PugJesus@lemmy.world to Toilet Paper USA@lemmy.worldEnglish · 9 months agoOh good, I was looking for an excuse!lemmy.worldimagemessage-square45linkfedilinkarrow-up1130arrow-down11
arrow-up1129arrow-down1imageOh good, I was looking for an excuse!lemmy.worldPugJesus@lemmy.world to Toilet Paper USA@lemmy.worldEnglish · 9 months agomessage-square45linkfedilink
minus-squarePugJesus@lemmy.worldOPlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11·9 months agoWhat Prager is arguing for here is Divine Command Theory - that whatever God says is good, is good; and whatever God says is bad, is bad. It’s a pretty shitty way to categorize morality, but it is sadly common.
minus-squarezloubida@sh.itjust.workscakelinkfedilinkarrow-up5·edit-29 months agoThe main problem with this theory is that God doesn’t speak directly (whether he exists or not), so it’s a way for a clergy, while they pretend to speak in the name of God, to define what’s good and what’s not.
minus-squarenova_ad_vitum@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up2·9 months agoIt’s also sidestepping Euthyphro’s dilemma by just not caring about how arbitrary divine command theory makes morality.
What Prager is arguing for here is Divine Command Theory - that whatever God says is good, is good; and whatever God says is bad, is bad.
It’s a pretty shitty way to categorize morality, but it is sadly common.
The main problem with this theory is that God doesn’t speak directly (whether he exists or not), so it’s a way for a clergy, while they pretend to speak in the name of God, to define what’s good and what’s not.
It’s also sidestepping Euthyphro’s dilemma by just not caring about how arbitrary divine command theory makes morality.