God and Good

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 540
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: God and Good

Post by Marvin_Edwards » May 17th, 2020, 8:38 am

Jing or Jang wrote:
May 16th, 2020, 11:39 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote:
May 16th, 2020, 6:18 pm
Well, if your child puts on his shoes without his socks, what do you say? "That's not right, son. You need to put your socks on first." He did something wrong, and you lovingly correct him. It probably wasn't his intent to do something wrong, so we don't blame or scold. So, already we have the concepts of "right" and "wrong". ....
Already "we" have this concept? You may have the concept of shoes without socks being "wrong" but do not speak for humanity on the subject of "right" and "wrong". That in itself is a "wrong".
Of course.

User avatar
Jing or Jang
Posts: 41
Joined: May 16th, 2020, 7:08 am

Re: God and Good

Post by Jing or Jang » May 17th, 2020, 9:17 am

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
May 17th, 2020, 8:38 am
Jing or Jang wrote:
May 16th, 2020, 11:39 pm


Already "we" have this concept? You may have the concept of shoes without socks being "wrong" but do not speak for humanity on the subject of "right" and "wrong". That in itself is a "wrong".
Of course.
If you are aware of it ... then why did you say it?

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 899
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Heidegger
Location: England

Re: God and Good

Post by Pattern-chaser » May 18th, 2020, 10:23 am

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
May 16th, 2020, 6:18 pm
Well, if your child puts on his shoes without his socks, what do you say? "That's not right, son. You need to put your socks on first." He did something wrong, and you lovingly correct him. It probably wasn't his intent to do something wrong, so we don't blame or scold.
I assume you are aware that many people these days choose to wear their footwear without socks? Grown-up people; adults able to make their own (moral) decisions. Are we to assume your concept of right and wrong, as it applies to footwear, places these other people in the wrong? I think not. 🤔

Yours is a great example of how this sort of morality is not universal, and in this sense not objective.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 540
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: God and Good

Post by Marvin_Edwards » May 18th, 2020, 12:30 pm

Jing or Jang wrote:
May 17th, 2020, 9:17 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote:
May 17th, 2020, 8:38 am

Of course.
If you are aware of it ... then why did you say it?
I presumed that the reader would know that I wasn't speaking of a universal moral rule that applied at all times to all people, but simply a situational case of "this is better than that in this situation". The situation was one where the parent was teaching the child to put his socks on first, and then the shoes. That is a common situation that everyone is familiar with. Now, in cultures where people do not wear socks, it would not apply. But why should I spell it out in such detail, when the reader would already understand what I was talking about?

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 540
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: God and Good

Post by Marvin_Edwards » May 18th, 2020, 12:49 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote:
May 18th, 2020, 10:23 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote:
May 16th, 2020, 6:18 pm
Well, if your child puts on his shoes without his socks, what do you say? "That's not right, son. You need to put your socks on first." He did something wrong, and you lovingly correct him. It probably wasn't his intent to do something wrong, so we don't blame or scold.
I assume you are aware that many people these days choose to wear their footwear without socks? Grown-up people; adults able to make their own (moral) decisions. Are we to assume your concept of right and wrong, as it applies to footwear, places these other people in the wrong? I think not. 🤔

Yours is a great example of how this sort of morality is not universal, and in this sense not objective.
Objective morality is situational. What is objectively good to do in one situation may be objectively bad to do in another situation. For example, it is objectively good to give a glass of water to the man dying of thirst in the desert, but objectively bad to give the same glass of water to the man drowning in the swimming pool.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3458
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: God and Good

Post by Terrapin Station » May 19th, 2020, 6:53 pm

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
May 18th, 2020, 12:49 pm
For example, it is objectively good to give a glass of water to the man dying of thirst in the desert,
Not if he wants to die of thirst in the desert.

User avatar
Jing or Jang
Posts: 41
Joined: May 16th, 2020, 7:08 am

Re: God and Good

Post by Jing or Jang » May 23rd, 2020, 3:07 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
May 19th, 2020, 6:53 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote:
May 18th, 2020, 12:49 pm
For example, it is objectively good to give a glass of water to the man dying of thirst in the desert,
Not if he wants to die of thirst in the desert.
Or if he's an alcoholic and needs "a drink".

Post Reply