Punishment and objective morality

[TheTrueCentrist]

I claim that when Christians talk about “objective morality” as distinct from any other morality, they are actually talking about a morality with guaranteed enforcement. They may or may not be aware of this.

1. In the Euthyphro dilemma, most Christians will take the position “what God commands is good,” rather than “God commands what is good.” They do so because it allows us to excuse the problem of evil by saying “everything God commands and does is good, even if it seems inconsistent to us.”
2. There exist other systems of objective morality. “Objective” meaning that immoral actions can be identified empirically. These are mostly compatible with Christian morality, but are nevertheless rejected. The reason for rejection is that “you can’t just arbitrarily define a morality.”
3. Why can’t we arbitrarily define a morality? While non-Christian systems might be “real” in the sense that people understand and follow them, they may not be “real” in the sense that they might incorrectly identify certain actions.
4. How can we determine which system is “real” in the sense that it correctly identifies all moral and immoral actions? Because of (1) Christians are quite confident that they are in the right. However, if God does not implement any punishments or rewards, there is effectively no difference between a system prescribed by people and a system prescribed by God.

 

[SteveGC]

I claim that when Christians talk about “objective morality” as distinct from any other morality, they are actually talking about a morality with guaranteed enforcement. They may or may not be aware of this.

1. In the Euthyphro dilemma, most Christians will take the position “what God commands is good,” rather than “God commands what is good.” They do so because it allows us to excuse the problem of evil by saying “everything God commands and does is good, even if it seems inconsistent to us.”

No, not by saying “everything God commands and does is good”, but by saying “God IS Goodness itself”. True, it will likely be inconsistent with many of us, but the belief is not that God marries up to what is good, but rather that He Himself is the Good.

1. There exist other systems of objective morality. “Objective” meaning that immoral actions can be identified empirically. These are mostly compatible with Christian morality, but are nevertheless rejected. The reason for rejection is that “you can’t just arbitrarily define a morality.”

1. Why can’t we arbitrarily define a morality? While non-Christian systems might be “real” in the sense that people understand and follow them, they may not be “real” in the sense that they might incorrectly identify certain actions.

1. How can we determine which system is “real” in the sense that it correctly identifies all moral and immoral actions? Because of (1) Christians are quite confident that they are in the right. However, if God does not implement any punishments or rewards, there is effectively no difference between a system prescribed by people and a system prescribed by God.

But God does implement punishments and rewards, just not until the final judgment (with a few exceptions). Our temporal free will allows us to choose moral or immoral conduct throughout our lives. Our death brings the judgment of the cumulative effect of those choices.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

No, not by saying “everything God commands and does is good”, but by saying “God IS Goodness itself”. True, it will likely be inconsistent with many of us, but the belief is not that God marries up to what is good, but rather that He Himself is the Good.

Sure, but that is essentially equivalent to “whatever God does/commands is good.”

But God does implement punishments and rewards, just not until the final judgment (with a few exceptions). Our temporal free will allows us to choose moral or immoral conduct throughout our lives. Our death brings the judgment of the cumulative effect of those choices.

Indeed, my point is that there exist other systems of objective morality that let you empirically gauge morality, this is not what Christians mean when they say “objective.” Instead, they are referring to a system with guaranteed punishments and rewards. It is not sufficient just for God to command certain actions, he must also reward or punish people based on his commandments.

Perhaps, going a little farther, we could say that Christian morality is an enumeration of which actions will result in divine punishment and which will result in rewards. Actions are not inherently right or wrong, just punished by God or not.

 

[davidv]

Sure, but that is essentially equivalent to “whatever God does/commands is good.”

They are neither essentially, nor functionally, equivalent when one is trying to establish the basis of morality.

Indeed, my point is that there exist other systems of objective morality that let you empirically gauge morality, this is not what Christians mean when they say “objective.” Instead, they are referring to a system with guaranteed punishments and rewards. It is not sufficient just for God to command certain actions, he must also reward or punish people based on his commandments.

What Christians should mean when say “objective” is that it is from without rather than what is from within oneself.

Perhaps, going a little farther, we could say that Christian morality is an enumeration of which actions will result in divine punishment and which will result in rewards. Actions are not inherently right or wrong, just punished by God or not.

This description degrades God to the role of omniscient accountant. It is a strawman. God is a loving father who deserves to have this love returned.

 

[grannymh]

What Christians should mean when say “objective” is that it is from without rather than what is from within oneself.

Congratulations. As far as I know, you are one of the few people to understand and explain the difference between objective and subjective. There was another person who came very close but got caught up in the fact the *both *objective *and *subjective reasoning can be used to evaluate the same situation.

In my humble observation, the basis for morality is the universal, objective fact that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

In my humble observation, the basis for morality is the universal, objective fact that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

Certainly, that can be a basis for morality. However, Christians frequently claim that atheists would have no basis for morality. Why atheists could not use your “profound respect” reasoning to create a morality is unclear, I believe it is because an atheist has no guarantee of enforcement of their morality.

 

[grannymh]

Certainly, that can be a basis for morality. However, Christians frequently claim that atheists would have no basis for morality. Why atheists could not use your “profound respect” reasoning to create a morality is unclear, I believe it is because an atheist has no guarantee of enforcement of their morality.

Those “Christians” who claim that non-theists would have no basis for morality are flat out in error. First, enforcement of morality is a side issue. Neither enforcement nor non-enforcement, neither rewards nor punishments can change the objective fact that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

Second, there are a few Christians who somehow forget that non-theists still have the same basic human nature as Christians. The worthiness of the human person, because of her or his human nature, is not dependent on a person’s belief in God. God objectively exists no matter how many people deny Him. The human person, you and I, exist no matter how many people deny our existence.

 

[DigitalFish_20]

1. In the Euthyphro dilemma, most Christians will take the position “what God commands is good,” rather than “God commands what is good.” They do so because it allows us to excuse the problem of evil by saying “everything God commands and does is good, even if it seems inconsistent to us.”

In the scenario you listed, I do not think either position in Euthyphro’s dilemma represents Christian theology and that this “dilemna” represents a false dichotomoy between two options. This scenario attempts to define some other concept that not only is independent from God himself but also equally ever lasting and of equal necessity. A Christian would say that what is good is based on God’s nature since God created the universe to be in accordance with His own nature. We then have free will to act in accordance with or against that nature.

As someone said above me “God IS Goodness itself.”

Sure, but that is essentially equivalent to “whatever God does/commands is good.”

I disagree. God didn’t just command us to be good; He created us to be good in accordance with His nature.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by TheTrueCentrist forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Sure, but that is essentially equivalent to “whatever God does/commands is good.”

I disagree. God didn’t just command us to be good; He created us to be good in accordance with His nature.

Not only did God create us to be good in accordance with His nature, He created our spiritual soul so that we can share in His nature through knowledge (rational intelligence) and love (choice of our will) for eternity.

Yet, we are not simple “spirits”. Our nature is an unique composite of *both *the material and spiritual realms. We are the created creatures and as such, we must live in free submission to our Creator. Because we are in the image of our Creator, we possess the dignity of a person who can freely choose to remain in our Creator’s friendship or to freely scorn our Creator as Adam did.