Moral Absolutism

[Doug50]

exactly.

i don’t know about “logical”, but it’s certainly less than ideal.

doing the right thing out of fear of punishment is - to use your example - to act like a moral child. the best reason to do the right thing is because it’s the right thing. period.

and things aren’t right or wrong because god says so: god says so because they’re right or wrong.

If naturalism is true there is no such thing as a true right or wrong. I’ve seen your claim before. It goes something like this: Since I’m an athiest I do the right moral thing because it’s the right thing to do. You do it because of fear of some god. Therefore I’m more moral than you.

In moral relativism there is no such thing as more moral. There is only moral. Here’s the link again (I can find other authoritative links that same the very same thing but why bother):
theaetetus.tamu.edu/phil-111/victor/moral/Relativism_handout.pdf

I’ll quote some of it for you:
II. Subjectivism or Individual Ethical Relativism: ethical judgments are the expressions of the moral outlook & attitudes of individual people.
-no person’s moral beliefs are any better or more correct than any other, for that would assume some objective standard against which those beliefs can be assessed.

that means your view could be factually no better than Hitler’s]

III. Cultural Relativism: ethical values vary from society to society and the basis for moral judgments lies in social or cultural norms.

• a person must look to the norms of his or her culture to determine what the right thing to do is.
  -no society’s views are better or more correct than any other’s.

[that means your view could be factually no better than Hitler’s Germany]

C. Situational Differences: People, situations, cultures and times differ in significant ways. How could what is right for one person, time, situation or culture be right for every other? Different situations pose different challenges to people, and meeting different challenges means making different moral choices.

1. Response: Objectivism does allow factoring in the context of an action. There is an important difference between moral realism or objectivism and moral absolutism. Moral absolutism is the view that moral rules are exceptionless. For example, an absolutist might hold that it is always wrong to steal. So, even if one’s life depended on it, it would be wrong to steal a loaf of bread if one were starving. The realist or objectivist, however, need not say it is always wrong to steal. The realist might believe that the reduction of extreme suffering is an objective value and therefore one can steal a loaf of bread for that reason; that is, the realist or objectivist might say that it would be the objectively right thing to do to steal a loaf of bread if one were starving.

V. Problems for Cultural Relativism and Subjectivism
A. Cultural Relativism

1. From which group am I supposed to get my values? My country, my hemisphere, my family, my region (e.g north/south)? And if I’m supposed to get my values from one of these in particular, why should it be that one and not another? The choice would seem arbitrary.
2. No agreement: there are many moral issues for which there is no consensus resolution-- for example, any moral issue in this book. If there is no prevailing cultural view, does that mean there simply is no right or wrong in cases such as euthanasia, abortion, affirmative action etc?
3. Change of cultural opinion: what happens when the cultural consensus changes? Take, for example, the Vietnam war. At one point, our society supported this war, but later the support was lost. This would mean, according to the relativist, that the war was just at one time but unjust at another. But this is absurd: the war became unpopular because people realized that the war was unjust all along.
4. No moral progress: the notion of moral progress would not make sense according to relativism. A society’s views cannot improve because whatever the society thinks is right at the time is right. Hence society could not progress from a worse to a better position; the most we could say is that the society’s view had changed. This would mean that we didn’t make progress by ending slavery or giving women their rights.
5. So-called “moral reformers” act unethically: if the cultural consensus determines what is right, then anyone who tries to change the consensus would be acting unethically. But this would include moral reformers such as Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi-- people who we think are doing something good and just.
6. No way to resolve intercultural moral conflicts: two cultures that disagreed over a moral issue could not reasonably resolve their conflict because there would be no culturally independent standard by which disputes would be settled. Both cultures would simply be right.

VI. The Issue of Tolerance: many people endorse relativism because they believe it to be a more tolerant view. They reason that since each culture has its own ethical standards, and there is no objective standard to speak of, one culture cannot criticize another culture for having an inferior set of values. But tolerance and relativism are in no way related. A cultural relativist cannot insist that cultures be tolerant of one another because tolerance might not be a value in those cultures. Indeed, if a culture values intolerance, then the relativist must hold that such a culture must be intolerant of others.
In general, if the relativist says that we ought to be tolerant of other cultures, she is being flagrantly inconsistent. She is assuming that being tolerant is an objective moral principle to which everyone should adhere.

