Can God justify objective morality?

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Jesus is the way the truth and the life.

Then why people are scattered?

Because people are not perfect. Because everyone is different. Because people have freewill. There are many reasons.

 

[STT]

Because people are not perfect. Because everyone is different. Because people have freewill. There are many reasons.

The truth is a set of facts and people cannot be scattered on accepting them.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Because people are not perfect. Because everyone is different. Because people have freewill. There are many reasons.

The truth is a set of facts and people cannot be scattered on accepting them.

Then why do people differ every time they see the same video. The video shows everyone the same set of events. Yet people get different opinions on the same objective piece of evidence.

 

[STT]

Then why do people differ every time they see the same video. The video shows everyone the same set of events. Yet people get different opinions on the same objective piece of evidence.

If the same people are in a math class then they will have the same opinion on subject matter.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Then why do people differ every time they see the same video. The video shows everyone the same set of events. Yet people get different opinions on the same objective piece of evidence.

If the same people are in a math class then they will have the same opinion on subject matter.

Sounds like you,ve never been in a classroom. Thats why in every cllass, some pass and some fail.

 

[STT]

Sounds like you,ve never been in a classroom. Thats why in every cllass, some pass and some fail.

We are talking about a God who is omniscient. Presumably He is able to teach whatever he wants in easy language everybody can understand.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Sounds like you,ve never been in a classroom. Thats why in every cllass, some pass and some fail.

We are talking about a God who is omniscient. Presumably He is able to teach whatever he wants in easy language everybody can understand.

True and He does. But some people don’t want to listen. They are more concerned with their own wants.

 

[STT]

True and He does. But some people don’t want to listen. They are more concerned with their own wants.

One can do whatever he wants but he cannot deny the truth.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

True and He does. But some people don’t want to listen. They are more concerned with their own wants.

One can do whatever he wants but he cannot deny the truth.

Anyone who denies God, denies the truth.

 

[balto]

Let’s assume so. This means that any intelligent being, like human, can also justify it. Humanity however does not agree on the fact that objective morality exists. This means objective morality cannot be justified. Therefore God cannot justify objective morality.

@STT Suffice it to say I am not convinced, but that should not be surprising to you . We should start with a common understanding of what morality is. I think most people would define morality as a system of behavior that is right or good. It goes much deeper than that I think but it is a good place to start. Does this definition sound acceptable? If not can you propose a suitable definition?

Why do you think an intelligent being is needed to justify it? I would agree that an intelligence is needed to justify it, but I would draw a distinction between created and uncreated intelligence and argue that only uncreated intelligence can justify morality.

 

[STT]

Suffice it to say I am not convinced, but that should not be surprising to you . We should start with a common understanding of what morality is. I think most people would define morality as a system of behavior that is right or good. It goes much deeper than that I think but it is a good place to start. Does this definition sound acceptable? If not can you propose a suitable definition?

I agree with your definition if in behavior you also consider all decisions made by the person.

Why do you think an intelligent being is needed to justify it? I would agree that an intelligence is needed to justify it, but I would draw a distinction between created and uncreated intelligence and argue that only uncreated intelligence can justify morality.

God is omniscient therefore He could speak with a language we can understand objective morality. This means that this language which is simple exist and can be found by us too (because we can understand it when it is said by God).

 

[teresa63]

teresa63:

Ethics…can be “subjective” but morality implies and presumes God. And God’s morality is definitely, and eternally, objective

I thought that since ethics refers to rules or principles in religion it would be objective, whereas since morality refers to an individual or personal code of behavior, it would be subjective. Take for example the question of artificial birth control. Some religions would say that if a married couple has seven children and are facing financial difficulties, it would not be a mortal sin for the couple to use artificial birth control.

The Eternal Law of God applies to all persons alike whether it is known or understood. (Sort of like moral ‘gravity’.)
But “mortal sin” in Catholicism requires three conditions: grave matter, full knowledge of the ‘infraction’ and willful disobedience.

