The Test of Euthyphro

Below are the "Tensions" that I received from answering the Euthyphro test on Philosophyexperiments.com.

I allow my PHI 102 students to do a write-up about their results for extra-credit. They have explain the tensions they got, tell me whether or not they already knew about the tensions, and how they can attempt to grow past them. I don't allow them to critique the test, even though there is room for it. I want them to work on themselves. Most students already know how to discredit something they don't want to face.

My tensions were brought about by my trying to imagine a logically possible God.

The test is amusing. Plus, we can all grow from analyzing the inconsistencies in our beliefs.


"

Talking with God - Analysis

You responded that there are moral standards independent of God's will. This response has been given by 47% of the 71970 people who have completed this activity to date.
Tensions
If you look in the right-column, you'll find an explanation of what is meant by the term "tension".
We have identified 2 tensions in your responses, which represents a tension quotient of 25% (where lower is better). The average tension quotient for this activity is 69%.
Note: Since you do not believe that God exists, you should read the analysis below as referring to your archetypal construction of God rather than God.
Tension 1 (potential): God has freedom of will
You claimed that God has freedom of will, in that he is at liberty to exercise his power in any way he chooses. However, assuming that it is morally wrong to command what is evil, then God cannot command people to do what he knows to be morally wrong unless you accept that God is capable of immorality (which it is possible you do, since you do not think God is omnibenevolent).
Tension 2: God can obligate?
You claimed that there are moral standards independent of God's will. This claim sits uneasily with the widely held belief that any being that counts as God must have the ability to obligate through its commands: in other words, that it is necessarily morally wrong to disobey a command given by God. This view suggests at the very least that some aspect of morality flows from God. Although there is no logical inconsistency in conceiving of a God whose comamands do not obligate (see note, above, about "tensions"), it would nevertheless be a rather strange or unusual conception of God. One possible way of resolving this tension is to argue that while there are independent moral standards, it is also true that some of God's commands impose obligations. This is the position held by Christian philosopher of religion, Richard Swinburne, for example.
God and Stringency
Your concept of God has been judged by this test to be non-stringent. This indicates you think that God possesses only few of the characteristics traditionally associated with the God of the Abrahamic tradition (i.e., omnipotence, freedom of will, omnibenevolence, etc). As a result, this test will likely have judged your tension quotient to be relatively low. However, this is bought at the expense of a certain specificity in your concept of God. This brings its own problems. By stripping God of many of the traditional attributes of Godliness, it is possible to avoid some of the difficulties one tends to run into when considering whether "the good" and "the just" are loved by God because they are good and just, or whether they are good and just because they are loved by God. However, this comes at a cost, since the question which then arises is whether the entity you're left with is worthy of the designation "God". The trouble is it isn't at all clear that it is. "

Plagiarism

I recently had to report a student for plagiarism. In 5 years of teaching at Nova, it's​ the first time that I've had to do so. 

This event, of course, was terribly upsetting. 

I have all of my students submit their work electronically via Blackboard. When they do, there's a program called SafeAssign which compares their works with past works on various databases. Then, it gives me an originality report. It's not uncommon to have students with originality reports in the teens meaning that a percentage in the teens of their work matches the work of someone else. This is acceptable due to a combination of simple sentences or phrases that are likely to be in multiple papers and the fact that citations will often be near identical if they're cited properly. A quick comparison of the work in question has always, until now, shown the student to be innocent of any wrongdoing. 

This particular student had an originality score of 98%. The student had excuses, but none that were able to pass muster. 98%!

Nova's policy is that the student gets an automatic zero for the assignment, and that a disciplinary report be filed to see if any further action is required. As this student plagiarized on the research paper that is twenty percent of the course grade, his overall grade dropped from an A to a C. I'm not sure when the hearing will be. 

The Readings: Contingency, irony, and solidarity... Introduction

As promised, and just a little over a year and a half late.  

Richard Rorty's four-page introduction to Contingency, irony, and solidarity does exactly what an introduction is meant to do: it prepares the reader for the work ahead.  This might seem a weak compliment, but I've read more than one book whose author failed to grasp that concept.  Rorty's introduction tells the reader what the philosophical problem that he sees is, defines some key terms, and presents a solution.

The problem: Society has been long bogged down by failed attempts to come up with a theory that will unify the ideas of "private perfection" with those of us being "fellow citizens". "Private perfection" uses a vocab of "self-creation" which is "private, unshared, and unsuitable to argument". On the other hand, justice is the vocabulary of the citizen. Justice's vocab is "public and shared, a medium for argumentative exchange".

The solution: Rorty desires the creation of a *liberal ironist utopia. The utopia would not be built on a theory that would bring justice and self-creation together. Instead, a narrative must be created which will realize the equal necessity of these mutually-exclusive human desires and their vocabularies.

