text:
Talk:Argument from morality

And/Or?
On "Variation 3: Moral order (Kant)" it reads:

 * 1)  The summum bonum is where moral virtue and happiness coincide.
 * 2) We are rationally obliged to attain the summum bonum.
 * 3) What we are obliged to attain, it must be possible for us to attain.
 * 4) If there is no God or afterlife, it is not possible to attain the summum bonum.
 * 5) God (and the afterlife) must exist.

Shouldn't the last one be "God (or the afterlife)" to correspond with the premise? One does not nessarily implies the other.

Note: I edited it myself, so revert it back to "And" if you don't find it to your liking

Circular Reasoning 2
I've removed the following:

''The assumption that "God exists" is an instance of circular reasoning, since the argument attempts to show precisely that God exists. However, despite this, many believers still consider this argument to be valid, because they consider God to be a necessary entity by most believers (making it an argument from personal belief). That is to say, they believe that God must exist and cannot not exist (the opposite of this would be a contingent entity, such as the Earth or the Sun — which exist but could very well not exist). This stance however, is criticized because it avoids logic and reason, despite it being what it tries to use to prove its assumption in the first place.''

The argument doesn't take as an assumption that "God Exists" (and if it's written here so that it does then it should be changed); rather, it takes as a premise that objective morals exist, and that the only explanation for this is God. Those are both, of course, contentious claims, but they're not circular; one (prima facie) doesn't have to first prove God in order to prove objective morals. Read C. S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man for a good (non-theistic) reductio ad absurdum argument for objective morality (which he calls "the tao"). (Lewis does later argue in Mere Christianity that God is necessary to explain why the tao exists, but that is separate from the question of whether it exists.)

Finally, the stuff about God being a necessary entity is an entirely seperate argument (either the Ontological Argument or certain forms of the Cosmological argument) and doesn't belong here; any formulation of this argument which appeals to such a concept to explain God is no longer arguing from morality. Snowboardpunk

 * I agree with this removal. "God exists" is not a premise of the argument as it is described on this page, but is a conclusion. It seems that whoever wrote this is conflating the assumptions of Christians (who do assume God exists) with the assumptions of this argument.Ischus (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit ok?
I dont edit wikipedia, but I thought I would this time...Is the edit ok, and if not, how could I have improved what I added? I may add/change criticism and objections section later. If you disagree with my edit, just revert it back. Hpmons 19:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Circular reasoning
Hey guys. I'm not sure I understand the logic behind the "circular reasoning" section. What argument is only valid if we assume that God exists? Certainly not the argument from morality, which is the subject of the page. That doesn't assume that God exists, but rather that absolute morality exists. It then concludes, solely on this one assumption, that God exists. So what argument assumes His existence? I just don't understand what the author(s) of that section are trying to say. Perhaps someone can clear this up for me. Then maybe we can all figure out a way to word it better. Thanks.

I'm cleaning the thing up and of course the circular reasoning issue has to be dealt with. I'm not sure I can formulate a non-trivially-circular argument that is equivalent to the original, at least not in the proper words. The idea of replacing the word "God" by "some fixed external standard of morality" only to conclude later that its name is "God" looks rather weasely to me, and moreover, it doesn't solve anything and just begs the question of how we are to know that this "external standard" exists. Then again, I'm an irredeemable atheist and positively perplexed. Anyone? --Pablo D. Flores 14:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How are we to know that this "external standard" exists? Here it is. A priori knowledge of the world- the type that you don't need to go test (a posteriori), but rather, the kind that you can (but not necessarily ever do) come up with by simply "lying on the couch." It can also be described as "self-evident," after the fashion of fundamental human rights- all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, etc. These are self-evident truths. This aspect of the starting point for the argument from morality makes it notably different from the argument from design (Paley), which does the circular "creation proves a creator who created it" thing as the starting point. In that case, the very notion of "creation" intrinsically implies a creator, which is cheating. God has to be at the end, not in the first step. The argument from morality does not have God in the first step; thus, it is not circular like the argument from design. Once more: the starting point is a priori knowledge of the world around us, which you're free to disagree with. But you'd be cheating if you did it just to maintain an atheistic perspective.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.99.47 (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

PS Larry's Text (quoted in this page) should be somewhere. At least when he discusses the possibilities, it is rather neutral. And I would not object to include the rest as a quote. The text is very well written and should not be wasted.

In response to this concluding paragraph:
 * So in light of this, let us examine a claim brought out earlier: "If God is dead, then everything is permitted." If God were to have any reasons for what he forbids, those reasons are what make the forbidden things wrong.  So it is argued that it is possible to understand that we might lead moral lives, and accept very strong moral standards, even if we deny that God exists.  We do not have to believe in God in order be rational in accepting moral principles.

Suppose the reasons God has is that committing the forbidden actions leads to separation between God and humanity, and that separation from the source of existence leads to annihilation, non-existence. Thus it is possible for God to have reasons for what he forbids, that wholly depend on God's existence, that leave standing the initial claim, "If God is dead, then everything is permitted".

I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but it seems quite obvious to me that the Argument from morality is not (in any valid sense of the term proof) a proof of the existence of a/many God(s). Why? I'll quote from the article: "The argument is valid if and only if the following assumptions are correct: Any thoughts on this? shouldn't this be pointed out in the article? --snoyes 18:24, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 1) God exists."

 * The original version of the topic, from Larry's Text, begins with the assertion that morality comes from God. That presupposes the existence of God, so I included that as an assumption.  Perhaps there is another formulation of the argument that renders it less trivially circular. Fairandbalanced 14:41, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * No, you're quite right that any "proof of God" will fail to prove him -- for the obvious reason that if a theistic God exists, he exists necessarily (that is to say, without need of anything else) rather than contingently (that is to say, because of some other fact). As a Christian, I nonetheless hold this position with some vigour.  Incidentally, I think Larry's Text does a brilliant job of expounding my own view of ethics as flowing from the character of God.  Which, I guess, is why (a) it doesn't belong in an article on some misguided "proof of God"; and (b) it needs work before it can enter an article on theological ethics.  Wooster 15:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A simpler version of the argument from morality is the observation that, in any argument, the various sides make appeals to standards. Suppose person A says to person B, "I'm right because of so-and-so," the so-and-so is a standard which A thinks A and B (and presumably every reasonable person) ought to adhere to. Some, perhaps all, things that are wrong trouble the conscience, which is a standard once again. Now, if the ultimate "good" standard really exists outside of ourselves (here's the place where many atheists claim the argument fails), then we might as well call it "God" or a reflection of "God" or something similar. If the standard in fact does not exist, then all argument is a waste of energy. In addition, we would have no objective reason to justify any justice system; all possible justice systems would be arbitrary and capricious, as objective justice couldn't exist. This would be absurd, so God must exist. User:Ngchen 21:10, 9 Aug 2004

"If God exists, then God and God alone decides what is (truly) right and wrong. Without God there could be no ultimate standards of morality." Why? Why should there be only standarts set by God? In my point of view the first thesis is not correct, therefore none others are. Jack

Below is text I moved from the article, until someone integrates it. Wmahan. 20:15, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Isn't Premise 2, "There is a moral law", also a blatant assumption? Definitions of what is and is not moral differ from culture to culture, and there are no absolute moral statements which apply in all conceivable circumstances. --StoatBringer 14:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Larry's Text
''The following is a portion of Larry's Text, which consists of lectures given by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger in courses that he taught at Ohio State University. Wikification and NPOVing are invited.''

The stability assumption seems to remove all potential for ethical progress. If, for example, slavery was morally permissible in ancient times, it is morally permissible today, because God's commands never change. Human concerns then become to a degree irrelevant.

