective, it depends on the subject. It just happens that humans all share the preference to be in heaven even if they don’t realize it. For example, we all prefer to be healthy, though a lot of people refuse to exercise and they eat horribly. It makes no sense for morality to be “objective.” I’m not even sure what means. It has to be related to preference because without personal preference, nothing matters. It doesn’t matter if I rape a baby, if I feel no suffering because of it or the consequences thereof, it’s not even bad to me.

>>20409656
This is alot more honest than most Christians can manage. They frequently want to claim that objective morality comes from God and use that as an apologetic tactic to claim God exists. God doesn't exist and there is no heaven.

>>20409684
well, I’m not a Christian, I like Jesus, I think heaven exists, but it’s in this life. He truly was a man who realized God within him, which is just pure Awareness. Jesus advocated non-doership, the idea that the small self does nothing: “it is the father that works in me.” If you truly understand this, then there is no reason to be guilty about anything, because you didn’t do it, there is no “you.”

>>20409704
Very New Age. Do you like crystals and astrology also?

>>20409727
It’s not new age. The Ashtavakra Gita dates to around 500 BC. It’s not crazy to think that Jesus and Buddha taught similar things, but that the monotheistic culture turned Jesus into something he wasn’t. He never once said “I will sacrifice myself to literally pay for your sins.” That is post hoc justification of his death. The “sacrifice” he made was speaking heresies. He was new age, and that’s why they killed him. People today say “I am God” and that’s essentially what Jesus was doing. But people didn’t understand the message so it came to be that Jesus alone is God, and none of us, even though Jesus never said this. Rather, he even said “you will do greater things than I.”

>>20409753
Syncretic arguments of dubious validity brining in eastern religion is definitely New Age. Can you read my palm?

>>20409763
It’s hidden in plain sight. Do you think the Romans buried Jesus and guarded his tomb for 3 days? No, the Bible actually tells us that Jesus’ one friend and disciple, Joseph of Arimathea, buried him. A whole day later, some Roman said “wait a minute, shouldn’t we be guarding him? He said he would rise after 3 days” and so they started guarding the tomb. It is just laughable that people do not see the problem with this. Jesus died and they moved his body and made him seem something that he wasn’t, to attract followers and spread his word. Jesus wasn’t even perfect, he even cried in the garden of gethsemane. He even said that he wasn’t good. “No one is good but the father.” Read Whitman’s poem “To Him that was crucified.”

>>20409333
God is synonymous with moral goodness so the dilemma is a false one.

>>20409880
> God is synonymous with moral goodness
I don’t know how people can say such nonsense and not even care that they don’t understand what they just said. You feel good when you say that, but you can’t explain it. You can’t define moral goodness. You’ll just give me circular definitions

>>20409880
This a valid response but not real helpful since it just says God is good without justification. You can just as easily say whatever system of morality you work out is good and leave it at that. Euthyphro is about how you justify morality. If you don't justify it you don't have to worry about Euthyphro.

>>20409893
>>20409904
Circular definitions are acceptable for the uncreated, ultimate, and transcendent, which is self-justifying. It's only in the created world of cause and effect that circular reasoning is a fallacy.

>>20409915
You mean circular reasoning and no one accepts that. It is an uncreated truth that God doesn't exist. How do I know that's true? Circularly refer to the same statement. How do I know it's uncreated? Again refer to the same statement.

>>20409915
you are left with no meaning of goodness with a circular definition. You have to define language before it can be used. To say that God is synonymous with moral goodness is surely lacking in more description. Does this mean that moral goodness created the world? Do we pray to moral goodness? Is moral goodness omniscient and omnipotent? Why use the word God if you can just use moral goodness? Does God have the property of moral goodness, or is God moral goodness itself? If it’s just a property, then you should define the property

Divine Command theory is obviously true

>>20409973
I'm leaning towards this but how does one understand God as all good if goodness is simply his own will?

>>20409987
"God is good" is like stating "A=A".

>>20410019
so good created the world, good is omniscient, good is omnipotent, we dont need to use the word “God” anymore. Got it

>>20409973
You think so? I am inclined towards the opposite. I It would make morality ultimately contingent and arbitrary. God does not necessarily do what is good because He is good, it was just something God chose and there is nothing necessary about it. He could have chosen any other thing to be good.

>>20409449
Not that anon, but mary for catholics. They seethe when it is pointed out, but their worship of mary is like that of Christ or the father, it is idolatry.

>>20410564
Why does that bother you?

>>20410792
It means God in a sense chose to do something on a whim, instead of God always necessarily doing something due to His nature, in this case His goodness.

