Objective Morals, Free Will, Afterlife

[Richard_Powers]

One thing I hear a lot of theists name as an objection to atheism or agnosticism is that there is a lack of objective morals.

I have a couple of different areas of questions.

First, even if there is a God that has a set of morals, what does that get us? Assuming that individuals have some form of freewill (and if they don’t the moral issue is pretty much moot) even if there are objectives morals, individuals are still free to disregard these standards and establish their own. Thus, any agent can create their own moral standards. So what makes the morals of the agent God so special?

Now, for the next area of questions, assuming that God is real and that the Bible gives an account of God, in Job, YHWH, through the voice from the whirlwind, gives a series of rhetorical questions, to Job’s questioning of God’s nature, that show his (YHWH’s) power and how his nature and role are beyond the understanding of man. Would that not mean that the morally good actions are good because God says so and the only reason to follow God’s moral rules is because God can mess you up bad (in this life or the afterlife) if you do not? Or to put it another way is not the position that objective morals are given by God just a might makes right position? YHWH’s only answer to Job seems to be shut up. I am. I am more powerful than Behemoth and Leviathan. So do what I say because I have unlimited power. Is this really moral position or it is really more of a power position? Or is there no real difference between morality and power?

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3091312]One thing I hear a lot of theists name as an objection to atheism or agnosticism is that there is a lack of objective morals.

I have a couple of different areas of questions.

First, even if there is a God that has a set of morals, what does that get us?

First and foremost, ther is a God and our moral understanding comes from that God. Second, the other alternative or polite fiction as you could call it, is nature as means for objectifying some sort of morality. This ultimately leads to Darwinism and survival of the fittest which is a very slippery slope and something of eugenics and Nazi Germany.

Assuming that individuals have some form of freewill (and if they don’t the moral issue is pretty much moot) even if there are objectives morals, individuals are still free to disregard these standards and establish their own.

Humans are free to deny that the gravity exists but becomes shocked at the result of them lossing their balance or slipping on ice. They have that freedom. (Morality and laws aside, but merely in terms of freedom of choice)

Thus, any agent can create their own moral standards.

Correct. I can create any standards I want and justify it any way I want.

So what makes the morals of the agent God so special?

It is a refelction of reality as it is and asbsolute truth as we know it.

For example: I can create my own martial art. I am know the 100 degree triple black belt in Ping Pong. My martial art is the greatest in the world. I train hundreds of students and etsbalish a huge school. Most of my training techniques involve sitting on the couch eating potato chips and watching Bruce Lee movies with an occasional visit to the kitchen for supplies. I am the greatest master the world has ever known and can defeat all that I see. My first fight, I lose with my pattened cheetos eating technique I practiced for so many years. Or, I never fight anyone and continual claim my style is pacifistic. Am I practicing a martial art? Is mine just as good as those who train and study hours a day for years?

All other forms of morality pale in comparrison to the divine because the divine is actually real as opposed to soemthing humans attempt to create themselves.

Now, for the next area of questions, assuming that God is real and that the Bible gives an account of God, in Job, YHWH, through the voice from the whirlwind, gives a series of rhetorical questions, to Job’s questioning of God’s nature, that show his (YHWH’s) power and how his nature and role are beyond the understanding of man. Would that not mean that the morally good actions are good because God says so and the only reason to follow God’s moral rules is because God can mess you up bad (in this life or the afterlife) if you do not?

All humans seek the good and that ultimate good is God. We do not seek the good because we desire to avoid punishment in the afterlife but we desire the good or percieved good naturally. Those who are Bible thumping, hell and damnation meteror from the skies evangelists are way too over zealous and have way to little understanding of theology. Its a generally good idea to avoid such people even though they may mean well.

Or to put it another way is not the position that objective morals are given by God just a might makes right position?

Not might makes right, but perfect makes right. Humans are imperfect creatures, should we really believe that we know better or are better capable of creating a better moral understanding or reality then the Ultimate?

