Were does morality come from?

[Syntax]

Give it a rest; I answered that question the same way Syntax did: God is the source of morality. I said that in post #52 and reiterated it in #107

Yes, your answer was as simple as mine. But I think everyone intends to explore the matter further about what this means. The very first post introduced the Euthyphro dilemma encountered in Plato’s dialogues, and Betterave offered a potential way of answering this dilemma by using Aquinas’ take on the combined relationship between God’s intellect and will as the source of all objective moral truth.

Could you try to find something a little more substantial to object to? My point was clear: morality exists only if it is objectively true; if beliefs are only subjectively valid to the individual who holds them then what is held to be morality is little different than habit.

Yes, objective moral judgments are true if and only if there exists objective moral facts. But Betterave was asking what objective morality is, its function and its purpose in human relationships, growth, and in private and inter-personal existence. For instance, Kant might say something like this:

“Morality is the relation of actions to the autonomy of the will, that is, to a possible giving of universal law through its maxims. So act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law objectively binding on all people.”

So moral principles are not merely cultural codes of conduct, for example, but exist independently of these cultural codes even though cultural codes have the function of giving expression to these moral principles. All cultures are bound by objectively binding moral laws even if EVERY cultural code on the face of this planet failed to give expression to any of these objective moral principles. So moral principles are not only universally true, but also objectively binding on all cultures whether they successfully adopt them or not. Therefore, each culture is obligated to adopt the correct moral principles to guide their actions and are morally blameworthy and morally accountable if they don’t.

What morality “actually” means … yes, that would be useful to agree on. That’s why I explained how I was using it, an explanation I’m pretty sure you understood. You obviously understood it well enough to disagree with it.

You said, “By the existence of morality I mean the existence of a set of moral principles that are objectively true regardless of what individuals believe about them.”

Though this is correct, it is trivially true and uninformative. We want to know what John means when he says things like “Hiter’s extermination of 6 million Jews was morally wrong.”

So we might interpret this statement as saying, “Hitler’s torture and extermination of 6 million Jews was morally reprehensible and blameworty; and so Hitler is personally accountable for his own actions of ordering these horrendous crimes that violated on mass scale God’s moral laws. (a) the act in itself was evil. (b) Hitler was morally blameworthy for committing the act. (c) the goal of global domination and world-power was a corrupt end in itself. (d) And Hitler’s own utilitarian **means-end reasoning **to accomplish his task was a corrupt and misguided use of moral reasoning.”

That would be one way of explaining what objective moral judgments are saying when we make them. And all of this can be traced back to the violation of God’s two part commandment to Love Him and our neighbors as ends in themselves.

 

[Ender]

You answered the question that *you *asked: “Where does morality come from?” The OP asked a different question that you did not answer.

The thread title is: “Where does morality come from.” As you said, I answered the question “Where does morality come from.” Yes, there was another question in the OP but your responses are pedantic.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Syntax:

I don’t want to accidentally confuse matters just yet.

You’re going to wait for later to accidentally confuse them?

Yes, your answer was as simple as mine. But I think everyone intends to explore the matter further about what this means.

I’m all for that; I just wish it hadn’t taken 50 posts to agree on something as basic as the source of morality.

Yes, objective moral judgments are true if and only if there exists objective moral facts. But Betterave was asking what objective morality is, its function and its purpose in human relationships, growth, and in private and inter-personal existence. For instance, Kant might say something like this …

It may have seemed a waste of time merely to get agreement on something as simple as “God is the source of morality” but, having accepted that, doesn’t that eliminate Kant (and everyone else who doesn’t accept that premise) from the debate? His argument may be relevant to the discussion about the source of morality but if we have settled the source then his arguments for a different source are not relevant to the conversation.

So moral principles are not merely cultural codes of conduct, for example, but exist independently of these cultural codes even though cultural codes have the function of giving expression to these moral principles. All cultures are bound by objectively binding moral laws even if EVERY cultural code on the face of this planet failed to give expression to any of these objective moral principles. So moral principles are not only universally true, but also objectively binding on all cultures whether they successfully adopt them or not. Therefore, each culture is obligated to adopt the correct moral principles to guide their actions and are morally blameworthy and morally accountable if they don’t.

I agree.

You said, “By the existence of morality I mean the existence of a set of moral principles that are objectively true regardless of what individuals believe about them.”

Though this is correct, it is trivially true and uninformative. We want to know what John means when he says things like “Hiter’s extermination of 6 million Jews was morally wrong.”

Whoa, one thing at a time. My comment was nothing more than an explanation of what I meant by the phrase “morality objectively exists.” I consider it merely a shorter form of what you said. Your comment is neither more nor less helpful in addressing Hitler’s actions than mine; both statements are solely about the universal applicability of moral absolutes.

So we might interpret this statement as saying, "Hitler’s…

That would be an error; my comment gave no basis on which to make any assumption about what behavior is or is not moral. I said morality exists; I said nothing about what it is. (I suggested before that you tend to read more into my comments than I intend.)

Ender

 

[Syntax]

It may have seemed a waste of time merely to get agreement on something as simple as “God is the source of morality” but, having accepted that, doesn’t that eliminate Kant (and everyone else who doesn’t accept that premise) from the debate? His argument may be relevant to the discussion about the source of morality but if we have settled the source then his arguments for a different source are not relevant to the conversation.

