The Two Trees

[Godscreated]

If you are going to criticize Mortimer's idea of God shouldn't you have to respect or at least employ the definition of God.

Pretty much what I'm trying to refute is Mortimer's view of the Divine Command Theory or 'things are good because God says so' point of view in terms of the Euthyphro Dilemma. So as you might have read in my paper, I've gone with his definitions of God and made them my starting point.

If so the scriptures are not needed to undo your argument. Just sayin'.

As in my argument can be undone without scripture? That's sort of a good thing I guess because this unit isn't about theology or anything. It's just moral ethics.

Mortimer defines God's will and nature as the same thing, yet you separate them as if they are different.

[mediamogul]

One objection is that Divine Command theory is utterly irrelevant to speak of outside of religion. One cannot divorce the idea of god who insists upon his subjects submitting to his will from the idea of a god who has revealed what his will is. Monotheism as we know it is the supposed revealing of god's will to his people. So reject religion and you reject essentially divine command theory. God's will must be made manifest otherwise it is abstract and based on human reason. The type of god who would demand submission is also not the kind of god who would not reveal his will.

If we start talking about an "internal moral sense" we are no longer talking about pure obedience. We are talking about a feeling that guides human conduct. It is a red herring if we say that god implanted this sense so that we may do his will. Then we are following the moral sense and not god's will directly. This argument is not sound for many reasons so I will not go too deeply into it.

What is the nature of a deity that would require divine command as the only consideration of "morality". I think you are right to point out that obedience is not morality, it is something else. What is the utility of setting up a relationship such as this in a world where there are clearly other considerations that drive human conduct. Compassion is an utterly useless feeling within the context of divine command.

God wills things either because they are good within the system of existence (actually moral relating to good and bad) or because obedience in itself is good. If obedience in itself is good, then there is still a gap left of why obedience is good. The argument becomes circular when we say obedience of gods will is good because it is obedience of gods will. There must be another reason why obedience or submission to god's will is good and if there is then submission to god's will is not good in itself, it is good for some other reason.

Hope that helps.

[FallentoReason]

Mortimer defines God's will and nature as the same thing, yet you separate them as if they are different.

God's nature can be found in the Bible, which I didn't really want to bring up formally because it's just a moral ethics unit.

Talking about the general idea of a god's will is much easier to interact with and more appropriate to the unit. But yeah.. I know what you mean.

One objection is that Divine Command theory is utterly irrelevant to speak of outside of religion. One cannot divorce the idea of god who insists upon his subjects submitting to his will from the idea of a god who has revealed what his will is. Monotheism as we know it is the supposed revealing of god's will to his people. So reject religion and you reject essentially divine command theory. God's will must be made manifest otherwise it is abstract and based on human reason. The type of god who would demand submission is also not the kind of god who would not reveal his will.

Yeah I know it's kinda messed up and almost pointless to discuss with any real depth if you don't bring in religion. I can't do anything about it though :/

Thanks for the feedback!

[Drich]

This is a rough draft of a 1000 word essay I have to do for my philosophy unit at university. It's to do with the Euthyphro Dilemma.

If this is a philosphy class you should do well.

Before I commence I would like to define a few key words that I will be using. Whenever I speak of ‘God’ I’m explicitly referring to the Christian god and not the general concept of a god. This is because Mortimer’s argument is based on the Christian god as if it is the god that determines what is morally right. Whenever I mention ‘man’ I am referring to humanity and ‘person’ I shall use for an arbitrary individual who belongs to humanity. Lastly, the ‘Will’ is everything that is good and bad according to God’s commands.

I guess I will need to establish some biblically based explanations as well.
Sin anything not in the Expressed Will of God.
Evil is a malicious intention to commit a sin
(Not all sin is evil but all evil is sin)

Freewill Is the ability to be outside the expressed will of God (Not the ability to choose whatever you will with out consequence.
In other words "Freewill is the ability to sin.)

Righteousness is the the Perfectly held (Without sin) Perfect execution of the Expressed will of God.
Morality is Man's attempt to up hold the expressed will of God with the sins he is willing to live with, or sweep under the rug for the greater good.
(Usually the choice of the lessor of two evils)

example Righteousness says that to lie is always a sin
Morality says it is ok to lie to save a life of a friend.

To begin with I will first establish a couple of Mortimer’s key points. He begins by stating this:

(1)God made us and all the world.[1]

Not in that order but agreed.

So man’s existence was caused by God.

Yes

By definition this implies that God designed every last detail about man.

Yes

Mortimer’s next point states how man should see morality as a result of man being created by God:

Why? Man sees what man wants to to justify the "choices" he wants to make. Why? Because He has been given the ability to freely be outside of the Expressed will of God.
(If I didn't know why I'd ask why at this point)

(2)A thing is not right simply because we think it is...it is right because God commands it. This means that there is a real distinction between right and wrong...it is rooted in the nature and Will of God.[2]

Expressed will Meaning written or told (as with the case of the prophets) But otherwise correct.

