P
Porcupine
Guest
So back on my question: What would you do if you were the father in my example and you had unlimited powers? I’m curious.
- Status
J
jonfawkes
Guest
I don’t see the point of the exercise. But here goes -
If you are unlimited you can just will it into being. Want a universe - bam a universe, Want and elephant - bam an elephant. want a well adjusted kid capable of love with no free will - bam you got one. If I don’t want to be constrained by duality as an infinite being I don’t need to be.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
Animals, especially social animals, do have a mode of behavior that supports the greater good of the species. I would call it a type of morality. They are supporting the greater good.
That’s why I say you are defining God with in your constraints.
D
davidv
Guest
In the Catholic context morality is
CCC said:
Animals do not have the freedom to be moral subjects, they cannot make moral decisions. They are unable to distinguish right from wrong. They can only react to their inborn instinct or training.
Any acts by a human are “fathered” by the human, not God.
I have no idea what this question means. Please explain what you are asking.
P
Porcupine
Guest
The point of the exercise was to draw some specifics from you, through the parent/child analogy, as to how God might have more ably handled the creation of the human race. Your answer, if I understand you, is that God could have created people who can freely love but who have no free will. I think that’s an impossibility; I think love requires free will. That’s been my point all along, and that’s where we’re bypassing each other. You think it’s possible that God could’ve created us to be freely loving, autonomous persons without free will, and I don’t think it’s possible.
P
Porcupine
Guest
Yeah, I’m not seeing this. Your point is that animals are moral beings, and as such they are…what? I would contend that to the extent animals are capable of making moral/ethical choices, they would also have to have free will.
As for my limited understanding of God, you’ve got me there. But in my defense, He’s notoriously tough to pin down.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
The CCC speaks to Man’s morality not morality as a whole.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
Because you can’t see past the duality of our nature. We see everything as duality good/ bad, up/down, left/ right.
So the requirement that love requires free will is a nature of our duality. It is also a precondition that God made. It wasn’t a necessarily a necessary condition because God isn’t bound by duality, he could make a front without a back because of his infinite power. To say He can’t do something limits His power. So if we take His omnipotence as given, you have to grant him the ability to circumvent our understanding of the world.
The nature of free will is a strange concept as well. It is the nature of free will that we align our will with God’s. We do His will to be in Grace. It’s no longer our will per say. As Jesus said in the garden, not my will but yours. It’s a choice to be submissive which isn’t a license to act freely.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
That it is possible for God to make a “good” being without freewill. God said that His creation was Good. Good is a moral judgment. Hence they are moral beings.
P
Porcupine
Guest
Well, if animals are moral beings, I’d say they’d need free will in order for their moral choices to be authentic, so we’re back to square one. May as well leave animals out of your argument and stick to talking about man.
As for God being able to create a logical contradiction, I’m going to side with Aquinas on that one. He didn’t believe God could do something that was logically impossible.
As for God being able to create a logical contradiction, I’m going to side with Aquinas on that one. He didn’t believe God could do something that was logically impossible.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
It doesn’t address the construction I laid out - that Animals are moral beings without free will. What you are giving me is the logical equivalent of “nuh uh”
Do you agree or disagree that stating something is " good " is a statement of that things morality?
Why?
I think you are misreading Aquinas - I read him as I said, that God is beyond paradox - i.e. the paradox of “can God make a stone so big he can’t lift it” The paradox is in the world of duality, God being infinite is beyond duality.
P
Porcupine
Guest
Right–I’m disagreeing with your premise. I’m saying that your notion of moral animals without free will is self-contradictory, just like the idea of moral man without free will. We could be talking about anything–stalks of celery, say. If you’re going to say they are moral agents, I’m going to say they necessarily have free will. So… you may as well stick to talking about man.
There’s more than one meaning for the word good, some of which have nothing to do with morality. “This is good pie,” for example. If you were building a log cabin, you would go looking for good trees. You judge the pie good because it brings you pleasure, the trees good because they meet your needs. Things can be judged good for different reasons. To call something good is not necessarily to attribute moral agency to that thing.
So to answer your question, no, I wouldn’t agree that stating something is “good” is necessarily a statement of that thing’s morality.
P
Porcupine
Guest
It’s certainly possible that I’m misunderstanding Aquinas–I’ve not read much of him. But I read a half-dozen brief summations of what he thought on this subject. Wikipedia says this, and it’s similar to what I saw in other places:
–So maybe Descartes is more in your camp.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
This is describing something (animals) that is in accordance with God’s will. God’s says his creation is Good. Are you implying that the statement was just of preference, like pie? God could have said “eh, it’s ok”
If morality is living in accordance with God’s will, and an animal has no free will to rebel how can an animal be anything but moral? We have the choice to be immoral through our free will but choosing to be inaccordence with God’s will puts us in the same state that Animals have no choice but to be, in accordance with God’s will.
I apologize, you are correct about Aquinas - it also has been sometime since I’ve read anything about the omnipotence paradox.
P
Porcupine
Guest
No, I’m saying that God’s calling things Good doesn’t necessarily mean he’s attributing moral agency to those things. He could’ve meant any of those other meanings of good that I was pointing out–pleasurable, beautiful, useful, etc. Are you saying that everything God created, including gnats, rhubarb, and pinecones, has moral agency?
