Does God act by an objective morals or Utilitarianism?

[zro_x]

We call the thing good because it participates more in being. It is similar to calling a drawing of me a good drawing of me if it looks like me. This is done without reference to some function for which the drawing might serve as a means (as in, it’s good since it looks like me, which is good since it allows you to sell it to me and make money).

I think I get what you’re saying here, but I think we can still say that the drawing of you is good entirely as a means. I think one could make the argument that we say the drawing is good because we enjoy looking at it, not because it resembles you in any way.

In any case, it is certainly true that your definition of “goodness” can’t account for everything that we say is good. Most of the time when we speak of “goodness”, we are not talking about how well something conforms to what it was meant to be; we are usually talking instead about how much pleasure and enjoyment it gives us. This indicates that either there are two related, but unidentical definitions for the word, “good”, or else everytime we say that something is good we ultimately mean that it gives us pleasure.

even if it is the former, under your definition of good, a loving person(one which wants the good of another) could by this definition love inanimate objects, and desiring the good of a hammer would be no different then desiring the good of a human being, and God would take the course of action that maximizes the number of things which conform to thier intended pupose. This is obviously not the world we see.

when we talk about love, we are talking about wanting good for sentient beings, not inanimate objects. And so when we speak of omnibenevolence, we must speak about maximizing happiness.

But there is no circumstance in which inculcating a definite falsehood into a human intellect can be conducive to the realization of the good for humans, since the human good involves realizing the individual goods of each human faculty in their proper place and measure. Thus it is good for us to eat, but not too much; it is good for us to reproduce, but not if we are not married. Taking falsehood into the intellect is not even simply not exercising the intellect; it is exercising the intellect, but in such a way that the intellect contradicts its own nature. It is good for us to exercise our intellect to know the truth; it can be acceptable for us not to know the truth on some occasions; it is never good, however, to accept falsehood with the intellect, since that is a violation of the good of the intellect, which is a part of the human good. So in doing evil to the intellect, one also does evil to the whole human being, of whom the intellect is a part.

Even if you think of goodness as conformity to the object’s purpose, it is still not obviously true that lieing to someone would be evil, as long as more things approached their purpose than the purpose lost by the intellect. and that is a viable possiblity. If a person lies to the nazis by saying that he is not harboring Jews in the attic, the good, even by your definition, is increased, because the loss of purpose by the intellect is much less than the loss of purpose that comes out of losing a life.

 

[zro_x]

Merely stating this does not make it true.

Stating what? the post as a whole, or the part which asserts that God’s omnibenevolence seeks to further human happiness?

Nor have you demonstrated that it is possible to have maximum “happiness” (as defined by each human?) on earth, and still gain heaven.

You’re right, I haven’t. I never intended to. If Earthly happiness somehow interferes with heavenly happiness, obviously heavenly happiness should be preferred by God. But in cases where Earthly happiness has no effect on heavenly happiness, Then an omnibenevolent God would want the greatest earthly happiness for his people. (happiness is defined by whatever actually makes people happy, not by what people might think makes them happy)

 

[tdgesq]

Maybe, but it seems extremely unlikely. There are many possible worlds, and only one of them is the one in which happiness is maximized. It just so happens that this world is also the one in which God needs to tell no lies at all to promote and maintain this happiness? I find the idea dubious at best.

Possible worlds analysis doesn’t give us empirical probabilities. It’s purpose is to show us what is and what is not logically possible. You are misusing the concept of possible worlds. It won’t reveal whether one thing is more likely than the other. And if you believe that God desires maximal happiness for humanity, then it shouldn’t be a problem to also believe that it is one where God does not lie.

I’m not so sure if truth is as widely acknowledged as an objective good as you claim it is.

Then start a thread: not just on this forum, but any forum on the internet, that promotes the use of lying as a useful method of promoting human happiness. Western civilization has as one of its foundations that truth and knowledge are essential to happiness. You can’t seriously contest that.

Truth, as you say, is valued for knowledge, and also for trust, both of which promote human happiness. However, If we were being watched over by an omniscient being, there would be no reason to need to know the truth if the omniscient, omnibenevolent being thought that it would be more in your interests to believe a lie.

