Does Morality Need God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Christbearer98
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Christbearer98

Guest
A genuine question from a Catholic! So in my own analysis of morality, inspired by my bit of knowledge on C.S. Lewis, I’ve come to the following conclusion (and it seems to jive with some of Aquinas too): Sins are destructive, virtue allows for healthy normal life. For example, lust acted upon leads to more lustful desire while chastity when practiced leads to just being chaste. Gluttony leads to more gluttony which is destructive while temperance basically allows you to go on your way unaffected by these unhealthy addictions. I find the similar case exists with most sins. If this is the case, are we basically just taking “Being healthy and thriving” and considering it “good” while also taking “Destructive behaviours” and considering them “bad”? This would seem like we just labeled these things as good or bad. Thoughts? Thanks in advanced!
 
Last edited:
I mean, yeah. Like.
Well the topic question. First of all.
(*I meant the title question)
Morality is pretty much based on what an individual believes is right or wrong. So in a sense, yes, morality does need God because God is the good and satan is the bad.
On the other hand,
One can have morals without being religious, but these morals are different than those of a religious person’s. The way they see the world is through their bias-filter while the bias filter we have is conpletely different.
Christbearer98 said:
I find the similar case exists with most sins. If this is the case, are we basically just taking “Being healthy and thriving” and considering it “good” while also taking “Destructive behaviours” and considering them “bad”?
Click to expand...
Yeah, pretty much. I mean, aren’t healthy things good and destructive things bad?
Christbearer98 said:
This would seem like we just labeled these things as good or bad.
Click to expand...
Right. Yeah. Pretty much. Like, the morals we have are biblical morals, morals set by God for us. But like, other people label things good when they’re bad and bad when they’re good, since they’re without God’s direction.

But idk, I’m not crazy knowledgeable about stuff like this, that’s just the way I see it. 🙂
 
Last edited:
Yes, morality needs God because ultimate human happiness can only be attained through supernatural assistance. The morality you describe does give us happiness, but it is only a part of the ultimate happiness that we can have through the supernatural involvement of God in our lives.
 
Christbearer98, what you’re talking about is what Aquinas would call the portion of morality that is accessible to “natural reason”. Natural reason is our reasoning capacity unaided by the Holy Spirit’s revelation in our lives.

Instead of contrasting virtue and “sin”, however, we should contrast virtue and vice. Vices and virtues are dispositions we have; they are not actions. Thus, one could have the vice of drunkenness without having alcohol available to them; one could have the virtue of generosity without having anything to give away; etc. The virtues and vices are associated with their ordinary worldly consequences in a certain way, such that – in ordinary circumstances – being virtuous will help you be happier and being vicious will make you less happy. However, in this fallen world, “bad things” sometimes “happen to good people.” We can never take the generality and assume it will apply in a given case.

The theological virtues – faith, hope and love – are not things that we can reason ourselves to, with natural reason. God must reveal them to us, and God must infuse us with them, if we are to have them. I would think that Christians might dispute as to whether these have good earthly consequences. I think they do, but I can imagine a Christian saying that, in this world, the consequence of the theological virtues is likely to be martyrdom – and someone like Aristotle certainly wouldn’t admit that that is a good earthly consequence!
 
Last edited:
This is a version of the Euthyphro dilemma, which is something that philosophers and theologians have been pondering for thousands of years. Euthypro framed it as" “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” Here is some (very basic) info on the question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Perhaps one of the theologians that sometimes post here can point to more information. I find it an endlessly interesting question.
 
My view on this I confess, may be shallow but I can’t see how morals, without God, can develope a deeper purpose than to maintain human life perpetually, in peace and without suffering. Survival of species in it’s most successful manifestation.

I notice that moral goods that lack God seem to find their end in aquiring what was lost in the fall of man in Genesis. To be able to rule and control the powers of nature, to submit those powers to the service of human life. To live in harmony with others. Eliminate suffering and death. World peace.

These are all things that morality with God as a source include. But the question has to be asked “to what end?” That changes the purpose and meaning of Morality which guides it’s application and determines the boundaries within which it can develope. Imo.
 
Remove the one, true God and you will find the so called 'Holy Empire with all its deities, and stone or clay images which lead to chaos and lack of morality and humanities. Not to say all followed the path of Godliness, but a strong belief and reverence for a TRUE GOD changed the world. It is difficult to be true unto oneself without a good 'guide. We, as an international growing culture, economy and society, are making rapis strides in becoming Godless nations as money and the material object become our new deities. Just my opinion. Peace.
 
Christbearer98 said:
are we basically just taking “Being healthy and thriving” and considering it “good” while also taking “Destructive behaviours” and considering them “bad”? This would seem like we just labeled these things as good or bad.
Click to expand...
No. I would say that you have it precisely backward. It’s not that we list behaviors and then give them the label ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Rather, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are the standards, and behaviors map to them.

Moreover, I think your categories are a bit too over-simplified. I can “thrive” by taking all the resources that I can get my hands on, and in the process deprive others of access to them (and thus harm their ‘health’ and ‘ability to thrive’). We wouldn’t call that ‘good.’

Even more to the point, if all you had were lists and labels, then the act of mapping one onto the other would be somewhat arbitrary, wouldn’t it? By what authority would you claim that your mapping is more accurate than mine? So, without recourse to God (that is, to an ultimate good), then you can’t really make claims for a ‘morality’.
 
Gorgias said:
Moreover, I think your categories are a bit too over-simplified. I can “thrive” by taking all the resources that I can get my hands on, and in the process deprive others of access to them (and thus harm their ‘health’ and ‘ability to thrive’). We wouldn’t call that ‘good.’
Click to expand...
Aristotle claim that you could not thrive in that way, since it would make you unhappy. This is generally what virtue ethicists would say, in some way, shape, or form.
 
The sad thing is Christ through His Church brought a morality that offered all humanity gifts. Gifts that have enabled the development of social structures that have made societies much more successfull, able to survive, increased the quality of human life, and set an example for other peoples. Unfortunately it may also be an example of throwing pearls to pigs. Those same social structures may enable societies to wheather the storms of decadence that caused previous societies to crumble. Nay, be strong enough to enable decadence to be understood as a good and deliver a sense of peace and sufficiency.
People will take credit for the benefits of a morality that came from God, and percieve it to come from a morality based on a false senses of freedom, human dignity, sufficiency and fulfillment.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top