Is the Golden Rule a Foundational Moral Principle or A Rule of Thumb?

[Roscoe_Turner]

If that were true then we wouldn’t need surgeons, would we?

Whether all options are open and whether he chooses to make use of those options are two very different questions.

If “all options are open to him” in the way you seem to think, the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection would not have been necessary.

A surgeon can amputate a limb or antibiotics. What would you call a Doctor that wouldn’t use antibiotics when they were available?

The summary of your lengthy posts is “God is the Ultimate Good, anything that He commands is Good.”

The only absolute morality is “Obedience to What God commands” even if is contrary to other seeming absolute commands. Your morality is dependent on worship, not logic. Which is fine, but you can’t argue with non believers that your morality is absolute, without converting them first. All you can do is threaten afterlife punishment. It’s disingenuous to claim logic and reason.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A surgeon can amputate a limb or antibiotics. What would you call a Doctor that wouldn’t use antibiotics when they were available?

The summary of your lengthy posts is “God is the Ultimate Good, anything that He commands is Good.”

The only absolute morality is “Obedience to What God commands” even if is contrary to other seeming absolute commands. Your morality is dependent on worship, not logic. Which is fine, but you can’t argue with non believers that your morality is absolute, without converting them first. All you can do is threaten afterlife punishment. It’s disingenuous to claim logic and reason.

And your position amounts to a simple denial that God, in the absolute sense of that word, exists.

You merely want to immunize yourself from the impact of that possibility by equivocation - that is a conceptual move, not one that will withstand reality.

I am not threatening anything, by the way. Just making it absolutely clear that we are responsible and will be held accountable for all our choices, actions and even our moral beliefs, whether we want to accept that or not. Reality is Reality.

It is NOT a conceptual matter, after all. The problem is trying to reduce it to one.

Introducing “other gods” or other “beliefs” is doing just that.

The question, properly considered, is whether the Ground of all Being is God. If that is so, then it inevitably follows that the Ultimate Good is what comes from God. Where else could it come from? It simply would not be “conceptual” in nature, it would be grounded in Being itself and neither would the moral consequences that come from Being merely be conceptual ones.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

And your position amounts to a simple denial that God, in the absolute sense of that word, exists.

You merely want to immunize yourself from the impact of that possibility by equivocation - that is a conceptual move, not one that will withstand reality.

I am not threatening anything, by the way. Just making it absolutely clear that we are responsible and will be held accountable for all our choices, actions and even our moral beliefs, whether we want to accept that or not. Reality is Reality.

It is NOT a conceptual matter, after all. The problem is trying to reduce it to one.

Introducing “other gods” or other “beliefs” is doing just that.

The question, properly considered, is whether the Ground of all Being is God. If that is so, then it inevitably follows that the Ultimate Good is what comes from God. Where else could it come from? It simply would not be “conceptual” in nature, it would be grounded in Being itself and neither would the moral consequences that come from Being merely be conceptual ones.

No I am saying that your morality, as much as you’d like to claim logic and reason comes down to blind obedience.

You are claiming an Ultimate Good, I’m not. I don’t have to defend or show an ultimate good.

Again further proof that faith not reason guides your morality.

Which is fine. It allows you to overlook internal consistencies in that morality, i.e. Kill Babies, Don’t Kill Babies. God said it. It’s Moral.

I do find it interesting where this leads us though. That evil is an illusion.

If our lives, lives and the lives of others aren’t a meter for morality because ultimately God takes all lives, how we die doesn’t matter. Be it old age, disease, flood, famine or murder, We are all going home to God. So no matter how worked up we may get about a “moral” problem, we’re here for a short time, at the pleasure of God. Even Judas was doing the Lord’s work. Sit back and enjoy the ride.

 

[meltzerboy]

Can you give an example in which a mother’s life would be in danger from continuing the pregnancy, in which inducing birth would not be the option?

I’m not a physician and don’t know what the statistics are. I would imagine such cases do exist although they are no doubt rare. While Judaism makes allowances for the instances I described above, it certainly does not permit any form of abortion on demand. My broader idea, however, is that there are genuine religious differences on this and other challenging moral issues, as well as well-known hypothetical moral dilemmas. People of good will can disagree on these things, based on their reason, religious teaching, cultural norms, and so on. I’m not stating that morality is a free-for-all, do-as-you-wish, completely relativistic matter; however, neither is there, in truly difficult and often heart-wrenching situations, a one-size-fits-all solution. One’s (well-formed) conscience can serve as a guide in such cases together with religion, reason, and so on.

 

[Bradski]

Just making it absolutely clear that we are responsible and will be held accountable for all our choices, actions and even our moral beliefs, whether we want to accept that or not.