Socrates first provided one common objection to theological ethics. Do we want to say that an action is right because God commands it, or do we want to say, instead, that God commands an action because it is right? If we say that actions are right because God commands them, then we can't explain why God commands what he does. On the other hand, if we say that God commands right actions because they are right, then we're saying that what makes actions right isn't just the fact that God commands them. Rather, God sees that an action is right, and commands us to do it because it is right. If we accept theological ethics as our only ethical theory, then there's no moral explanation for why God commands what he does. If God had commanded us to murder each other, then that would be right -- by definition.

One might object to this, and suggest that God would never command us to murder one another, but this is entirely irrelevant. The point is that if what is good or right is so because God commanded it and not because it has any intrinsic moral qualities, then God could potentially command us to do the opposite and that would then become the morally right thing to do. If one entirely accepts this line of reasoning, then the morality becomes entirely arbitrary and unfixed.

One proposal is that there is something about human nature, and the nature of the universe we live in that makes murder wrong; God recognizes these facts and, having recognized them, commands us not to murder each other. So what if we do say that God has reasons for commanding and forbidding what he does? Then we say: God's reasons, the facts about our humanity and our universe that lead him to legislate what he does, are what make actions right and wrong. For example, suppose he forbids us to murder because murder is totally contrary to human happiness. Then we may say: the reason that murder is wrong is that it is totally contrary to human happiness. Then God's reasons for saying loving each other is right will be just the same as our reasons for thinking loving each other is right.

Morality is then, strictly speaking, conceptually separable from what God commands. In order to understand what is right and wrong, we need only understand what God's reasons for commanding things would be, if God were to exist. And that does not even require that God exists. It is not so easy to separate God's commands and morality if you assume that God created humans and the universe in such a way that was consistent with his commands. Conversely, separating God's commands and morality presumes that God did not create the universe in a way that was consistent with his commands, or that his commands are inconsistent with the nature of the universe.

So in light of this, let us examine a claim brought out earlier: "If God is dead, then everything is permitted." If God were to have any reasons for what he forbids, those reasons are what make the forbidden things wrong. So it is argued that it is possible to understand that we might lead moral lives, and accept very strong moral standards, even if we deny that God exists. We do not have to believe in God in order be rational in accepting moral principles. Instead, we can deduce the reasons that a hypothetical God would have for defining moral principles.

A possible response to this objection is that God's commands are not arbitrary, but are a reflection of His own infinite, eternal, and unchangeable nature. God is defined as being the highest good, so therefore it would be illogical for us, as His creatures, to be able to consider His commands or His actions and find them to be evil. But if we had been created by an evil god, then that would not explain why we seek the good. Also, it can be argued that it would be impossible for evil to be the fundamental of a universe, because evil is primarily a negation - actions and commands are judged to be evil insofar as they are contrary to our standards of good. So therefore, if the world was created by a god, this god is good and not evil. Then it would impossible for Him to command good sometimes and evil other times, because God cannot contradict Himself. It would be as illogical for God to be able to command evil as it would be for Him to create a rock that He couldn't lift, or to destroy Himself.

We can recognize the rationality and goodness of His commands because He created the universe to follow laws, rather than to be chaotic, and because we were made "in His image" (Gen. 1:26) and thus have an innate moral sense. There are some things that almost all people agree upon (murder is wrong, you shouldn't steal from others, we can't go around having sex with whatever we feel like {animals, children, our parents, etc.}). Even people who do those things would probably object if someone did it to them. Therefore, there is a conscience that convicts us when we do wrong, and a judicial sense that is offended when others do wrong to us. A purely utilitarian ethic is judged by most people to be flawed (for example, it is difficult to find the utilitarian reason one would sacrifice himself for his country, and then there are utilitarian ethicists such as Peter Singer who believe that infanticide is permissible and that the elderly and disabled can be removed from the population if they are a burden). If the conscience and the judicial sense do not function in a strictly utilitarian manner, then it makes a transcendent basis for morality seem more plausible. According to this view, areas of moral consensus show God's fingerprints on His handiwork, so to speak.

Accurate presentation of argument
I added the NPOV dispute, b/c I feel that the article currently does not, in the most accurate manner, present the best argument from morality. The divine command theory is a only a subset of the argument from morality, and the article spends an inordinate amount of space criticizing the argument as opposed to presenting it in its strongest form. My earlier statement in terms of standard that can be appealed to in any argument might be a stronger version of the argument from morality, and it is at least not trivially circular. However, other versions of the argument also exist, and the stuff on utilitarianism is commendable. With a reorganization fo the presentation of the article, I think we'll reach NPOV. Ngchen 04:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * If reason is cunning, then morality is viscious.
 * You may quote me on that. At any rate, the problem with this artice is th subject itself... if we attempt to ask anyone (never mind multiple anyones) to define and edit these things, we might just as well ask our own mirror reflections to draw ourselves. Sweetfreek 14:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

C. S. Lewis link
The first link in the references section sounds as if it links to something by C. S. Lewis. The page that it links to, however, appears to be something else. -- Wmarkham 01:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of my edits
Dunno where else to put this, but here:

''The theist would cite counterexamples to those above, such as human rights abuses in atheist societies, typically communist China, North Korea, old East Germany and the former Soviet Union. ''

'''The "examples above" are already an counter-example to the argument's own prediction. There is no point citing counter-counter-examples.'''

''To the theist, this would be further evidence for, not against, the concept of an Absolute Moral Authority, and it's universal application in the human conscience, and thus for The Argument From Morality. For if peoples in a society with no structured concept of god have similar morals to those of believers today, the theist would argue, it would appear as though there must be an Absolute Morality.''

'''This part is irrelevant, the previous paragraph is a counterargument to "influenced morality by history". It has also been mentioned already. It is also circular reasoning because it is assumes the validity of the original premise - "If there is a moral law, then there must be a moral lawgiver."'''

Infinity0 17:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup January 2006
I added the cleanup tag, and readded the NPOV tag, because the article currently reads like a disjointed hodgepodge of attacks against several variations of the argument from morality. I think the article definitely needs to be thoroughly reorganized, perhaps listing the variations of the argument first and their underlying assumptions and brief justifications of the assumptions, and then proceeding onto criticisms and possible rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. Of course, rebuttals shouldn't be nested ad infinitum, but I don't know what a reasonable depth is. Also, the prevalence of various clear straw man arguments for all sides probably need to be removed. Ngchen 03:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Contrary Evidence section needs to be cut.
I don't really see the point of entertaining an argument about whether atheists or theists killed more people. The arguments, not facts, laid out against theism are rife with faulty logic and are not at all what wikipedia should accomplish. For example:

"Believers have been solely responsible for countless historical atrocities, including (but certainly not limited to) the Crusades and the September 11 attacks. While atheists have also been responsible for some atrocities, such as the Soviet gulag camps of Joseph Stalin or the genocide of the Khmer Rouge, they are not primarily motivated by their religious beliefs."

It can be argued that theists were not motivated by religion in their atrocities either, and that faith was used as an excuse for violent political action. Osama, it has been argued, is committing these acts for political rather than religious reasons.

I'm getting off topic, the point here is that this argument should take place somewhere else, not in an unbiased article about the AFM. It's a synthetic(logical) argument, so lets talk about logic, and get rid of this emotive garbage.

I am admittedly not unbiased enough to edit this article, so someone else needs to do it. Would deletion of the offending sections be acceptable?

