Formally Disproving Divine Command Theory

[The Grand Nudger]

They weren't innocent, they were spies. The narrative is sympathetic because they were "our spies" - but clearly the people they were spying on disagreed.

Whether or not I sound like an adult to you is entirely irrelevant with regards to the weight of my criticism. Actually, I think it might even make it worse on your end. An immature, childlike person criticizing your responses so freely and with such little effort. But meh.

[Statler Waldorf]

They weren't innocent, they were spies. The narrative is sympathetic because they were "our spies" - but clearly the people they were spying on disagreed.

I knew it! You totally would be the one turning over Jews to the Nazis. After all, they were not innocent, they were guilty of being Jewish and that was a crime in Nazi Germany. I am glad we disagree on this issue.

Whether or not I sound like an adult to you is entirely irrelevant with regards to the weight of my criticism.

Where did I say it was relevant to the weight of your criticism? I simply said you’d be well served by acting more like an adult, and you would. Your criticism is absurd for other reasons.

Actually, I think it might even make it worse on your end. An immature, childlike person criticizing your responses so freely and with such little effort. But meh.

Perhaps if you’re criticisms were legitimate, but they’re not.

[The Grand Nudger]

I knew it! You totally would be the one turning over Jews to the Nazis. After all, they were not innocent, they were guilty of being Jewish and that was a crime in Nazi Germany. I am glad we disagree on this issue.

Well, somebody has to turn them in Statler, they killed fucking jesus!

The minute I mention a criminal on the run you can't help but godwin? No worries, I'll run with it. You would shelter that nazi that worked the gas lever when he went on the lamb from allied troops, right?

Where did I say it was relevant to the weight of your criticism? I simply said you’d be well served by acting more like an adult, and you would. Your criticism is absurd for other reasons.

Meh, I've been pretty well served by just being myself Stat. Vulgar, irreverent - quick to snap at any joke opportunity - no matter how childish or silly. My criticism is in no way absurd, and you've been unable or unwilling to address it.

Perhaps if you’re criticisms were legitimate, but they’re not.

Standard chanting. Your verse -explicitly- shows that collaborating with the spies of a given organization would win you favor with that organization - nothing more. That's whats -explicit-, in that verse. It has nothing to do with the morality (objective or otherwise) of lying...and your little godwin demonstrates in a wonderful way why it doesn't even have anything to do with hiding people from those who would do them harm. What you invested that verse with would be what you would hope to -imply-, that somehow sheltering -good- people from -bad- people can make deception or lying justifiable when it is otherwise not kosher. The trouble is that even in the verse, they were spies - whether or not they were good people is entirely subjective. Those they were spying on probably wouldn't have shared the unspoken bit of nonsense you apparently hoped to slip by. I, like you, would shelter those I felt were good from those who I felt were bad, but I'm not ignorant enough to point to this verse or proclaim that it's somehow part of some objective morality.

Fail, welcome back.

edit - Oh, and I almost forgot, you do realize that none of that shit actually happened, right? What would one of my posts to you be without mentioning that...eh?

[Joel]

Scripture actually addresses such situations very explicitly. In the 2nd Chapter of Joshua, Rahab givers Israeli spies safe harbor and deceives their pursuers in order to save their lives; because of this act she finds favor with God’s people and she and her family are spared when the Israelites take over Jericho. Simply because Christians have a view of situational ethics doesn’t mean that Biblical morality is not objective, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Thank you for that.

[archangle]

Let's say that I am in a situation where someone is about to die. I have the opportunity to save their life if I lie though, so I do. According to the Bible, lying is a sin and therefore I am "morally bad" if we say the Bible is 100% correct morally.

For those Christians who say that lying in this case would have been justified, then it logically follows that Divine Command Theory falls apart:

p: there exists an objective moral code
q: lying is always wrong

First, we assume two things: p and "if p, then q". From this it logically follows that q, because if p, then q. For those of you who say lying was morally right in this case, it means you're assuming ~q (i.e not q). Here we have a contradiction where you're wanting to say q & ~q, which means that our conclusion must be one of our premises (p, if p then q) in the negated form; either ~p or ~(if p then q) because that way we avoid the conditions needed for this contradiction to arise.

Surely the believer will want to salvage p meaning that we must negate "if p then q". So our conclusion is therefore "it is not the case that if there exists an objective moral code then lying is always wrong". The problem is that the Bible asserts that "if p then q" but we have concluded that ~"if p then q". A contradiction arises which means we are left with questioning the validity of p as being a true statement, unless you wish to avoid this conclusion by simply saying you wouldn't have saved the person's life by lying.

logical fallacy.

we would first have to start with proving the bible "true" literally. That can't be the case, so using the bible to disprove the bible is as dumb as proving the bible with the bible.

[Undeceived]

logical fallacy.

we would first have to start with proving the bible "true" literally. That can't be the case, so using the bible to disprove the bible is as dumb as proving the bible with the bible.