 

[john_doran]

You need to learn the difference between metaethics and normative ethics. All your questions indicate you have little understand of moral theory. But don’t feel alone most people do not.

Objectified: is the god Thor real? In the normative sense yes. We can study what kind of god Thor was suposed to be. But was he real in the metaphysical sense?

That same reasoning applies in ethics. There is meta and normative.

if you spent less time assuming that i don’t know much about moral philosophy, and more time actually looking at my question, you might have had a better chance of answering it…

what you said originally was: “Morals can be objectified in the normative sense but not in the metaethical sense”.

this is not synonymous with a simple statement of the differences between normative ethics and metaethics - you are making a claim that appears to be something like “one can have objective morality as a matter of normative fact, but not as a matter of metaethical fact”. i say “something like”, because i don’t know what you mean. and i still don’t.

Doug50:

Are human rights real? Well they certainly are in the normative sense according to our culture but they aren’t in the metaphysical sense if Natualism has anything to say about it…just like the gods. In Naturalism there is no true god and no true morality. Naturalism is both atheistic and amoralistic.

“Why can’t the source be human nature?” Isn’t that what atheists argue about source of all gods - that the source for these thingies are the stuff of human myth making? Well, guess what? To naturalism that same myth making argument holds not only for metaphysical gods but for metaethical morals. To naturalism none of it is Real (not gods or morals). Moral relativism is called moral anti-realism for a reason. Did you not read the link I gave on the subject Moral Relativism Subjectivism? It was from Texas A&M university’s philosophical depatment.

can you please provide what you understand to be the definition of “naturalism”, and let me know if it’s in any way related to “moral/ethical naturalism”.

Doug50:

For a true Naturalist to argue for one relative moral code over another is like an atheist arguing for one god over another. What’s the point?

If you inject any standard that so much as imply one moral system ought to be preferred to another you will have inadvertantly injected a metaphysical/metaethical objective standard that would not only cause you to factually be denying moral relativism but you will also be rejecting Naturalism to boot. There’s no getting around that. Your metaphysic must be compatible with your metaethic.

Since Secularism holds to a belief in Natualism is necessarily follows that the metaethic is moral anti-realism (aka moral relativism).

Humanims OTOH holds to a belief that all people are the posesors of individual rights that cannot be negated by any social legal system. Therefore the Jews in Nazi Germany actually did have a metaethical right to life and liberty. In short humanism is moral realism

What happens if you marry an anti-moral realism with a moral realism? How can something be both metaethcially real and not real at the same time? It can’t. Secular humanism is an oxymoron.

If you’re the type of person who tells me you don’t have a metaphyical belief, I going to tell you that you don’t know what ther term means. Even materialism is a metaphysical belief.

you’re all over the map here…what has this got to do with anything i said?

i am a proponent of the (metaethical) position that morality is grounded in (NOT “reducible to”) human nature, which is NOT the same thing as “naturalism” of any kind.

 

[john_doran]

If naturalism is true there is no such thing as a true right or wrong.

well, i know of some moral naturalists who would disagree with you.

but that is as may be - i am in fact an ethical non-naturalist (though not a non-cognitivist), so i’m not sure why you’re tarring me with this particular brush.

Doug50:

I’ve seen your claim before. It goes something like this: Since I’m an athiest I do the right moral thing because it’s the right thing to do. You do it because of fear of some god. Therefore I’m more moral than you.

i’m not sure whose claim this might be, but it’s certainly not mine.

i am a catholic who believes that people ought to do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do; i make no judgments about who is in fact more or less moral than anyone else - i restrict my observations to the relative nature of different motivations for action.

i happen also to believe that it is entirely consistent to believe in an objective and absolute morality at the same time as one believes that god does not exist, since i believe that god is not the source of morality.

i expect that’s going to make a lot of what you say next, otiose…

Doug50:

In moral relativism there is no such thing as more moral. There is only moral. Here’s the link again (I can find other authoritative links that same the very same thing but why bother):
theaetetus.tamu.edu/phil-111/victor/moral/Relativism_handout.pdf

I’ll quote some of it for you:
II. Subjectivism or Individual Ethical Relativism: ethical judgments are the expressions of the moral outlook & attitudes of individual people.
-no person’s moral beliefs are any better or more correct than any other, for that would assume some objective standard against which those beliefs can be assessed.

that means your view could be factually no better than Hitler’s]

III. Cultural Relativism: ethical values vary from society to society and the basis for moral judgments lies in social or cultural norms.