Ok. Then a life of happiness where there is no truth (all is an illusion, not real) is better than a life lived in truth. I hope you are seeing the problem here.

 

[zro_x]

Possible worlds analysis doesn’t give us empirical probabilities. It’s purpose is to show us what is and what is not logically possible. You are misusing the concept of possible worlds. It won’t reveal whether one thing is more likely than the others.
And if you believe that God desires maximal happiness for humanity, then it shouldn’t be a problem to also believe that it is one where God does not lie.

Look at it this way: There are a finite number of possible worlds, but there is a continuum of happiness with an infinite number of points. There are an infinate number of possible happiness states. Every state is just as likely as every other state. This means that there is only one world in which happiness is maximized, and an omnibenevolent God has to will this world in order to be omnibenevolent. It is extremely unlikely that there are no situations in this world where a lie from God is necessary for greater human happiness.

Then start a thread: not just on this forum, but any forum on the internet, that promotes the use of lying as a useful method of promoting human happiness. Western civilization has as one of its foundations that truth and knowledge are essential to happiness. You can’t seriously contest that.

I never tried to contest that. I was arguing that truth does usually promote human happiness, though there are rare occasions where it does not. This does not mean that truth is an objective value, meaning that it is valued for its own sake. The argument I’m making here is that Truth is valued as a means to happiness, rather than an end of itself.

Ok. Then a life of happiness where there is no truth (all is an illusion, not real) is better than a life lived in truth. I hope you are seeing the problem here.

Honestly, I’m not. The omnibenevolnet creator is looking out for us, whether he tells us lies or the truth. If he tells us a lie, it is because it is in our best interests to believe that lie. I’m fine with an all-loving God telling me lies for my best interest. All we can do is to sincerely try to find the truth, and if we find it, great, and if not, well, that’s fine too. Besides, we will eventually be told the whole truth in heaven, where being misinformed could not possibly be beneficial to us.

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . However, If we were being watched over by an omniscient being, there would be no reason to need to know the truth if the omniscient, omnibenevolent being thought that it would be more in your interests to believe a lie.

That same *omnibenevolent Being * gave us each an intellect , and as was just recently pointed out to us -

I could offer this as a quick and easy answer:

1. The natural end of the intellect is to know the truth.
   . . . .

Additionally, it is impossible for justice to lie.

T.S. Eliot said that ,“humankind cannot bear very much reality” , which would explain why we live a sequence of moments on this earth.

Our Blessed Lord also said we can only bear so much truth:

John 16:12 [NAB]

"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.”

I fail to see how our limited capacity as fallen, finite beings is supposed to somehow even remotely suggest that the infinite God could be a liar and/or that He would prefer we believe a lie.

. . . If Earthly happiness somehow interferes with heavenly happiness, obviously heavenly happiness should be preferred by God. But in cases where Earthly happiness has no effect on heavenly happiness, Then an omnibenevolent God would want the greatest earthly happiness for his people. (happiness is defined by whatever actually makes people happy, not by what people might think makes them happy)

What would be some examples of where earthly happiness has no effect on heavenly happiness ?

An example or two of where God would’ve actually lied to us would be helpful too. ( Maybe it’s just me, but I’m encountering considerable difficulty trying to make that mental leap it would require to picture God in the role of a liar) .

. . . However, If we were being watched over by an omniscient being, there would be no reason to need to know the truth if the omniscient, omnibenevolent being thought that it would be more in your interests to believe a lie.

In the event of the fall of primordial humankind , God told us the truth , but we chose to believe a lie instead , and in so doing, we chose to call God the liar . Believing that lie is the source of all unhappiness, including the loss of our preternatural gifts.