YHWH’s only answer to Job seems to be shut up. I am. I am more powerful than Behemoth and Leviathan. So do what I say because I have unlimited power.

The Old Testament should be read in context of the New Testament. John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He sent His only Son.” The Old Testament is an understanding of a child, if you will. Or an foundation that is necessary to build upon later on. The NT is the OT all grown up. It took mankind a long time until they were read to accepty Christ and the progression can be seen in the OT to the NT.

Is this really moral position or it is really more of a power position?

I think its best to defer to a loving omnipotent being who allow His only Son to be hung on a cross in order to show His ultimate love for mankind (simplified)

Or is there no real difference between morality and power?

Might doe snot make right. There is a huge difference between power and truth. Just because someon eis powerful doe snot make them rigth. God on the other hand has demonstarted His vastly superior understanding of morality then the rest of humanity which is demonstarted in the Gospels and the life of Christ. Its pretty safe to say that Christ proved God’s point a zillion times over:thumbsup:

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Would that not mean that the morally good actions are good because God says so and the only reason to follow God’s moral rules is because God can mess you up bad (in this life or the afterlife) if you do not?

It is entirely possible that something is inherently neutral - like a cat - but become a morally significant object because a benefactor inists that it be fed on nothing but caviar. If your obligation to benefactor is very great, it becomes a moral imperative to feed that cat caviar and nothing but caviar. Of course if the benefactor may also find out that you’ve been feed it ttinned tuna, and might take revenge, then it becomes prudent to feed it caviar as well.

Or is there no real difference between morality and power?

One social rule, and thus a moral rule, is to recognise truth. If Bloggs is a film star who is pulling in top dollar for the company, whilst you are just a supporting actor who can easily be replaced, you must recongise that reality - that Bloggs can dictate his changing room, and maybe even his hours of work, whilst you cannot.

 

[Richard_Powers]

You will have to forgive me if this wrong, but it all seems it all rests on the assumption that God is perfectly good and that all goodness flows from God. But that does not seem to be the position that is taken by YHWH when questioned by Job. YHWH does not say that he is prefect goodness or prefect anything. YHWH just tells Job that Job should not question him and that man is incapable of understanding and that he is really powerful so Job should shut up and do as Job is told.

It seems like the argument that God is morally perfect just comes from the assumed definition of God - that God is morally perfect. But I do not see the support for this position. Is there support for this position that does not rest on assumptions?

I do not see why the God position is any more valid than any other agent’s position. All agents are capable of creating a system of actions they fell are good and bad and can take action to reward or punish actions as to how they relate to the agent’s system. The difference with the God agent (if he exists) seems to be his power to enforce his position.

Take action A in circumstances Y and Z and agents 1, 2, 3, 4.

Agent 1 determines action A to be good in circumstances Y and Z.
Agent 2 determines action A to be good in circumstance Y and bad in circumstance Z.
Agent 3 determines action A to be bad in circumstance Y and good in circumstance Z.
Agent 4 determines action A to be neutral in circumstance Y and bad in circumstance Z.

Now, if morality was actually objective all agents would have to reach the same answer or some of the agents would have to be wrong. Say Agent 1 is God, can you explain why the subjective determination of the other agents are wrong without just defining Agent 1 as morally perfect?

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3094307]You will have to forgive me if this wrong, but it all seems it all rests on the assumption that God is perfectly good and that all goodness flows from God. But that does not seem to be the position that is taken by YHWH when questioned by Job. YHWH does not say that he is prefect goodness or prefect anything. YHWH just tells Job that Job should not question him and that man is incapable of understanding and that he is really powerful so Job should shut up and do as Job is told.

I think the point of the text might be to say that man in their finite understanding can not understand the infinite and should simply do things as a matter of faith sometimes. This is to say that Job and possibly mankind as an extension is not able to understand God and His infinite being. Job wasn’t ready to understand because this is also before Christ walked upon the earth. There are many things we have come to understand about God because Christ Himself told us.