So according to Point 2, man can only know what right and wrong is if man knows and does the Will.

No. Our actions Have absolutely nothing to do with our ability to discern the what the Expressed will of God is. Adam was expressly told not to eat of the fruit of tree of knowledge. He knew the consequence of this sin (Death) yet He ate.

In other words morality is arbitrary.

Christ favored the term "Self Righteousness" as it was a standard of man built in the righteousness not of God but of his own Heart. The church and even you guys have done alot to change the title terminology, but in the end any righteousness apart from God's Righteousness (Free of all sin) is a righteous standard built upon one's self.

Man cannot evaluate something as being right or wrong without knowing the Will.

Indeed. The questions should be, when do we know.

(3)When a [person’s] conscience tells [them] that a thing is right,

No. A conscience not based in God's righteousness will be based in your own self righteousness or "Morality." and can and will lead you anywhere you or the culture you live in wants to go.

which is in fact what God wills, [their] conscience is true and its judgment correct; when a [person’s] conscience tells [them] a thing is right which is, in fact, contrary to God’s will, [their] conscience is false and telling [them] a lie.[3]

Yes, by the way of my last explanation.

We can conclude that the Will must be an arbitrary choice by God of rights and wrongs because according to Mortimer man’s own judgment of right and wrong seem to be contradictory at times with the Will. In other words, man can’t seem to justify the Will based on man’s perception of what right and wrong is.

Yes and no. The "Choice" was not by God, for the choice of God for us ended in the garden with Adam, and the fall. Since there after the "choice has been ours.

The rest is correct.

A contradiction seems to arise at this stage. If Point 1 tells us we are created by God then why does our perception of right and wrong not match the Will of the one that created us out of his own will?

Because we have been given the gift of being able to stand outside of the expressed will of God.

The explanation of the Two Trees shows us it should match, as you will see.

Point 1 tells us every aspect of man is entirely created by God. So let us define this relationship by defining God as a tree and one aspect of man, man’s morality, as the fruit. In this case we’ll say man’s morality is an apple.

So if we think of different type of fruits it can be said that their properties are arbitrary. One fruit is no better than the other. This seems to be logical if something is right because God commands it. That is, out of all the fruits God arbitrarily chose our morality to look like an apple. Now a question arises. If we are the fruits of this tree, then why does morality start to look arbitrary according to the Will? Naturally the Will should look and feel like the apple our morality is but instead our perception of right and wrong, which was designed by God, does not match the Will. Did the apple not come from the apple tree?

If the Will seems so arbitrary and not natural then aren’t we in fact talking about a different fruit altogether? The implication that must be noted with respect to the tree and fruit is that the fruit defines what type of tree it is. One cannot tell the species of tree unless one sees its fruit. So by definition God must be an apple tree. So if his Will i.e. fruit seems arbitrary i.e. a different fruit then this can only mean one thing. We are talking about a different god altogether who could not have created the apple but must be an e.g. orange tree.

The Two Trees makes it clear that although something might only be right because God commands it, man should be able to naturally know what right and wrong is, without morality beginning to look arbitrary as if it is the will of a different god who couldn’t have created us. In other words, the values of God which are found in the Bible should in fact resonate with all of humanity if Mortimer’s argument is true. This is clearly not what we see in reality, as there are many definitions of god.

In conclusion, I think the solution to the Euthyphro Dilemma can’t be the Horn that says something is right because God commands it because of my reasoning above.

I do not want to simply dismiss this large effort, but if sin and morality and "will were all based on the works of whomever you were quoting then you might have a viable argument. However since the argument you based your work on was flawed, then your work will also bear the same "fruit." For you can't reap an olive from a thorn bush. If you wish to be able to deduce this like this accurately, then may i suggest that you skip the commentaries (no matter who wrote them including myself) and read the bible yourself.

[FallentoReason]

Wow. Thanks for your effort of going through it Drich.

I really do wish I was doing the later unit which deals with religion directly, but like I've said before, we have to refrain from engaging with the theology of the religion. That's why I took all the points from Mortimer's work (how ever flawed it might be) and critizised it.

I'm just wondering if anyone understands my Two Trees analogy? We get better marks from original arguments so that's kind of the bit that I'm hoping makes sense.

[Shell B]

Okay, after reading the thread (not your essay . . . yet), my only advice right now is to chop some of what you have right now. 100 words is not enough to refute any argument, unless you already have your closing. You will need, at minimum, 50 words for your closing paragraph and that is a brief paragraph. Edit and, while you are editing, come up with your argument. I'll be back with a better analysis in a few shakes.