A consequential earthly pilgrimage does not redefine happiness , nor divide it into “earthly happiness” and “heavenly happiness”. The definition of happiness which you yourself provided , supports all of this:

. . . (happiness is defined by whatever actually makes people happy, not by what people might think makes them happy)

CCC (highlights mine):

1718
The Beatitudes respond to the natural desire for happiness. This desire is of divine origin: God has placed it in the human heart in order to draw man to the One who alone can fulfill it:

1723
The beatitude we are promised confronts us with decisive moral choices. It invites us to purify our hearts of bad instincts and to seek the love of God above all else. It teaches us that true happiness is not found in riches or well-being, in human fame or power, or in any human achievement - however beneficial it may be - such as science, technology, and art, or indeed in any creature, but in God alone, the source of every good and of all love:

All bow down before wealth. Wealth is that to which the multitude of men pay an instinctive homage. They measure happiness by wealth; and by wealth they measure respectability… It is a homage resulting from a profound faith … that with wealth he may do all things. Wealth is one idol of the day and notoriety is a second… Notoriety, or the making of a noise in the world - it may be called “newspaper fame” - has come to be considered a great good in itself, and a ground of veneration.

 

[nagyszakall]

If there is a difference in the way God treats “real” and “utilitarian” happiness, there has to be a difference in their subjective experience as well. An omnibenevolent God is concerned with how happy we are. If he has to lie to us to make us happy, then an omnibenevolent God would do that.

People engage in white lies all the time to keep others happy. If the lie is believed and stays hidden, sometimes it actually works.

That’s a topic that needs a thread all to its own. But to answer the question in terms of the topic at hand, I’d take the red pill because I’d be happier knowing that I’m in the real world. If I took the blue pill, I’d know I was in a lie, and so I could no longer be happy in it. But if I were not given the choice, I might be happier in the simulation than reality.

That’s the problem. There is a lot of perhaps and maybe if. Human beings are not happy when alienated and deceived. Just look at the historical data and ask yourself why man on earth is in search of the truth (more than in search of entertainment and comfort).

 

[Pugsly]

I’ve recently been told that Catholic dogma states that God can not lie. If this is true, I see a few potential problems, mostly because this view seems to contradict the idea of an omnibenevolent God. Omnibenevolent means all-loving, and love means wanting the good of another. If God were fully omnibenevolent, he does whatever he can to maximise our happiness. In other words, he would act with utilitarian motivations.

If God were incapable of lying, (or any other action we would normally classify as bad) then there would be some situations in which God would need to sacrifice some amount of human or angelic happiness in order to abide by certain principles.

In short, I don’t see how God can be both omnibenevolent and adhere to an objective, categorical morality.

thoughts?

The problem with people saying God “cannot” do an evil…means that God is not really good…but a machine that follows its programing or Utility–as you deftly notice.

Now, let’s think about this for a moment. God tells you throughout His Word that He has a Law of goodness…that violation of the Law brings death. Apparently God wisely and prudently chooses to follow a path of Life. That sounds a bit Utilitarian or self interested…except when you read further and find out how God risked it all by setting aside all His Divine powers to humbly live and die amidst the least of His creation.

God desired to share His joy with you and RISKED everything in the process…it was a wild act of LOVE indeed!

 

[MPat]

I’ve recently been told that Catholic dogma states that God can not lie. If this is true, I see a few potential problems, mostly because this view seems to contradict the idea of an omnibenevolent God. Omnibenevolent means all-loving, and love means wanting the good of another. If God were fully omnibenevolent, he does whatever he can to maximise our happiness. In other words, he would act with utilitarian motivations.

If God were incapable of lying, (or any other action we would normally classify as bad) then there would be some situations in which God would need to sacrifice some amount of human or angelic happiness in order to abide by certain principles.

In short, I don’t see how God can be both omnibenevolent and adhere to an objective, categorical morality.

thoughts?

Even if you want to reduce everything to an optimisation problem (I am not sure that is a good idea), is there a reason why the optimisation couldn’t be subject to some constraints…? Well, here one of constraints is “God is not going to lie.”.

You even said: “If God were fully omnibenevolent, he does whatever he can to maximise our happiness” - “whatever he can”, not “whatever he can (or cannot)”.

 

[zro_x]

That same *omnibenevolent Being * gave us each an intellect , and as was just recently pointed out to us -

I could offer this as a quick and easy answer:

I tried to show in post 21 that it is not always good for something to conform to what it was made for, including the intellect.

additionally, it is impossible for justice to lie.

I don’t see why this would be the case. Could you elaborate?