It seems like the argument that God is morally perfect just comes from the assumed definition of God - that God is morally perfect. But I do not see the support for this position. Is there support for this position that does not rest on assumptions?

Perfection is perhaps a subjective term to a certain extent. God is perfect to us because He is much greater than us imperfect creatures. Since we can not fully understand the extent of God we deem Him more perfect than us. However, Christ was perfect as well and Christ Is God, so it would stand to reason that God Himslef is perfect as well. The only possible way for God not to be perfect would be for a being “greater” (not neccessarily mmeaning more powerful) than God to deem it so, until then He is perfect.

I do not see why the God position is any more valid than any other agent’s position.

Part of your dilema lies in the fact that I’m guessing you do not believe in God or are at least are on the fence about it. If that is the case I think we need to go through a discussion about the existence of God first but I’ll continue anyway.

Since there is a God and He did create the entire universe its pretty safe to say that He knows what He’s doing as opposed to something like Wicca which was made up.

All agents are capable of creating a system of actions they fell are good and bad and can take action to reward or punish actions as to how they relate to the agent’s system.

Very true. But as aI stated in a previous post that just because people are capable of creating something does make it equal to everything else nor even valid.

If you run a restauarnt and all you serve is water do you think you shoul dmake as much money as most other restaurants? Is your retaurant just as good as every othe restauarnt?

The difference with the God agent (if he exists) seems to be his power to enforce his position.

Not quite. The difference with the God agent is that He is the Ultimate source of the good and loves perfectly. It is safe to say that this is vastly superior to anything man has created.

Take action A in circumstances Y and Z and agents 1, 2, 3, 4.

Agent 1 determines action A to be good in circumstances Y and Z.
Agent 2 determines action A to be good in circumstance Y and bad in circumstance Z.
Agent 3 determines action A to be bad in circumstance Y and good in circumstance Z.
Agent 4 determines action A to be neutral in circumstance Y and bad in circumstance Z.

Now, if morality was actually objective all agents would have to reach the same answer or some of the agents would have to be wrong.

Correct.

Say Agent 1 is God, can you explain why the subjective determination of the other agents are wrong without just defining Agent 1 as morally perfect?

I think we really need to go into an existence of God discussion but i’ll try and make do.

The very existence of God is perfect as demonstrated by jesus Christ who He himself was perfect even His human nature.

It is very difficult to jump from A to C without discussing B.
I’ll try to help you in my following post.

 

[freesoulhope]

It seems like the argument that God is morally perfect just comes from the assumed definition of God -

Assumed or not, this is beside the point; You are just focusing on one particulor section in the bible. Its not only by the bible that Catholics know the true nature of God; they also know God through sacred tradition. I’m sure that if you read the bible all the way through, you will find out for your self that some prophet or person speaks of Gods perfection; such as, “nobody is good but God”.

The fact of the matter is, whether or not you believe that God is perfect love, Christians believe in a perfect God; we believe that God is Love. It is in reflection of Gods nature that some thing or someone is defined imperfect or immoral; God is therefore the measure of all being. Anything that contradicts the objective moral standards of ultimate perfection, becomes “objectively” flawed. God exists objectively, not just as a person, but as the foundation to moral law. When you are guilty, it is not because somebody said so, it is because you oppose Gods nature.

If God does not exist, then moral law, right and wrong, is just a fantasy which we impose on people inorder to “guilt trip”; as a means of control. The moral law might exist in are minds, and we might feel guilt when we do wrong, but without an objective extention in the real world, terms such as good and evil, say nothing objectively **true **about reality. Morality is meaningless. It simply becomes a lie to claim that some body is morally wrong, objectively, for rapeing another human being. If reality isn’t ultimately founded upon an objectively perfect God, then we contradict no objective good, and therefore break no objective moral standard; other then the fallacys we make up in are heads to feel dignified and comfortable in our meaningless and purposeless lives. If God does not exist, then we are just animals, and therefore we are subject to the same laws as animals.

