Notthe9 15:14, (UTC) i agree with the above. This page as it currently stands is purely criticism. It needs a section on supporters and their reasons for supporting. This page doesn't cover the topic in an encyclopedic manner. Xelgaex ( talk ) 23:16, (UTC) Mel, a few points. What grammatical problems are there in my edit? If you see any, then please list them for me or just go ahead and correct them. Your preferred version has obvious and pervasive pov problems-e.
Plato's Ethics: An overview (Stanford Encyclopedia
Furthermore, few if any religions claim to have texts detailing their gods' will concerning every possible situation. These gaps often concern situations that the writers of ancient religious scriptures couldn't have foreseen, such as those involving advanced technologies, especially biological and medical ones. Because of these problems, critics claim that one can never be sure if a person, including oneself, who claims to know god's will actually does know, or is lying, mistaken, or mad (or indeed if god has subsequently changed his mind, though this possibility. I've added the text to the article, and tried to clarify another problem. With regard to your other recent edit (and incidentally, don't mark your edits as m imp inor unless they genuinely are it isn't only critics of the theory that point out that it runs into philosophical problems; its defenders do too, and then either try. Also, the reference to the "isought" fallacy isn't very helpful. mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:34, (UTC) This article seems like it might suffer from some npov issues. It certainly has the feel of being written by critics. The article on utilitarianism and the part of the article on Kantianism on Kantian ethics do not seem to have the tone found here at this less respected ethical theory's page. I am not putting up an npov warning but i am changing the title of "The problems" to "Criticisms of divine command theory" and hoping that future edits might provide more balanced information.
If you have a specific problem, please state it, and I would be happy edit it in line order to accomodate your concerns. catquas 23:04, (UTC) After edit conflicts: The trouble is that one can only say precisely what is wrong in a case like this if one knows both what was said and what was meant. Only knowing what was said, i can only say that I don't understand. The reference to "rule book" doesn't meant that we're taking about religious texts; it's an English expression meaning a set of rules, whether written down or not. Could you place your suggested new text here first, so that we can discuss it? mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:12, (UTC) you probably can see the paragraph above. I would also like to add something about how although people agree that religious texts do not directly touch on, say, cloning, many believe that the answer to the problem can be found in the text because of general guidelines, analogous situations, principles derived from. Most religions point to their scriptures for answers, but it is still possible to question whether these really state the will of god.
I hold by my version of the last paragraph- "Finally, there is the question of how one comes to know what the will of God. Many point to religious texts as answers, but it is still possible to question whether these really state the will of God. Furthermore, few if any religions claim to have texts detailing God's word concerning every possible situation. These gaps in the rule books often concern situations that the writers of ancient religious scriptures couldn't have foreseen, such as those involving advanced technologies, especially biological and medical ones. Because of these problems, critics claim that one can never be sure if a person, including one's self, who claims to know the desires of God actually does know, yoga or pays if he is lying, mistaken, or crazy, or if God has subsequently changed his mind. This particualar problem is part of the wider problem of divine revelation, or the question of how we know anything about God. This issue is discussed extensively in regards to the very existence of God." What specifically is wrong with it?
Incidentally, it's not "my" paragraph; I didn't write it, and even if I had it wouldn't be mine That's not how wikipedia works. mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:27, (UTC) Hm you are right it is an empirical question whether they claim. I'm not sure what most religions would say on that. But there is no way to support the part that says "and if they do claim it, they are in error". How would we know if they were in error if we were not talking about a book or some sort of text? Furthermore, the reference to "rule book" seems to imply book. I just wanted to carify that what was being talked about was a book. I think i've got an acceptable solution, you can look. I just wish you would explain what was wrong with what I put instead of saying vague things like they are "unclear and innacurate".
Philosophy of Religion » Ludwig feuerbach: Theology
I have no idea what part was "personal research". I definately am keeping the modified person of the last paragraph in "the problems". It is completely rediculous to day that few religions have god's word on every subject. Maybe their texts do not, but this is not the only way relgions claim to know about God. I think write you also have to recognise that the real problem is how we can know anything about God, so that is why i added the reference to the existence of God.- catquas 18:00, (UTC) I'm afraid that I don't follow this, but your edits. mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:35, (UTC) I really would like to know what part you do not understand. I would also like to know the logic behind your paragraph "Few if anged his mind." It doesn't make much sense to me either.
There is no way to resolve this issue without discussion. You can't just keep reverting.- catquas 19:09, (UTC) Well, for example: "I definately am keeping the modified person of the last paragraph in "the problems". It is completely rediculous to day that few religions have god's word on every subject." makes little sense. Moreover "few religions claim to have god's word" id not refuted by a vague gesture at non-textual means to knowledge; if you know of a religion that claims to have god's word on every subject, then that would be a counter. As for reverting, what exactly do you think that you've been doing? And is your claim that something you've written has to be discussed before being removed, though not before being added?