* Rorty uses Judith Shklar's  understanding of "liberal". For Shklar, liberals are people who believe that cruelty is the worst thing that humans do. So, there's nothing left-wing about Rorty's utopia. American Republics would fit under Rorty's liberal umbrella with Democrats.


Like most present-day philosophers, Rorty writes in a simple style that is easy to read.  He doesn't try to win over the reader by impressing him or her with his poetic style.  He does use his fair share of jargon, but he always does his best to define it for you. 


Intro completed. I'm getting ready to start on Part I: Contingency. Given current trends, I'll be posted a thread about it in roughly two years.

Peace. 

Joining up: So, what's Left part 2

As I was saying...

I do like the Green's platform, but I also feel that those same issues are not alien to the Democratic Party. Democrats are also in favor of equal rights for everyone, a cleaner environment, and strengthening labor. The Democrats platform isn't as streamlined as the Greens, but I suspect that's because the Dems have so many more members and office-holders. Inclusion almost always leads to ideas becoming more nebulous. Since I feel that my political views are supported by both parties, party platform can not be the determining factor in my choosing between them. This would, of course, require reexamination should daylight begin to shine through any growing distance between the two platforms. .

There is also the whole third-party factor. The Greens, along with the Libertarians, never get tired of telling anyone who will listen just how much the two-party system is rigged against them. In many ways, they're correct. There are many difficulties that "third-party" candidates shouldn't have to deal with. However, even if all of the difficulties were removed, it wouldn't solve their biggest problem. Their biggest problem is that many elections for offices in the U.S. are "first past the post" contests where only a plurality is needed to win that office. So, anyone outside of the two major parties will find it difficult to win an statewide or federal offices. There are, of course, office-holders who are Greens. However, none are at the federal or statewide level. Furthermore, most seem to have been elected to at-large seats where outside candidates have the best chance to win a seat on a council or board.

Both parties support my views. However, only one of them participates in my government at every level. So, I choose to join the more involved party. It's not an original argument, and I'm sure that the Greens are tired of hearing it. Sadly, for them, it's an argument that has legs.


Ultimately, when it's time to pull the lever, I'll select whichever candidate I feel is the best fit. Though both my history and intellectual tendencies suggest that I'll mostly continue to vote for Democrats. I do suspect that a Green candidate will tickle my fancy now and then.

Regardless of who I vote for, my goal is to contribute in my own little way to make my local Democratic Party the best it can be.I know that that sound cheesy, but that's life.

Lee Dems: Jan/Feb Review

I think that I'll write a review at the end of each month summarizing my engagements with the party. Since I didn't do so for January, this post will be for both January and February.

January:

26th: Monthly Meeting:

Having already joined the DNC and making a small donation to the Democrat Party of Virginia, I wanted to join the Fairfax County Democratic Committee (FCDC). Joining the county party seemed like a slam-dunk decision for me, because my goal has always been to be involved at a community level. However, the FCDC website recommends that anyone considering joining should come to a meeting before submitting his or her application. To get things moving, I decided to go to a Lee Dems meeting.

The meeting was at a local member's house. I barely made it on time, because I teach a class on Thursdays. By the time I got there, the house was packed. It was the biggest meeting the Lee Dems had ever had. The orange man, it appears, has the magical ability to make other people turn blue.

I met so many people. As there was more than one person, I don't remember any names. Fatima being the exception. I had worked with her at the City of Alexandria Department of Community and Human Services. It was nice to see her.

The meeting ended up being more of a social gathering than anything else. The Lee Dems just weren't prepared for that many people. There was a small round of motions, but they were Greek to the 3/4 of the people in the room who were new. 

Nevertheless, I enjoyed myself.

February:

2nd: Indivisible Mt. Vernon-Lee:

I had been told about this event at the first Lee Dems meeting. The folks that invited me put their best feet forward to explain what the meeting would be about, but I didn't understated because everything was new to me. I just assumed that it was another meeting, and I'd attend to keep my momentum rolling along. 

This was not a Democrat meeting so much as an interest meeting for Indivisible. Many Democrats having been inspired and encouraged by the turnout for events like the Women's March of Washington wanted to keep engaging in that fashion.

This movement is for people who want to be political, but want to march and not be tied down with boring committee meetings. On the other hand, I joined specifically to become a member of boring committees. Plus, despite my participation in the Women's March, I'm not a fan of protesting. I'm not looking down on the activity. It's just not my style.

To wrap up, I don't think that I'll be participating with this group. Though, I wish them well.

9th: Lee Dems Welcome Night :

This meeting was to explain the structure of the FCDC to new members and to folks who were considering joining. 

I got a lot of good information out of it. The local party fights in many arenas. I'll need to figure out were I can help out the most.