 * WEll, the section is only small, a few lines or so. I think it should stay that size and not be deleted. On the other hand, if you see some problems in wording (like the ones you have pointed out) feel free to change them. :) -- infinity  0  17:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that this section should be cut; if anything its purpose in the Criticisms section is counter-productive as it sets up the critics position as a subjective one, which is echoed in parts of the response further down. Both of these seem inconsistent with reasoned/logical arguments above them. -- mr_happyhour

Complete Rewrite
I have rewritten the entire article, basing my rewrite largely on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article (perhaps being a bit too liberal in my borrowing of its form and wording). As it stood before, the article was a mess - arguments were poorly constructed, the "contrary evidence" section was irrelevant, and the "responses and counter-responses" section was a haphazard hodgepodge. My current version is not perfect, but hopefully it presents a nicer template to work with. Each variant of the argument will have its own criticism section, and the final "general criticism" section can have criticisms common to all forms of the argument. Dshin 06:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Infinity0, I like your revised numbering scheme. Dshin 20:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks :) Uh, just a heads up, it's customary to put new talk page sections at the bottom. :P -- infinity  0  20:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Oops, that makes sense. Fixed!  Dshin 22:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody could attempt to incorporate a "Moral anticipation" argument, highlighted in the "Eager anticipation" section of the following Internet essay: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/tom_wanchick/critique_vuletic.html. It is a hybrid of an argument from design and an argument from morality. William Lane Craig is among its proponents, and agnostic philosophers like Paul Draper recognize the argument as evidence for theism. Dshin 07:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Best explanation
I do not like the phrase "the best explanation". What does it mean exactly? I also don't like the phrase "This seems unreasonable". It's very logically weak. Srnec 02:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what is ambiguous about the phrase "the best explanation". It simply means that competing explanations do not add up.  As for the "this seems unreasonable" phrase, I agree that it could be flushed out a bit more.  Four distinct points are raised in the Euthyphro dilemma article, and I'm not sure which of the four should be highlighted, or if the reader should simply be referred to that article (personally, I find the second point the most compelling).  I'm a bit worried about getting into too much detail about all the various arguments and counter-arguments, as this can cause the article to spiral out of control (like the previous version did).  I've copy+pasted the relevant paragraph below-

 * The second horn of the dilemma (known as divine command theory) runs into four main problems. First, it implies that what is good is arbitrary, based merely upon god's whim; if god had created the world to include the values that rape, murder, and torture were virtues, while mercy and charity were vices, then they would have been. Secondly, it implies that calling god good makes no sense (or, at best, that one is simply saying that god is consistent).  Thirdly, it commits the naturalistic fallacy; to explain the evaluative claim that murder is wrong (or the prescription that one should not commit murder) in terms of what god has or hasn't said is to argue from a putative fact about the world to a value (to argue to an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’; see is-ought problem).  Fourthly, it seems to lead to the conclusion that all moral values are at the same level (because what is wrong is simply to disobey god); that is, committing murder is no worse than telling a lie.

Is "the best explanation" the right one? That's what I'm saying. The paragraph you pasted above seems to better catch the drift of the objections. Srnec 17:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, "best explanation", to rephrase, would probably be best translated as "most likely to be right" - of course, we cannot say for certainty that it absolutely is the right one, but I am not sure hashing this out is beneficial. Dshin 20:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign my previous comment)

General critiicism
The old "general criticism" is incoherent as stated because it only applies to Variation 2, and thus belongs there. Variations 1 and 3 do not depend in any way on the origins of moral norms. In addition the old general criticism section was not worded NPOV and was mostly un-refed. NBeale 00:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Locke
Why is Locke included here in such a manner? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.52.215.78 (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Citation 2
I don't see how that has to do with anything. Unless... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.52.215.78 (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Evolutionary dynamics?
Why is this link pointing to a non-existent page? Furthermore does it seem to anyone else that the phrase in brackets : "although some leading researchers on the evolution of altruism are Christian" is irrelevant to the validity of criticisms of the moral argument based on "Evolutionary Dynamics". This phrase is found near the picture of Nietzsche and anyone willing to edit...
 * I removed this as I don't think it's relevant either. Chimplode (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkin's has talked of how morals can be explained through evolution; that there are many moral codes culture abide by regardless of religion in his book the God Delusion. Also one could point out that there is no evidence to suggest that an atheist without religion as a "moral guideline" is any less moral than a person with one. Maybe someone could expand on this in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.178.238 (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:C.s.lewis3.JPG
The image Image:C.s.lewis3.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Newman
Newman's classic argument from the conscience would be good to include here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.196.55 (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche
Could someone please clean up the crisiim portion about Nietzsche? I don't think I know enough on this topic to make the required corrections.Spauldio (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Normativity does not equal deontological ethics
The quote "All forms of the moral argument begin with the premise of moral normativity, that is, that well-functioning human beings are typically aware of actions as being right and wrong." is troublesome - moral normativity presumably does not entail deontological ethics, which is based on actions rather than, say, consequences. Richard001 (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

William Lane Craig's statement of the argument
William Lane Craig put it thus in a speech: I think this simplistic formulation is a good one and ought to go in the article but I'm not sure where. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
 * Premise 2: Objective values do exist.
 * Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Also I'd like to know who decides what a "low importance" article is ... doesn't that kind of suggest bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I'd like to get something about Craig in, but I can't find any sources about it. That video you gave a link to has been taken down; do you know of any more sources. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is another video of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQOgPMbnsQE --BenMcLean (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Evolutionary naturalism
The article currently doesn't define what 'evolutionary naturalism' is nor does it explain why exactly such a view "can lead to moral scepticism". Indeed, the source for the claim that the implied moral scepticism's implausibility is Craig & Moreland, who, well, let's be fair, aren't exactly neutral in this fight.

If this were an essay, I'd ask it to be slightly more fleshed out how that argument works. I appreciate it isn't an essay but a Wikipedia article, but it'd certainly be helpful to the reader if the position that is argued against in 'Argument from objective moral truths' were actually fleshed out and put into the mouth of an actual philosopher! —Tom Morris (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your feedback Tom, I'll have a look at making those improvements. The section in the Craig & Mooreland source is written by Mark D. Linville (see here), though he might not be much more neutral. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I've improved the objective morality section - I fleshed out the idea of evolutionary naturalism and made the link from that to moral scepticism stronger. I've also found an additional source to link it to moral scepticism, which might be more reliable. I gave that whole section a copyedit too. Does that seem alright? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I only ask about the naturalism stuff because I kind of spent quite a bit of time studying exactly what people mean by "naturalism". It's one of those terms that the closer you think you've gotten to getting a handle on it, the more slippery it becomes. It's one of those words in philosophy where one cannot use it without being extremely clear on what one means.
 * There's the divide between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. Michael C. Rea draws a slight difference again between methodolgical and epistemic naturalism. Then some see naturalism as a metaphilosophical position about the role of science in philosophical theorising; a sort of anti-a priori-ism.
 * Okay, let's have a look at the revised version. It now says:
 * Because evolutionary naturalism proposes an empirical account of morality, it does not require morality to exist objectively, and could lead to moral scepticism or antirealism.
 * Again, I may not be getting my head around this, given I haven't read the essay in Craig and Moreland. It now makes reference to Ruse's book, which I have skim read. Anyway, is Linville saying that empiricism commits the ethical naturalist to some kind of scepticism or antirealism, or is he saying that if you are an ethical naturalist (however he defines it) and an empiricist about morality, there's nothing in your philosophical commitments that stops you from scepticism or antirealism.
 * I'm still not sure the view of the ethical naturalist is fully sketched out. Next time I have a day at the library, I can always poke my nose in and see if I can make any more sense of it. Thanks for the improvements though. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Ok, thanks for your feedback. I've changed that sentence again; now it reads:
 * Because evolutionary naturalism proposes an empirical account of morality, it does not require morality to exist objectively; Linville considers the view that this will lead to moral scepticism or antirealism.
 * Is that better, or does it need further clarification? I'll have a look at explaining ethical naturalism better too. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed a segment of this section, since the excised text wasn't consistent with the remainder of the paragraph. The paragraph generally argues against premise 2, while the excised portion presumed premise 2 and tried to argue against premise 1. This made the paragraph very hard to follow, and logically unhelpful to the nature of the argument.76.105.130.39 (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Argument from morality