• a person must look to the norms of his or her culture to determine what the right thing to do is.
  -no society’s views are better or more correct than any other’s.

[that means your view could be factually no better than Hitler’s Germany]

C. Situational Differences: People, situations, cultures and times differ in significant ways. How could what is right for one person, time, situation or culture be right for every other? Different situations pose different challenges to people, and meeting different challenges means making different moral choices.

1. Response: Objectivism does allow factoring in the context of an action. There is an important difference between moral realism or objectivism and moral absolutism. Moral absolutism is the view that moral rules are exceptionless. For example, an absolutist might hold that it is always wrong to steal. So, even if one’s life depended on it, it would be wrong to steal a loaf of bread if one were starving. The realist or objectivist, however, need not say it is always wrong to steal. The realist might believe that the reduction of extreme suffering is an objective value and therefore one can steal a loaf of bread for that reason; that is, the realist or objectivist might say that it would be the objectively right thing to do to steal a loaf of bread if one were starving.

V. Problems for Cultural Relativism and Subjectivism
A. Cultural Relativism

1. From which group am I supposed to get my values? My country, my hemisphere, my family, my region (e.g north/south)? And if I’m supposed to get my values from one of these in particular, why should it be that one and not another? The choice would seem arbitrary.
2. No agreement: there are many moral issues for which there is no consensus resolution-- for example, any moral issue in this book. If there is no prevailing cultural view, does that mean there simply is no right or wrong in cases such as euthanasia, abortion, affirmative action etc?
3. Change of cultural opinion: what happens when the cultural consensus changes? Take, for example, the Vietnam war. At one point, our society supported this war, but later the support was lost. This would mean, according to the relativist, that the war was just at one time but unjust at another. But this is absurd: the war became unpopular because people realized that the war was unjust all along.
4. No moral progress: the notion of moral progress would not make sense according to relativism. A society’s views cannot improve because whatever the society thinks is right at the time is right. Hence society could not progress from a worse to a better position; the most we could say is that the society’s view had changed. This would mean that we didn’t make progress by ending slavery or giving women their rights.
5. So-called “moral reformers” act unethically: if the cultural consensus determines what is right, then anyone who tries to change the consensus would be acting unethically. But this would include moral reformers such as Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi-- people who we think are doing something good and just.
6. No way to resolve intercultural moral conflicts: two cultures that disagreed over a moral issue could not reasonably resolve their conflict because there would be no culturally independent standard by which disputes would be settled. Both cultures would simply be right.

VI. The Issue of Tolerance: many people endorse relativism because they believe it to be a more tolerant view. They reason that since each culture has its own ethical standards, and there is no objective standard to speak of, one culture cannot criticize another culture for having an inferior set of values. But tolerance and relativism are in no way related. A cultural relativist cannot insist that cultures be tolerant of one another because tolerance might not be a value in those cultures. Indeed, if a culture values intolerance, then the relativist must hold that such a culture must be intolerant of others.
In general, if the relativist says that we ought to be tolerant of other cultures, she is being flagrantly inconsistent. She is assuming that being tolerant is an objective moral principle to which everyone should adhere.

as i thought…what has this got to do with my position?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It does not matter, the answer is still correct. If he reads the thread he will see ideas as “let’s use Kant as an answer” or “let’s use the Golden Rule as a substitute” however none of that holds up under scrutiny, so his comment is correct. All atheists have the same problem which they cannot overcome, without God they have appointed themselves in charge of all things. And yet they must deny this very thing to their neighbor in order to obtain his trust

In much the same way, the elephant doesn’t hold up to the scrutiny of the six blind sages – one says it is like a fan, another like a rope, another like a tree, another like a wall, another like a spear, the last like a snake. Does the elephant not exist?

