Ethics: Divine Command Theory

[Bucky Ball]

I'm pretty sure God doesn't command, require, or forbid anything.  If God commanded or expected anything from humanity, he would have need.  If he had need, he would be anxious and insecure because then he would be in a perpetual state of constantly not getting what He wants.  God can't love if he commands things from you or forbids you to do anything.

Wishing the best for someone, (and if there were a god ... leaving the choices to *free will* as religionists claim the god does) ... is not a "need". The gods don't have anxiety disorders, they would just want tbe best for their creatures. If the creatures chose evil, it's no skin off his nose.

But actually in the Garden Myth, in the Bible, (which was stolen from the Babylonian Chaos mythology where Marduk slays the dragon of chaos) as Martin Buber discussed in "Good and Evil Part 2, the god forbids the characters to *try* to eat from the tree of (both) good and evil, (which is the symbolic portrayal of *chaos*), "knowing both good and evil". They fail the admonition, attempting to eat and not eat the fruit of the tree, "knowing the opposites".
Ethically, humans have to chose. It's one of about 2 concepts (both stolen from other cultures) they got right.

[adey67]

I'm pretty sure God doesn't command, require, or forbid anything.  If God commanded or expected anything from humanity, he would have need.  If he had need, he would be anxious and insecure because then he would be in a perpetual state of constantly not getting what He wants.  God can't love if he commands things from you or forbids you to do anything.

No offence or disrespect to you but from what I've seen in the bible it's pretty clear god is totally up for commanding and forbidding given how much of it he does. Also, he's supposed to be omnipotent, if he can resurrect the dead walk on water and turn water to wine commanding forbidding and loving simultaneously should present no great problem, my old dad did it all the time and he wasn't even a supernatural deity although at times I think he thought he was.

[Dom]

I'm pretty sure God doesn't command, require, or forbid anything.  If God commanded or expected anything from humanity, he would have need.  If he had need, he would be anxious and insecure because then he would be in a perpetual state of constantly not getting what He wants.  God can't love if he commands things from you or forbids you to do anything.

No offence or disrespect to you but from what I've seen in the bible it's pretty clear god is totally up for commanding and forbidding given how much of it he does. Also, he's supposed to be omnipotent, if he can resurrect the dead walk on water and turn water to wine commanding forbidding and loving simultaneously should present no great problem, my old dad did it all the time and he wasn't even a supernatural deity although at times I think he thought he was.

Kathryn apparently saw a different god when she was dead.

[adey67]

People have been trying to redefine God for centuries to avoid the kinds of moral problems the Bible presents.  None of the redefinitions have worked either.

The "God is love" concept, for instance, fails in the face of the world we actually inhabit, with all of its disproportionate suffering and arbitrary natural disasters.

Personally I think every single Christian apologetic fails epically and it's adherents are seemingly oblivious to the fact that their requirement in the first place undermines the whole rotten edifice.

[vulcanlogician]

You said "we ought to strive toward the best state of affairs."
and "There may be a vast number of ethical systems, but, like, there aren't a vast number of them I take seriously. The plausible solutions are the one's I consider mostly, vast as the ultimate number of solutions may be."

You failed to tell us what are the criteria for what you take seriously ... your ethics.
Nor did you defend those criteria.
Without that, this is meaningless.

I didn't defend or describe the "ethics I take seriously" because it is a long and complicated answer. But I suppose I can try to give a nutshell answer. I tend to like value-based ethics (like hedonism or Moore's non-naturalism) over "duty-based" or "maxim-based" ethics... by which I mean deontology, Kantian ethics etc.