I fail to see how our limited capacity as fallen, finite beings is supposed to somehow even remotely suggest that the infinite God could be a liar and/or that He would prefer we believe a lie.

Although this does illustrate the point I was making about how the intellect should not always conform to its purpose, I did not come to the conclusion that God could be a benevolent liar from the quotes you cited. See my response to tdgesq in post 23 to see why I believe that an omnibenevolent God would likely have to lie some of the time to maximise happiness.

What would be some examples of where earthly happiness has no effect on heavenly happiness ?

all forms of earthly happiness, if used in the right manner, have no effect on heavenly happiness.

An example or two of where God would’ve actually lied to us would be helpful too. ( Maybe it’s just me, but I’m encountering considerable difficulty trying to make that mental leap it would require to picture God in the role of a liar) .

I can’t give such an example because I’m not a limitless being. I don’t have the capability to comprehend such a scenario. It would be far too complex for me to hold every detail and possiblity in my mind. It just seems likely, for the reasons I gave to tdgesq.

A consequential earthly pilgrimage does not redefine happiness , nor divide it into “earthly happiness” and “heavenly happiness”. The definition of happiness which you yourself provided , supports all of this:

It is true that full happiness can only be found in God. But lesser degrees of happiness can be found to be caused by earthly things.

 

[zro_x]

That’s the problem. There is a lot of perhaps and maybe if. Human beings are not happy when alienated and deceived.

They are when they don’t know they’re being alienated and decieved.

Just look at the historical data and ask yourself why man on earth is in search of the truth (more than in search of entertainment and comfort).

A certain amount of them might be searching for truth for its own sake, but I think that many of them are searching for truth because thinking that they know the truth makes them happy.

one quick note: There are different forms of utilitarianism. Most banches include all things that provide happiness, not just comfort and entertainment. This includes the higher things that provide happiness, like truth, beauty, peace, virtue, and even the love of God.

 

[zro_x]

The problem with people saying God “cannot” do an evil…means that God is not really good…but a machine that follows its programing or Utility–as you deftly notice.

Now, let’s think about this for a moment. God tells you throughout His Word that He has a Law of goodness…that violation of the Law brings death. Apparently God wisely and prudently chooses to follow a path of Life. That sounds a bit Utilitarian or self interested…except when you read further and find out how God risked it all by setting aside all His Divine powers to humbly live and die amidst the least of His creation.

God desired to share His joy with you and RISKED everything in the process…it was a wild act of LOVE indeed!

And that’s exactly why it was a utilitarian act. One might even say that Christ’s crucifixion was the event that maximised possible human happiness more than any other event.

 

[zro_x]

Even if you want to reduce everything to an optimisation problem (I am not sure that is a good idea), is there a reason why the optimisation couldn’t be subject to some constraints…? Well, here one of constraints is “God is not going to lie.”.

You even said: “If God were fully omnibenevolent, he does whatever he can to maximise our happiness” - “whatever he can”, not “whatever he can (or cannot)”.

You make a good point here, but I think I can still see a problem with it.

It is generally accepted that the only way God is restricted in his omnipotence is that he is unable to do that which is logically impossible. Lies are not logically impossible, and so therefore God is able to say them.

There are a couple ways out of this line of reasoning that I can see, however.

The first is to say that God is logically necessary, and as such, has logically necessary attributes. One of these attributes is the inability to lie, so it is logically impossible for God to lie.

The problem with this is, unless we have the ability to show how God’s inability to lie is logically necessary, we have no way of knowing whether or not it is true.

The second is to say that there are more restrictions on God’s omnipotence than logical possibility. While this is a tennable position, I doubt it is a popular one.

For one thing, it would drastically lower God’s appeal, not just because his power would be limited, but mostly because a reasonable argument could be made that such a God is not maximally good.

 

[tdgesq]

Look at it this way: There are a finite number of possible worlds, but there is a continuum of happiness with an infinite number of points. There are an infinate number of possible happiness states. Every state is just as likely as every other state.