You do not get to tell me what I believe or what drives me. Stop trying.

I did not tell you what you believe (interesting huh). The facts are simple and as addressed.

why can’t there be an objective morality without god? i mean, all you need to get objectivity is for your morality to be grounded in something objective; why not human nature, for example?

I have been asking this question for a couple of years now; many say they have the answer. Every answer given is terribly flawed. I have come to believe there simply is no “something objective.” Human nature is a common guess, so follow it. Would it not mean you are act as I want you to? And the problem is the word “I”.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Almost all morals speak to the core values necessary in living which would perpetuate the human race, and create the harmony among humans to take incentive away from harming each other.

Not killing other humans is a no brainer. If we all kill each other, there are no humans. Once you accept that one, it’s not too much of stretch to see that moral arguments against euthenasia, abortion, contraception, unjust war, unchecked use of the death penalty, homosexuality etc. all have a basis in natural law because if you trace any of these to their natural conclusion, they all lead to the partial or entire extinction of our species.

The arguments against Stealing, coveting, polygamy, dishonesty, fear mongering, unjust war, torture, etc. all have a basis in natural law because if you trace them out, these are the root causes of individuals or groups to inflict tyranny or injustice onto other groups or individuals, forming the foundations for degradation of the instinct to protect, and cherish life, and leading then to killing, which then leads to the partial or entire extinction of our species.

All good moral code eventually traces to preservation of self and species.

All bad moral code evetually traces to the extinction of self and species.

Faith and believing opens a conduit to the good morals which is available, and frankly, eventually obligatory in order to successfully thrive as a species.

On the freeway to salvation, we’re all heading in the same direction. Those who are blessed by the Holy Spirit with an understanding and belief in Christ Jesus and his Church are in the express lane.

Those who are blessed by the Holy Spirit with an understanding and belief in Christ Jesus, but are not yet in full communion with his Church, are travelling along at speed limit, but may encounter some slower traffic. They can always pass the slower traffic, and may merge quite easily onto the express lane, once it fully dawns on them that it’s there.

Those who love Christ, and live in a Christian manner, but haven’t yet grasped the concept of trinity, or the sacraments, are going a little slow for freeway travel, and many cars may pass them, but they’ll get where they’re going in the fullness of time. Of course they may also, at any time decide to speed up a little, or merge onto the express lane, once it dawns on them that it’s there, and they make a few lane changes.

Those who are invincibly ignorant of Christ, may not even know how to drive. But they’re travelling the freeway by bus, if they’re living in a Christlike manner. Perhaps even in the fast lane.

Those who know about the Gospels, have been offered the love, light and salvation of Christ Jesus, yet defiantly refuse his love, or worse yet have had it, and knowingly, and maliciously discarded it, and are unrepentent are defiantly entering the freeway via the exit ramp. They are travelling against traffic, creating disruption to the flow, and perhaps colliding with others causing injury, suffering and loss to those unfortunate enough to not see them coming. Sometimes, they can even convince a few others to change directions by causing doubt or confusion in the minds of other drivers. Eventually, they will be turned around though, or, sadly they may be forced off the freeway altogether, and will never get to that beautiful destination that everyone else is heading for, (In the lane, and at the speed that they’re comfortable with).

The Peace of our Lord be with you all,

Steven

 

[cpayne]

and things aren’t right or wrong because god says so: god says so because they’re right or wrong.

JD, wouldn’t this make the standard of morality ABOVE God in power and authority? which is part of Plato’s Euthyphro problem, right?

I agree with you that the standard of morality is nature. But as Aquinas says, every law, in order to have the character of law, must be promulgated by a lawgiver. The Lawgiver of human nature is God, even if those moral laws can be rationally ascertained without reference to Him.

For example, look at the Categorical Imperative. If Kant tells me, “Act only upon that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it become universal law,” my proper response, if I were a non-believer, would be simply to say, “Who says? You? Why should I submit my life to your imperative? Who gives that law?”

If the answer is, “The applications of this law may be ascertained rationally, without theism”—well, the same thing is true of natural law. The difference is that natural law actually has a Lawgiver, and therefore has the true quality of law as such. (The C.I. is just another principle of natural law, IMHO.)