Hence, Christians have a good foundation for objective moral values; atheists do not.

 

[Joyousguard]

There are absolutes in this world. Look at gravity. Gravity does not apply to some but not apply to others. I can not go to Canada and find that gravity mysteriously disappears when I cross the border. There are absolutes in the world or another way to say it, there are things in this world that can only be one way and not another. Gravity works and can not “not work”.

If there is no God then Darwinism rules and the only reason the weak survive is to serve the strong. Survival of the fittest becomes the rule of the day and absoluetly everything of a moral signifigance can be considered right and can be considerd wrong. Murder can be good and rape can be even better. The only thing preventing societies from enaging in the mass practice of rape and murder would be the detriment to social stability. Basically its okay to kill who you want as long as chaos doe snot ensue (my arguments are condensed and simplified for convienince).

Yet human beings have some sort of moral compass within us that acts as a guide. This is commonly refered to as a conscience. Look at the word “conscience” for a moment. “Con- Science” there is something inherent in human beings that is againstt science and as we know science is an attempt to study and understand nature. So there is something that exists within us that is directly contrary to nature and what we see in the natural world.

Since our conscience by its very essence is contrary to nature it must have come from some place else. Why have human beings in societies seperated by thousands of miles with not contact to one another come to very similiar laws and moral codes? Why is murder wrong here in this country as well as in most others?

There is some unseen force working within human beings that is contrary to nature, not a unique trait but rather almost completely universal. A universal morality that is not found in nature and is not created by individual people.

Almost all morality in the world lies at the other end of something divine. Even those who don’t believe in God have a sense of morality that was arrived at from the divine. They keep many of the rules and moral codes but remove the source. They use the same bridge to get from point A to point B as those of us who know God to exist. However, atheists then attempt to cover their tracks and create their own moral bridge in retrospect which never holds up to scrutiny.

digest this a bit and then we’ll test the waters to see where you stand:thumbsup:

 

[Richard_Powers]

This is commonly refered to as a conscience. Look at the word “conscience” for a moment. “Con- Science” there is something inherent in human beings that is againstt science and as we know science is an attempt to study and understand nature. So there is something that exists within us that is directly contrary to nature and what we see in the natural world.

In the word conscience the prefix con does not mean against. It means within. It comes from the prefix com which means together; with; joint; jointly. The word conscience comes from the Latin word cōnscientia. Literally it means 'knowledge within oneself. Con “within” and scire “to know” Saying that the word conscience has something to do with being against science makes about as much sense as saying history shows that the human story is about drugs because history can be broken down into hi story.

[quoteSince our conscience by its very essence is contrary to nature it must have come from some place else. Why have human beings in societies seperated by thousands of miles with not contact to one another come to very similiar laws and moral codes? Why is murder wrong here in this country as well as in most others?
[/quote]

Our conscience is not contrary to nature. Have read The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation? It is a popular science account of how the conscience can evolve.

amazon.com/Origins-Virtue-Instincts-Evolution-Cooperation/dp/0140264450/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198008860&sr=8-1

Sorry, I have to go. I wanted to post more on this. I will post more later.

 

[Richard_Powers]

If God does not exist, then moral law, right and wrong, is just a fantasy which we impose on people inorder to “guilt trip”; as a means of control. The moral law might exist in are minds, and we might feel guilt when we do wrong, but without an objective extention in the real world, terms such as good and evil, say nothing objectively **true **about reality. Morality is meaningless. It simply becomes a lie to claim that some body is morally wrong, objectively, for rapeing another human being. If reality isn’t ultimately founded upon an objectively perfect God, then we contradict no objective good, and therefore break no objective moral standard; other then the fallacys we make up in are heads to feel dignified and comfortable in our meaningless and purposeless lives. If God does not exist, then we are just animals, and therefore we are subject to the same laws as animals.

Hence, Christians have a good foundation for objective moral values; atheists do not.

