RE: My views on objective morality
March 28, 2016 at 11:34 am
(This post was last modified: March 28, 2016 at 11:36 am by Neo-Scholastic.
Edit Reason: grammar and spelling
)
You basically confirmed what I said, L4C. I do not understand why you think your post goes against my position, especially when it includes this quote:
“Classical Judaeo-Christian theism, however, rejects such a view as inconsistent with God's omnipotence, which requires that God and what he has made is all that there is."The classical tradition," Rogers notes, "also steers clear of the other horn of the Euthyphro dilemma, divine command theory." From a classical theistic perspective, therefore, the Euthyphro dilemma is false. As Rogers puts it, Anselm, like Augustine before him and Aquinas later, rejects both horns of the Euthyphro dilemma. God neither conforms to nor invents the moral order. Rather His very nature is the standard for value."
First, what you just did here is avoid dealing with the ineffectiveness of the dilemma with respect to a particular moral theory (virtue ethics) and shifted to a different objection, namely theodicy.
Second, biblical morality is grounded in virtue ethics as seen in both the OT (Leviticus 19:2) and NT (Matthew 5:48). The idea here is that since Man was created in the image of God, the better someone conforms to his innate human nature the more perfectly he conforms to the nature of the Maximally Great Being which is God.
“Classical Judaeo-Christian theism, however, rejects such a view as inconsistent with God's omnipotence, which requires that God and what he has made is all that there is."The classical tradition," Rogers notes, "also steers clear of the other horn of the Euthyphro dilemma, divine command theory." From a classical theistic perspective, therefore, the Euthyphro dilemma is false. As Rogers puts it, Anselm, like Augustine before him and Aquinas later, rejects both horns of the Euthyphro dilemma. God neither conforms to nor invents the moral order. Rather His very nature is the standard for value."
(March 28, 2016 at 10:26 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: God's supposed omnipotence (not to mention omniscience) is inconsistent throughout the entire paradigm of Christianity itself if we are following the bible as the word of God. And saying that the dilemma fails because god's nature is inherently good still leaves us with the problem of evil. And the problem of the OT.
First, what you just did here is avoid dealing with the ineffectiveness of the dilemma with respect to a particular moral theory (virtue ethics) and shifted to a different objection, namely theodicy.
Second, biblical morality is grounded in virtue ethics as seen in both the OT (Leviticus 19:2) and NT (Matthew 5:48). The idea here is that since Man was created in the image of God, the better someone conforms to his innate human nature the more perfectly he conforms to the nature of the Maximally Great Being which is God.