The term "fallacy" generally refers to contradictions within an argument that render the argument invalid. An argument can be valid even if the truth of its premises are in doubt. If we had to "prove" every single premise, all of philosophy and scientific theory would be thrown out the window. FallentoReason is perfectly justified in making his assumptions.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The term "fallacy" generally refers to contradictions within an argument that render the argument invalid. An argument can be valid even if the truth of its premises are in doubt. If we had to "prove" every single premise, all of philosophy and scientific theory would be thrown out the window. FallentoReason is perfectly justified in making his assumptions.

Sounds like you're only defending the structure of the argument. Fair enough. An argument has both a structure and content. The argument is invalid if 1) its structure is not truth-preserving and 2) if any of the premises are not true.

[Statler Waldorf]

No worries, I'll run with it. You would shelter that nazi that worked the gas lever when he went on the lamb from allied troops, right?

Of course not, but I would shelter Israelite spies in Jericho, if you can’t see the distinction maybe you should re-read the OP to get a better grasp on what this thread is about.

Meh, I've been pretty well served by just being myself Stat. Vulgar, irreverent - quick to snap at any joke opportunity - no matter how childish or silly.

It’s unfortunate you feel that way.

My criticism is in no way absurd, and you've been unable or unwilling to address it.

Sure I have, your criticism is completely missing the entire point of this thread, refuting Divine Command Theory, so if Rahab was harboring God’s spies she was helping fulfill God’s commandment to take Jericho which is completely consistent with Divine Command Theory. I am surprised you missed that and wasted your time bringing up fugitives in other countries that have nothing to do with the Divine Command Theory.

Standard chanting. Your verse -explicitly- shows that collaborating with the spies of a given organization would win you favor with that organization - nothing more.

That “organization” was God’s chosen people who had direct commandments from God to take Jericho, so if someone lied in order to protect the lives of those spies and help them carry out God’s decree they were doing something morally acceptable in accordance with Divine Command Theory because they were preserving the higher moral commandment. The point of this thread was to deal with alleged difficulties with the Divine Command Theory, but as I have pointed out the Bible already addresses this issue and makes it clear that a person is morally justified in not telling the truth as long as the desired ends are in accordance with God’s direct commandments or the higher moral law. This is why Christians will smuggle Bibles into countries that do not allow the preaching of the gospel and so forth.

it doesn't even have anything to do with hiding people from those who would do them harm.

I never said it directly did. However, it does give us an example of how a person is justified in violating a lesser moral law in order to obey a higher moral law.

What you invested that verse with would be what you would hope to -imply-, that somehow sheltering -good- people from -bad- people can make deception or lying justifiable when it is otherwise not kosher.

No, I never said that’s what the verse was dealing with; the verse is dealing with why lying can be morally acceptable in relation to Divine Command Theory if it is done to follow a higher moral law.

The trouble is that even in the verse, they were spies - whether or not they were good people is entirely subjective. Those they were spying on probably wouldn't have shared the unspoken bit of nonsense you apparently hoped to slip by.

There is nothing necessarily morally wrong with being a spy from a Biblical standpoint, since this entire thread is dealing with Biblical morality that’s what you’re going to have to stick with. Appealing to some other form of morality to argue against the internal consistency or objectivity of Biblical morality is fallacious. Whether the King of Jericho felt the spies deserved death is irrelevant from the Divine Command Theory perspective, he’s not the transcendent moral law giver.

I, like you, would shelter those I felt were good from those who I felt were bad, but I'm not ignorant enough to point to this verse or proclaim that it's somehow part of some objective morality.

I didn’t point to the verse to justify hiding “good” people from “bad” people, I pointed to the verse to answer the question whether or not Divine Command Theory allows for lying in certain circumstances and it obviously does.
No, you’re not philosophically sophisticated enough to believe in objective morality, that’s not my problem though.

Fail, welcome back.

You got destroyed yet again, the sooner you realize that the better off you’ll be. You’re such a contrarian that you jump into these debates just to argue about trivial points while not even having an adequate understanding of the OP.

edit - Oh, and I almost forgot, you do realize that none of that shit actually happened, right? What would one of my posts to you be without mentioning that...eh?

Do you have anything to back that assertion up? I’d love to see you try and prove that something historically didn’t happen. This ought to be entertaining.

logical fallacy.

we would first have to start with proving the bible "true" literally. That can't be the case, so using the bible to disprove the bible is as dumb as proving the bible with the bible.

Huh? What logical justification is there for your assertion that the Bible cannot be true?

Sounds like you're only defending the structure of the argument. Fair enough. An argument has both a structure and content. The argument is invalid if 1) its structure is not truth-preserving and 2) if any of the premises are not true.

