How does God decide what is a moral issue

[addictedkoala]

I’m discussing morality in a general sense with a friend of mine, and this is the question he posed to me. Thinking about it I’ve never actually encountered the question from myself or anyone else before, so what is the answer? To put it a different way, we can talk about why adultery or insulting someone are evil, but how is it that they or anything else immoral came to be that way? Please correct me if I’m wrong; evil is the absence of God, but God created Earth and the possible immoral actions here, so how was it that certain actions were/are then condemned by God?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Nobody knows the mind of God. If we did, we would be God ourselves. God has revealed to us what He wants us to do and not do. Certainly, the desirability of some things is pretty obvious. If, say, murder was not proscribed, nobody would be safe. Most commandments (perhaps all of which I am aware) make sense in that way.

But again, God does not owe us justifications for His expressions of His will. It is not ours to question His ways. It is our duty to obey.

 

[JohnDamian]

I’m discussing morality in a general sense with a friend of mine, and this is the question he posed to me. Thinking about it I’ve never actually encountered the question from myself or anyone else before, so what is the answer? To put it a different way, we can talk about why adultery or insulting someone are evil, but how is it that they or anything else immoral came to be that way? Please correct me if I’m wrong; evil is the absence of God, but God created Earth and the possible immoral actions here, so how was it that certain actions were/are then condemned by God?

It is a great question. You are correct that it is in line with Church Teaching that evil is the absence (nihil) of God. This is discussed by the Church Doctor St Peter Damian in his letter on Divine Omnipotence where he makes the following statements (paraphrased for simplicity):

God is omnipotent;

This omnipotence entails that an agent must be capable of something (aliquid) – this tautology is true because the meaning of omnina is everything; and nihil is the contrary of this.

Thus; God cannot be capable of evil; and therein evil is the absence of God.

So Evil acts are act’s that are absent of God; wheras Good acts are acts are in line with God. That is not to say that the acts are absent from God; because God is omnipresent; but that the acts are substantivelly distinct from Godlieness.

So in short; God is what is moral; not decides.

 

[addictedkoala]

So in short; God is what is moral; not decides.

Thank you, very well and concisely put. In anticipation of my friend’s possible objection (and my own question) if God is morality, then why is it we see him commit acts himself that he has revealed to us are immoral for us to do? I know this is an easy question that comes up from atheists a lot, but I just realized I don’t know the answer.

 

[fhansen]

God doesn’t decide anything because He’s simple and immutable. His essence is goodness so His will is always moral. He defines “good” rather than determines it.

 

[JohnDamian]

Thank you, very well and concisely put. In anticipation of my friend’s possible objection (and my own question) if God is morality, then why is it we see him commit acts himself that he has revealed to us are immoral for us to do? I know this is an easy question that comes up from atheists a lot, but I just realized I don’t know the answer.

There are two answers to this; from two philosophical schools so take whichever one seems to suit you best.

A Thomist might argue that predicates (ie; goodness/morality and other things) cannot be univocally (one meaning) applied to God and ourselves; but are instead applied analagorically; that is to say by means of an analogy. So; the morality we have on earth is a different one to God but shares some lesser unicity than a univocal unity. This is why we often cannot understand why God might do particular actions (such as allow Job’s children to die; or Noahs Flood; or the Binding of Isaac and so forth) because as his morality is higher than ours; and specifically distinct then we cannot fully compare ourselves to his morality - we cannot understand that they are good acts he commits.

A Scotist might argue that predicates share a univocity; that is not to say that our modes are identical; only that there is a real and formal unicity between the goodness of man and the goodness of God; that is distinct through modality (ie; by degree); this is why Humans; although sharing the same morality as God inhere less of it than he does; thus when he acts; our lesser forms may not necessarily comprehend the greater scheme.