Source of Morality

[Bill_johnson]

How does one respond to Plato’s question: “Is an action right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right?” Did Thomas ever comment on this? Did he believe that morality care from God or was independent of them?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

That’s a question from Plato’s time. You should reframe the question for a Christian audience. I assume that you’re asking for Christians to answer this question,if that’s the case - Christians don’t believe in gods.

 

[Beryllos]

You should reframe the question…

The essence of the question is so obvious that I didn’t even notice the polytheistic language. That’s how Plato posed the question and we can take it from there.

I would start with natural law, but the answer is either inconclusive or “Yes, both.” An act is good when it is in accord with our nature, that is, when it is right. However our nature is God’s design, or one might say our nature is by God’s command.

 

[goout]

How does one respond to Plato’s question: “Is an action right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right?” Did Thomas ever comment on this? Did he believe that morality care from God or was independent of them?

It’s both/and.
God is the good. The ultimate good is to share in God’s life.
Because God loves us and wants us to share in his divine life, he reveals himself to us and commands us to acknowledge and pursue the good that God is.

 

[Wesrock]

How does one respond to Plato’s question: “Is an action right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right?” Did Thomas ever comment on this? Did he believe that morality care from God or was independent of them?

Neither. Natural Law is a third way.

 

[goout]

Let’s skip the commandments that are self serving (Do not take my name in vain etc). How do the rest stand up?

Honour you parents: Only if they deserve it. If you have spent your childhood being abused, then no, do not honour them.

Do not kill: Well, unless it’s justifiable.

No adultery: Which includes sex outside marriage and masturbation. Not sure if that’s being followed by the majority.

No stealing: Unless it’s necessary.

No lying: Unless, again, it’s for the greater good.

No impure thoughts about your neighbour’s wife: Thought crime! And why not your neighbour’s husband. Do the girls get a free pass?

No jealousy or envy: Thought crime again. How can you stop envious feelings? If you can, I wish I could do the same (oops, failed).

The point being is that you have to decide how best to interpret ‘commandments’ as they relate to each particular situation. So they are not commandments, they are guidlines. The gods (or God if one prefers) recommend them.

You are viewing morality as a merely negative set of prohibitions in a fundamentalist way. As if they are merely rules designed to constrain us and keep us from a full life.
Morality points a person to the good. In the sticky situations you are envisioning, you still make moral evaluations in reference to the objective good.

The Ten Commandments express the path that leads to our beatitude.

 

[Bill_johnson]

The essence of the question is so obvious that I didn’t even notice the polytheistic language. That’s how Plato posed the question and we can take it from there

Thank you for that

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Let’s skip the commandments that are self serving (Do not take my name in vain etc). How do the rest stand up?

Honour you parents: Only if they deserve it. If you have spent your childhood being abused, then no, do not honour them.

Do not kill: Well, unless it’s justifiable.

No adultery: Which includes sex outside marriage and masturbation. Not sure if that’s being followed by the majority.

No stealing: Unless it’s necessary.

No lying: Unless, again, it’s for the greater good.

No impure thoughts about your neighbour’s wife: Thought crime! And why not your neighbour’s husband. Do the girls get a free pass?

No jealousy or envy: Thought crime again. How can you stop envious feelings? If you can, I wish I could do the same (oops, failed).

The point being is that you have to decide how best to interpret ‘commandments’ as they relate to each particular situation. So they are not commandments, they are guidlines. The gods (or God if one prefers) recommend them.

You are viewing morality as a merely negative set of prohibitions in a fundamentalist way.

Hey, I didn’t write them. They’re from this big book I have at home.

In any case, even positive ‘commands’ must be treated as they relate to the specific scenario. That is, do not follow them blindly. You need to make your own decisions.

 

[goout]

Hey, I didn’t write them. They’re from this big book I have at home.

In any case, even positive ‘commands’ must be treated as they relate to the specific scenario. That is, do not follow them blindly. You need to make your own decisions.

This is true, we are asked to make real evaluations in real situations.
You post seemed to exalt personal interpretation over objective good.

For instance: One person might think it’s good to discriminate against middle-eastern looking people in their hiring practices.
You might say it’s wrong to deny someone a job based on their appearance or race, pointing objectively to their humanity as a basis for sound moral evaluations, laws, and rights.

Question: does my personal preference make it ok for me to deny jobs to people who’s appearance I don’t care for?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Hey, I didn’t write them. They’re from this big book I have at home.

In any case, even positive ‘commands’ must be treated as they relate to the specific scenario. That is, do not follow them blindly. You need to make your own decisions.

This is true, we are asked to make real evaluations in real situations.
You post seemed to exalt personal interpretation over objective good.

For instance: One person might think it’s good to discriminate against middle-eastern looking people in their hiring practices.
You might say it’s wrong to deny someone a job based on their appearance or race, pointing objectively to their humanity as a basis for sound moral evaluations, laws, and rights.

Question: does my personal preference make it ok for me to deny jobs to people who’s appearance I don’t care for?

My decisions on how I should I treat someone are defined by using the filter of reciprocal altruism aka The Golden Rule.

 

[goout]

My decisions on how I should I treat someone are defined by using the filter of reciprocal altruism aka The Golden Rule.

Ok, so you do have a commandment then. Kind of a condensed version of the Ten Commandments?
We do that also:
The entire law is summed up in “Love God and love others as yourself.”

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

My decisions on how I should I treat someone are defined by using the filter of reciprocal altruism aka The Golden Rule.

Ok, so you do have a commandment then. Kind of a condensed version of the Ten Commandments?
We do that also:
The entire law is summed up in “Love God and love others as yourself.”

The two terms I used are not an exact fit for my decisions. But they are the basis.

For example, if someone cheats me continuously then I don’t respond by loving her as I love myself. And I don’t always treat people as I would want to be treated. Because if I cheated I would still want to be treated well. So that doesn’t work.

To fine tune it, I treat people as would expect to be treated. So if I were Middle Eastern then I would expect to be treated in an unbiased manner. Hence I have to treat people from the Middle East in an unbiased manner.

But if she cheated me…see above.

 

[goout]

goout:

Wozza:

My decisions on how I should I treat someone are defined by using the filter of reciprocal altruism aka The Golden Rule.

Ok, so you do have a commandment then. Kind of a condensed version of the Ten Commandments?
We do that also:
The entire law is summed up in “Love God and love others as yourself.”

The two terms I used are not an exact fit for my decisions. But they are the basis.

For example, if someone cheats me continuously then I don’t respond by loving her as I love myself. And I don’t always treat people as I would want to be treated. Because if I cheated I would still want to be treated well. So that doesn’t work.

To fine tune it, I treat people as would expect to be treated. So if I were Middle Eastern then I would expect to be treated in an unbiased manner. Hence I have to treat people from the Middle East in an unbiased manner.

But if she cheated me…see above.

But hopefully you don’t extend to the extreme of stoning adulterers. That’s a real thing for some people, and they believe it serves a common altruistic value.

 

[goout]

Honour you parents: Only if they deserve it. If you have spent your childhood being abused, then no, do not honour them.

I guess my point is we don’t read the Ten Commandments as literalist fundamentalists.
Honoring your parents has a much deeper good in mind than mindless obedience to authority at all costs.