What I've called "value-based" ethics are the kind of ethics that names a given phenomenon as "good" or "bad." There is a big reason that I prefer this OVER deontology, which would require a paragraph or two... but for sake of brevity, I'll say that value-based ethics serves as a good foundation for an objective ethics. It sidesteps Hume by not really insisting on an "ought" and it is formulaic. It doesn't rely on our prejudices or opinions for what is good or bad. Hedonism NAMES pain as bad and pleasure as good and then goes from there. If someone thinks incest between two consenting adults is wrong (and let's posit that they are both infertile or of the same sex), Hedonism says "not according to the formula of hedonism." Even though I think it's gross, as do most folks I know, hedonism can't find anything morally wrong with it. In fact, insofar as it creates pleasure in certain circumstances it may well be morally right. A hedonist could also identify instances of incest that are morally wrong (like those instances which involve assault, abuse, or create pain, suffering and discomfort).

I also reject all ethical systems that rely on realities I don't accept. God-based ethics, like DCT, or systems which draw on the Eightfold Path of Buddhism are what I mean here. If I don't believe in God or I don't think Buddhism is true, then I don't dilly-dally with entertaining their ethical systems (at least, not anymore). I argue the merits of such systems with theists, but I don't think we should waste our time on them.

The reason I didn't endorse any ethics is because ALL systems of ethics are dissatisfying in some way or another. Each has its problems. I like hedonistic utilitarianism a great deal, but it has problems. So I don't go around saying I'm a hedonist OR a utilitarian.

But, in fairness, moral relativism ALSO has its problems, as does moral nihilism. And I think, on the whole, moral realism is less problematic than either of those two. But it isn't problem-free.

So, in summary, I reject religious modes of morality, and I prefer value-based systems because of their objectivity and plausibility. I also have grave concerns about moral relativism and moral nihilism. But I have yet to find a system of ethics I'm ready to settle down with and marry.

If you have any unanswered questions, feel free to ask.

[Alan V]

So, in summary, I reject religious modes of morality, and I prefer value-based systems because of their objectivity and plausibility. I also have grave concerns about moral relativism and moral nihilism. But I have yet to find a system of ethics I'm ready to settle down with and marry.

If you have any unanswered questions, feel free to ask.

How are value-based systems and virtue-ethics systems different?

What problems do you see with moral realism?

[vulcanlogician]

How are value-based systems and virtue-ethics systems different?

Virtue ethics are more focused on the issue of "being good" rather than figuring out "what IS good?" Aristotle was fond of arguing that we don't need a system for differentiating right from wrong. He thought any idiot could do that with 97% efficiency, and figuring out the last 3% was pointless when compared to getting the most out of the 97% we obviously know.

I disagree with Aristotle here. We aren't as good at differentiating right and wrong as he assumes. Aristotle wants to emphasize cultivating virtue, and I agree this is important, but Aristotle also saw slavery as so useful to a society as to be indispensable. There is no mechanism within virtue ethics by which one may ask, "Is slavery wrong?" The same is not true for a Platonic ethics or, say, hedonistic utilitarianism. Those ethical systems can examine something like slavery and produce judgments as to its moral rightness or wrongness. And I feel that is what we should be focusing on as ethicists. Virtue ethics struggles with this.

What problems do you see with moral realism?

It can't produce conclusions that are not debatable. Science can do this, and so can math. But ethics smells a lil' fishy when stood next to the aforementioned disciplines. That's why I oscillate between "error theory" (a kind of moral nihilism) and moral realism.

But fishy doesn't mean wrong. Fishy means fishy. Some of Einsteins theories smelled "fishy" to the Newtonians of his day, yet they nonetheless turned out to be true.

Error theory doesn't posit that "all moral judgments are false." It merely says, "No moral judgment can be true." It borrows a bit from the strategy employed by agnostic atheists. It's careful with its claims. Its careful not to name anything as false. I think it's a strong argument, and not at all fishy.

Moral realism, on the other hand, is alway gonna be stuck with this "fish" problem. So many emotions and prejudices go into the bulk of moral thinking, as it happens at the street level. We are left wondering if our repulsion to the act of rape is the only thing that makes us name it as wrong. Do we only think that way because we were brought up to think that way? Certain cultures express a revulsion toward consensual gay sex. Repeated exposure to the idea that gay sex is morally wrong produces the idea in some people that there is something wrong with consensual gay sex. Maybe it works the same way with our judgments about rape?

