Banno

It ought be a lesson that three brilliant folk, using supposedly the same approach, came to three such different results...

Just that we might not want to open that whole other kettle of worms - or something like that.

Don't see how this follows from your first paragraph.

Whoa - motive.

Seems he has adopted Rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza, and so on)as a guide - as if nothing else had happened in philosophy in the last few hundred yea...

Well, they are reasonable if reasonable reasons are given...

Yeah. Reason is not monolithic in the way @"Bartricks" takes for granted.

Think you are taking a very tight definition of reason here. Rather in most cases the reasons for our acts are given post hoc. Would you agree?

How does an OP so misguided reach 31 pages?

The other thing I would take exception to in the OP is the segregation of subjective and objective. Sure, use the terms if you like; but the distincti...

It's a pity one can't reply to one's own posts. They are usually the better ones. The objection to my objection would be that if Reason sets out what ...

My core objection to Divine Command Theory is existential. Suppose @"Bartricks" is right, and what is good is exactly what is demanded by reason. Even...

Yep. I'd say @"Bartricks" is starting out. Or perhaps home-schooled. In either case the important bit is whether he digs in or rethinks. If he rethink...

Anyway, how is my use of Socratic Method? Still got it?

Watch the capitals, Willow. Seems they are proscribed.

We might stop there while we have a think.

@"Bartricks" ...because for me, given an act prescribed by reason, it still remains that I might ask "is it right?"; and yet, it seems you must deny t...

@"Bartricks" SO you are saying that "what is right" rigidly designates "what is prescribed by reason"?

But hang on - so it is not possible that Clark Kent is not Superman? that's a side issue - you can leave it as moot if you like.

Sure; I will not disagree.

OK, so back to my discomfort. It seems to me that when I contemplate Clark Kent, I might not be contemplating Superman. And it seems to me that when I...

Hmm. Seems you might be setting back on track. Rightness and reason's prescriptions are the very same thing in all possible worlds. But there may be a...

So in some possible world, Superman might not have been Clark Kent. And in some possible world, an act can be prescribed by reason and yet not right.

Again, will you accept possible world semantics as a suitable way to approach these modal questions?

Looks like a mistake. I must have misunderstood. You agreed that in every case, what is prescribed by reason is what is right. But now you are also sa...

SO - to deal with these modal concepts, what model will we use? I'm for Possible World Semantics. Will that do? Or will you suggest something else?

Ah. So off into modality. Not sure what that means. Nor this.

Well, doubtless you will disagree, but this last looks to me to be just wrong. I can quite happily contemplate the notion that is prescribed by reason...

SO I will move on and make use of the Open Question argument. Given that it is not possible for an act to be both prescribed by reason and also not ri...

Of course you did. It was hidden there all the time.

So you avoid the Euthyphro using "it is not possible for an act to be both prescribed by reason and also not right". OK, so far so good.

OK, good. So being prescribed by reason and being right are the very same.

Sorry - in your terminology, it is not possible for an act to be both prescribed by reason and also not right. Yes?

So it is not possible for an act to be both reasonable and wrong. Yes?

Small steps.

OK, just trying to form the proposition in a way that you accept: If something is decide by reason, it is right. How's that?

It follows, then, that if something is reasonable - decided by reason - then it is good. IS that right?

I'll pass that, too - looks like another distraction.

OK - so an act is good because reason prescribes it. Can we use that, and avoid the baggage that might go with "god"? You good with that?

I have adopted your punctuation. Let's not be distracted.

Ok, so be precise: you say that things are only good in so far as god proscribes them; that is the case?

Is this the third, or forth time, that I have asked you:

You ducked. Edit: we can all do this passive aggressive shit. Be interesting.

Laura Tingle puts things in perspective. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-21/donald-trump-state-dinner-scott-morrison-welcome-distraction/11533602

Hi! That's because he has a real dichotomy before him; the history of kowtowing to the US is in direct conflict with the economic reality that we get ...

All of which makes for a tedious thread. The sad thing is that most of the others here are worse. Remember the bit where I asked about the Euthyphro, ...

:lol:

Hmph... not something I am keen on. You showed some initial promise, but you don't know when to stop. You're heading for a confrontation with the mods...

@"Bartricks" You seem to think that you not being understood is a problem for other people. Meditate on that for a bit.

"The offing", by the way, is my contribution to "talk like a pirate", even though that was days ago. It's the part of the sea that is only just in sig...