>>20409366
Catholics pray to saints and therefore are not Christian beacuse they worship normal humans.
Also Christianity IS monotheistic, just because you don't understand the Trinity (no one does, it's meant to be incomprehensible) doesn't make it not monotheism

>>20410869
>heh you owe me $3
>here's a $1
>that's cool but you owe me $2 more
>just because you don't understand how $3 is $1 doesn't mean it isn't
>fuck you give me my money

>>20409433
>dilemma = whether God commands us to do the right thing because it is right or is what God commands us to do the right thing simply because God commands it? In other words, does morality exists outside of God or do his commands determine what moral truths are?
Retarded "dilemma". It was already answered by Homer. Zeus decides what is right, and what is right is Zeus' decision. There's no difference between God's will and justice.

>>20409433
>his arbitrary whims
Good thing he left us a textbook regarding his "arbitrary whims" so you don't have to wonder so much. Why are you so uppity about having to respect the rules of the one who created the universe? Do you think that if you come into my house you also do whatever you want or do you respect the house rules?
> in what sense can God be considered "good"?
In an ontological, apodictic, and necessary way. Trying to find meaning outside of God shows you're just a pagan baiting Christians to engage with your low IQ musings. Maybe you should've started with the Bible instead of starting with the Greeks.

>>20410904
>the material world is immaterial

>Divine simplicity [entails] that God's will just is God's goodness which just is His immutable and necessary existence. That means that what is objectively good and what God wills for us as morally obligatory are really the same thing considered under different descriptions, and that neither could have been other than they are. There can be no question then, either of God's having arbitrarily commanded something different for us (torturing babies for fun, or whatever) or of there being a standard of goodness apart from Him. Again, the Euthyphro dilemma is a false one; the third option that it fails to consider is that what is morally obligatory is what God commands in accordance with a non-arbitrary and unchanging standard of goodness that is not independent of Him... He is not under the moral law precisely because He IS the moral law."
Feiser

>>20410983
>Why are you so uppity about having to respect the rules of the one who created the universe? Do you think that if you come into my house you also do whatever you want or do you respect the house rules?
Because that isn't what is meant by objective morality. Most of the time when people raise Euthyphro it's in response to Christians claiming objective morality comes from God. It doesn't. Furthermore the argument from objective morality is frequently used to prop up God's existence. You've shown objective morality doesn't come from God so that apologetic tactic fails.

>>20410966
>There's no difference between God's will and justice.
Yes, because God is good, and as such God can do not other than good. It is impossible in the same way of God creating a boulder He cannot lift. Why, then, does God choose the good? Did God choose what He did because it was good, or is it good because God chose it? The answer is because it's good.

>>20411009
>You've shown objective morality doesn't come from God so that apologetic tactic fails.
Take your meds, objective morality comes from God.

>>20411021
You just said his morality is the same as house rules. Do you think house rules are objective morality?

>>20411010
>is it good because God chose it?
Correct

>>20409790
this doesn't make sense. the whole point of the Christian message was the resurrection, jesus himself would be a fraud if his entire message was claiming to be God and that he would resurrect. why would the disciples go willing die for a fraud? he wasn't just a nice dude, he literally claimed to be god. see Lewis' trilemma.
>the disciples edited the scriptures post-death to make it look like he claimed to be god and was going to resurrect!
still doesn't make sense why no other of the many Jewish "messiah claims" of the era, who promised something very similar, would not have followers who did the same or who gained a substantial post death following. most of the disciples were terrified of the pharisees post crucifixion, why would they risk a similar fate or persecution for a made up "feel good" story?

>>20411026
Objective morality means universal morality. Seeing that he created the universe, the house in this analogy is the universe. Therefore, the rules of the universe are created by the creator of the universe and are universal therefore they are objective. My house is not the universe. Ther rules in my house are not objective because they are not universal because my house is not the universe. They are the house rules.

Let me know if you need a diagram.

>>20411038
The creator gets to decide the rules for the created is a moral rule that God derives his authority from in your argument. So where did this rule come from?

>>20411169
From God

>>20411189
So you're relying on a circular argument. Typical christcuck bullshit. Euthyphro destroys any claim to objective morality from God

>>20411199
>another sophist gets BTFO, starts crying, takes xer toys, and fucks off

>>20411222
I know right. Euthyphro always get them and they always devolve into crying God is good just cause he is ok I don't need to give a reason.

