btw just saw this. what an offensive way to corrupt No Gods, No Masters.
-
-
Do you mean God = the good in the sense that he is definitionally equivalent to the good, or do you mean:
-
God = the good in a way that, say, water might = H20? The first makes it analytically equivalent, the second...
-
is just to say God = the good is true insofar as God is a constitution of the good despite it being
-
possible that God is not the good in the analytically equivalent sense.
-
If the first one, it falls to Moore's Open Question Argument. If the second, we have to push it back even further:
-
We ask: Does the fact that God = the good mean that there is a metaphysically necessary connection here? other words:
-
Is he the good because he just has to be? If we admit this, we actually find ourselves having a moral platonist
-
insight: the last analysis makes *necessity* the driver of moral facts and not God himself.
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
