Craig's Is/Ought Problem

Craig on the is/ought problem:

Yes, I do have a Patreon account, thank you for asking:

My Twitter:

My tumbr:

My facebook:

Here’s my society6 store if you’re interested in my pretentious minimalist poster designs:

[plasmaballin]

I cannot understand how someone can possibly say something like, "Duty arises from the demands of a competent authority." That is, in my opinion, probably the most repugnant philosophical view someone could have. On this view, morality is nothing but blind, unquestioning, slavish obedience. And it is most certainly not what "good" or "moral" means - any competent speaker of the English language can recognize that.

[AntiCitizenX]

I think you're neglecting one of the best counter-arguments to this whole morality problem. Just ask "what if I don't care about your morality and decide to do whatever I want?"

The only thing Christians can say to that is something like "but you're being evil!" Okay, I'm evil. Now what? That's just a four-letter label. Who cares?

Sooner or later they have to appeal to consequences. If you act evil, then unpleasant consequences will follow. That's a perfectly compelling argument, but it's also completely antithetical to their concept of morality. BAM.

[sportfanatic]

WLC vs Hector Avalos is the debate that most atheists should watch. This debate was full of aggression and he rode Matthew 27:52 until WLC became pissed. My favorite part was when Avalos stated " WLC loves to fool those that don't know better. He's says we have 99% of the original text. How can you have 99% of the original text of Bible when we don't have the original text to compare it to?" Love it.

[Self-replicating_whatnot]

I have ninety-nine problems, and is/ought is definitely one of them!

[SteveMcRae]

The first question that came to my mind was: "WHY is it that we ought to obey the God that WLC is positing?"

[Roxor]

I tend to approach the problem of "oughts" by asking "What is the IF for the ought?".

As far as I'm concerned, "ought" is like the "then" in an if-then statement in programming.

"If you want outcome X, then you ought to do action Y." is perfectly fine.

Just saying "you ought to do action Y" by itself is meaningless. Syntax error: no if found.

[pauldhoff]

His idea of a god is his sugar daddy. As long as it pays, he'll use it.

[Martymer]

Billy: slavery, incest, genocide, rape, ... yup. All good according to your idea of what that word means. You don't get to talk about morality and expect to be listened to by thinking beings.

[rchuso]

Someone should remind the university that Craig attended: it's possible to revoke a PhD.

[maingun]

Craig is a master of making the unreasonable sound reasonable and gets paid well for it. He's a grifter, nothing more.

[username]

Objective morals is a dead end to me . Since we only have our subjective morals to judge them by.

[philosophyofreligion]

If it's in the definition of goodness that you ought to do it then you ought to do it nothing circular about it ..it just means that goodness carries its own inherent obligation ..just like it's inherent in the concept of gravity that it gravitates

[Anglomachian]

What exactly defines a competent authority? Is it an authority that is moral or just? If so, aren't you just pushing back the problem a step? If not, then what defines competency and why ought I care?

[TODORPAUNOV-bgbz]

"Divine command theory" seems to me to be just one big argument from authority or something very similar to it. "Why should I do this but not that?" - because this authority figure ALLEGEDLY says so.

[Bonko]

The way Craig defines "God" and "Goodness" here, they never really develop past the conceptual stage. There is no criteria mentioned by which Craig can determine that an action is good; he only tells us what is good by definition. Normally, we determine an act of goodness by using various criteria, such as the intent or the effect of the act. We commonly define acts of goodness as those that have a positive effect on people, and/or the intent to create such an effect. Changing that definition into "whatever God is" not only fails to associate God with positive effects, it also fails to associate the term "good" with positive effects.

[HeartlessKnave]

Haha, doodies...

I'll see myself out.

[badatheist]

so far wlc has one major obstacle, he has not proven his god is good and moral.

[jamesheartney]

This question hasn't advanced much since Euthyphro: "Is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

Objective morality is a dead end. Even ostensibly "objective" moral systems are useless because we don't agree about what they should be, and adding in deities just muddies the problem further since we don't agree on them either. Just accept that morality is a human invention, and doesn't need to be objective to be valid.

[pierrelindgren]

I'll put up the Humeian Gilliotine.

[xxsageonexx]

As long as you disregard what ‘goodness’ is.