>>20411307
Cope and dilate

>>20411038
Then why do you believe that Jews get to have a totally different morality? Hell, let's take it a step back, why do you believe that every denomination gets to have a totally different morality? Why are you a fervent defender of absolute subjectivism?

>>20411336
>why do you believe that every denomination gets to have a totally different morality?
Like what?
>Why are you a fervent defender of absolute subjectivism?
Meds

If we are made in his image, i think id like someone better if they liked me, and i dont think id have to like them for them to like me, so i'd say they are loved because they are pious, not pious because they are loved. The entire book of job is basicslly this question btw.

>>20411349
Did you reply to the wrong post? I don't see what this has to do with what I said.

>>20411357
>Did you reply to the wrong post?
Just take your meds and delete this embarrassing thread

>>20411367
I'm not OP though.

>>20410869
>I believe it because it doesn't make sense
Christians everyone

>>20411400
You sound just as dumb

solution to [insert random buzzword] is [insert another buzzword]
these fake problems that dont matter require fake solutions
simple as

if your problems arent empirical and if you arent using math, it doesnt matter
hence why philosophy and humanities and entire leftist academia has been so unsuccessful for the last 1000 years, why it is such a stagnant unproductive irrelevant pseud field
serious people dont care about this shit

>>20411400
>>20411357
>>20411336
List the differences in morality between Catholics, Orthodoxists, and Protestants. Oh wait you can't because the laws of morality are all in the Bible which all major denominations follow and you're talking out of your ass.

>>20411400
Meds! Meds!

>>20411429
MEDS!

>>20411446
Meds

>>20411440
Meds! MEDS!

>>20409524
No, dogs are better than cats

>>20411446
>>20411460
>op is having a meltdown because there are Chrisians in the world

>>20411414
The Trinity is three beings that are connected, like siamese triplets.

>>20409433
If God is sufficiently intelligent, which it likely is, it would base it's sense of judgement on the eternal platonic ideal of the Good.

God would know it's personal subjective kneejerk judgements could be lacking and imperfect so it would seek to allign and ground it's perspective in infinite eternal absolute Truth of most perfectly sensible logic, reason, and rational, it would know that the potential for each choice and action and all possible judgements thereof exist beyond it, and it would work to understand the trancendent timeless conclusions therein.

It would strive to be the best version of itself, and calculate what different best Gods would be like, it would see the Good God as the most beautiful, so want to aim to embody its ideal image

>>20409597
>So what I experience as good is good then?
No. What Good humans experience as good is good. Constructive lively creation.

The universe requires much effort and genius to organize and design into working order, Gods effort to create the universe did not just allow me to experience everything I have thought was worthy and good in life, or everything good you have experienced in life, but the totality of good experienced over human and animal history by the totality of humans.

Humans reflect and carry on the torch and tradition of constructive creation, and this produces the most good for the most (albeit humans are imperfect, sometimes grossely).

When we mimic some of the functions God must have went through in designing and creating the universe, we most consistently for the longest stablest amount of time, create the most good for others, and ourselves, existing in Gods image as mini gods, children of creations creator, learning the powers, values, and pleasures, of taking part in constructive creation

>>20410995
Doesn’t escape the second order Euthyphro Dilemma. Is there a reason that God identical to goodness, lovingness, kindness, or not? If there’s a reason, it seems that it is this reason which grounds morality. If there is no reason that God is identical to these properties, then similar worries about arbitrariness arise.

Also, there are too many independent reasons to deny divine simplicity, notwithstanding some recent work on modal collapse, providential collapse, and incompatibility with theistic conceptualism.

>>20411684
Let's consider it democratically, out of all the humans that have ever lived, what number of them do you think would prefer/vote to live in a world where all humans must act as evil possible as possible at all times;

Versus a world in which all humans are trying and largely succeeding in not being evil.

What might the outcome of that vote appear as and why?

And these humans, sprouting directly as the material of Gods creation, in a setting of Gods creation, what if anything might the natural outcome of this vote say about the creator of creation and it's potentials?

>>20411684
neoplatonically, there is no form of good outside of God as how would that form draw its "goodness" inherently without external reference?

>>20411466
Kek he's not op because I am. I basically made the thread, went to bed and came back to this shit fest

>>20409333
Euthyphro basically just raises the question of representative morality but appealing to Gods to do so. There is no representative morality when Monotheists believe that there is one chief God who determines it.

>>20409333
>For the monotheists among us
>among us
SUS
SUS
AMOGUS

>>20411828
So you believe that there's no way to resolve monotheism and representative morality?