text:
Talk:Jason

Untitled
I can't remember it all, but I remember Jason as kind of a sneak. He somehow used deception to win his wife (or used her in order to illicitly gain the golden fleece). Later on, when he did something or other else, his wife, Medea was so mad at him that she killed their children and served them up to him for a meal. Can anyone fill in the details? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.254.238.148 (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2002 (UTC)
 * It appears that has now been done. Ellsworth 19:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know why it says "Jason Stawicki" in the top section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleven even (talk • contribs) 15:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Add bible reference of Jason MagicKrystal (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Jason and Medea
Tucci528, I find that some of these articles link to Greek mythology as a phrase, and some to Greek mythology as separate words. Which is better? zadcat 16:21 Sep 5, 2002 (PDT)
 * In the context of Jason, I'd say Greek mythology was a better link. What knowledge about Jason would a reader gain from following links to "Greek" or "mythology"? Mswake 16:48 Sep 5, 2002 (PDT)
 * If I linked any to ancient Greece, it must have been an accident. I'd say Greek mythology always, unless there's some specific reason for a specific article to do otherwise. -- tucci528 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tucci528 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 14 September 2002 (UTC)

H-ghani According to Apollonius of Rhodes, Medea was shot by Eros' arrow, which made her fall in love with Jason (Aphrodite enlisted the help of her cherubic son so as to aid Jason in his quest). Medea helped Jason, and apparently, he promised to be hers forever. However, when they went back to Iolcus (according to Euripides in his drama, Medea), and were eventually exiled to Corinth by Acastus, he wanted to marry the local king's daughter Creusa to strengthen political ties, etc, etc. Medea, mad at this, killed Jason's new bride on the wedding day by witchcraft, then she killed her own sons by Jason, fearing they'd be enslaved or killed for her deeds. After a huge domestic with Jason, she flies away in a chariot pulled by dragons - apparently she flew to Athens where she married Aegeus, father of Theseus. Ellsworth, I think that you may have confused the Argonautic myth with the myth of Tantalus, which involves Tantalus serving up his son, Pelops, for dinner with the Greek pantheon. H-ghani —Preceding undated comment added at 08:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The story from the Euripides' Medea cannot follow the story from he Argonautica by Apollonius of Rhodes. I could list a lot of details that differ in those two stories. I'll give you an example: In Apollonius' view then, Theseus belonged to "days past", which means that he could not have been the victim of a plot conceived by Medea, nor could Medea marry Aegeus. Apollonius Rhodius thought that the first to be abducted was Ariadne since he represented Jason telling Medea: "In days past the maiden Ariadne, daughter of Minos, with kindly intent rescued Theseus from grim contests—the maiden whom Pasiphae, daughter of Helius, bare." (Argonautica 3.997). Apollonius' Jason obviously knows Theseus very well—and so does the girl he is seducing. Apollonius' view Theseus did not follow the Argonauts because he was retained in the Underworld: "But Theseus ... an unseen bond kept beneath the land of Taenarus, for he had followed that path with Pirithous; assuredly both would have lightened for all the fulfilment of their toil." (Argonautica 1.101). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.56.31 (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

There are stories of the Corinthian event that follow the story from the Argonautica by Apollonius of Rhodes. The same stories of the Corinthian event accompany those authors who count Theseus among the Argonauts. Eumelus, Pindar, Ptolemy, Pausanias and others, wrote such stories in which Medea ruled Corinth. If Medea was the Queen of Corinth, then she did not have to marry Aegeus. Medea and her children were central to the cult of Hera Acraea. Moreover, if the chest of the tyrant Cypselus dedicated at Olympia is an object of his patronage, then it suggests that Cypselus included scene of Medea and Jason on the chest to reinforce his right to rule. Pausanias records that the chest depicts Medea sitting on a throne with Jason and Aphrodite standing on either side. Medea’s rule at Corinth is hereditary through her father Aeetes. Medea, as the daughter of Aeetes, inherited the kingdom after Corinthus died childless. When Medea lost her children, she passed on the kingdom to Sisyphus and his sons. Euripides tale recounts the awful experiences that women generally had when they married. Medea adopted the role of the Greek wife, Jason and the children are her focus, but, when Jason leaves, her world appears to be ending. However, in order to achieve her revenge, escape and move on with her story Medea has no choice but to rely on another man, Aegeus. Acceptable example of stories: Argonautica by Dionysius Scytobrachion -> Medea by Euripides and Argonautica by Apollonius of Rhodes -> Medea was the lawful queen of the city Corinth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milangru (talk • contribs) 16:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Completely fictional or not?
Is Jason completely fictional, or based on a historical person? Or is the answer unknown? The article doesn't appear to address that issue, merely saying he's "from Greek mythology". dbenbenn | talk 17:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that he is regarded by scholars as a fictitious personage: the Argonautica is symbolic of the outreach of Greek civilization to other cultures of the Mediterranean region, and also (in the story of the Clashing Rocks) of the opening of the trade route to the Black Sea and the settlements along its coasts. Ellsworth 14:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the myth is supposed to be an amalgamation of many exploratory missions from modern day Greece, and their subsequent discovery of the wider world and the renaming of the Black Sea from 'hostile sea' (not sure of the Greek for it) to 'pontus euxinos' ('friendly sea'). This would explain the rather conflicting accounts of the ancient sources regarding the return journey of the Argonauts. The historian Michael Wood theorised that the original journey to Colchis (possibly modern day Georgia) was to plunder it for its gold. The romantic journey of love and adventure may have developed over the centuries so the Argonauts could be seen as heroes as opposed to a highly organised band of thieves. h-ghani 15:45 22 May 2006 (GMT)

There are studies going on (Poseidon Project for example) that are trying to determine this. At the time of the first re-writes (800 bc-ish), it was accepted as a part of Greek history, not a myth. However, multiple sources were already being merged, which causes confusion in later rewrites (1400 AD, etc.) Basically, there appears to have been multiple voyages that have been combined in one myth. Heck, there is some evidence that the "clashing rocks" have been found in South America. Jason was referred to as "The First Navigator", and there is some belief that he actually made it across the Atlantic ocean. Interesting stuff - but I am waiting for more of it to be published mainstream, backed with hard evidence instead of circumstantial, before even suggesting it gets added here. Turlo Lomon 08:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Reconstructed voyage
Dropped from article:
 * In the mid-20th century, Tim Severin led an expedition to retrace the search for the Golden Fleece. A boat was built at Piraeus duplicating, as nearly as could be managed, Jason's vessel. The crew followed the 'sailing directions' in the myth as nearly as they could manage, and they found the Golden Fleece! The story is in Severin's book about the Argosy. These findings have led some to believe that there is some factual basis for this mythological story.

