How does Richard Swinburne view the analogy of 'God is good' compared to 'humans are good'?

Swinburne holds that the analogy of 'God is good' compared to 'humans are good' demonstrates the need for univocal terms in understanding concepts of goodness. He suggests that while humans can have a range of good qualities, our understanding of goodness may not fully capture the divine nature of goodness. By advocating for univocal terms, he emphasizes the idea that when we attribute goodness to God, we must approach the term more rigorously and consistently than when we apply it to humans. This perspective acknowledges that although we may use the same word—goodness—it may reference distinctly different attributes between God and humans, necessitating clarity in our language and comprehension of what divine goodness entails.

Other viewpoints such as the limitations of language or dismissing the analogy do not align with Swinburne's approach, which takes the analogy seriously while advocating for careful interpretation. The complexity of divine nature is acknowledged in other discussions but does not highlight the specific linguistic concerns that Swinburne raises regarding the use of terminology.