 

[balto]

I agree with your definition if in behavior you also consider all decisions made by the person.

Yes I accept that too. That’s good, we can move forward then.

God is omniscient therefore He could speak with a language we can understand objective morality. This means that this language which is simple exist and can be found by us too (because we can understand it when it is said by God).

OK I think I see where you are going with this, but I think this might be a separate issue from the title of the thread. I think it is possible to establish that God justifies objective morality without commenting on whether He should make it known to us in the way you suggest or even at all.

Anyway, I think we need to establish what it would mean for something to be “good” in the first place before we can ask what would justify it. I would argue that, to say that something is good for A, we need to say that A has a specific end or goal. For instance, if someone murders another person, we say that this is “bad” because, by murdering someone, he is in a state he should not be in and really ought to be in another state (the “saintly” state, say, where he has respect for other people’s lives). Whether this end or goal is objective or subjective and depends on God and/or humans has not been shown yet, but do you agree that this is what we mean when we say something is “good”?

 

[AlNg]

God’s morality is definitely, and eternally, objective.

Still not sure. For example, is burning someone alive at the stake objectively right or objectively wrong?

 

[STT]

Anyway, I think we need to establish what it would mean for something to be “good” in the first place before we can ask what would justify it.

The problem is that I cannot define what that what (the bold part above) is therefore I cannot say what is right/good.

I would argue that, to say that something is good for A, we need to say that A has a specific end or goal.

I just argue that a specific end or goal could be personal.

For instance, if someone murders another person, we say that this is “bad” because, by murdering someone, he is in a state he should not be in and really ought to be in another state (the “saintly” state, say, where he has respect for other people’s lives).

There are psychopaths who enjoy killing and can in principle justify murdering from their perspective.

Whether this end or goal is objective or subjective and depends on God and/or humans has not been shown yet, but do you agree that this is what we mean when we say something is “good”?

That is subject of another thread: Why God has not shown the truth yet?

 

[balto]

The problem is that I cannot define what that what (the bold part above) is therefore I cannot say what is right/good.

Well then let me see if I can define it. I think we can both agree that we need to be able to define it if we are to have any kind of objective morality.

I just argue that a specific end or goal could be personal.

Agreed, however if it is only personal and nothing more, then it is only subjective. I am guessing that’s why you think any intelligence can in principle justify morality?

There are psychopaths who enjoy killing and can in principle justify murdering from their perspective.

Precisely, that is actually where I was intending to go next. Even actions most people consider evil can be given personal justification and can have personal ends or goals. We just need some way to say objectively that it is an evil end. If it is going to be objective, then the goodness needs to be tied to reality somehow.

One way is to link goodness to actually-existing being or reality. I don’t think this works though because an end or goal can imply that the end or goal is not yet achieved, and not yet actual. If we have a person that wants to give alms (a good act) and a person that wants to murder (an evil act), neither act is actual yet, so actual being cannot distinguish between them.

But we need some principle to distinguish the two, so I will introduce the notion of potentiality or potential being. By doing this, I can say that the almsgiving is a potentiality for more fully actual humanness. Murderousness is not actual nor potential being, it is simply not part of human nature. So one who gives alms acts in a way that is directed towards actual goodness whereas one who murders acts towards no actual goodness or even being at all. Reason or intelligence is what grasps nature, so the one who acts towards actual goodness acts in accordance with right reason (i.e. acts morally) while the one who does not act towards actual goodness acts against right reason (i.e. acts sinfully or immorally).

At this point I have not explained how potential being can be justified (I will do that shortly) but do you think that introducing potentiality can give us a useful principle whereby to distinguish objective good from evil?

 

[STT]

Well then let me see if I can define it. I think we can both agree that we need to be able to define it if we are to have any kind of objective morality.

Ok. Let’s see.

Agreed, however if it is only personal and nothing more, then it is only subjective. I am guessing that’s why you think any intelligence can in principle justify morality?