I did have a nice conversation with Ed Joseph. Ed is the Vice Chair of Precinct Operations for Lee District. We discussed the possibility of me becoming a Precinct Captain. This seems a pretty good fit given my background working as an election official in Alexandria. So, hopefully this will come to fruition. 

23rd: Monthly Meeting:

In anticipation of a large crowd like January's meeting, this meeting took place at the Landsdowne HQ. Given the number of people in attendance, this turned out to be a wise decision.

I, among others, was approved as a member.

Ed and I had another detailed discussion about Precinct Operations. The conversion occurred after we both remembered each other. So, there's progress!

I also had a lovely conversation with Kim Pollard about joining the Veterans Military Families Committee (VMFC). Kim is the VMFC Secretary. We had a lengthy conversation, and she thinks that I could be a good member for her committee. So, cross those figures.

Ending Notes:

Like any other group you want to be involved with, you end up having a lot of meetings to plan future meetings. I do feel that I'll be able to get some work done in the near future. Hopefully, I'll be working in operations and with veterans.

OLLI: date confirmed

As I mentioned last week, I'm planning a lecture for the Osher Livelong Learning Institute that will take place in July. I've been waiting to hear back from them with a time and place.

They just got back to me. And...

Class: Philosophical Case Study: What Makes a Good U.S. citizen?

Campus: Tallwood, 4210 Roberts Road, Fairfax

Time and Date: Thursday, 11:50-1:15, July 20

Now, I owe them a bio for their catalog. Writing my own bio always creeps me out. Bios are an exercise in bragging about yourself in the 3rd person. "Chris has a master's degree..." "Chris had the honor of interning at..." You know what? It's like being Donald Trump! "Nobody philosophizes like Outlaw. Sad."

Joining up: So, what's Left. part 1

Howdy!

I just reread my last post, and I apologize to everyone who endured all of its errors. I've corrected some of the more egregious ones. I would hope that the post's attempt to show why I couldn't join either of America's right-wing parties was clear enough.

If I discovered that anyone who knows me is surprised that I'm on the Left, I would be shocked and amused. My migration towards left-wing ideologies has been progressing steadily since my early 20's. Even Libertarian me used to describe himself as a social progressive and a fiscal conservative. 41 year old me is a social progressive and fiscal progressive.


Greens:

I truly identify with the Green Party's platform. They, among other things, do a fabulous job of supporting both land and labor. Balancing those issues is paramount for the success of any left-wing movement in any country.

The Green's commitment to environmentalism is second to no one. Their ideas are science based, and sustainable.

The GP is more than pro-labor. They're pro-union. That is not a distinction without a difference in contemporary American politics. Every politician claims to want to help workers, but many are also anti-union. I've become increasingly more pro-union as my hair grays. I find the GP's loud and proud support of unions to be refreshing and promising.

Globally speaking, I like Green politicians. Former Mayor of Bogota Colombia Antanas Mockus is probably my favorite current politician.


So, why did I join the Democrats when I identify so strongly with the Greens?

To be continued...

Joining up: What's wrong with right?

Following up from my earlier post.

Why the Democrats?

It wasn't an easy decision. Even after deciding that I wanted to join a party, I wasn't sure which one to choose.

Over my voting lifetime, I've voted for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, and independents. I did consider all four of these parties. Obviously, one can join neither the independent party nor the oxymoron party. 

Why not join either of the parties on the Right?

Republicans: As a teenager, I identified with the Republican Party. I was, after all, a poor white boy from Indiana. Any hold that the Party had on me withered as my identity moved away from being white, poor, and Hoosier. By the time I was 20, the Republican message was lost on me.

Both of my parents are Democrats. So, part of my attraction to the Republicans might have been an act of rebellion.

Still, I did consider joining the county Republican Party. It appeals to me that they are in the minority here. Plus, I thought that they could use more moderates in the Party. But, no. I just couldn't see it working out.

Libertarians: My 20's were dominated by the Libertarian Party, or ,at least, the idea of it. I never joined. However, I often sung the praises of the LP loudly. 

Again, I've changed. I no longer believe in many of the ideas that made me a Libertarian. Furthermore, I don't think that the Libertarian Party is the same party it was. When I was 22, the LP position on abortion was that it was an individual choice which should not be infringed upon by the government. The average Libertarian now seems to view it as a States' Rights issue. 

Most people like to claim that they're moderates. I'm not immune to the pull of this trend. In reality, I doubt that many people are so nonpartisan. It would be a lie to say that I am. I simply don't identify with the Right. So, joining either the Republicans or the Libertarians would be endeavors unlikely to bear fruit.

I'll return with my views of the parties of the Left.

P.S. I'm not in a proofreading mood. So, you'll just have to live with any grammatical or spelling errors.