[Alan V]

There is no mechanism within virtue ethics by which one may ask, "Is slavery wrong?" The same is not true for a Platonic ethics or, say, hedonistic utilitarianism. Those ethical systems can examine something like slavery and produce judgments as to its moral rightness or wrongness. And I feel that is what we should be focusing on as ethicists. Virtue ethics struggles with this.

What if the virtue you are practicing is honesty?  It seems to me that honesty evolves over time, and can take such considerations into account.

What problems do you see with moral realism?

It can't produce conclusions that are not debatable. Science can do this, and so can math. But ethics smells a lil' fishy when stood next to the aforementioned disciplines. That's why I oscillate between "error theory" (a kind of moral nihilism) and moral realism.

Aren't moral decisions always debatable, no matter what system is applied?  This seems to be true because in the real world there are always tradeoffs, or pluses and minuses in different proportions, when it comes to moral decisions.  Moral realism at least requires cost/benefit analyses, doesn't it?

So many emotions and prejudices go into the bulk of moral thinking, as it happens at the street level. We are left wondering if our repulsion to the act of rape is the only thing that makes us name it as wrong. Do we only think that way because we were brought up to think that way? Certain cultures express a revulsion toward consensual gay sex. Repeated exposure to the idea that gay sex is morally wrong produces the idea in some people that there is something wrong with consensual gay sex. Maybe it works the same way with our judgments about rape?

Different people have different moral systems and different interests, certainly.  But your question is about what is the best system, and why.  That means you can put aside the emotions and prejudices and offer whatever system you think would be ideal.  No system which allowed for slavery and rape could be considered moral in the modern context, when we already acknowledge human equality before the law as our ideal, right?

[Dom]

 No system which allowed for slavery and rape could be considered moral in the modern context, when we already acknowledge human equality before the law as our ideal, right?

This. You can't apply any definition of good and bad across time. I think you probably can do so in the present, but not in present, past and future.

[Bucky Ball]

Thank you SO much Vulcanlogician, Alan and Dom for your thoughts and clarifications on this.
Now it IS meaningful.
You added so much to this discussion.

) I am on the Ethics Committee at a (large well known) hospital, and we have long involved real life discussions about these issues.
Some meetings I'm like, "WTF, I need to talk to AD about this".
I try to wait until the end, and summarize the positions ... and recently one of the senior department heads asked "where do you get this wisdom ?".
I just said "I have wise friends".
It's you people.

[Bucky Ball]

 No system which allowed for slavery and rape could be considered moral in the modern context, when we already acknowledge human equality before the law as our ideal, right?

That's why I'm always (irritatingly) reminding about "presentism".

[Alan V]

I was primarily asking Vulcanlogician questions, since I don't know enough about philosophy.

Bucky answered none of those questions, as usual. He just offered meaningless sarcasm.

Bucky, if you want to participate, we would welcome your adding whatever positive value to our discussions that you can muster. You really don't have to say how smart you are, and how stupid everyone else is, over and over again. We know your opinions of yourself.

[Dom]

I was primarily asking Vulcanlogician questions, since I don't know enough about philosophy.  

Bucky answered none of those questions, as usual.  He just offered meaningless sarcasm.

Bucky, if you want to participate, we would welcome your adding whatever positive value to our discussions that you can muster.  You really don't have to say how smart you are, and how stupid everyone else is, over and over again.  We know your opinions of yourself.

Hey, now that's uncalled for. He didn't call anyone stupid, he even thanked you for your contribution. Let it go.

[Alan V]

I was primarily asking Vulcanlogician questions, since I don't know enough about philosophy.  

Bucky answered none of those questions, as usual.  He just offered meaningless sarcasm.

Bucky, if you want to participate, we would welcome your adding whatever positive value to our discussions that you can muster.  You really don't have to say how smart you are, and how stupid everyone else is, over and over again.  We know your opinions of yourself.