I added the emphasis to the last sentence. This is clearly not true. Assigning equal probabilities to each possible world of states of happiness is unsupportable. God can actualize and instantiate any of these possible world he wishes. It appears you are really arguing that there isn’t any possible world with maximal happiness where God doesn’t deceive, but why should anyone believe that? We know from revelation that God directs and supports the good of the universe and humanity through divine providence and grace. If what I propose is a possible world, then there is no probability that God would do anything other than actualize it.

I never tried to contest that. I was arguing that truth does usually promote human happiness, though there are rare occasions where it does not. This does not mean that truth is an objective value, meaning that it is valued for its own sake. The argument I’m making here is that Truth is valued as a means to happiness, rather than an end of itself.

This depends on what you define the good (happiness) of man to be. Christian theism holds that it is to ultimately know and share in the divine life of God. While we could try to define at as temporal pain/pleasure, that’s inconsistent with Catholic teaching. And we are both Catholics here. It is difficult to see then where God lying to us would lead to happiness. And, as pointed out above, that is exactly the possible world I am suggesting above has been actualized.

Honestly, I’m not. The omnibenevolnet creator is looking out for us, whether he tells us lies or the truth. If he tells us a lie, it is because it is in our best interests to believe that lie. I’m fine with an all-loving God telling me lies for my best interest. All we can do is to sincerely try to find the truth, and if we find it, great, and if not, well, that’s fine too. Besides, we will eventually be told the whole truth in heaven, where being misinformed could not possibly be beneficial to us.

What I’m stating is that there isn’t any instance where God deceiving us would lead to greater happiness, certainly not if happiness is to ultimately know and dwell with God. Deception would lead us away from God.

Mpat has really given the dispositive argument. God cannot lie. Nor could he change from a truthful God to an untruthful God because he is immutable. So what you are asking for is a logical impossibility. I hate to leave it there though, because we have every reason to believe that God’s truth will always lead to the greatest happiness for humanity.

 

[zro_x]

I added the emphasis to the last sentence. This is clearly not true. Assigning equal probabilities to each possible world of states of happiness is unsupportable. God can actualize and instantiate any of these possible world he wishes. It appears you are really arguing that there isn’t any possible world with maximal happiness where God doesn’t deceive, but why should anyone believe that? We know from revelation that God directs and supports the good of the universe and humanity through divine providence and grace. If what I propose is a possible world, then there is no probability that God would do anything other than actualize it.

Let me try stating this slightly differently. I find it difficult to believe that human happiness could never, in the history of the world, have been increased by God telling a lie. It seems to me that there was probably some point in history in which God telling a lie would have advanced human happiness.

This depends on what you define the good (happiness) of man to be. Christian theism holds that it is to ultimately know and share in the divine life of God. While we could try to define at as temporal pain/pleasure, that’s inconsistent with Catholic teaching. And we are both Catholics here.

That is a source of happiness, it is the greatest source, it is the only really significant source, but it is not the only source.

It is difficult to see then where God lying to us would lead to happiness.

For the sake of earthly happiness. One might see it better if one thinks about white lies, like “I like the present you gave me.” I’m not going to argue that such a lie has no negative effects, since it is impossible to see all the consequences of our actions, but one can not deny that such a lie does have some positive effects. Another example example of a lie which clearly has positive effects is the one I talked about in post 21: lying to the nazis about hiding jews in your attic.

What I’m stating is that there isn’t any instance where God deceiving us would lead to greater happiness, certainly not if happiness is to ultimately know and dwell with God. Deception would lead us away from God.

Certainly the case can be made that deception on our part will always lead us away from God. But the question is, is it the case that deception on God’s part will also always lead us further away from him?

Mpat has really given the dispositive argument. God cannot lie… So what you are asking for is a logical impossibility.

I will agree that Mpat solves the core dilemma. It is possible for God to be both omnibenevolent and never lie, if God’s incapacity for lying is a logical necessity. But that raises a further problem. How could we possibly know that it is logically impossible for God to lie? You seem to attempt to make a case…

Nor could he change from a truthful God to an untruthful God because he is immutable.

…but it is open to doubt. God would not change from a truthful God to an untruthful God every time he decides to tell a lie, any more than forgiving a sinner and sending a flood represents a change from an angry to a merciful God. God knows that different situations call for different appraches.