So you would stay your hand and take the consequences? Or do God’s bidding…?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . If our lives, lives and the lives of others aren’t a meter for morality because ultimately God takes all lives, how we die doesn’t matter. Be it old age, disease, flood, famine or murder, We are all going home to God. So no matter how worked up we may get about a “moral” problem, we’re here for a short time, at the pleasure of God. Even Judas was doing the Lord’s work. Sit back and enjoy the ride.

Judas was not “doing the Lord’s work.”
He most definitely had a role in God’s plan as we all do.
In eternity, you can either be a Judas or a St Paul.
We choose our part.
Sitting back, the ride is down hill. One must love and bring out the best of oneself.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Judas was not “doing the Lord’s work.”
He most definitely had a role in God’s plan as we all do.

What’s the distinction? If we all part of the plan aren’t we all doing our part?

 

[meltzerboy]

What’s the distinction? If we all part of the plan aren’t we all doing our part?

Some of us may be “doing our part” to obstruct the plan, thus forcing the others to work that much harder. So the answer to your question is possibly…

 

[Aloysium]

What’s the distinction? If we all part of the plan aren’t we all doing our part?

Lol.
The plan is a creation of beauty and goodness.
Let’s take as a particular example, the story of Anne Frank. Someone chose to betray the family to the Nazis, another tried to help them stay hidden. Whether we remember or not, the choices and their consequences are set for all eternity. BTW: That would be where hell comes in.
Our existence is something awesome, miraculous: the heroism, the villainy. It would be just as glorious without evil, but hey, if that’s the path one chooses, God will find a way to turn it into a good.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Some of us may be “doing our part” to obstruct the plan, thus forcing the others to work that much harder. So the answer to your question is possibly…

Every protagonist needs an antagonist? What would have happened if Judas or Pilate had refused to play their part? No crucifixion? No resurrection?

 

[Peter_Plato]

No I am saying that your morality, as much as you’d like to claim logic and reason comes down to blind obedience.

So my ethics are deontic, then?,

You are claiming an Ultimate Good, I’m not. I don’t have to defend or show an ultimate good.

No… Wait! Are my ethics are teleological, then?

Again further proof that faith not reason guides your morality.

No… They’re just irrational.

Which is fine. It allows you to overlook internal consistencies in that morality, i.e. Kill Babies, Don’t Kill Babies. God said it. It’s Moral.

I do find it interesting where this leads us though. That evil is an illusion.

Now, you’ve totally lost me. So many accusations! Evil is an illusion, but somehow I have to defend an ultimate Good against an illusion? How did we ever arrive here?

Blindly obedient, I assume.

I did notice, however, that every point you make addresses none of mine except by translating them into farce.

If our lives, lives and the lives of others aren’t a meter for morality because ultimately God takes all lives, how we die doesn’t matter.

I would assume that what you are getting at here is any moral system that has the gall to presume that “man is NOT the measure of all things,” is by default wrong. So, if the “good” for man is not the de facto standard of “good” for the entire universe, it can’t even remotely be considered moral.
Even if man has not a clue about why the universe and everything in it exists, the GOOD for all existence must inevitably be determined by human conception. Is that what you mean? Human good IS the ultimate good just because we think it to be. Is that what you mean?

Sounds just a tad parochial.

Be it old age, disease, flood, famine or murder, We are all going home to God. So no matter how worked up we may get about a “moral” problem, we’re here for a short time, at the pleasure of God. Even Judans was doing the Lord’s work. Sit back and enjoy the ride.

Here is another problem: You are very miserly with your designation of “good.” You believe if “ultimate good” exists that must mean it is “the only possible good.” Where is that ever entailed?

Ultimate good might take priority, but that doesn’t mean all other goods are relegated to the trash heap.

You keep coming up with these logical aberrations as implications of what I’ve written without even bothering to show how you got there, let alone how I am compelled to accept any such nonsense.

To address this point that “… You are claiming an Ultimate Good…” one more time:

Moral reasoning assumes goods as ends. We reason from premises to conclusions. We reason to conclusions for “reasons.” That is why the process is called “reasoning.” Reasons can be qualified as “good” reasons and “bad” reasons.

Why do we reason? To work out which options available to us are better than others, assuming that some are “good” options and some not so good. Hence there exists a priority or goodness of choices. If “good” means anything it must have a standard by which that can be determined. If some ends or outcomes for humanity are better than others, then it makes perfect sense to conclude that, theoretically at least, an ultimate good, aka the best possible outcome - if even just for humankind - does exist.

If, even in theory, an omniscient, omnibenevolent and eternal observer of the entire history of humankind exists, then certainly from that perspective, some outcomes for “humanity as a whole” would be better than others. Now add omnipotence into the mix and the “reasonable” conclusion is that when the body of humanity “takes ill” or undertakes a series of potentially disastrous options, this observer could (and probably should) intervene. Just as when a surgeon removes a cancerous growth, the “patient” may not like that option, but it still may be, all things considered, what MUST be done,

Again, I don’t understand how this is even in dispute.

