S
StrawberryJam
Guest
If it is evident, then why can’t anyone give me a list? Are they afraid to do so?
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are the one who will not answer our questions about morality. It is futile to try to have a discussion with some one who takes refuge in obscurity…
E
Ender
Guest
I wouldn’t answer what you ask even if I could because it would do nothing more than open the door to the unanswerable question “Why is X on the list?” The point is that unless there is agreement on whether morality exists and what is its source there is no possibility of agreement on its particulars. Without an understanding of morality in general discussions about whether particular acts are moral have no more possibility of being settled than discussions about whether Bird was better than Magic or Mantle better than Mays.
Ender
B
Betterave
Guest
You want a full list of morality? I think you’re making a category error. There is no such thing as a ‘full list of morality.’ Maybe you could rephrase your question?
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
The christian believes that God is the absolute and sole bearer of perfection in all things.
This includes morality. Christians make claims of what is and is not moral. Certainly they have a list so we can review their claims and compare them with God’s actions without special pleadings being made for him.
E
Ender
Guest
You are quite prepared to attack what Christian’s believe, which is actually quite easy to do; what you don’t seem prepared to do is defend what you believe. The topic of this thread is “where does morality come from?” The Christian answers the question with: God. Are you so unsure of your own position that you are afraid to even say what it is?
How do you answer the question? What do you believe is the source of morality?
Ender
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I am not here to evangelize my beliefs. I am here to engage with apologists that claim to be able to defend theirs. So, let me know when one is ready to do that.
B
Betterave
Guest
I think you just mean to say that we believe that God is perfect? We don’t want to say “in all things” - God is not the most perfect snail, for example, since God is not a snail (obviously). We also do not believe that God is the only morally perfect being.
But it sounds like you’re asking for two lists of actions, those that are moral and those that are not. Are all possible actions supposed to be included on this list? Can you see that that list would be infinitely long? Christians do not claim to be able to make such a list. Moral discourse just doesn’t work that way. We start with a basic moral awareness of right and wrong, which gets expressed in moral principles, and we try to understand actions, as best we can, in light of those principles (as well as in light of our basic intuitive moral awareness). The basic Judeo-Christian moral principles are that we must love God and neighbor. There are other principles, but they derive from these two.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Hi Betterave,
You are right, I did not mean “in all things” that way. Got me there.
I have to go pick up something and will try to get back today. I did not know catholics did not believe that God is the only morally perfect being, but accept that and will rephrase later. Thanks
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Here is my problem. I can not agree that morality comes from God.
If I did, I would be accepting Moral Relativism anyway.
If I did, I would be accepting Moral Relativism anyway.
B
Betterave
Guest
Supposing that were true, moral relativism still might be true. Moral relativism isn’t false just because it’s moral relativism.
Anyway, I’m guessing what you have in mind is that God cannot be the direct source of human moral understanding. Is that right? I will agree with you if that’s what you mean.
You may also disbelieve that anything can come from God, and/or, in particular, anything which would indirectly account for morality, i.e., human moral understanding. That I would not agree with.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Agree with the bolded.
I have no trenchant stance on your last statement. I would leave it with, Jesus taught many moral things and leave it there for now.
Thank you for replying, I know it is difficult to do this in this type of setting. I imagine if we were sitting somewhere having a few refreshments and good food, talking live time, you and I could have some interesting conversations.
E
Ender
Guest
As you identify yourself as an agnostic it would be surprising if you agreed that anything came from God. Again, as the topic of this thread is the source of morality, it would be nice if you would address that question.
I believe that God is the source of morality. What do you think is its source?
Ender
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I’d like to see you defend that position you believe.
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Your friend’s ethics teacher is getting at the Euthyphro dilemma. See here for an introduction to it:One of my friends was in her ethics philosophy class yesterday and said that her teacher was talking about how there is a moral code that is “above” God and that God Himself follows. Then the teacher said that this is what the Catholic Church teaches…can anyone explain this philosophy to me and what does the Church actually teach about were morality comes from?? thanks for any help
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
There are a number of way Christianity can respond to it, Divine Command Theory, mentioned in this thread is one of them (and the big philosophers go into weak command theories, and strong command theories). Some argue the dilemma is false and believe in the tertium quid, that morality is not arbitrarily grounded in God’s Will or in something outside of God, but in God’s own Nature. (Moreland)
Another article:
“Christians need not fear Plato on this score. When Euthyphro’s dilemma is applied to Christianity, it mischaracterizes the Biblical view of God. Goodness is neither above God nor merely willed by Him. Instead, ethics are grounded in His holy character. Moral notions are not arbitrary and given to caprice. They are fixed and absolute, grounded in God’s immutable nature.”
