If you'd like to hear more objections to divine command theory and responses to those objections, check out this video I made with Dr. Matthew Flannagan. kzread.infod3TsmgPWek8

Premise 1: If moral obligations exist, a benevolent God is obligated to provide clear and understandable guidelines. Premise 2: Clarity is necessary for individuals to adhere to these moral obligations, akin to a good parent providing clear instructions to their child to prevent transgressions. Conclusion: If these moral obligations are unclear and not understandable, then it implies that God is not good.

Thanks Frederick. 👍👍😌

11:30 bookmark

Suppose I simply want to do what I supposedly "ought" not do. What then? I can do what I "ought" not do, so maybe I will. Unless something I consider bad happens as a result, why would I care? Morality reduced to logomancy and superstition. Congrats on establishing something that is an "ought" in name only, by fiat, with no substance whatsoever. Morality becomes a word game: something just is "right" or just is "wrong" and if I disagree, I'm incorrect but in a way such that "correct" is all but meaningless. Euthyphro wins again, 2400 from the grave.

@jourdan4am

9 ай бұрын

While the idea of disregarding moral obligation might seem liberating, it often neglects the deeper sense of purpose and fulfillment that comes with aligning with our inherent design. Choosing to follow what we 'ought' not do might provide temporary satisfaction, but it often leads to a dissonance within oneself. When we veer from our innate nature, it can result in a profound sense of disconnection and a lack of fulfillment. True happiness seems to stem from embracing our inherent design, whereas deviating from it might lead to a continual search for meaning in a world where 'right' and 'wrong' lose their grounding, leaving us adrift in a sea of uncertainty.

@11kravitzn

9 ай бұрын

@@jourdan4am Depending on what this "dissonance" is, maybe I care. But if I care, I care on my own, because it's important to me, I value it. Not because it is objectively right, not because God told me to. I care. You probably do too and probably about similar things because we're pretty similar, all things considered. Same basic needs and wants and adaptations. And suppose I am happiest and most fulfilled doing what you deem "unnatural" (depending on your beliefs, possibly homosexuality, drugs, contraception, blood transfusions, etc.). Why should I care what you think? It's a free country, pursuit of happiness is an unalienable right endowed by my supposed creator. "Natural Law" means, most often, "I'm going to tell you what to do, but you can't argue because God agrees with me." That is, it's theocratic self righteousness. What bigots tell themselves is on their side while they oppress others and repress themselves. If you're right, and I will be happiest doing what is "natural", then you have nothing to worry about because, in my pursuit of happiness, I'll end up doing what is "natural". Or if I don't, what, I'm miserable out of spite?

@PresbyterianPaladin

9 ай бұрын

I'm just wondering but wouldn't this objection apply equally to just about any account of moral obligation, theistic or not? No matter what the true account of moral obligation is I could still just choose to do what I ought not to do. I don't see how that makes moral obligation not truly obligatory, or how this is an objection to divine command theory specifically rather than an objection to any theory of moral obligation whatsoever.

@jourdan4am

9 ай бұрын

@@11kravitzn While personal values and freedom are incredibly important, I truly believe that actions labeled as 'unnatural' might seem freeing initially but could lead to an enslaving quality. I firmly stand by the idea that straying from what's considered 'good' can result in a loss of personal agency and freedom. My belief in a divine design reinforces the significance of following commands or guidance, which aligns with a deeper wisdom, considering both humanity's inherent nature and the world we live in. This divine insight, guiding what's deemed 'good', leads to a more fulfilling and purposeful life, emphasizing that true freedom is intricately tied to what's perceived as 'good'. I also strongly caution against following one's own path, as it can lead to an enslavement that may become almost impossible to break free from, leading to one's own self created hell.

@11kravitzn

9 ай бұрын

@@PresbyterianPaladin In a sense I agree. There are no moral facts, as such. There are facts about what people value, and there are moral agreements and disagreements. But among all the accounts of objective morality, all of them false, divine command theory is furthest from the truth. The truth is that we humans came up with words like "should" and "right" and then some erroneously thought these corresponded to real things out there in the world. In my opinion, the same could be said of words like "soul" and "sin" and "God". And that's why all of the above are all closely connected with humans, and nothing else. Humans are not metaphysically special, I'm afraid.

I appreciate Fredrick taking the time to do the interview. With all due respect though, the way he speaks is often borderline unintelligible. I can't understand quite a lot of what he says here just because of his accent.

@williammemecraig1357

8 ай бұрын

I think it's less his accent and more the audio clipping (or whatever the technical word is). It seems to only be picking up the spikes in volume at the beginning of his phrases and decaying really quickly. I think they're both just too far away from the mic or something.