This looks like BJAODN fodder - but if not, please provide source. Ellsworth 16:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The Jason Voyage by Tim Severin, Simon & Schuster, 1986 ISBN 0671498134 Dabbler 17:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here be dragon
Can anybody name the dragon Jason killed? Or did it even have a name? Trekphiler 07:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that it was an unnamed hydra.--SaNdY 20:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

An old vase painting shows an unconscious Jason being vomitted up from the dragon's mouth while Medea stands by (perhaps using her magic?), suggesting that the version of the story which survives is not the only one. I can't find a reference for this, but I remember the painting. I think it may have featured on the cover of "The Greek Myths" by Robert Graves Pignut 14:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)pignut
 * I have seen both Drakon Kholkikos and Colchian Dragon, which is basically just the dragon of Colchis. Though the fantastic vase painting mentioned above of Jason being spewed out by the dragon can be viewed on the Wikipedia page of the gorgons. The onlooking woman is Athena (She wears the Aegis), and the fleece can be seen in the tree behind.--FruitMonkey 13:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Rotten Boat?

 * I had always heard that, due to grief both from losing his new wife and guilt towards Medea, Jason killed himself. Are there just two differant versions to this, or is there another reason? User: Agape —Preceding undated comment added at 23:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Euripedes' version of Medea, Jason continued to live in Corinth, and was killed when a piece of wood that fell from the Argo struck him.--SaNdY 20:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)SaNdY

You are absolutely right. There is no such end. Euripides was one of the great Athenian playwrights and poets of ancient Greece. He wrote tragedies, not prophecies. You cannot read his work, and then invent some events and sequels. But that is why there are prophets in modern times who invented: 1. Jason continued to live in Corinth 2. Rotten boat. It's invented. Where did Еuripides write it so? Medea was not a prophet, so she could not predict the future. Something Medea said in her anger does not necessarily mean that it happened. Euripides so critical of traditional religion that many believed him to be an atheist. Euripides did not write, how their life ended Jason and Medea. He just wrote about the event in the Corinth (his vision, there is no sequel, no prophesy). There are other stories about the Corinth event, the stories of other authors are similar to his story or completely different from his story. Other authors wrote about the end of the life of Jason. There are only two ends: 1. Jason's life ends in Corinth. He perished or committed suicide. 2. Jason reconciled to Medea returned back to Colchis and conquer neighboring lands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milangru (talk • contribs) 00:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Move?
To me, it seems more likely that one will search for the name Jason or Jason Voorhees than the mythological figure. Therefore, I think this article should be moved to Jason (mythology), and Jason (disambiguation) moved here. -- Gray  Porpoise Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae 22:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That is actually a good idea (especially since I added Jason Voorhees to the disambiguation page after getting tired of seeing it being added to this page). I'd be more then willing to perform the task if anyone else agrees. Turlo Lomon 08:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think that would be a terrible idea. Keep the page as is; surving for over 2000 years allows you the repsect to be the first and foremost Jason.--163.156.240.17 12:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thessalus
The parentage of Thessalus is uncertain - i.e. who was his mother, since Medea killed her children? - Although there were mentions of twin boys he'd had on Lemnos. Moved this from the main article, as it is subject of discussion, and shouldn't be part of history, since it is definitely a subject of debate. Moving it here to discuss. Turlo Lomon 00:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Jason 2601:1C2:4900:5E80:9148:CAC:17BF:F27E (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this definatly belongs on the discussion page. Jason McConnell-Leech 14:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It says here: "Later Jason and Peleus, father of the hero Achilles, attacked and defeated Acastus, reclaiming the throne of Iolcus for himself once more. Jason's son, Thessalus, then became king." What is it? Two totally different story. The only source where it's mentioned Thessalus - Diodorus Siculus (60 BCE - 30 BCE) Book IV: In the mean time, every one judged Jason was justly punished in this loss, both of his wife and children: not being therefore able to bear the insupportable weight of his calamities, he killed himself. The Corinthians were even astonished at the extremity of his misery, and were especially perplexed concerning the burying of the children. Therefore they sent to Delphos to inquire of the oracle how their bodies were to be disposed of: and it is said, the oracle ordered them to be buried in Juno's temple, and that they should for ever after be worshipped as demi-gods. The Corinthians accordingly observed what was commanded; and Thessalus who escaped the cruel hands of his mother, was brought up by them. Afterwards he returned to lolchos, his father's country, and found Acastus the son of Pelius, then lately dead; and thereupon (as next heir to the crown) took upon him the sovereign authority, and called the people within his dominions after his own name Thessalians. But I am not ignorant that there are other accounts given concerning the naming of them Thessalians, of which we shall speak in their proper place. The second part: Later Jason and Peleus, father of the hero Achilles, attacked and defeated Acastus, reclaiming the throne of Iolcus for himself once more. (Source: Pind. Nem. iii. 55; Apollod. iii. 13.7) Pindar version of the event in the Corinth: Medea was the hereditary ruler and queen of the Corinth. In Corinth Zeus fell in love with Medea, but Medea did not give her consent to him, seeking to avoid the anger of Hera. For this reason Hera in fact promised to make the children immortal. But they died, and the Corinthians honour them. (Source: Pindar Olympian Ode 13.74) This returns to the evidence from Eumelos where Medea is responsible for the children’s deaths but more in an accidental manner, since they die while she believes that she is making them immortal. There is no antipathy towards Jason and there is no suggestion in evidence that Jason leaves Medea for another woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milangru (talk • contribs) 04:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

disamb
i don't fucking care what anybody thinks, there are alot of peopel who probly ownt even iknow who the fuck this person is, so guess what, switch it to disamb, i would edit it but i can'tr.--68.106.210.205 20:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphic Argonautica
User:Athang1504 has added a section on "The Orphic version" of the return journey. Discussing the Orphic Argonautica is sensible, but I'm concerned that this section may be giving undue weight to an unusual interpretation of the Argonautic geography. Some of the statements it makes are definitely fringe views (e.g., that the poem is pre-Homeric; Fritz Graf in the OCD dates it to "late antiquity"). The section seems to be based entirely on Athanasios Angelopoulos's Archaioi Laoi (there's apparently no English translation, although the References section gives its title in English). I can't find any evidence that this book has been reviewed or discussed by scholars of Greek mythology. The book is held by only three libraries listed on WorldCat, and Googling the publisher "Nea Thesis" suggests that it specialises in far right political works. Does this relocation of Colchis have some bearing on modern ethnic politics? EALacey (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Insignificant Trivia
Wikipedia is a tertiary source. This means that Wikipedia is a catalogue of secondary sources and is not a venue for original search. This means that - in principle - everything included in Wikipedia should be tied to a secondary source and sourced. Everything without a source is subject to deletion without cause. No factoid is innocent until proven guilty. If it doesn't have a source it should be gone. This allows us the luxury of having less stuff with more confidence it is right rather than more stuff where we have no idea what is right or what is wrong. Some things may be allowed to remain unsourced as a courtesy. On top of this, the requirement of the existence of a secondary source ensures significance. If no writer of any secondary source out there has bothered to mention a factoid, it is probably insignificant and not worthy of inclusion. The more insignificant nonsense that gets included, the harder a reader has to work to get significant information out of an article.

