How did the wrong things become the wrong things?

Where is the line? What is wrongness? What makes the facts about right and
wrong what they are? Where do they come from?
==============================================
==================
What is the nature of moral right & wrong?
(moral theories)
Divine Command Theories: The prohibition of a divine being makes it wrong
to murder. Wrongness is Divine Prohibition. X-ing is morally wrong if and only
if x-ing is forbidden by a/the/... divine being.ss
-Is there a God? [assume the answer is yes?]
-Which religion is correct?
->How do we know what the commandments are?
How do you get in contact with the commands? There are obvious true
challenges at telling a story with that. Let's suppose the divine theorist has
totally nailed this. Assue we have some way of knowing what the commands
are. There are a set of worries here that people have have worried about for
centuries. So let's just put it at ease with an assumption that we know
without a doubt that we have true commands from a/the/... divine being.
-The Euthyphro Problem
Lots of assumptions here. There's a God in this Universe. We have the true
commands. How is Divine Command Theory not proven already? We are
taking all of that for granted. Isn't that all of it? Just assume divine
commandment. How can there be an objection? This must be all of it.
Thursday will be when we are shown the objections that still prove against
that.
==============================================
==================
Thursday
Divine Commandment // Euthyphro's Holiness
Socrates will object.
What is the nature of holiness?
Not what things are holy, but what do things that ARE holy have in common?
1. Holiness is the love of the Gods. What makes something holy is divine love.
"When a God loves something, it makes it holy?"
This is incorrect because the Gods were known to disagree
2. So, some things are holy and not holy.
Well this account is flawed. It cannot be both.
3. "Oh, Euthro. I should say what all the Gods love is pious (holy), and what
all the Gods hate impious (unholy.)
[X is holy if and only if all the gods love X]
Should we inquire or just know?

We should inquire.
==============================================
==================
Socrate's Question
Do the gods love holy things because they are holy, or are they holy because
the gods love them?
1. Sacrifice is holy because all the Gods love sacrifice. (E's idea)
2. All the Gods love sacrifice because it is holy.
(S's claim)
3.
Explanatory Claims
A because of B
For 'a because of b' to be true: a must be true.
For 'a because of b' to be true: b must be true.
True Explanations are the only true explanatory claims.
For 'a because of b' to be true: it is not enough that a and b be true
For 'a because of b' to be true: no circular explanations are true.
[A because of A; A because of B; B because of A]
Are we friends? We share all the same interests. Why do we share we the
same interests? Because we're friends!
At the end of this conversation, nothing has been explained. Why are we
friends? Why do we -share the same interests? Nothing has been gained.
Because you don't understand why either are true.
[rant/ Good explanations always run from less fundamental to more
fundamental, less basic to more basic, the most common explanation is likely
the most common use. They have a direction. Generally causes proceed
effects. The headline here is that explanations have a direction. a true
explanation will take you forward. Explaining what something will happen
later. A circle is clearly not a direction, it's pointless. Nothing is gained. There
are no premises or conclusions. Not an arguement. Different set of issues.
Which fact explains which fact? Which direction does the explanation run?
/rant]
Socrates is raising a question. A question about direction of explanation. Is it
the love of Gods that explains that sacrifice is holy?or is the holiness of
sacrifice the reason for the love of the Gods being bestowed upon sacrifice?
Coorelation not Causation.
Euthyro should have embraced one denied two. He agreed with both premise,
a circular explanation. Euthryo's view is the first premise. His premise is
not false because it is a circular explanation. Both premise cannot be
true because it is a circular explanation.
==============================================
==================
The First Objection
1. Sacrifice is holy because all the Gods love sacrifice.

(E's idea) [because

_______________?]
2. All the Gods love sacrifice because it is holy.
_______________?]
3.

(S's idea) [because

The whole point of Euthryo's process is to deny that anything humans do is

inherently holy, or demands the Gods' love. It is nothing until the Gods put it
there. The holy things have no special matter until it is bestowed upon it.
There is an answer, but we can't say what it is because a mortal mind is finite
and cannot comprehend an infinite mind.
Moral Wrongness
X is wrong if and only if Gods forbids X
==============================================
=================
cont.

Philosophy 9.13
Divine Command Theory: X'ing is morally wrong if and only if X'ing is divinely
forbidden.
Question: Are wrong things wrong because God forbids them, or does God
forbid those things because they're wrong?
1. Murder is wrong because God forbids murder.
2. God forbids murder because it is wrong.
3.

(DCT)
(Socratic Theism)

==============================================
==================