Certainly, whether that really happened with Old Testament narratives is a debatable point, but I’ve already admitted that. You seem to be denying the very possibility. In that you are clearly mistaken.

 

[Bradski]

Certainly, whether that really happened with Old Testament narratives is a debatable point, but I’ve already admitted that. You seem to be denying the very possibility. In that you are clearly mistaken.

I’d say that massacres certainly took place. The question is, were they justifiable if the perpetrators thought they were doing God’s will. In the case that has been discussed, you believe they were. Are we then to assume that if you were present, suitably armed, then you would have also carried out God’s will?

 

[Peter_Plato]

No I am saying that your morality, as much as you’d like to claim logic and reason comes down to blind obedience.

Jesus seems to be claiming obedience. - though not of the blind type - is what “it comes down to.”

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21)

Care to add a commentary on that one?

It appears that some measure of “obedience” is necessary. To what end? would be the follow-up question.

Notice he doesn’t say anything about “following moral rules” as determined by transitory and fallible human reasoning. I wonder why? Perhaps because God’s ability to reason far exceeds ours?

It wouldn’t, then, be a case of “blind” obedience, but rather obedience because God’s determinations on such things must far exceed our determinations, which would, indeed, be blind in comparison.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Evil is an illusion. How I got there.

If you take the view an action is good because God says it to be so. We can not say the killing of the Canaanite children is an evil because God commands it.

This is an affront to our perceived morality that killing Children is an evil. We have a seeming conflict between the two. We can resolve it by deferring that we don’t know all the angles and God is in charge (Omniscient, Omnibenevolent and Omnipotent) and any negative feeling that we have about killing Canaanite babies is misplaced.

God takes all our lives. How He does it is irrelevant to the morality that we may perceive. Therefore our perception of evil is an illusion. God is taking all our lives. Our participation is irrelevant, it is an illusion of participation. Ultimately it is an act of God. If it is an act of God it is a good, God being omnibenevolent. There is no evil.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Jesus seems to be claiming obedience. - though not of the blind type - is what “it comes down to.”

Care to add a commentary on that one?

It appears that some measure of “obedience” is necessary. To what end? would be the follow-up question.

Notice he doesn’t say anything about “following moral rules” as determined by transitory and fallible human reasoning. I wonder why? Perhaps because God’s ability to reason far exceeds ours?

It wouldn’t, then, be a case of “blind” obedience, but rather obedience because God’s determinations on such things must far exceed our determinations, which would, indeed, be blind in comparison.

Yep, that’s how I see it. It’s faith and obedience not logic.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’d say that massacres certainly took place. The question is, were they justifiable if the perpetrators thought they were doing God’s will. In the case that has been discussed, you believe they were. Are we then to assume that if you were present, suitably armed, then you would have also carried out God’s will?

Allow me a question first.

Suppose God (defined as omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent) does exist.

Suppose, further, you had absolute certainly (however that came to be determined) that it was, indeed, God who was communicating his determined will to you.

Assuming that these 3omni attributes have “determined” that you should choose Option A, are you obligated to carry it out?

Alternatively, assume through some cosmic freak event, you are endowed with omniscient omnibenevolence and you have access to all crucial facts about every event in human history and all possible consequences into the future. Those capacities lead to to conclude I must carry out Option A. Are you obliged to do it, given absolute certainty that it is the best possible option?

What knowledge, capacity, evidence could you possibly have access to that would allow you to legitimately dispute that Option A is indeed the BEST option if 3Omni God tells you it is? What could possibly justify you taking an alternative option? On what grounds?

Would it NOT be positively immoral for you to choose an option that you - a less capable, less benevolent and less knowledgeable being - arrived at, when an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent Being decided otherwise?

Go back to the surgeon analogy. The best cardiac surgeon in the world has determined that Procedure A is the only possibility for a positive outcome. It involves “flatlining” the patient and several other questionable steps. The little knowledge you possess cannot fathom how the procedure can be successful, but you are certain this surgeon is the most competent to make the decision. Would you go along with it? What choice would you have?

I think the answer is absolutely clear, if this was indeed God giving the command.

I have said it before though, that whether or not God actually gave the command to the Israelites is another question altogether. What I have argued is that, in principle, if God indeed, gave the command, it would had to have been the only option open to the Israelites.

I would go further and argue that if the Israelites merely conceived of God in the same way that their neighboring pagan cultures viewed their “gods” they would be culpable of a heinous act.

The important questions would be How could anyone be certain? and How would THAT level of certainty be determined? Those would be crucial for determining culpability. It is not sufficient to BE certain, but to explicate the conditions that would be required to achieve the level of certainty that would justify carrying out the action.