I have a couple of more minutes.

Why does morality have to be objective to have meaning? Is a woman’s love for her children any less important because it is subjective to her? If the vast majority of the people in American subjectively find that slavery is wrong, how is that position any less valid if they find (and they will have to do this subjectively) that slavery is objectively wrong?

In the end do not all agents have to determine actions to be good or bad based on the their own choice? What difference does it make if the agent feels the basis of the determination is objective or subjective?

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3097195]In the word conscience the prefix con does not mean against. It means within. It comes from the prefix com which means together; with; joint; jointly. The word conscience comes from the Latin word cōnscientia. Literally it means 'knowledge within oneself. Con “within” and scire “to know” Saying that the word conscience has something to do with being against science makes about as much sense as saying history shows that the human story is about drugs because history can be broken down into hi story.

I think you missed the point and took it too literal, I should have put a next to “Con-Science” to have made it blatently obvious

Our conscience is not contrary to nature.

Let me explain a bit better. The conscience is against the natural law of the Darwinistic approach of survival of the fittest or the strongest. Nature teaches us that it is a dog eat dog world but the conscience is naturally against this law of nature. “The natural conscience is no distinct faculty, but the one intellect of a man inasmuch as it considers right and wrong in conduct, aided meanwhile by a good will, by the use of the emotions, by the practical experience of living, and by all external helps that are to the purpose.” Now, the most important part to examine is the underline part. Human beings are born with certain faculties that enable us to tell right from wrong and truth from non truth to a certain degree. Part of this is the intellect in conjunction with the will and the passions. The intellect tells us what is good, the will goes out and seeks the good, while the passions give us the drive to do so. (simplified)

By your reasoning human beings can know the good merely throught their own faculties. This is somewhat true. Human beings can learn the truth through expereince and learning but ultimately morality and the conscience depend upon external forces to act in accordance with the good in order to be able to distinguish the good from a percieved good. Human faculties at their natural level are incapable of distinguishing the good from the false good without the intervention of the divine and a raising of the natural faculties to a supernatural level by grace.

 

[Joyousguard]

continued…

Let us look at the history sense of the conscience:

The earliest written testimonies that we can consult tell us of recognized principles in morals, and if we confine our attention to the good which we find and neglect for the present the inconstancy and the admixture of many evils, we shall experience a satisfaction in the history. The Persians stood for virtue against vice in their support of Ahura Mazda against Ahriman; and it was an excellence of theirs to rise above “independent ethics” to the conception of God as the rewarder and the punisher. They even touched the doctrine of Christ’s saying, “What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” when to the question, what is the worth of the whole creation displayed before us, the Zend-Avesta has the reply: “the man therein who is delivered from evil in thought, word, and deed: he is the most valuable object on earth.” Here conscience was clearly enlightened. Of the moral virtues among the Persians truthfulness was conspicuous. Herodotus says that the youth were taught “to ride and shoot with the bow”, and “to speak the truth”. The unveracious Greeks, who admired the wiles of an Odysseus, were surprised at Persian veracity (Herodotus, I, 136, 138); and it may be that Herodotus is not fair on this head to Darius (III, 72). The Hindus in the Vedas do not rise high, but in Brahminism there is something more spiritual, and still more in the Buddhist reform on its best side, considered apart from the pessimistic view of life upon which its false asceticism was grounded. Buddhism had ten prohibitive commandments: three concerning the body, forbidding murder, theft, and unchastity; four concerning speech, forbidding lying, slander, abusive language, and vain conversation; and three concerning the mind internally, covetousness, malicious thoughts, and the doubting spirit. The Egyptians show the workings of conscience. In the “Book of the Dead” we find an examination of conscience, or rather profession of innocence, before the Supreme Judge after death. Two confessions are given enunciating most of the virtues (chap. cxxv): reverence for God; duties to the dead; charity to neighbours; duties of superiors and subjects; care for human life and limb; chastity, honesty, truthfulness, and avoidance of slander; freedom from covetousness. The Assyro-Babylonian monuments offer us many items on the favourable side; nor could the people whence issued the Code of Hammurabi, at a date anterior to the Mosaic legislation by perhaps seven hundred years, be ethically undeveloped. If the Code of Hammurabi has no precepts of reverence to God corresponding with the first three Commandments of the Mosaic Law, at least its preface contains a recognition of God’s supremacy. In China Confucius (c. 500 B. C.), in connection with an idea of heaven, delivered a high morality; and Mencius (c. 300 B. C.) developed this code of uprightness and benevolence as “Heaven’s appointment”. Greek ethics began to pass from its gnomic condition when Socrates fixed attention on the gnothi seauton in the interests of moral reflection. Soon followed Aristotle, who put the science on a lasting basis, with the great drawback of neglecting the theistic side and consequently the full doctrine of obligation. Neither for “obligation” nor for “conscience” had the Greeks a fixed term. Still the pleasures of a good conscience and the pains of an evil one were well set forth in the fragments collected by Stobaeus peri tou suneidotos. Penandros, asked what was true freedom, answered: “a good conscience” (Gaisford’s Stobaeus, vol. I, p. 429).

