(July 4, 2013 at 2:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So Inigo, what are your thoughts so far? Have your thoughts developed or adapted since you started your dialogue here?
We seem bereft of philosophy students at this moment in time, who could perhaps challenge you in that arena (apart from apoplexia of course). Have you raised the question on those type of fora?
So far nobody has shown me the error of my ways. Indeed, so far it seems clear to me that everyone else is in error. It seems to me that virtually everyone is confusing moral sensations and beliefs with morality itself. This is odd as such a mistake is rarely made in other arenas. We rarely confuse beliefs in chairs with chairs, for instance. But confusing moral beliefs with morality seems commonplace. Until this mistake stops, my case isn't really being addressed.
The only criticism that I think has any legs, and that has so far only been hinted at, is the so-called Euthyphro problem. I may be wrong about that - perhaps there are other problems with my position that I'm unaware of. Needless to say, at present I do not think the euthyphro problem really works - but I think if a good objection to my view is to be found, this is where it will be found.
Obviously anyone who has taken any introductory ethics course will be aware of the Euthyphro problem as it is the means by which divine command theories of ethics are summarily dismissed. So I welcome any attacks from philosophy students. I will try to show that it is quite mistaken to reject divine command views on this basis