>>20411846
It's just not necessary when there's one God who controls reality and who gave humans the intellectual capacity to arbitrate morality in the first place. Euthyphro is an interesting question in terms of something like Greek paganism or Hinduism but doesn't really make sense to worry about in Monotheism.

You don't have to assess the hypothetical conflicting wills of multiple gods when there's only one of them.

>>20411858
What a fucking stupid answer. Since you can't seem to understand how Euthyphro applies to monotheism let me spell it out for. Is what God(singular) says to do moral or does God(again singular) say to do something because it is moral? Polytheism is not important to Euthyphro.

Deny moral goodness is the equivalent of denying ones one consciousness

>>20411744
I’m a little unsure as the relevance of this to for the dilemma, but I think that most people would choose to live in the second world. I’m not sure what this would tell us about the creator of human beings, if one exists. Could you elaborate a little further?

>>20411771
So it seems that you’re opting the second horn, in that there would be no reason for God to be identical to lovingness, kindness, or goodness.

>>20411414
>the cat is both dead and alive at the same time
Scienceists everyone

>>20410904
You cannot honestly believe this is a fair comparison. You seriously cannot be this retarded

>>20412017
But the entire point of that thought experiment is to demonstrate that the Copenhagen Interpretation is ridiculous, which is why every time you have to explain the Trinity you recreate some ancient heresy that doesn't rely on the same logic as the Copenhagen Interpretation.

>>20412029
Numbers are numbers whether it's number of dollars or number of gods. The trinity is polytheistic using kindergarten level math. This is not a new idea jews and muslims criticize christians about this all the time

>>20411935
Intersting to think of it this way? Can God change its mind? Can God learn and grow? Can God have second thoughts? Can God think thing A is moral for a million years then say, oh wait maybe it's not, thing A is not moral, and then a million years switch back, and forth?

It is crazy to assume God was born with perfect total absolute infinite knowledge (unless God is an Ai computer itself, given perfect knowledge by its creators, but that's just kicking the can of Gods down the turtley road)

God would know, if it based its judgement of morality only on its whims and feelings that could possibly change and change back over time, that Gods judgements would not be based on any eternal foundation (besides maybe an eternal foundation of leeways, and fuzzy logics...possibly nothing wrong with this)

If God is strictly settled on all it's moral beliefs, it would have to have arrived at them all some how, some logically proven way, that convinced it they were eternally correct beliefs to have.

Or God, wants things to occur Gods way (as a parents, because I said so), and is accepting of its possible ignorance of the possible lack of logic and foundations of it's desires and demands, accepting that there may be reasons that would prove it's desires and beliefs false, and not caring to attempt to change its beliefs and views, by researching and processing the nature and potentials that caused it to contain the total moral beliefs and desires it possess.

>>20411935
>Polytheism is not important to Euthyphro.
Determining the gods' morality in spite of the gods' conflicting wills is literally a main point of the dialogue.

>>20412260
Oh wow then I must be a genius on par with Plato to come up with such a novel and incisive question
>Is what God(singular) says to do moral or does God(again singular) say to do something because it is moral?
that has nothing to do with Euthyphro. I'm going to be remembered in the history of philosophy.

>>20411032
High risk high reward
The church became extremely powerfull so the gamble payed off for those who survived
Im not even anti christian but your arguments are lacking

>>20409333
The dilemma is false. There aren't only two options. The dilemma assumes that the gods/God are distinct from the "good". Catholicism holds that God is the good. God is the perfect standard of goodness. So the two aren't separate.

Stated otherwise, what is good is so because it is a reflection of God who is the wellspring of all that is, and who is by nature good -- indeed, who cannot not be good. Thus what is good is good because it aligns with God's nature.

>>20412337
>The dilemma is false. There aren't only two options. The dilemma assumes that the gods/God are distinct from the "good".
There are only two options if you want to justify goodness. If you just want to say God is good without justification Euthyphro doesn't effect you but an atheist can just as easily say their morality is good without justification.

>>20412337
Another problem involved in the divine simplicity approach is that it makes the statement “God is good” tautological and vacuous, which isn’t something I would assume theists would want to embrace.

>>20411985
>I think that most people would choose to live in the second world. I’m not sure what this would tell us about the creator of human beings, if one exists. Could you elaborate a little further?
It could or could not tell us, that this is seemingly a natural and overwhelming choice result, that it is provoked into coming into being to degrees due to the inherent complex yet exacting process of Nature?

>>20411336
not same anon but they do. read the Talmud

>>20410869
>(no one does, it's meant to be incomprehensible)

I'm afraid you're thinking of the word 'stupid'

This thread was moved to >>>/his/13368767