(kind of a Divine Nature Theory)
str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5236
Or, as Steve Lovell concluded in ‘C.S. Lewis and the Euthyphro Dilemma’ (2002)
“Thus the dilemma can be shown to be a false one. God indeed commands things which are good, but the reason they are good is because they reflect God’s own nature. So the goodness does not come ultimately from God’s commandments, but from His nature, which then results in good commandments.”
So there are a bunch of good arguments for taking on the E. Dilemma in favour of Christiainty. Unfortunately, some of the Christian apologetics sites don’t post the essays in full as they did when I linked to them in another thread. Some Christians use Divine Command Theory to deal with the Euthyphro Dilemma, others use other arguments. It is quite impossible to deal with all the arguments in one post, unfortunately.
I think that is what the teacher was trying to touch upon. Just posting for info. sake and not for argument. I don’t like engaging in arguments during Lent.
E
Ender
Guest
I am willing both to state my position and to defend it; why are you unwilling to do either? What I am not willing to do is engage in a discussion specifically designed not to address the question being raised. There are obvious doubts that can legitimately be raised about the validity of the Catholic position - if there weren’t then everyone would be a Catholic - but the fact that there are unknowns (does God exist?) and improbables (was Christ really God and man?) is no indication that Catholicism is less likely to be true than the alternatives. Sherlock Holmes said: *“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains must be the truth” *but we cannot arrive at the truth if all the alternatives are not explored so they can be either confirmed or eliminated.
Christianity may be improbable but still be the most likely alternative - especially where, as in your case, no alternative is presented.
Ender
B
buffalo
Guest
Let me jump in here -
God is the moral absolute. He is the reference point (compass) that reflects morality. He is morality itself.
Now we do know some of His attributes:
*]The Attributes or Qualities of God
The Attributes of God in General
*] The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence. (De fide.) The Attributes of the Divine Being
*] God is absolutely perfect. (De fide.)
*] God is actually infinite in every perfection. (De fide.)
*] God is absolutely simple. (De fide.)
*] There is only One God. (De fide.)
*] The One God is, in the ontological sense, The True God. (De fide.)
*] God possesses an infinite power of cognition. (De fide.)
*] God is absolute Veracity. (De fide.)
*] God is absolutely faithful. (De fide.)
*] God is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others. (De fide.)
*] God is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness. (De fide.) D 1782.
*] God is absolute Benignity. (De fide.) D1782.
*] God is absolute Beauty. D1782.
*] God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)
*] God is eternal. (De fide.)
*] God is immense or absolutely immeasurable. (De fide.)
*] God is everywhere present in created space. (De fide.) The Attributes of the Divine Life
*] God’s knowledge is infinite. (De fide.)
*] God’s knowledge is purely and simply actual.
*] God’s knowledge is subsistent
*] God’s knowledge is comprehensive
*] God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things
*] The primary and formal object of the Divine Cognition is God Himself. (Scientia contemplationis)
*] God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
*] God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
*] By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
*] God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty (Scientia futuribilium). (Sent. communis.)
*] God’s Divine will is infinite. (De fide.)
*] God loves Himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-Divine things, on the other hand, with freedom. (De fide.)
*] God is almighty. (De fide.)
*] God is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth. (De fide.) D 1782.
*] God is infinitely just. (De fide.)
*] God is infinitely merciful. (De fide.)
Now from that:
*]he Nature of God
The Knowledge of the Nature of God
*] Our natural knowledge of God in this world is not as immediate, intuitive cognition, but a mediate, abstractive knowledge, because it is attained through the knowledge of creatures. (Sent. certa.)
*] Our knowledge of God here below is not proper (cognitio propia) but analogical (cognitio analoga or analogica). (Sent. certa.)
*] **God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men. (De fide.) **
] The blessed in Heaven posses an immediate intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence. (De fide.)
] The Immediate Vision of God transcends the natural power of cognition of the human soul, and is therefore supernatural. (De fide.)
] The soul, for the Immediate Vision of God, requires the light of glory. (De fide. D 475.)
] God’s Essence is also incomprehensible to the blessed in Heaven. (De fide)
V
VeritasSeeker
Guest
Let me start off by saying that i am appalled by the inadequate answers given by most of my fellow Catholics here(with exception of a few). Strawberry, you are quite right in saying that if there is special pleading for God then he would be likened to a tyrant and not worthy to be worshipped.