Hey, now that's uncalled for. He didn't call anyone stupid, he even thanked you for your contribution. Let it go.

You must be joking.

At the very least Bucky misconstrued what I wrote.  So I'm very surprised you did not read what he wrote as sarcasm, given the context.

Perhaps you are trying to be generous. I think that is uncalled for, considering.

If Bucky actually wants to add to the discussions, I wish he would.

Many of us put in a fair amount of thought to offer meaningful content.

[Dom]

Hey, now that's uncalled for. He didn't call anyone stupid, he even thanked you for your contribution. Let it go.

You must be joking.

At the very least Bucky misconstrued what I wrote.  So I'm very surprised you did not read what he wrote as sarcasm, given the context.

Perhaps you are trying to be generous.  I think that is uncalled for, considering.

If Bucky actually wants to add to the discussions, I wish he would.

Many of us put in a fair amount of thought to offer meaningful content.

I did not read it as sarcasm. It could have been though.

[Bucky Ball]

I was primarily asking Vulcanlogician questions, since I don't know enough about philosophy.  

Bucky answered none of those questions, as usual.  He just offered meaningless sarcasm.

Bucky, if you want to participate, we would welcome your adding whatever positive value to our discussions that you can muster.  You really don't have to say how smart you are, and how stupid everyone else is, over and over again.  We know your opinions of yourself.

And where EXACTLY did I do that, asshole ? Are you really as mentally ill as you appear ?
I'm sorry I intimidate you so completely. I did recommend you put me on ignore.
I repeat, fuck you Alan, go fuck yourself.

[airportkid]

... You really don't have to say how smart you are, and how stupid everyone else is, over and over again ...

... where EXACTLY did I do that, asshole?  Are you really as mentally ill as you appear?  I repeat, fuck you Alan, go fuck yourself ...

What's very clear is if you don't know what Bucky knows, you're an idiot, and he'll make sure to tell you you're an idiot, in a scathingly hostile, insulting manner.  I would never under any circumstances pose a question to Bucky because doing so would indicate I don't know what Bucky knows, and the result would be a stream of invective because I've dared to soil the world by being an idiot in it.

[Dom]

I was primarily asking Vulcanlogician questions, since I don't know enough about philosophy.  

Bucky answered none of those questions, as usual.  He just offered meaningless sarcasm.

Bucky, if you want to participate, we would welcome your adding whatever positive value to our discussions that you can muster.  You really don't have to say how smart you are, and how stupid everyone else is, over and over again.  We know your opinions of yourself.

And where EXACTLY did I do that, asshole ? Are you really as mentally ill as you appear ?
I'm sorry I intimidate you so completely. I did recommend you put me on ignore.
I repeat, fuck you Alan, go fuck yourself.

Cut the crap, Bucky.

Geesh, it's like being in kindergarten and the kids are throwing sand in each other's eyes until they all cry.

[Alan V]

A person who insults others is not their friend. No sand throwing or children are involved.

I would love for this conversation to be about ethics.

[Cavebear]

I'm pretty sure God doesn't command, require, or forbid anything.  If God commanded or expected anything from humanity, he would have need.  If he had need, he would be anxious and insecure because then he would be in a perpetual state of constantly not getting what He wants.  God can't love if he commands things from you or forbids you to do anything.

Wishing the best for someone, (and if there were a god ... leaving the choices to *free will* as religionists claim the god does) ... is not a "need". The gods don't have anxiety disorders, they would just want tbe best for their creatures. If the creatures chose evil, it's no skin off his nose.

But actually in the Garden Myth, in the Bible, (which was stolen from the Babylonian Chaos mythology where Marduk slays the dragon of chaos) as Martin Buber discussed in "Good and Evil Part 2,  the god forbids the characters to *try* to eat from the tree of (both) good and evil, (which is the symbolic portrayal of *chaos*), "knowing both good and evil". They fail the admonition, attempting to eat and not eat the fruit of the tree, "knowing the opposites".
Ethically, humans have to chose. It's one of about 2 concepts (both stolen from other cultures) they got right.