Or do you mean that it is a fallacy to go from is to ought? If the latter, you are talking about the is-ought problem, not the naturalistic fallacy. Some people use "naturalistic fallacy" to refer to the is-ought problem, but they are different. First, the fallacy had been both made and pointed out before moore; I shouldn't rely on wikipedia articles for philosophical matters. Secondly, the naturalistic fallacy isn't just about the definition of "good".
mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:35, (UTC) Mel, the term "naturalistic fallacy" was coined. Moore in his Principia ethica, and it was used in a discussion of the definability of the term 'good' (and the property goodness). You might think that the fallacy itself (as opposed to the term) and its pointing out goes back further than moore, or that the essence of the fallacy extends to issues besides the issues discussed by moore. But that would be a substantive philosophical position going well beyond the scope of how the term "naturalistic fallacy" is primarily used. You shouldn't assert this position with the sort of authoritative tone befitting straightfoward claims like "Plato wrote the euthyphro " or "Bentham was a hedonist or make misleading claims like "the naturalistic fallacy isn't moore's". 22:15, (UTC) Furthermore, there were numerous problems with your "the problems" section. First of all, it is definately not npov, so i tried to remove some of that language.
Socrates - philosophy pages
Not only completely fallaciously, but in direct contradiction with the summary. I've returned the article to best its previous state, and added a section based on your comment. mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:55, (UTC) i've again had to revert your edits, i'm afraid. Leaving aside matters of style, etc., you're simply wrong on multiple counts (for example, the naturalistic fallacy isn't moore's; blume he talked about it, and accused Mill of it, but what does that have to do with this article? and (perhaps more importantly as regards wikipedia policy) what you've added is "original research". mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:42, (UTC) Well you might want to change the naturalistic fallacy page then because it says it was moore. What do you mean by naturalistic fallacy? Do you mean it is a fallacy to attempt to define good.
I don't have time to correct the divine command theory article, but it certainly needs. It's a widely debated and defended theory, and needs a very different article. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:45, (UTC) The part that was at the end of "The problems" confused metaethics and normative ethics. Divine command theory is animals a metaethical theory, while utilitarianism is a normative theory. Utilitarians can hold, indeed many have held, divine command theory. For example, according to Encyclopædia britannica's entry on utilitarianism "Another strand of Utilitarian thought took the form of a theological ethics. John gay, a biblical scholar and philosopher, held the will of God to be the criterion of virtue; but from God's goodness he inferred that God willed that men promote human happiness." I decided to leave "The Problems" how I had edited it, but get. If someone wants to include a normative argument, make sure that it is identified as such, and does not suggest that utilitarianism or Kantianism is inconsistent with divine command theory. catquas 01:39, (UTC) reading your comment above, before the edit itself, i was optimistic — but I can't believe that you gave the euthyphro dilemma as a (in fact the prime) criticism of divine command theory.
other. Doubtless i erred in adding the (capital. Euthyphro dilemma, nevertheless I strongly urge that someone more clueful than I remove the redirection that is currently in place for. Euthyphro dilemma., tagishsimon 10:32, (utc redirect fixed. Linked from here now too. I've just expanded the euthyphro dilemma stub, and in the process removed the claim that the dilemma refutes dct. Leaving aside the distinction between refuting and arguing against a position, dct is one horn of the dilemma. I've just discovered the same mistake here (together with the surprising (and completely false) claim that the dilemma is generally considered to have refuted dct!).
I also removed because it is my idea, and I don't want others stealing. I also added, and kept, the part about God being the creator off all, because it is a point I have heard many times, and seems valid, to a degree. David Gray, born may 8, 1985 resume -usa. The impression I got from my philosophy schooling was that the euthyphro dilemma had settled the matter, however, google search for pages on the dct without the term "Euthyphro" shows that, actually, the bulk of pages don't mention Euthyphro. Evercat 23:32 (utc when I saw that review. Alive, i thought, wow, what a great example of the problems of the dct. Hence, i include it here. But perhaps that's a bit self indulgent of me - comments? I think it is a nice (and genuine) example.
Commentary on the Apology of Socrates - friesian School
This article is within the scope. Wikiproject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where benefits you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on wikipedia. Ga, this article has been rated. Ga-class on the project's quality scale. Mid, this article has been rated. Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Contents untitled edit, i altered this because i personally saw a flaw, but according to wikipedia, personal opinions are not allowed, so i removed my paradox flaw in divine command theory.