The OT narrative does not provide enough of those to make a valid judgement. Clearly, that a substantial number of miraculous events (plagues in Egypt, parting of the Red Sea, etc.) preceded the act means the people understood that the justification for the act had to be extraordinary. They understood this God was in some non-trivial sense far superior to the pagan gods, they attributed the conception of the act to God and they carried out the act hesitantly. Those are important “facts” that go to "state of mind,’ motive and culpability. Sufficient evidence to exonerate them from all culpability? That’s a huge question.

Unlike Dawkins, I think an impartial jury open to classical theism would arrive at something less than the scathing verdict that many atheists do.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yep, that’s how I see it. It’s faith and obedience not logic.

I accept that it is faith and obedience. You just haven’t demonstrated that logic has been excluded.

In fact, you haven’t presented much logic at all. Not enough to even begin making a case.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Evil is an illusion. How I got there.

If you take the view an action is good because God says it to be so. We can not say the killing of the Canaanite children is an evil because God commands it.

On the contrary, we can still say that killing Canaanite children is evil, but in this case, as determined by infallible moral thinking (God’s), it is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils.

You do understand that concept, do you not?

This is an affront to our perceived morality that killing Children is an evil. We have a seeming conflict between the two. We can resolve it by deferring that we don’t know all the angles and God is in charge (Omniscient, Omnibenevolent and Omnipotent) and any negative feeling that we have about killing Canaanite babies is misplaced.

God takes all our lives. How He does it is irrelevant to the morality that we may perceive. Therefore our perception of evil is an illusion. God is taking all our lives. Our participation is irrelevant, it is an illusion of participation. Ultimately it is an act of God. If it is an act of God it is a good, God being omnibenevolent. There is no evil.

Muddled logic. What is an illusion is this “perception” of yours that choosing the lesser of two evils is never permitted.

If two evil choices are the ONLY live options, it is obligatory to choose the lesser evil. That is pretty standard ethical thinking.

The surgeon removing a cancerous leg is choosing the lesser of two evils. Loss of limb or loss of life? The choice is a no-brainer. That does not entail the loss of a limb is a positive good, just because the surgeon picked that option, as you seem to be insisting. If God determined that destroying the Canaanites was the lesser of two evils, that does not make the option a positive good.

You are confusing this with bringing good out of evil, which is something else, entirely.

In whose thinking is logic and clarity absent or, at least, illusory?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

On the contrary, we can still say that killing Canaanite children is evil, but in this case, as determined by infallible moral thinking (God’s), it is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils.

You do understand that concept, do you not?

Muddled logic. What is an illusion is this “perception” of yours that choosing the lesser of two evils is never permitted.

If two evil choices are the ONLY live options, it is obligatory to choose the lesser evil. That is pretty standard ethical thinking.

The surgeon removing a cancerous leg is choosing the lesser of two evils. Loss of limb or loss of life? The choice is a no-brainer. That does not entail the loss of a limb is a positive good, just because the surgeon picked that option, as you seem to be insisting. If God determined that destroying the Canaanites was the lesser of two evils, that does not make the option a positive good.

You are confusing this with bringing good out of evil, which is something else, entirely.

In whose thinking is logic and clarity absent or, at least, illusory?

From the Catholic Catechism -

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

How does an omnibenevolent being do evil?

 

[Bradski]

Allow me a question first. Suppose God (defined as omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent) does exist.

By ‘first’ I will assume that you will answer the question ‘second’. I obviously don’t believe that any god is omni anything, but I’ll go along.

Suppose, further, you had absolute certainly (however that came to be determined) that it was, indeed, God who was communicating his determined will to you.

Assuming that these 3omni attributes have “determined” that you should choose Option A, are you obligated to carry it out?

The answer to that is as an emphatic no as I can possibly give. You yourself have constantly
pointed out how it could be possible to know:

The important questions would be How could anyone be certain?

Well, I wouldn’t be certain. Guess I wouldn’t be a good Christian having all these doubts. Especially when something He commanded went directly against everything I thought Christianity stood for.

What choice would you have? I think the answer is absolutely clear, if this was indeed God giving the command.

But you seem confused about this aspect of certainty:

I have said it before though, that whether or not God actually gave the command to the Israelites is another question altogether.

…and:

The important questions would be How could anyone be certain? and How would THAT level of certainty be determined? Those would be crucial for determining culpability.

…and:

The OT narrative does not provide enough of those to make a valid judgement.

Yet earlier you said:

…I think God did command it and they could not do anything but follow the command because they had absolute certainty it was God who directed them to do it.

So. Let’s take that last statement and my Christian doubts (doubts that the pope recently seems to think are something of a requirement) and you are standing there alongside me. I’d be saying: Look Pete. Something is seriously wrong here. We cannot do this.

Do you start swinging at the nearest kid? Would anything have convinced you to start hacking away?