Your sig says no longer posting 6-4. I will survive your absence...

[adey67]

 No system which allowed for slavery and rape could be considered moral in the modern context, when we already acknowledge human equality before the law as our ideal, right?

That's why I'm always (irritatingly) reminding about "presentism".  

Presentism is one of my pet peeves too.

[Cavebear]

So, in summary, I reject religious modes of morality, and I prefer value-based systems because of their objectivity and plausibility. I also have grave concerns about moral relativism and moral nihilism. But I have yet to find a system of ethics I'm ready to settle down with and marry.

If you have any unanswered questions, feel free to ask.

How are value-based systems and virtue-ethics systems different?

What problems do you see with moral realism?

I usually think of "morals" as religion-based and "ethics" as human-based.  And morals as based on human experience just written into religious texts. Human experience always comes first.

[vulcanlogician]

That's why I'm always (irritatingly) reminding about "presentism".  

The ancients had a permissive attitude toward slavery, but you better believe that your average free ancient citizen thought that slavery was bad for the enslaved person. If you sold someone into slavery, there were no illusions about whether you were doing good or bad for them.

The prevailing attitude, with some variance from culture to culture, was there was nothing that could have been done to stop slavery. It was a permanent feature of human society.

Some day in the distant future, humanity might collectively marvel at how we ever allowed such a despicable system as capitalism to rule most of the world. But that doesn't mean all of us find it acceptable. The same goes with slavery in the ancient world.

In any case, I'm careful with my statements about "moral progress." In a hypothetical world where there is objective morality... IF slavery is wrong, it is wrong despite people's attitudes on the matter. And if slavery is morally wrong, it has always been wrong.

I tend not to blame the ancients too hard for permitting it. Life was hard, and life was short. The average citizen was uneducated and illiterate. To me, that seems like a plausible reason the matter seemed impossible to change. Add to that, that many LITERATE people probably owned slaves, and you have a pretty good explanation for why it prevailed.

[Dom]

That's why I'm always (irritatingly) reminding about "presentism".  

The ancients had a permissive attitude toward slavery, but you better believe that your average free ancient citizen thought that slavery was bad for the enslaved person. If you sold someone into slavery, there were no illusions about whether you were doing good or bad for them.

The prevailing attitude, with some variance from culture to culture, was there was nothing that could have been done to stop slavery. It was a permanent feature of human society.

Some day in the distant future, humanity might collectively marvel at how we ever allowed such a despicable system as capitalism to rule most of the world. But that doesn't mean all of us find it acceptable. The same goes with slavery in the ancient world.

In any case, I'm careful with my statements about "moral progress." In a hypothetical world where there is objective morality... IF slavery is wrong, it is wrong despite people's attitudes on the matter. And if slavery is morally wrong, it has always been wrong.

I tend not to blame the ancients too hard for permitting it. Life was hard, and life was short. The average citizen was uneducated and illiterate. To me, that seems like a plausible reason the matter seemed impossible to change. Add to that, that many LITERATE people probably owned slaves, and you have a pretty good explanation for why it prevailed.

I'm pretty sure there were also people who had slaves, and did know it was "bad", but treated the slaves well and prided themselves of that. Made them feel like saviors instead of slave drivers. There are always ways to make your "bad" look "good" to yourself.

[vulcanlogician]

I'm pretty sure there were also people who had slaves, and did know it was "bad", but treated the slaves well and prided themselves of that. Made them feel like saviors instead of slave drivers. There are always ways to make your "bad" look "good" to yourself.

Oh yeah, there was plenty of that. Seneca famously granted all his slaves freedom after he died. And, supposedly, he treated them kindly whilst he was alive.

But, like, who cares? Why didn't he set them free when he was alive? That'd have been way more admirable of a deed.