What do you think about this?

 

[john_doran]

I have been asking this question for a couple of years now; many say they have the answer. Every answer given is terribly flawed. I have come to believe there simply is no “something objective.” Human nature is a common guess, so follow it. Would it not mean you are act as I want you to? And the problem is the word “I”.

why have you come to believe there can be no source of moral objectivity other than god? how does god ground objective morality?

what, precisely, is wrong with “human nature”?

not sure i understand your last question - why would a morality based on every human being’s mutual humanity commit me to doing whatever you - an individual human being - wanted me to do? that makes as much sense to me as supposing that the rationality that is the ground of our mutual human reason, would commit me to believing anything you told me…

 

[cpayne]

why have you come to believe there can be no source of moral objectivity other than god? how does god ground objective morality?

what, precisely, is wrong with “human nature”?

Nothing, EXCEPT with the qualifications in previous post. A true law requires a lawgiver.

 

[Mirdath]

Texas Roofer:

I did not tell you what you believe (interesting huh).

You have been telling me all along that I cannot believe in moral absolutes, simply because you cannot imagine any other than your own, which you yourself chose freely and could choose to abandon at any time; and you say now that I must be lying to everybody to gain trust I would not otherwise have.

I can think of no better poster child for ‘invincible ignorance’, although not exactly in the manner the Church speaks of it. You are contributing nothing, and making the other Catholics who are attempting to seriously discuss absolutism look bad by association.

All good moral code eventually traces to preservation of self and species.

All bad moral code evetually traces to the extinction of self and species.

Oddly enough, what you describe is nothing more than a social contract

Those who know about the Gospels, have been offered the love, light and salvation of Christ Jesus, yet defiantly refuse his love, or worse yet have had it, and knowingly, and maliciously discarded it, and are unrepentent are defiantly entering the freeway via the exit ramp. They are travelling against traffic, creating disruption to the flow, and perhaps colliding with others causing injury, suffering and loss to those unfortunate enough to not see them coming. Sometimes, they can even convince a few others to change directions by causing doubt or confusion in the minds of other drivers. Eventually, they will be turned around though, or, sadly they may be forced off the freeway altogether, and will never get to that beautiful destination that everyone else is heading for, (In the lane, and at the speed that they’re comfortable with).

That’s a little harsh. Have you considered that there are those who have tried to believe and accept that love but cannot?

cpayne:

JD, wouldn’t this make the standard of morality ABOVE God in power and authority? which is part of Plato’s Euthyphro problem, right?

John’s reversal doesn’t necessarily imply that, actually. If one assumes that God created morality, that does not have to mean he’s sitting up there scribbling a legal code for us. Rather, he might expect us to derive it ourselves based on our condition, and give us helpful hints.

 

[john_doran]

JD, wouldn’t this make the standard of morality ABOVE God in power and authority? which is part of Plato’s Euthyphro problem, right?

maybe, if you think that the principles of non-contradiction and identity, for example, entail that logic is above god in power and authority…

cpayne:

I agree with you that the standard of morality is nature. But as Aquinas says, every law, in order to have the character of law, must be promulgated by a lawgiver. The Lawgiver of human nature is God, even if those moral laws can be rationally ascertained without reference to Him.

what is it that gives god’s commands their normative force?

cpayne:

For example, look at the Categorical Imperative. If Kant tells me, “Act only upon that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it become universal law,” my proper response, if I were a non-believer, would be simply to say, “Who says? You? Why should I submit my life to your imperative? Who gives that law?”

well, on one level, the answer would be the same as if you had been told that you can’t believe in any reasoning that entails ~(A&~A), and you asked “why?”: because that’s just the way it is.

on another level, there is presumably a great deal of ancillary moral reasoning that leads from the self-evident “do good and avoid evil” to the categorical imperative; and i would expect an exposition of that reasoning in response to my question as to how we get the CI from our basic compulsion to act morally.

cpayne:

If the answer is, “The applications of this law may be ascertained rationally, without theism”—well, the same thing is true of natural law. The difference is that natural law actually has a Lawgiver, and therefore has the true quality of law as such. (The C.I. is just another principle of natural law, IMHO.)