In fact, you will notice that truth is not a sufficient condition for inclusion. It is truth as evidence by a secondary source. Typically truth not evidenced by a secondary source is original research, and thus does not merit inclusion. It may be true that in some book the character Joe Bob was nicknamed "Grendel", and you know this is true because you read the book, but this is original research since you are not using a secondary source.Ekwos (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Phineus and the Harpies
In this article, Phineus is said to have incurred Helios's wrath by preferring to live a longer life without his sun, causing Helios to send the harpies upon him. However, I have heard the reason for the harpies differently told, and wonder if you could include it as an alternative reason. All of the Wikipedia articles I have checked containing the story about Phineus and the harpies use this reason, and I will present it to you as it is told in Edith Hamilton's Mythology by transcribing an excerpt from it directly: "Where the Argonauts beached their boat for the night lived a lonely and wretched old man, to whom Apollo, the truth-teller, had given the gift of prophecy. He foretold unerringly what would happen, and this had displeased Zeus, who always liked to wrap in mystery what he would do—and very sensibly, in the opinion of all who knew Hera. So he inflicted a terrible punishment upon the old man. Whenever he was about to dine, the Harpies who were called "the hounds of Zeus" swooped down and defiled the food, leaving it so foul that no one could bear to be near it, much less eat it." Later it is said that the harpies would actually eat all of his food and leave an "intolerable odor behind them", but you can figure all of that out and do with it what you like. What I am mostly concerned about is that Zeus's curse should be offered as an alternative explanation for the harpies along with Helios's rage. 219.76.99.194 (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The part on the article has been changed to more closely match the Harpies article. Of course Edith Hamilton's version is based upon late versions of the tale and aimed at children. DreamGuy (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting past the Guardian of the Fleece
I found on the Internet a transcription of Apollonius' Argonautica (I hope it is trustable; the link is http://classics.mit.edu/Apollonius/argon.html . Unfortunately, it seems to me that Books I, III, and IV are cut off, but the download has the full text). While indeed the Fleece's guardian is sleepless, it is a serpent, which, while very similar to a dragon, is a point I would like to stress. More importantly, Medea does not only use a potion/brew to lull the serpent into sleep, but also sweet, magical singing. Here is the excerpt from the Argonautica concerning this:

"And as he writhed, the maiden came before his eyes, with sweet voice calling to her aid sleep, highest of gods, to charm the monster; and she cried to the queen of the underworld, the night-wanderer, to be propitious to her enterprise. And Aeson's son followed in fear, but the serpent, already charmed by her song, was relaxing the long ridge of his giant spine, and lengthening out his myriad coils, like a dark wave, dumb and noiseless, rolling over a sluggish sea; but still he raised aloft his grisly head, eager to enclose them both in his murderous jaws. But she with a newly cut spray of juniper, dipping and drawing untempered charms from her mystic brew, sprinkled his eyes, while she chanted her song; and all around the potent scent of the charm cast sleep; and on the very spot he let his jaw sink down; and far behind through the wood with its many trees were those countless coils stretched out."

It's not much to get worked up over, but the detail is missing from the article. 219.76.99.194 (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Greek dragons were monstrous serpents, not four legged winged beasties associated with the word these days. DreamGuy (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Addition to the references section
They Might Be Giants reference Jason in their song Birdhouse in your Soul:

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/they-might-be-giants/birdhouse-in-your-soul.html

They are possibly referencing Talos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisjer (talk • contribs) 22:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So? And, no, they don't reference Talos. References sections are for scholarly sources, not trivial mentions in other media. DreamGuy (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Aeetes (Aeëtes?)
When Aeëtes is mentioned in the article, it is mentioned without the umlaut over the second 'e'. Should this be changed? Aacehm (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Phrixus?
I think that it would be a good idea to add something about Phrixus since he was the one responsible for giving the fleece to Aeëtes. Aacehm (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been done by me, feel free to add suggestions Aacehm (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Time Period
What time period did he live in? Was it supposed to be a long time before the Trojan War (1194-1184 BC)? I know it was before that because they mention him in The Odyssey. But was it a long time before that or was it just like in the past century or two? 75.27.38.167 (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One source I found estimates he lived around 5000 BC, and has an interesting analysis of his voyages. It is a very interesting read. Iam not sure how much, if any, should be incorporated into this article, though. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The only meaningful answer is in regard to the chronology internal to the myths. Since Medea later marries Aegeus, king of Athens and father of Theseus, this places the Argo voyage in the generation before the Trojan War. (5000 BC is the Neolithic period; locating the myth in historical time is not really very productive anyway.)Malopex (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Related to this question of time: why is he called a "late" mythological hero in the article's first line? I am a Classics professor and teach Greek mythology for a living: I propose the word "late" be removed, since it doesn't convey anything either clear or apparently meaningful. True, the fuller extant versions of the Argonautica myth are later, post-Classical. But the Jason and Argo cycle are old (mentioned in the Iliad, Odyssey, and Hesiod's Theogony).Malopex (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments and questions
After reading the article, I would like to make a few comments and ask a few questions.

1. "in other versions, Calais and Zetes chase the Harpies away". Who wrote these versions?

2. Why is Apsyrtus killed? No reason is given.

3. "In another version, Medea lured Apsyrtus into a trap." A source is needed for this.

4. "He was asleep under the stern of the rotting Argo when it fell on him, killing him instantly." I don't understand this sentence. ICE77 (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Significant triva
Masc. proper name, from Gk. Eason, from Heb. Yehoshua, a common name among Hellenistic Jews (see Joshua). In Greek mythology, son of Aeson, leader of the Argonauts, from L. Jason, from Gk. Iason, perhaps related to iasthai "to heal." The names were somewhat merged in Christian Greek (Koine Greek.) (OED). --Pawyilee (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2014
Gegeines should be Gegeneis, Greek γηγενεῖς 'earth-born'

David van E (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

❌ - They appear to be different mythical creatures

"The Gegeneis were Giants that were created from the blood of Uranus when he was castrated. They were already fully mature and were covered in full battle armour."

"Gegeines is the Greek name for the Earthborn. They have six arms each and wear nothing but canvas loincloths."

As the article states "Gegeines which are a tribe of Earthborn giants with six arms and wore leather loincloths" we appear to be talking about Gegeines not Gegeneis - Arjayay (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

since this page is protected, delete please this line from the beginning of the article

 * In the modern world, Jason has emerged as a character in various adaptations of his myths, such as the 1963 film Jason and the Argonauts and the 2000 TV miniseries of the same name. Jason is also the main character in the British TV series Atlantis.

This f***ing series are mentioned twice, at the beginning and at the end of the article, there are a special article for pop culture references to Jason, there is a special chapter in this article for the cultural references and, finally, those who read this article are interested to read about Jason, not about some TV series so it's simply rude to put such a line at the very beginning.217.118.64.60 (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It might not be appropriate, I don't have a dog in that fight, but how is it rude? Someone's taking things WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too seriously.68.51.193.141 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2015
Category:Dragonslayers

76.88.98.65 (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ putting a dragon to sleep with a potion is not slaying it - Arjayay (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request - May 9 2017
Right under Cyzicus it mentions the Doliones, but it's a red-link. The link could/should link to the Dolionians page, but I can't fix it. Can someone do that? 2600:8804:200:F73:A819:9B50:87AD:478 (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Jason. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101230065134/http://recherche.univ-montp3.fr/cercam/article.php3?id_article=405 to http://recherche.univ-montp3.fr/cercam/article.php3?id_article=405

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Jason and Medea reconciled
There is also a version: Jason and Medea reconciled, returned back to Colchis, and as having there restored Aeëtes to his kingdom, and lived happily ever after. Source: Tacit. Ann. vi. 34; Justin, xlii. 2, Strab. xi. pp. 526, 531 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.52.246 (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

