His question to me
“So you do it for the positive aspect and not the negative? Shouldn’t we just do things based on the actions being just or unjust, right or wrong? I am sorry if I am mistating your position but that is what I got out of your post. I’d like to thank you for pointing out the free will to believe or not. I think that is an excellent point.”
How would I respond to the just/unjust question.
We
should do things based upon whether they are just or unjust. The question then becomes, “How does one determine what is just or unjust?” Without an ultimate authority such as God to provide that clarity, things become uniquely
unjust de facto. This is because justice is essentially rooted in equality - “by what measure you mete, it shall be meted unto you.” If anyone and everyone can have different opinions about what is right and what is wrong, their resulting actions based on those differing opinions will most assuredly be
unequal, and unjust to those who hold the opposite opinion. This logic can be followed by any rational person, be it athiest or otherwise. Therefore, in order to state that one believes that “things should be done based on whether they are just or not,” by that very statement must concede that there has to be one, singular source for determining what is just or unjust.
Now, an atheist may well claim that HE is that ultimate authority and that anything that goes against his ideas are wrong and unjust. (I doubt that many atheists actually hold this position though) Nevertheless, this is a shallow argument, since there had to be some influence in how that person’s philosophy was formed, and therefore, no one can claim that their moral philosophy is entirely his own - that he is the source of the philosophy. If there is an immutable system of justice (which there must be in order to call it true justice) there must be a source outside one’s self (otherwise what happens when you die? If you are the only source of right and wrong - theoretically that source dies with you and everyone else is left in the dark).
Therefore, an honest atheist holding this “do what is just” position would have to acknowledge an ultimate source of what is right and wrong, outside of himself.
Another point is that justice is a completely alien idea if it is divorced from the concept of obedience. Submission to the authority that determines right and wrong is required for one to claim being just, since if one acknowledges that there has to be a supreme authority that determines right and wrong, one must admit that that authority must ALWAYS be correct in its determinations. If it’s not, then it’s not the ultimate authority, because obviously someone else has judged it to be wrong - making THAT person a higher authority. So, the ultimate authority that determines right and wrong is always correct. To be just, one must concede to this authority, submit to its decisions.
This is what Catholics know and understand with God, and His Church, established by Jesus Christ, preserved in Truth by the Holy Spirit. I would ask the atheist, who or what he believes is the ultimate immutable authority on right and wrong.
