The Excluded Middle December 27, 2006
Posted by Martin in : Philosophy , 1 comment so farFancy title, hm?There exists a logical law, namely, the law of the excluded middle, which states that a proposition is either true or false. In broader terms, anything x is either y or not y. In Latin, one may phrase it as “tertium non datur“, meaning “a third is not given.” There can be no intermediate between contradictory statements.
In simple terms, Bert is either fat or not fat. He cannot be “kinda fat”, nor can he be “fat, but not fat.” Anyone who says otherwise merely has a problem with the definition of “fat”. Discrepancies may be found in names, but not in facts.
If you didn’t notice, this law can be misapplied, and it happens quite often. Such a foolish application is called the fallacy of the excluded middle, or the false dilemma. It usually involves either/or statements, but it is not limited to only 2 options; it may involve three or more options. Examples are as follows.
1. “They’re either with us or against us!” – Hahahaha.
2. “You can either join us or die!”
3. “Either you’re a loser or a nobody.”
4 . “All citizens must progress, or else all citizens go down.”
5. “No one wins unless everybody wins.”
Clearly, given two options, if a third choice exists other than the aforementioned options, the criteria is flawed.
*sigh, here I go again.*
Take for example our 3rd year morality class. Mr. Pavia educated us on the nature of Christian morality, and given the tools for judgment, an act is either moral or immoral (not moral). However, he further stated that some acts are neither moral nor immoral, but amoral.
What the fuck? A moral act conforms to whatever standards of morality one holds, and an immoral act does not conform to it. Moral and immoral are logically contradictory concepts; hence, a third is not given. In Aristotle’s words, “there cannot be an intermediate beween contradictories, but of one subject we must either affirm or deny any one predicate.” What, then, is this amoral crap?
Flawed criteria?
Yummy.
Euthypro and Divine Command Ethics December 11, 2006
Posted by Martin in : Philosophy, Religion/Atheism , 10commentsEuthypro’s Dilemma – one can say that is is an investigation into the nature of what is “good”, as depicted in Plato’s dialogue, Euthypro. It’s quite simple, really. Try reading it.“Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it’s commanded by God?”
Some may see this as a false dichotomy, but it is apparent that the accusation only holds when it is read in its current form. In a condensed version of the problem, it states that either morality is or is not contingent on god. That should do away with it.
Morality’s quite a large part of everyone’s day to day activities, or at least, I think it is. Let’s see how your morality stands up to investigation. Bring it on.
Section One – “Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral?”
Everyone should know the answer to this, which is “Hell no.” If this were true, then morality would be an objective standard beyond God, i.e. outside of God’s control, and not contingent on him. That’s no god, that’s a Moral Mailman playing “pass the moral message.”
Section Two – “Is it moral because it is commanded by God?”
Ah, this is where we’ll run into some interesting consequences.
Know what the Divine Command Theory of morality is?
You should, because as a Christian, you probably subscribe to it. Basically, the theory says that moral values are whatever is commanded by God (or gods). Morality is thereby contingent on God. Simple, really.
Of course, you’d have to tell me that I can’t say that since I’m an infidelous atheist.
Yes, yes, let’s not argue about it; I’m just gonna give you that.
Sure. God exists, woo-hoo.
What, then, does this mean for morality?
*drum roll*
It means that x is good because God said so, pretty much.
It means that morality is arbitrary, i.e. morality is based solely upon God’s whims and “trips”, so to speak. Therefore, if God willed that my kicking your ass is good, it would be true. If God willed that Iced Tea is morally bankrupt, it would be true. If God willed *gasp* homosexuality to be good, it would be so. If God willed nuclear rats to be good, then it would be so. Also, it commits the naturalistic fallacy. Define “good”, damn it.
Naturally, the apalled theist would say “No no no no! That’s impossible! God would never command those – those are evil!”
Please take note that by the Divine Command Theory, it is only God’s command that makes evil evil. On a lighter but equally condemning note, allow me to remind you that God can do whatever the hell he wants to, logical or otherwise. Let’s take a few more crappy responses.
“God can’t command that! God’s nature dictates that it’s bad!”
Then suppose that God’s nature was as such in order to dictate that Rape is Good. Then, I propose that “What if God’s nature dictated that Rape is Evil“? Would you argue in the same manner, then? Anything is only good/evil only because God said so, as stated above.
Also, let me remind you that God is in control of his nature. If he weren’t, then he wouldn’t be a god, would he?
“Irrelevant! God’s nature is good!”
Who the hell said that? You? Then I must ask you: by what moral standards do you judge God’s nature to be good, then? You automatically assume some system of morality even before reading the Bible and talking of God’s nature, which explains why some Christians are so adept at cherry picking Bible passages.
God? Then that merely means that God asserts this: “My nature’s good because I said so.”
Oh, okay. That’s no different from “It’s good because God said so.”
Our glorious conclusion:
Therefore, “God is good” is quite a stupid thing to say. It just means that “God does what he does.”
No shit.
