Timeline for Moral arguments against dystheism (in the spirit of James Rachels)
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 23, 2023 at 2:17 | comment | added | Hudjefa | @KristianBerry, some words I gather, like the word "perfect" have no specific intensional definition. They're just meant to direct attention to some kind of endpoint for a given trajectory a particular set of qualities is on. To me "God" is such a word and if at any point one believes the highest moral good is autonomy then God is that autonomy. | |
| Aug 23, 2023 at 1:48 | comment | added | Kristian Berry | It's possible to stipulatively define "moral autonomy" in a certain way that equates to God (and this is not altogether infelicitous even on Kant's account, for he himself stipulates that we are to take the commands of our pure will for divine commands), but I think Rachels meant to refer to something distinguishable from God, at least if the word "God" is defined as more than "that which we are to obey above all else" (if that were all there were to the definition, the terms would be synonymous, though). | |
| Aug 23, 2023 at 1:41 | comment | added | Hudjefa | Nice play on words there, a linguistic trap I often fall into. As to the issue of moral autonomy & God, the two are synonymous to my reckoning and so Rachel's argument disintegrates. | |
| Aug 22, 2023 at 18:32 | comment | added | Kristian Berry | I do wonder about the stability of abstract uses of "exist," since here we seem to have a case of Nothingness being a thing, which is then more important than our moral autonomy (or whatever), and if God doesn't exist, then if God is this Nothingness, then God is more important than morality after all? (The typical analytic philosopher will say: "Ah, but this is an example of why existence is not a property...") | |
| Aug 22, 2023 at 17:40 | history | answered | Hudjefa | CC BY-SA 4.0 |