In Medieval Period, the story of Jason and Medea has this ending. Examples: GENEALOGIA DEORUM GENTILIUM - Giovanni Boccaccio, THE HISTORY OF JASON - Raoul Lefèvre, and other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milangru (talk • contribs) 01:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2018
72.173.89.225 (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 20:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Jason's ending
It says here: "As a result of breaking his vow to love Medea forever, Jason lost his favor with Hera and died lonely and unhappy. He was asleep under the stern of the rotting Argo when it fell on him, killing him instantly." I'm sorry, an ancient (776 BC – 480 BC), antique (480 BC – 476 AD) or medieval (476 AD – 1453 AD) source does not exist for this. Someone invented this in modern times. It's silly to invent the story that did not exist in the antique era. If I'm wrong, correct me and give an antique source. Euripides never made a sequel to the story of Medea. So it is not known how Jason's life ended. There are only two finishes: Jason committed suicide (Diod. Sic. iv. 55 and other sources) or reconciled with the Medea (Justin, xlii. 2 and other sources). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milangru (talk • contribs) 06:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The source is in the article, currently it's listed as citation number 21, linked directly after the sentence you quote. It comes from a translation of The Medea by Gilbert Murray, dated 1912. If you click the citation and follow the link you can read the source directly on the Internet Archive which has a scan of the book, pp. 77–78, 96. I just checked and another translation from 1891, by Edward P. Coleridge, also features Medea describing how Jason will meet his end - being crushed by the Argo. Of course, that doesn't mean they are correct, or that I disagree with your issue. In the absence of an older source or better citation that may, or may not, disprove Jason's end then the current citation will stand by default. Please feel free to quote older sources here and I'll be happy to help you edit the page.  —Flicky1984 (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I do not want to change anything, I just want to say that such an end did not exist in the Antique (480 BC – 476 AD) era. It was invented in the 19th century or something earlier - for this I'm not absolutely sure. Following his failed marriage to Medea while in Corinth, for one of several reasons depending on the version, Jason left Medea or a commit suicide. Another version of the event in the Corinth: Medea was the hereditary ruler and queen of the Corinth. Medea killed her children by accident (trying to make them immortal) or they killed them the citizens of Corinth.(Source: Eumelos, Pindar, Kreophylos, Pausanias and others). According to Neophron, Diodorus, Hyginus and other: Jason's life ends in Corinth. He perished or committed suicide. Example - Diodorus Siculus (60 BCE -30 BCE) Book IV: Medea's sons presented the new bride with poisoned plasters, which she applying to herself, miserably perished, and her father together with her, by only touching her body in endeavouring to help her. Medea thus succeeding in her first attempt, proceeded sill to be further revenged upon Jason; for she was so far transported with rage and jealousy, yea, with implacable cruelty, that notwithstanding Jason's narrow escape, and the destruction of the bride, she further enhanced his misery, by murdering his sons he had by her.Jason was justly punished in this loss, both of his wife and children: not being therefore able to bear the insupportable weight of his calamities, he killed himself. According to Strabo, Justin, Tacitus and other: Jason survived the Corinth event (Eumelos, Pindar, Kreophylos variant of the event in the Corinth - are the most acceptable for this variant), he has experienced other adventures, regained its throne of  Iolcus, reconciled to Medea returned back to Colchis and conquer neighboring lands and became a god. Temples and cult of Jason were spread over the whole do Asia, Media, Colchis, Albania, Iberia, Armenia. Example - Strabo, Geography (20 BCE - 24 CE) Geography 11.13: The custom however of the vanquished appeared to the conquerors to be so noble, and appropriate to royal state, that instead of nakedness or scanty clothing, they endured the use of the feminine stole, and were entirely covered with dress to the feet. Some writers say that Medeia, when with Jason she ruled in these countries, introduced this kind of dress, and concealed her countenance as often as she appeared in public in place of the king; that the memorials of Jason are, the Jasonian heroa, held in great reverence by the Barbarians, (besides a great mountain above the Caspian Gates on the left hand, called Jasonium,) and that the memorials of Medeia are the kind of dress, and the name of the country. Medus, her son, is said to have been her successor in the kingdom, and the country to have been called after his name. In agreement with this are the Jasonia in Armenia, the name of the country, and many other circumstances which we shall mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milangru (talk • contribs) 15:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Eumelus, Corinthiaca
Pausanias, Description of Greece (Book II, Chapter III, 8): Eumelus of Corinth (between 760 BC and 740 BC) said that Helius gave the Asopian land to Aloeus and Ephyraea to Aeëtes. When Aeëtes was departing for Colchis he entrusted his land to Bunus, the son of Hermes and Alcidamea, and when Bunus died Epopeus the son of Aloeus extended his kingdom to include the Ephyraeans. Afterwards, when Corinthus, the son of Marathon, died childless, the Corinthians sent for Medea from Iolcus and bestowed upon her the kingdom. Through her Jason was king in Corinth, and Medea, as her children were born, carried each to the sanctuary of Hera and concealed them, doing so in the belief that so they would be immortal. At last she learned that her hopes were vain, and at the same time she was detected by Jason. When she begged for pardon he refused it, and sailed away to Iolchus. For these reasons Medea too departed, and handed over the kingdom to Sisyphus.

