Comments on: Review: Resurrection and Moral Order http://andersonpost.org/2009/02/09/review-resurrection-and-moral-order/ think|ink Mon, 06 Sep 2010 02:54:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: drew http://andersonpost.org/2009/02/09/review-resurrection-and-moral-order/comment-page-1/#comment-1627 drew Sun, 15 Feb 2009 03:59:31 +0000 http://andersonpost.org/?p=499#comment-1627 surely the Euthyphro argument only applies to a pluralist, anthropomorphic pantheon? surely the Euthyphro argument only applies to a pluralist, anthropomorphic pantheon?

]]> By: John http://andersonpost.org/2009/02/09/review-resurrection-and-moral-order/comment-page-1/#comment-1626 John Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:30:43 +0000 http://andersonpost.org/?p=499#comment-1626 Dan, You are like my conscience. I have <em>iResurrection and Moral Order</em> on the top of my 'to read' pile on my desk as I write. I really should read it, though it is certainly is not the easiest. I am currently attending a reading group which is going through Alasdair MacIntyre's book <em>After Virtue</em> which discusses exactly this issue. MacIntyre puts forwards the problem of the enlightenment failure to give a justification for ethics or morality. He, as I understand it, is ultimately arguing for a Thomistic, teleological understanding of morality but with an emphasis on shared tradition being the basis rather than God's revelation. Whenever I suggest that God could be the 'is' that we can derive 'ought's from they keep bringing up Euthyphro - the old 'is God's law good because he legislated it or does God only legislate what is good' problem. I wonder if O'Donovan gets around this... As I said I should read it! John Dan,
You are like my conscience. I have iResurrection and Moral Order on the top of my ‘to read’ pile on my desk as I write. I really should read it, though it is certainly is not the easiest.
I am currently attending a reading group which is going through Alasdair MacIntyre’s book After Virtue which discusses exactly this issue. MacIntyre puts forwards the problem of the enlightenment failure to give a justification for ethics or morality. He, as I understand it, is ultimately arguing for a Thomistic, teleological understanding of morality but with an emphasis on shared tradition being the basis rather than God’s revelation.
Whenever I suggest that God could be the ‘is’ that we can derive ‘ought’s from they keep bringing up Euthyphro – the old ‘is God’s law good because he legislated it or does God only legislate what is good’ problem. I wonder if O’Donovan gets around this…
As I said I should read it!

John

]]>