@Esquilax
I am sorry. I missed your earlier post where you carefully responded to my post on Regarding Moral Values...I appreciate the tone. In fact, I only recently became interested in philosophy and am honing my thinking as it relates to these subjects against a pretty tough crowd.
So you believe "morality exists only where there are moral agents capable of dealing in moral acts" and "Our morality is derived from well being because what else is there?". Doesn't this pose a problem when deciding between moral choices? Which perspective will be right? Sometimes the greater good is bad for a few. Can one civilization's set of values be better than another's?
Regarding compatibilism, perhaps you can explain why these sentences describing the view somehow handles the ought/can problem: From Wikipedia...Hume adds that the Compatibilist's free will should not be understood as some kind of ability to have actually chosen differently in an identical situation. The Compatibilist believes that a person always makes the only truly possible decision that they could have. Any talk of alternatives is strictly hypothetical.
Regarding proving there are objective moral standards, I think you would have to decide philosophically if such a set of standards exist (or at least is more plausible than the negation). Of course, if you proved the existence of God, that would be an easy task.
Regarding falling into the Euthyphro Dilemma, well done. I am reading more on Divine Command Morality.
"The greatest conceivable being" definition is not nonsensical. St. Anselm, a philosopher, called the founder of scholasticism, and the Archbishop of Canterbury came up with that definition in the 11th century and it has been discussed by philosophers ever since. You don't think it is objectively better to be morally perfect than morally flawed? I believe it is good argument and serves to at least further the case that God is good.
Unless, I misunderstand and you want concrete examples of good that God does. This however would do nothing to prove or disprove that God's nature is good--because even I do some good things once in a while.
Your point regarding that if God were the greatest...he could shed his nature, is a poor line of reasoning. By definition, one cannot shed one's nature and therefore logically impossible.
I am sorry. I missed your earlier post where you carefully responded to my post on Regarding Moral Values...I appreciate the tone. In fact, I only recently became interested in philosophy and am honing my thinking as it relates to these subjects against a pretty tough crowd.
So you believe "morality exists only where there are moral agents capable of dealing in moral acts" and "Our morality is derived from well being because what else is there?". Doesn't this pose a problem when deciding between moral choices? Which perspective will be right? Sometimes the greater good is bad for a few. Can one civilization's set of values be better than another's?
Regarding compatibilism, perhaps you can explain why these sentences describing the view somehow handles the ought/can problem: From Wikipedia...Hume adds that the Compatibilist's free will should not be understood as some kind of ability to have actually chosen differently in an identical situation. The Compatibilist believes that a person always makes the only truly possible decision that they could have. Any talk of alternatives is strictly hypothetical.
Regarding proving there are objective moral standards, I think you would have to decide philosophically if such a set of standards exist (or at least is more plausible than the negation). Of course, if you proved the existence of God, that would be an easy task.
Regarding falling into the Euthyphro Dilemma, well done. I am reading more on Divine Command Morality.
"The greatest conceivable being" definition is not nonsensical. St. Anselm, a philosopher, called the founder of scholasticism, and the Archbishop of Canterbury came up with that definition in the 11th century and it has been discussed by philosophers ever since. You don't think it is objectively better to be morally perfect than morally flawed? I believe it is good argument and serves to at least further the case that God is good.
Unless, I misunderstand and you want concrete examples of good that God does. This however would do nothing to prove or disprove that God's nature is good--because even I do some good things once in a while.
Your point regarding that if God were the greatest...he could shed his nature, is a poor line of reasoning. By definition, one cannot shed one's nature and therefore logically impossible.