The oldest source and very important for understanding the second version of the myth. Jason and Medea were reconciled after their divorce. Together with Medus, they returned to Colchis and conquered a number of countries, temples were erected for him.(Source: Strabo Geography 11.13; Pompeius Trogus and Epitome of Justin, Epit. 42.2.12; Tacitus Annals VI 34; Pliny the Elder Book VI. 1.12 History of Nature; Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax. Peripl 88; Gaius Julius Solinus 15.5) For Hyginus' version: Medea and Medus return to Colchis without Jason (Source: Hyginus fab. 27). Jason burned to death with Creusa and Creon son of Menoecus. When Medea saw the palace burning, she killed her children from Jason. It is quite clear that there are two different variants of myth. They do not need to combine them and make an illogical story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milangru (talk • contribs) 23:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Queen Hypsipyle
After fleeing Corinth, Medea became the wife of Aegeus, who later drove her away after her unsuccessful attempt to poison his son Theseus. Ariadne in Greek mythology, was a Cretan princess and daughter of Pasiphae and the Cretan king Minos. After Ariadne, daughter of Minos of Crete, was abandoned by Theseus, she wed Dionysus - god of wine, son of Zeus and Semele. Ariadne bore Dionysus three sons - Thoas, Oenopion and Staphylus. Thoas the fleet-footed was bequeathed Lemnos. When the Lemnian men took Thracian women as concubines, the Lemnian women took vengeance by slaying their men. Thoas alone survived because his daughter Hypsipyle set him adrift. He landed on the shores of the Thracian Chersonese, and the Taurians made him their king. Lemnos was repopulated when the Argo landed there. Jason fathered twin sons upon Queen Hypsipyle: Euneus, who would be king of Lemnos at the start of the Trojan War; and Nebrophonius. According to some authors: Queen Hypsipyle and Jason - impossible connection. Queen Hypsipyle cannot have children with Jason. Hypsipyle was traditionally the granddaughter of Ariadne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milangru (talk • contribs) 11:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You have already written that there are two different versions of the myth and should not be confused. This is how illogical and stupid stories are created. The story has no problem if you follow this sequence of events: 1. Argonautica by Apollonius of Rhodes. The Isle of Lemnos - Jason fathered twins with the queen Hypsipyle 2. In a mythical story of the city of Corinth it is said that Medea was the lawful queen of the city. 3. Medea relinquished his throne, then she went to Italy where her name was Angitia. 4. She has nothing to do with Aegus. She did not go to Athens. 5. Theseus could have been an argonaut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.127.35 (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The Corinthians kill Medea's children's
The other  versions report  that  Corinthians  killed  the  children  at  the  temple  of Hera. Parmeniscus, a pupil of Aristarchus: The women of  Corinth, unwilling to be ruled by a foreigner  and  a  witch, plotted against  [Medea]  and  killed  her adopted children, seven  boys and  seven  girls. When attacked, the children  fled  to  the  temple  of Hera Akraia  and  sat  before  it. The Corinthians still did  not  spare  them  but  killed  them  all  at the  altar. A plague  affected  the  city  and  many  bodies  were destroyed  by sickness;  when  they  consulted  the  oracles,  the god pronounced  that  the pollution  of  Medea's children must  be appeased. Therefore every  year  among  the  Corinthians  until  our  own  times,  seven  boys  and  seven  girls  of noblest  parents  must  spend  a  year  in  the  goddess'  sanctuary and  with  sacrifices  appease  the  anger  of  [Medea's adopted children] and  the  resulting rage  of the  goddess. The version of Creophylus:  Medea,  having  finished  her  time  in  Corinth,  is said  to  have poisoned  Creon,  the  city's  ruler. Afraid of  his  friends  and relatives,  she  fled to  Athens,  but  because  her  sons  were young  and  could  not  accompany  her,  she  sat  them by  the altar  of Hera Akraia,  thinking their  father  would  see  to  their safety. But Creon's kinsmen  killed  them  and  gave  the  explanation  that  Medea  killed  not  only  Creon  but  also  her  own children. The untrue  story  that  Medea murdered  the children is  one such  rationalization, found  not only in Creophylus  but  more  explicitly  in  Parmeniscus,  who  reported that  the  Corinthians  paid  Euripides  five talents  to  make  Medea the  murderess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.28.157 (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The stories about Мedea
There are a lot of stories about Мedea, the most common details that are mentioned in those stories were as follows: Medea falls in love with Jason, a prince sent to Colchis by his uncle Pelias to gain her kingdom's greatest treasure, the Golden Fleece, from her father Aeetes. He swears love to her and she gives him the potions, amulets and charms necessary to defeat the dragon, fire-breathing bulls and earth-born soldiers that guard the Fleece. The Fleece won, Jason and Medea steal away from Colchis. Back in Iolcos, Jason asks Medea to use her magical powers to rejuvenate his aging father, Aeson. She does so successfully, and then promises similar benefits to Jason's tyrannical uncle Pelias: however, she deliberately neglects to prepare the potions correctly, and having been stabbed by his daughters on Medea's orders, Pelias dies. Pursued by his son Acastus, Jason and Medea flee to Corinth, where they live for some years under the protection of King Creon. Eventually, Jason abandons Medea to marry Creusa, Creon's daughter. Furious, Medea murders Creusa, and embracing his daughter, Creon is also killed. Medea kills their two young sons and escapes - in the tragedies of Euripides and Seneca, by taking advantage of her divine origins and summoning a dragon drawn chariot. Another tradition tells of Medea, described as "Corinthian", which restores to her the original characteristics of queen, priestess and embodiment of the goddess in a city ruled by her. In a mythical story of the city of Corinth it is said that Medea was the lawful queen of the city. According to this tradition Aeetes, as son of Helios, has a right of sovereignty over Corinth. Under this law Medea, as granddaughter of Helios, is called by the Corinthians themselves to rule as queen over the city, since the last Corinthian king did not leave heirs. However, it is Medea, that, as queen, makes her consort Jason king This mythical story of the enthronement of Jason at Corinth coincides with the representation of the hierarchical structure of societies, where the queen is in fact the incarnation of the goddess, who rules accompanied by the king, the hero. Medea tried to make the children immortal and the children died. Due to the death of his children, Jason left Medea. In the versions of the story that continue beyond this point, she often seeks sanctuary with King Ageus. Having married Ageus, she is driven out of Athens after an unsuccessful plot to poison his son Theseus. In other the story: Medea flies to Italy, where she notably taught locals her healing arts. Тhere it got the name Angitia. Medea is said to have taught the Marsi to cure fevers and snakebites. Finally, she is described as reconciling with Jason and restoring her father to the throne and helping her husband Jason, to conquer more kingdoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.220.218.198 (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Popular Culture Reference
The They Might Be Giant's song "Birdhouse In Your Soul" references Jason and the Argonauts: "There's a picture opposite me Of my primitive ancestry Which stood on rocky shores and kept the beaches shipwreck free Though I respect that a lot I'd be fired if that were my job After killing Jason off and countless screaming Argonauts" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zryanne (talk • contribs) 19:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 1 November 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Arguments for and against with policy and non-policy based reasoning appear on sides of support and opposition here. On the supporting side, the main argument appears to be that the current title would leave a reader feeling astonished, while the opposition appears to center around the common name and the low number of article page views. I cannot find consensus that the page should be moved from the current title, nor that the page belongs at the current title. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Jason → Jason (mythology) – Though a well-known mythological Greek hero, I don't believe this is the clear primary topic, as this is a common "regular name", similar to James or John (which are dab pages). Along with this move, I would propose either Jason (disambiguation) page be moved here, or Jason (given name) be moved here. Natg 19 (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Do you have something more than a gut feeling? What could rival it for primary topic status? I checked this and John and James are much more common names than Jason. Killuminator (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My original thoughts were that Jason (given name) may be primary than this topic, but perhaps this is incorrect and against the current titling policy. Natg 19 (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Support per nomination, paired with Jason (disambiguation) → Jason. There are 27 entries listed upon the Jason (disambiguation) page, with no indication that the renown of this character from Greek mythology overwhelms the combined notability of the remaining 26 entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Support per nom. Orchastrattor (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Seems pointless—neither of the other two pages should be moved to this title, as that would create more ambiguity, not less; and this title doesn't seem to be causing confusion—if people land on the wrong page, hatnotes direct them appropriately.  And while this proposed move may or may not be part of the trend, I find it annoying that such moves are always proposed for the historical/mythological subjects who have tons of namesakes, as though editors felt peeved/embarrassed to admit the origin of various names, or just can't stand the idea that the original subject is the primary topic, or that the primary topic is a historical/mythological figure.  It's a solution in search of a problem.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose As the primary topic for only "Jason", although I do think Jason Voorhees should be added directly to the hatnote of the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * support per Roman Spinner, and add Jason Vorhees to the disambiguation page per Zxcvbnm -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose per @Zxcvbnm. I'll add that many if not most of the pages on the disambiguation page are obviously about things named after the Greek hero. Killuminator (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose. This article averages around a thousand views a day. There aren't any other mononymous "Jason" articles on Wikipedia that are especially popular, and both Jason (disambiguation) and Jason (given name) aren't viewed super often either. I don't believe the proposal would be an improvement. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nohomersryan. Srnec (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the basis of the pageviews. – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the given name and other uses are common enough by common usage for there to be no primary topic.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment after opening this MR, I noticed that many "singular" names like this do have a historical figure at the basename, e.g. David, Noah, Joshua. Not sure if this should apply to this character or not (i.e. keep the status quo - don't move), or if there is a specific article standard, as the articles I mentioned in the MR (John and James) are dab pages, and Joseph and Daniel are articles about the given name. Natg 19 (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Funnily enough, I was WP:ASTONISHed when I spotted this the other day. Notable as the Greek hero is, the name is just far too common for him to be primary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: While this RFC has seen significant comment there is no current consensus regarding whether this figure is the primary topic; relisting once in order to give some chance of a consensus emerging. BilledMammal (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per WP:ASTONISH. Jason is far better known as a common name in English than an ancient Greek figure. We don't even make much better-known figures like Mary, mother of Jesus primary topic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣<b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 05:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Jason