---

I have chosen to evaluate Mortimer’s view on the Euthyphro Dilemma. I will be showing that his reasoning can be shown to fit my explanation of something I call the Two Trees. This explanation will demonstrate that if something is good because God commands it then morality cannot seem arbitrary like how this choice in the Dilemma makes it seem. Therefore because morality would indeed seem arbitrary it shows that something is not right because God commands it.

Okay, involving my above advice, you can get more room out of this paragraph. Instead of "I have chosen to evaluate," try to go with "I will be evaluating" or "I am evaluating." The latter is stronger, as it does not rely on the passive voice. Go with "I will show" rather than "I will be showing." This will eliminate the passive voice as well. I suggest you do this wherever else possible for the entire text. It should give you more room. Sorry for the technical advice, but that is what I have to offer.

Before I read on, I really hope you describe how god's choices are not arbitrary. Because, if god's choices are arbitrary, which is not something easily proven or disproven, then you still have arbitrary morality.

Before I commence I would like to define a few key words that I will be using. Whenever I speak of ‘God’ I’m explicitly referring to the Christian god and not the general concept of a god. This is because Mortimer’s argument is based on the Christian god as if it is the god that determines what is morally right. Whenever I mention ‘man’ I am referring to humanity and ‘person’ I shall use for an arbitrary individual who belongs to humanity. Lastly, the ‘Will’ is everything that is good and bad according to God’s commands.

I would do away with the explanation of human terms. Go with mankind or humanity in the rest of the essay, as it needs no explanation and refer to individuals as individuals or a person and dispense with the explanation for that. The concepts should not be difficult for the reader to understand if the essay is written well. "Will" should only stand god's commands. The good and bad part you have there does not apply. God's will is God's will. Therefore, I would say, "Will" refers to "God's will." That too is an easy enough concept. If it requires further explanation, go with "Will" refers to "What god wants, commands or made happen."

To begin with I will first establish a couple of Mortimer’s key points. He begins by stating this:

(1)God made us and all the world.[1]

So man’s existence was caused by God. By definition this implies that God designed every last detail about man. Mortimer’s next point states how man should see morality as a result of man being created by God:

(2)A thing is not right simply because we think it is...it is right because God commands it. This means that there is a real distinction between right and wrong...it is rooted in the nature and Will of God.[2]

So according to Point 2, man can only know what right and wrong is if man knows and does the Will. In other words morality is arbitrary. Man cannot evaluate something as being right or wrong without knowing the Will. This is exactly what Mortimer says:

(3)When a [person’s] conscience tells [them] that a thing is right, which is in fact what God wills, [their] conscience is true and its judgement correct; when a [person’s] conscience tells [them] a thing is right which is, in fact, contrary to God’s will, [their] conscience is false and telling [them] a lie.[3]

Good, but I think the focus on person, them and their is distracting as hell.

We can conclude that the Will must be an arbitrary choice by God of rights and wrongs because according to Mortimer man’s own judgement of right and wrong seem to be contradictory at times with the Will. In other words, man can’t seem to justify the Will based on man’s perception of what right and wrong is.

How do we know if god's choices are arbitrary, though? I mean, I'm an atheist, so I'm coming from a suspension of disbelief standpoint, as it is, but I still don't see how that can be assumed. "Morality is god's will" is not equal to "God's will is arbitrary" or "Morality is arbitrary." In my opinion, you fail to explain how you can conclude such a thing without knowing how god decided what is moral and what is not.

A contradiction seems to arise at this stage. If Point 1 tells us we are created by God then why does our perception of right and wrong not match the Will of the one that created us out of his own will? The explanation of the Two Trees shows us it should match, as you will see.

This is good. There is a contradiction, but does that contradiction really arise at this stage? Does it not arise at an earlier point?

So if we think of different type of fruits it can be said that their properties are arbitrary. One fruit is no better than the other. This seems to be logical if something is right because God commands it. That is, out of all the fruits God arbitrarily chose our morality to look like an apple. Now a question arises. If we are the fruits of this tree, then why does morality start to look arbitrary according to the Will? Naturally the Will should look and feel like the apple our morality is but instead our perception of right and wrong, which was designed by God, does not match the Will. Did the apple not come from the apple tree?

I have to say, the argument starts to fall apart with all of this use of the word arbitrary and assumptions of how god makes choices.

In conclusion, I think the solution to the Euthyphro Dilemma can’t be the Horn that says something is right because God commands it because of my reasoning above.

I skipped a lot because my critique still had to do with the term arbitrary and its apparent misuse or the assumptions required for its proper use. Given that you are at an early stage in this subject, I would say tweak this as much as you can to make it a tighter, more cohesive argument and go ahead and pass it in. Good or bad, you will learn from it.

Really good go, though. I hope I was able to help in some way.