By the logic of your first sentence, *rocks *are moral: They are where they are by God’s will, and they don’t rebel. I think morality (or lack thereof) can only be attributed to things that have moral responsibility, or agency. So the animals, rocks, etc., are, in my view, amoral.
I’m off to bed. I’ve enjoyed the discussion, but I should be sleeping. Perhaps we’ll pick it up again tomorrow, when I should be working.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
I guess yes, everything that God creates is a moral good, so is a morally good thing. Rocks and Rhubarb.
Amoral is without morality. God could have said - “there, I’m finished” but he chose to give it a designation of “good”, then “very good.”Animals being living beings are an easier correlation than rocks. They don’t need free will to glorify God and be in accordance with God’s will. Their mere existence does that. I don’t see what we gain from free will. Or why it is an necessary component. (which is how we got down this road I think
)Something along the lines - the argument being free will is necessary to truly love God, only by freely choosing to be in accordance with His will can we share in the life that He has for us. So the choice we make to obey leads us to be accordance with God’s will.
I’m saying that free will doesn’t seem to be necessary component since is the Animals default nature to be in accordance. Animals don’t seem to be slaves or robots. My Dog disobeys me, I’m not the source of morality but it shows the ability to defy, a will, but I would still say He’s in accordance with God’s will, so ultimately perhaps more moral than me.
Animals still face hardship and have "character building " experiences. Animals mature. So that is an example how your son could grow without free will. Like you raise a pet or a beloved work animal.
God’s pets
D
davidv
Guest
That was my point. Assigning morality to animals as you did, or appeared to do, in a prior post is absurd.
D
davidv
Guest
Please present official Church documents that support your assertion the animals, plants and rocks are moral agents.I guess yes, everything that God creates is a moral good, so is a morally good thing. Rocks and Rhubarb.
Animals being living beings are an easier correlation than rocks. They don’t need free will to glorify God and be in accordance with God’s will. Their mere existence does that. I don’t see what we gain from free will. Or why it is an necessary component. (which is how we got down this road I think
Something along the lines - the argument being free will is necessary to truly love God, only by freely choosing to be in accordance with His will can we share in the life that He has for us. So the choice we make to obey leads us to be accordance with God’s will.
I’m saying that free will doesn’t seem to be necessary component since is the Animals default nature to be in accordance. Animals don’t seem to be slaves or robots. My Dog disobeys me, I’m not the source of morality but it shows the ability to defy, a will, but I would still say He’s in accordance with God’s will, so ultimately perhaps more moral than me.
Animals still face hardship and have "character building " experiences. Animals mature. So that is an example how your son could grow without free will. Like you raise a pet or a beloved work animal.
God’s pets
The fact is that even if you dog disobeys you he did not commit a sin as his disobedience was not a free choice.
Your non-Catholic definition of “moral” cannot be used to argue against Church teaching which based on a different meaning. Doing is a logical fallacy and not valid.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
The Bible is an official Church Document - no?
Gen
21 God created great sea-monsters and all the creatures that glide and teem in the waters in their own species, and winged birds in their own species. God saw that it was good.
24 God said, ‘Let the earth produce every kind of living creature in its own species: cattle, creeping things and wild animals of all kinds.’ And so it was.
25 God made wild animals in their own species, and cattle in theirs, and every creature that crawls along the earth in its own species. God saw that it was good.
So God says that the Plants and the Animals are Good. Good is a moral quantity. I.E. good vs bad. So by being assigned a moral quantity they are moral entities.
I’m not saying that my dog sinned - he only disobeyed me. Disobeying me isn’t a sin. I’m saying that it demonstrates a will. I say don’t get on the couch, he does it anyway. When he sees me he knows to get off. So I agree that the dog doesn’t have free will. The dog can’t disobey God. He lives with in God’s will as we are supposed to.
I’m not arguing against Church teaching I’m trying to understand the concept of original sin and free will. I saying why it doesn’t make sense to me. I’m looking for clarification where I see holes. Saying “trust in God” doesn’t answer any questions just how to avoid being hung up on them. Which is valuable just doesn’t answer my questions. I trust that God made me an inquisitive lil’ such n’ such for a reason.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
Also from the CCC - emphasis mine
2038 In the work of teaching and applying Christian morality, the Church needs the dedication of pastors, the knowledge of theologians, and the contribution of all Christians and men of good will. Faith and the practice of the Gospel provide each person with an experience of life “in Christ,” who enlightens him and makes him able to evaluate the divine and human realities according to the Spirit of God. Thus the Holy Spirit can use the humblest to enlighten the learned and those in the highest positions.
2038 In the work of teaching and applying Christian morality, the Church needs the dedication of pastors, the knowledge of theologians, and the contribution of all Christians and men of good will. Faith and the practice of the Gospel provide each person with an experience of life “in Christ,” who enlightens him and makes him able to evaluate the divine and human realities according to the Spirit of God. Thus the Holy Spirit can use the humblest to enlighten the learned and those in the highest positions.
- Status