Notice the greater expansion and understanding of morality as the divine is come to be understood and expanded upon.

 

[Joyousguard]

continued…

As in all other concerns of education, so in the training of conscience we must use the several means. As a check on individual caprice, especially in youth, we must consult the best living authorities and the best traditions of the past. At the same time that we are recipient our own active faculties must exert themselves in the pursuit with a keen outlook for the chances of error. Really unavoidable mistakes will not count against us; but many errors are remotely, when not proximately, preventable. From all our blunders we should learn a lesson. The diligent examiner and corrector of his own conscience has it in his power, by long diligence to reach a great delicacy and responsiveness to the call of duty and of higher virtue, whereas the negligent, and still more the perverse, may in some sense become dead to conscience. The hardening of the heart and the bad power to put light for darkness and darkness for light are results which may be achieved with only too much ease. Even the best criteria will leave residual perplexities for which provision has to be made in an ethical theory of probabilities which will be explained in the article PROBABILISM. Suffice it to say here that the theory leaves intact the old rule that a man in so acting must judge that he certainly is allowed thus to act, even though sometimes it might be more commendable to do otherwise. In inferring something to be permissible, the extremes of scrupulosity and of laxity have to be avoided.

In case your wonder about the underlined text, that is understood as not only the great philosphers but the great theologians as well as the great theologians and theological works. This would be an offshoot topic but the best theological works are Christain in this instance.

The best formation of the conscience comes from the right pursuit of the right authorities which has seen a progression in history from the acceptance of a superior power to the gradual understanding of One God and the morality that has come from that study in addition to divine revelation as well as demonstarted proof. History has shown that a code of morality in conjunction with a belief in a higher power i svastly superior to a code without the divine. The gradual progression oif our understanding from many gods to one God of immense love an dforgiveness increaes our moral understanding as well.

 

[Joyousguard]

continued…

Historically speaking the conscience of particular individuals to the greatest understanding of the true good has been clealry associated with the understanding hand and hand with the divine. (QED)Our conscience may be considered to evolve but this is a poor choice of terminology. In fact, our conscience comes to a closer understanding and deliberation between the good and the false good throught the use of our faculties in a correct manner studying and learning from the best sources possible.

Those who do not believe in a God ironically have to many of their moral conclussions of conscience through the use of reason that has been taught to them by a monotheistic culture. When these atheists look to the world around them in the form of nature to help them discern right from wrong their arguments and methodology ultimately boil down to survival of the fittest and strongest. If they do attempt to employ logic, reason and philosphical techniques developed over centuries these themselves have been developed in conjuction with an understanding of a higher power but with an attempt to understand the moral code of that higher power in the confines of the human intellect.(newadvent.org/cathen/04268a.htm)

Start reading this if you seek an explainaition that is grounded in logic, reason and the intellect. newadvent.org/summa/

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3097343]I have a couple of more minutes.