What do you think about this?

i think you’re right, except that i don’t think god “gives” the natural law any more than he “gives” logical law: the nomology of each for us follows necessarily from our nature as rational animals.

again: what does it mean for god to “give” a moral law? if the moral law isn’t grounded in human nature - that is, if god has to do something extra to fix the facts of the moral law after he’s fixed all the physical and metaphysical facts about human beings - does that mean there is some possible world, W’, identical to the actual world in every way, except that murder is ok? and rape?

 

[wildleafblower]

what, precisely, is wrong with “human nature”?

Hello John, first off what comes to mind is an attitude of reconciliation in our lives which impels us to surrender a commitment or an individual act of charity. Maybe it is because the world is so filled with violence that we forget that we can reconcil and transform our world?

 

[cpayne]

and things aren’t right or wrong because god says so: god says so because they’re right or wrong.

Going back to this, but addressing your more recent posts as well: If God promulgates the moral law BECAUSE it is (already) right or wrong, that means God Himself must obey a higher law, the law of morality. However, if something is right or wrong BECAUSE God commands it, that makes it arbitrary (as in your later example of the world in which rape is normative). Neither position is acceptable, I think.

Given the idea of divine simplicity, however, one can say that whatever God is, God is that simply and absolutely. So God is not merely good, but Goodness itself.

Therefore God’s moral laws are not arbitrary—they proceed from His very nature of goodness. And the same is true for the other side: Moral law is not above God in authority, since it is identical with His own nature. That nature is reproduced to an extent in God’s image, which is human nature. We can ascertain moral law naturally, through reason, and that is for most people a good enough reason to obey it. But its character AS LAW is derived from the nature of God as Lawgiver, “to Whom it belongs to inflict punishment.” (Aquinas, somewhere in the ST)

So in that respect I guess I’m not a strict cognitivist, as I think you said earlier you are. But I AM a cognitivist, and agree that nature is the cognitive foundation of moral law.

 

[cpayne]

maybe, if you think that the principles of non-contradiction and identity, for example, entail that logic is above god in power and authority…

i think you’re right, except that i don’t think god “gives” the natural law any more than he “gives” logical law: the nomology of each for us follows necessarily from our nature as rational animals.

I’ve been thinking about this: If I’m right in what I’ve been arguing, that would mean that God is not only logical, but actually Logic itself. Our nature as rational animals follows from this. Could this be part of what is meant by the “Logos” being God?

 

[cpayne]

John’s reversal doesn’t necessarily imply that, actually. If one assumes that God created morality, that does not have to mean he’s sitting up there scribbling a legal code for us. Rather, he might expect us to derive it ourselves based on our condition, and give us helpful hints.

Hi, Mirdath. Okay, I’ve got a question. I’ve been following most of your posts on and off for a few months. Does your final sentence mean you are thinking about some type of natural law ethics? Or am I reading too much into it?

 

[john_doran]

Going back to this, but addressing your more recent posts as well: If God promulgates the moral law BECAUSE it is (already) right or wrong, that means God Himself must obey a higher law, the law of morality. However, if something is right or wrong BECAUSE God commands it, that makes it arbitrary (as in your later example of the world in which rape is normative). Neither position is acceptable, I think.

i guess i don’t understand why you think god has to promulgate anything - why, if god cannot change ~(A&~A), would he have to promulgate ~(A&~A)? what is this “promulgation”, and what does it add to the truth of the proposition “~(A&A)”?

in the same way, if it is necessarily true that “good is to be pursued”, why would god have to do anything else to help make it true?
cpyane:

Given the idea of divine simplicity, however, one can say that whatever God is, God is that simply and absolutely. So God is not merely good, but Goodness itself.

granted.

cpayne:

Therefore God’s moral laws are not arbitrary—they proceed from His very nature of goodness. And the same is true for the other side: Moral law is not above God in authority, since it is identical with His own nature. That nature is reproduced to an extent in God’s image, which is human nature. We can ascertain moral law naturally, through reason, and that is for most people a good enough reason to obey it.

also granted, with the following proviso: what is moral for god is not necessarily moral for us, just as what is moral for angels is not necessarily moral for us, since divine and angelic goods are not identical with human goods…

cpayne:

But its character AS LAW is derived from the nature of God as Lawgiver, “to Whom it belongs to inflict punishment.” (Aquinas, somewhere in the ST)

sure, but i still don’t know what it is you think god is doing when he “gives the law”; it’s like saying that god creates a world with triangles, and then passes another separate law that their internal angles (in euclidean space) must equal 180 degrees". what does that mean?