If by this you mean the conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the premise(s) then you are correct. I do not believe the OP’s conclusion logically follows from his premise though, an objective moral code can still exist and lying can still be permitted in certain circumstances. I think that’s where his biggest misstep occurs.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course not, but I would shelter Israelite spies in Jericho, if you can’t see the distinction maybe you should re-read the OP to get a better grasp on what this thread is about.

Why? If you can't demonstrate the distinction then we have a problem.

It’s unfortunate you feel that way.

Wrong again, I find it very fortunate - having led to my very fortunate life.

Sure I have, your criticism is completely missing the entire point of this thread, refuting Divine Command Theory, so if Rahab was harboring God’s spies she was helping fulfill God’s commandment to take Jericho which is completely consistent with Divine Command Theory. I am surprised you missed that and wasted your time bringing up fugitives in other countries that have nothing to do with the Divine Command Theory.

Why would I give a shit about divine command theory Stat? I simply found it amusing that you thought the verse indicated anything other than the sort of treatment one might expect from collaboration with a given factions spies. You see, this probably should need to be said by now...but I don;t approach any verse in the bible via "if divine command theory" or "if pigs flew" - I just take it for what it is, a book, and try to understand what the people writing it might have been attempting to convey - with their admittedly different frame of reference.

That “organization” was God’s chosen people who had direct commandments from God to take Jericho, so if someone lied in order to protect the lives of those spies and help them carry out God’s decree they were doing something morally acceptable in accordance with Divine Command Theory because they were preserving the higher moral commandment. The point of this thread was to deal with alleged difficulties with the Divine Command Theory, but as I have pointed out the Bible already addresses this issue and makes it clear that a person is morally justified in not telling the truth as long as the desired ends are in accordance with God’s direct commandments or the higher moral law. This is why Christians will smuggle Bibles into countries that do not allow the preaching of the gospel and so forth.

I'm always impressed by the things you manage to read into your verses.

I never said it directly did. However, it does give us an example of how a person is justified in violating a lesser moral law in order to obey a higher moral law.

I don;t see what you see in that verse Stat. How did you determine which was the lesser moral law?

No, I never said that’s what the verse was dealing with; the verse is dealing with why lying can be morally acceptable in relation to Divine Command Theory if it is done to follow a higher moral law.

By reference to gods people, doing gods commands...presumably those are the good folks, and gods commands are the right ones...it really never rises above this criticism Stat.

There is nothing necessarily morally wrong with being a spy from a Biblical standpoint, since this entire thread is dealing with Biblical morality that’s what you’re going to have to stick with.

Hardly, but I appreciate the christian urge to insist that others stick with biblical morality.

Appealing to some other form of morality to argue against the internal consistency or objectivity of Biblical morality is fallacious.

Unfortunately I don't give any sort of primacy to your morality, nor do I think that biblical morality is in any way different than any other morality - so it would be difficult to understand how I might appeal to "some other form" of morality. Your stuff is the same stuff as everyone else's stuff. Nor would the internal consistency of a narrative impress me enough to argue against it as though it were indicative of anything beyond the narrative. One needn't go any further than the lines in the verse to see two examples of conflicting concepts of morality - the spies had to be sheltered from someone.

Whether the King of Jericho felt the spies deserved death is irrelevant from the Divine Command Theory perspective, he’s not the transcendent moral law giver.

Similarly, whether or not god feels that they don't is irrelevant - as he is not "the transcendent moral law giver" either.

I didn’t point to the verse to justify hiding “good” people from “bad” people, I pointed to the verse to answer the question whether or not Divine Command Theory allows for lying in certain circumstances and it obviously does.
No, you’re not philosophically sophisticated enough to believe in objective morality, that’s not my problem though.

To be blunt Stat, you did, but I appreciate that you felt the need to use more syllables than I.

You got destroyed yet again, the sooner you realize that the better off you’ll be. You’re such a contrarian that you jump into these debates just to argue about trivial points while not even having an adequate understanding of the OP.

Well, it may seem a trivial point to you, but not to me. We're obviously free to hold separate opinions on what is or is not trivial with regards to morality - or the various justifications given for any of it's incarnations.

Do you have anything to back that assertion up? I’d love to see you try and prove that something historically didn’t happen. This ought to be entertaining.

The people described in the book are not present in the region until centuries later. Two of the cities described did not exist at the time, two of the cities described (one amusingly, being jericho) had apparently been abandoned long - long before any conquest narrative. Hilariously, we see that the walls of jericho fell often - but not at this time. So...either there was no invasion - there was an invasion sans destruction and violence, or there was an invasion at some altogether different time.

[FallentoReason]

we would first have to start with proving the bible "true" literally. That can't be the case, so using the bible to disprove the bible is as dumb as proving the bible with the bible.

Wrong. I've assumed the Bible to be true, and from there one would expect things to be internally consistent within this assumed world-view, but the OP shows otherwise. That's a valid argument because I'm saying assuming p,q => ~(if p then q). The argument would be invalid if the assumptions are correct and the conclusion is false.