Why does morality have to be objective to have meaning?Is a woman’s love for her children any less important because it is subjective to her? If the vast majority of the people in American subjectively find that slavery is wrong, how is that position any less valid if they find (and they will have to do this subjectively) that slavery is objectively wrong?

Because emotion is not something we should base our morality upon.

I answer that, Moral virtue cannot be a passion. This is clear for three reasons. First, because a passion is a movement of the sensitive appetite, as stated above (22, 3): whereas moral virtue is not a movement, but rather a principle of the movement of the appetite, being a kind of habit. Secondly, because passions are not in themselves good or evil. For man’s good or evil is something in reference to reason: wherefore the passions, considered in themselves, are referable both to good and evil, for as much as they may accord or disaccord with reason. Now nothing of this sort can be a virtue: since virtue is referable to good alone, as stated above (55, 3). Thirdly, because, granted that some passions are, in some way, referable to good only, or to evil only; even then the movement of passion, as passion, begins in the appetite, and ends in the reason, since the appetite tends to conformity with reason. On the other hand, the movement of virtue is the reverse, for it begins in the reason and ends in the appetite, inasmuch as the latter is moved by reason. Hence the definition of moral virtue (Ethic. ii, 6) states that it is “a habit of choosing the mean appointed by reason as a prudent man would appoint it.”

newadvent.org/summa/2059.htm

In the end do not all agents have to determine actions to be good or bad based on the their own choice?

No, that would infer that we ourselves are the determining factor of what is good or evil. If that were the case, then nothing would ever be wrong and every murderer and sociopath in this world has the right to choose what is best for them.

What difference does it make if the agent feels the basis of the determination is objective or subjective?

The passions misleed us. “Anger clouds the judgement” is avery popular phrase. Why not make our determination on morality based on how angry someone makes you. If your angry act on it, if your happy things must be fine. These are fallacies that will never get anyone very far in this world.

 

[Richard_Powers]

I think you missed the point and took it too literal, I should have put a next to “Con-Science” to have made it blatently obvious

Let me explain a bit better. The conscience is against the natural law of the Darwinistic approach of survival of the fittest or the strongest.

I think you need to look beyond the simple idea of the survival of the fittest. Genes can and do evolve that support altruism. Look at the social structures of insects. Do you think their behavior is the result of their evolution or God infusing them with a social behavior sense? We see worker ants sacrifice themselves for other member of the colony.

By your reasoning human beings can know the good merely throught their own faculties. This is somewhat true. Human beings can learn the truth through expereince and learning but ultimately morality and the conscience depend upon external forces to act in accordance with the good in order to be able to distinguish the good from a percieved good. Human faculties at their natural level are incapable of distinguishing the good from the false good without the intervention of the divine and a raising of the natural faculties to a supernatural level by grace.

Do you have evidence for these external forces? Can you describe the mechanisms by which they act on human beings?

 

[Richard_Powers]

Because emotion is not something we should base our morality upon.

Who said it was based on just emotion?

newadvent.org/summa/2059.htm

No, that would infer that we ourselves are the determining factor of what is good or evil. If that were the case, then nothing would ever be wrong and every murderer and sociopath in this world has the right to choose what is best for them.

Doesn’t every murderer and sociopath have the power (I would prefer to skip the right/power discussion) to choose what is best for them? This does not mean that anyone else in society has to agree with them. Who really cares if it was good to murder from the sociopath’s subjective position? It is bad from the rest of society’s position so we punish the sociopath. What difference does it make if the murder was objectively wrong or just wrong the position of society (based on the power of those that hold this position)?

The passions misleed us. “Anger clouds the judgement” is avery popular phrase. Why not make our determination on morality based on how angry someone makes you. If your angry act on it, if your happy things must be fine. These are fallacies that will never get anyone very far in this world.