 

[john_doran]

I’ve been thinking about this: If I’m right in what I’ve been arguing, that would mean that God is not only logical, but actually Logic itself. Our nature as rational animals follows from this. Could this be part of what is meant by the “Logos” being God?

not sure i can make sense of it, but then the relationship between god and other necessary beings - such as the propositions of logic - is vexed and very, very complicated…

 

[Mirdath]

Hi, Mirdath. Okay, I’ve got a question. I’ve been following most of your posts on and off for a few months. Does your final sentence mean you are thinking about some type of natural law ethics? Or am I reading too much into it?

A little much. My opinion of ‘natural law’ is no higher than it has ever been, you may be sure of that!

Let us imagine, for a moment, that your dream has come true and I subscribe to the notion of a benevolent higher power, perhaps even the triune godhead of creator-father, redeemer-word-son, and love-spirit. In even this case, I see no reason to buy into a ‘natural moral law’. If I believe God has created and declared the creation Good, I need no more than that as a foundation for my ethics.

God is good: I will worship God. God’s creation is good: I will be a caring steward and work for its preservation, development, and so on and so forth – and in the absence of a to-do list, I’m going to have to figure out how to do that. I may end up drawing just about the same conclusions I already have, with the added worship. I may even decide that the Categorical Imperative works quite well in the capacity of moral determinant.

The Decalogue didn’t cover everything by a long shot, though it makes ten very good points – and there is a reason behind each, which can be extracted and applied to more cases. ‘Thou shalt not kill’, for instance, prohibits destroying God’s creation. That doesn’t make it a ‘natural moral law’, though – it makes it something that those who love and worship God should avoid, as it detracts from his evident glory and from the workings of Creation.

There is no reason for even a Christian to suppose the existence of moral laws parallel to physical laws. Remember, Jesus had to tell Peter explicitly, ‘do you love me? Feed my sheep’.

 

[john_doran]

There is no reason for even a Christian to suppose the existence of moral laws parallel to physical laws.

sure, but so what? no christian (or anyone else of whom i’m aware) believes that, say, the moral law prohibiting wrongful killing, acts on the human will in the way that gravity acts on the human body.

not sure what you’re getting at here.

Mirdath:

Remember, Jesus had to tell Peter explicitly, ‘do you love me? Feed my sheep’.

…or here.

 

[Mirdath]

sure, but so what? no christian (or anyone else of whom i’m aware) believes that, say, the moral law prohibiting wrongful killing, acts on the human will in the way that gravity acts on the human body.

not sure what you’re getting at here.

Lucky you I have seen exactly that claim made by Catholics, that moral laws are just as much a part of creation and just as universally pervasive as the law of gravity – only without such immediate consequences.

…or here.

I thought it made a nice closer – it shows Jesus giving a command to one who loves him, rather than expecting Peter to pick up on the law supposedly ‘graven on his heart’.

 

[john_doran]

Lucky you I have seen exactly that claim made by Catholics, that moral laws are just as much a part of creation and just as universally pervasive as the law of gravity – only without such immediate consequences.

ahh, i see what you (or they) are getting at: it’s not as if the moral law prohibiting wrongful killing prevents people from killing wrongfully in the way that the law of gravity prevents us from flying into space - it’s that the moral law dictates that unrepentant murderers will be punished in the way that people who leap from tall buildings will plummet to their deaths…

is that a fair description?

Mirdath:

I thought it made a nice closer – it shows Jesus giving a command to one who loves him, rather than expecting Peter to pick up on the law supposedly ‘graven on his heart’.

…not the best example of this, i don’t think; this story concerns jesus instituting the papacy rather than simply reminding peter to be a nice guy; only the latter admonishment, of course, would be an example of christ’s reminding peter of something he already should have known…