I am question objective morality with the aim to show that it does not exist.

Precisely, that is actually where I was intending to go next. Even actions most people consider evil can be given personal justification and can have personal ends or goals. We just need some way to say objectively that it is an evil end. If it is going to be objective, then the goodness needs to be tied to reality somehow.

One way is to link goodness to actually-existing being or reality. I don’t think this works though because an end or goal can imply that the end or goal is not yet achieved, and not yet actual. If we have a person that wants to give alms (a good act) and a person that wants to murder (an evil act), neither act is actual yet, so actual being cannot distinguish between them.

But we need some principle to distinguish the two, so I will introduce the notion of potentiality or potential being. By doing this, I can say that the almsgiving is a potentiality for more fully actual humanness. Murderousness is not actual nor potential being, it is simply not part of human nature. So one who gives alms acts in a way that is directed towards actual goodness whereas one who murders acts towards no actual goodness or even being at all. Reason or intelligence is what grasps nature, so the one who acts towards actual goodness acts in accordance with right reason (i.e. acts morally) while the one who does not act towards actual goodness acts against right reason (i.e. acts sinfully or immorally).

At this point I have not explained how potential being can be justified (I will do that shortly) but do you think that introducing potentiality can give us a useful principle whereby to distinguish objective good from evil?

I think what you said is invalid for a simple reason. Feeling and desire generally are part of our instinct. There are majority who have common feeling or desire. They are minority who have the same minor feeling and desire (like gay people). They are very minor people who have desire to kill people. So at the end everything is related to our instinct and how do we feel in a situation. Therefore you cannot find any reason based on anything (we are only intellectual and emotional beings and here we are discussing that we are only following our feeling (feeling is the end) in any act) to prove that objective morality exist.

 

[balto]

I think what you said is invalid for a simple reason. Feeling and desire generally are part of our instinct. There are majority who have common feeling or desire. They are minority who have the same minor feeling and desire (like gay people). They are very minor people who have desire to kill people. So at the end everything is related to our instinct and how do we feel in a situation. Therefore you cannot find any reason based on anything (we are only intellectual and emotional beings and here we are discussing that we are only following our feeling (feeling is the end) in any act) to prove that objective morality exist.

Before I can respond to this, I think you need to clarify the meaning of the word “feeling” in this context. When you say that “feeling is the end” I take that to mean that everyone always and everywhere acts for the goal of “sense delight.” Is that an accurate characterization of what you have written?

Additionally, when you say that everything is related to instinct and how we feel in a situation, do you mean that this “feeling” is a sense-prompting, in which case we necessary act for an end? Or are you just speaking loosely and mean to say that “people always do what they believe is the right thing to do?”

 

[STT]

Before I can respond to this, I think you need to clarify the meaning of the word “feeling” in this context. When you say that “feeling is the end” I take that to mean that everyone always and everywhere acts for the goal of “sense delight.” Is that an accurate characterization of what you have written?

Well, I will try to expand a little bit. We are for sure are rational and emotional beings. These are our only main attributes. Each act we perform is based on situation which that dictate how our emotions are and how we analyze the situation rationally and make decisions. Our emotions are like engine pushing us forward for an end and our rationality give us proper direction, to fulfill our emotions the best. This means that there can be no act/no motion without emotions. That is what I mean with “feeling is the end”. Everything that we do is because of feelings whether us who are arguing or a thief who is stealing, etc.

Additionally, when you say that everything is related to instinct and how we feel in a situation, do you mean that this “feeling” is a sense-prompting, in which case we necessary act for an end? Or are you just speaking loosely and mean to say that “people always do what they believe is the right thing to do?”

Our feelings are derived from our instincts. I think I clear the rest in the previous comment.

 

[AlNg]

Why do you assume every human is an intelligent being? We have Communists, Muslims and Democrats.

What is your definition of intelligent?