Why assume that the subjective determination is based on just emotions? It is also based on logic and reason. Also, a person that just acts on the basis of emotion and strikes out when angry will soon find that other members of society will have a negative view of him.

 

[Richard_Powers]

continued…

Historically speaking the conscience of particular individuals to the greatest understanding of the true good has been clealry associated with the understanding hand and hand with the divine. (QED)Our conscience may be considered to evolve but this is a poor choice of terminology. In fact, our conscience comes to a closer understanding and deliberation between the good and the false good throught the use of our faculties in a correct manner studying and learning from the best sources possible.

How do you know that the the conscience of particular individuals to the greatest understanding of the true good has been clearly associated with the understanding hand and hand with the divine? How do you know that conscience is coming to greater understanding? You seem to be saying that as we understand the good now our understanding of the good now has come the closet to the good (as we understand it now). It seems pretty circular and obvious, but it does not mean that the understanding is really any closer to the objective or that the objective actually exists.

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3097616]I think you need to look beyond the simple idea of the survival of the fittest. Genes can and do evolve that support altruism. Look at the social structures of insects. Do you think their behavior is the result of their evolution or God infusing them with a social behavior sense? We see worker ants sacrifice themselves for other member of the colony.

Human beings are not ants.

Do you have evidence for these external forces?

Of course. I

answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called “a priori,” and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration “a posteriori”; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.

Reply to Objection 1. The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

Reply to Objection 2. When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause’s existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word “God”.

Reply to Objection 3. From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.

There is more but start here before we move on.

 

[Joyousguard]

Can you describe the mechanisms by which they act on human beings?

I answer that, To know truth is a use or act of intellectual light, since, according to the Apostle (Ephesians 5:13): “All that is made manifest is light.” Now every use implies movement, taking movement broadly, so as to call thinking and willing movements, as is clear from the Philosopher (De Anima iii, 4). Now in corporeal things we see that for movement there is required not merely the form which is the principle of the movement or action, but there is also required the motion of the first mover. Now the first mover in the order of corporeal things is the heavenly body. Hence no matter how perfectly fire has heat, it would not bring about alteration, except by the motion of the heavenly body. But it is clear that as all corporeal movements are reduced to the motion of the heavenly body as to the first corporeal mover, so all movements, both corporeal and spiritual, are reduced to the simple First Mover, Who is God. And hence no matter how perfect a corporeal or spiritual nature is supposed to be, it cannot proceed to its act unless it be moved by God; but this motion is according to the plan of His providence, and not by necessity of nature, as the motion of the heavenly body. Now not only is every motion from God as from the First Mover, but all formal perfection is from Him as from the First Act. And thus the act of the intellect or of any created being whatsoever depends upon God in two ways: first, inasmuch as it is from Him that it has the form whereby it acts; secondly, inasmuch as it is moved by Him to act.

Now every form bestowed on created things by God has power for a determined act, which it can bring about in proportion to its own proper endowment; and beyond which it is powerless, except by a superadded form, as water can only heat when heated by the fire. And thus the human understanding has a form, viz. intelligible light, which of itself is sufficient for knowing certain intelligible things, viz. those we can come to know through the senses. Higher intelligible things of the human intellect cannot know, unless it be perfected by a stronger light, viz. the light of faith or prophecy which is called the “light of grace,” inasmuch as it is added to nature.

Hence we must say that for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man needs Divine help, that the intellect may be moved by God to its act. But he does not need a new light added to his natural light, in order to know the truth in all things, but only in some that surpass his natural knowledge. And yet at times God miraculously instructs some by His grace in things that can be known by natural reason, even as He sometimes brings about miraculously what nature can do.

 

[Joyousguard]

Who said it was based on just emotion?

Richard Powers: If the vast majority of the people in American subjectively find that slavery is wrong, how is that position any less valid if they find (and they will have to do this subjectively) that slavery is objectively wrong?