Now, you might want to look Euthyphro’s dilemma and the Divine command theory. There are essentially two distinct types of the Divine command theory
- Voluntarism - That something is good because God wills it. That is, his will would be totally arbitrary. So if he wills to murder and torture innocent babies, that would be good/right because he wills it. On this view morality is NOT objective, rather, it is supreme subjectivity. This view **is **special pleading for God and is ultimately an untenable view that few theistic philosophers defend.
- (yet to be named) Essentialism- On this view traditional theistic view (defended by St.Thomas Aquinas) morality Is objective. God does not arbitrarily will what is good and bad. On this view God cannot will anything bad because it would contrary to his own nature the same way God cannot will there to be a square-circle or a married bachelor. God’s very own nature is good, so he cannot commit anything immoral(for example he cannot violate any of the ten commandments) or he would cease to be God. God cannot violate his own nature to be perfectly just, and good. I believe this view is tenable and advocated by many if not most theistic philosophers.
this may be helpful
rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/How-are-Morals-Objectively-Grounded-in-God.mp3
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
-read false dilemma response from St.Thomas Aquinas at the end
B
Betterave
Guest
I agree, VS, the answers have not been very helpful. Your Wiki reference was not bad, an awful lot of missing citations though!
We recently had a long discussion with Ender in another thread (“Does morality exist?”) and were unable to get him to see the over-simplicity of his position. Ender thinks you must believe in God before you can believe in morality. Most of us believe that that claim is just silly and we presented plenty of arguments to that effect.
What Strawberry is worried about (I’m guessing) are the kinds of actions attributed to God in the Old Testament. Do we really believe God told the Israelites to slaughter whole towns, men, women, and children? It’s a perfectly legitimate concern. What we want to say about that, I think, is that God is not the sole author of Sacred Scripture. The human authors of sacred scripture are very much contributing to the content and what we have presented in the Bible is the story of people gradually learning to know God. So when they write about God, they are writing about themselves and their own understanding of God, which we can see is often very tainted by their particular historical-cultural situation.
So we don’t want special pleading for God. If there is any special pleading, it is for the human authors. But that is not really ‘special’ either - human moral understanding is always bound to a particular historical situation and this is part of what Scripture can teach us (we post-Enlightenment types tend to forget this).
But we do recognize that our moral understanding is directed towards more than just affirming whatever our culture tells us. We want to do what is genuinely just, not just whatever is accepted as just. We do seek for perfection, even if we don’t see how to get there. We interpret this longing - ‘the voice of conscience’ - as God’s image within us making itself known. When we pay attention to this longing, we notice that we are not God and that we are separated from God and that this separation is not good.
Of course it’s not like we are forced to draw these conclusions, but reflections on this kind of thing can serve as a kind of invitation to at least try to learn to know God, provided we are open to this possibility.
We recently had a long discussion with Ender in another thread (“Does morality exist?”) and were unable to get him to see the over-simplicity of his position. Ender thinks you must believe in God before you can believe in morality. Most of us believe that that claim is just silly and we presented plenty of arguments to that effect.
What Strawberry is worried about (I’m guessing) are the kinds of actions attributed to God in the Old Testament. Do we really believe God told the Israelites to slaughter whole towns, men, women, and children? It’s a perfectly legitimate concern. What we want to say about that, I think, is that God is not the sole author of Sacred Scripture. The human authors of sacred scripture are very much contributing to the content and what we have presented in the Bible is the story of people gradually learning to know God. So when they write about God, they are writing about themselves and their own understanding of God, which we can see is often very tainted by their particular historical-cultural situation.
So we don’t want special pleading for God. If there is any special pleading, it is for the human authors. But that is not really ‘special’ either - human moral understanding is always bound to a particular historical situation and this is part of what Scripture can teach us (we post-Enlightenment types tend to forget this).
But we do recognize that our moral understanding is directed towards more than just affirming whatever our culture tells us. We want to do what is genuinely just, not just whatever is accepted as just. We do seek for perfection, even if we don’t see how to get there. We interpret this longing - ‘the voice of conscience’ - as God’s image within us making itself known. When we pay attention to this longing, we notice that we are not God and that we are separated from God and that this separation is not good.
Of course it’s not like we are forced to draw these conclusions, but reflections on this kind of thing can serve as a kind of invitation to at least try to learn to know God, provided we are open to this possibility.
B
Bill_Cherry
Guest
Wow.
That was beautiful!
- Status