I’m pretty sure Kant would not disagree that God was the *source *of morality. He was a Christian by name, after all. He just found that discussions concerning morality are most easily accessed by appealing to our human conscience which gives expression to notions such as “duty” and “moral obligation,” which is the key for making sense of what morality actually is. After all, we cannot actually access God’s thoughts. But we can certainly access our own conscience which is the source of making moral principles known to us.

Also, what makes a principle a moral principle is that God decreed that it is a moral principle springing from God’s own Nature as the source of the Good.

Whoa, one thing at a time. My comment was nothing more than an explanation of what I meant by the phrase “morality objectively exists.” I consider it merely a shorter form of what you said. Your comment is neither more nor less helpful in addressing Hitler’s actions than mine; both statements are solely about the universal applicability of moral absolutes.

But moral principles are not just universally applicable, but also objectively binding. Everyone could have the exact same universal cultural codes of conduct, all of which are false because they don’t give expression to actual moral principles.

That would be an error; my comment gave no basis on which to make any assumption about what behavior is or is not moral. **I said morality exists; I said nothing about what it is. **(I suggested before that you tend to read more into my comments than I intend.)

huh? But I wasn’t intending to interpret your words, Ender. I was just offering a possible answer to Betterave’s question “what is morality”?..which you *didn’t *answer.

 

[Betterave]

The thread title is: “Where does morality come from.” As you said, I answered the question “Where does morality come from.” Yes, there was another question in the OP but your responses are pedantic.

So rather than give some totally uninformative answer to the *title *of the thread, I answered the actual OP – and you accuse me of pedantry??? Maybe you’ve gotten lost Ender; this is a Catholic philosophy forum. ‘Catholic’ should indicate that we’re not interested in *fides sine intellectum *(faith without understanding) – we want fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding). Similarly, ‘philosophy’ should indicate that we are under obligation to try to explain what is not clear in our views, and that it is not permitted to simply dismiss challenges for basic explanation as “pedantic.”

So, now that you know where you are, perhaps you should start to try to play by the rules, or go play elsewhere.

It may have seemed a waste of time merely to get agreement on something as simple as “God is the source of morality” but, having accepted that, doesn’t that eliminate Kant (and everyone else who doesn’t accept that premise) from the debate? His argument may be relevant to the discussion about the source of morality but if we have settled the source then his arguments for a different source are not relevant to the conversation.

So: Kant believes A; we’ve agreed to believe B; A is not B; therefore Kant is wrong (we can eliminate him from the debate).

Ender, in philosophy you are not allowed to eliminate an opposing viewpoint by noting that it is different from your own. That is called begging the question. You really need to do some research and find out what that means and why we try not to do it in philosophy.

 

[Ender]

After all, we cannot actually access God’s thoughts. But we can certainly access our own conscience which is the source of making moral principles known to us.

Obviously if we cannot know what God’s moral principles are then they might as well not exist, so there has to be some way of learning what those principles are. You said that the conscience is the source of our knowing - is it the only source or only the principle source among (a few, several, many) others?

Ender

 

[Syntax]

Obviously if we cannot know what God’s moral principles are then they might as well not exist,

I’m not so sure that logically follows. Atheists don’t believe we can know what God’s moral principles are because they don’t believe God exists, but many of them still strongly believe there is good reason to think objective moral principles exist. So it is not a necessary condition that one has to believe in God to behave as if there were actually existent objectively binding moral principles.

so there has to be some way of learning what those principles are.

yes, through our God-given conscience.

You said that the conscience is the source of our knowing - is it the only source or only the principle source among (a few, several, many) others?

I would say God’s moral principles are known through conscience supplemented with reason, faith, God’s revelation, personal trust, the history of the moral track-record of the Church, and her very continuing Tradition of upholding holiness and virtue.

The atheist doesn’t allow him or herself access to these other sources to know God’s **additional **moral principles which is precisely the reason for their error, for instance, in thinking sodomy is a morally permissible action. But the atheist’s conscience still tells him that “torturing babies for fun is wrong.” So the atheist can only know some, but not all, of God’s actual moral principles. The difference is that the moral principles the atheist does believe are the correct ones (such as torturing babies is wrong) simply do not have anything to do with God because they believe God does not exist.

 

[Ender]

I’m not so sure that logically follows. Atheists don’t believe we can know what God’s moral principles are because they don’t believe God exists, but many of them still strongly believe there is good reason to think objective moral principles exist. So it is not a necessary condition that one has to believe in God to behave as if there were actually existent objectively binding moral principles.

I never said it was necessary to believe in God to believe in objective moral principles. I said it was necessary for God to exist for objective moral principles to exist. If atheists are right about God then they are wrong about morality; it is only if they are wrong about God that they can be right that morality objectively exists. I wanted to point out that if there is no way to know what the objective moral values are then they might as well not exist, because this implies that in addition to believing in God we also have to believe that God somehow enabled us to discover those values.

I would say God’s moral principles are known through conscience supplemented with reason, faith, God’s revelation, personal trust, the history of the moral track-record of the Church, and her very continuing Tradition of upholding holiness and virtue.

This conversation may be over: I’m not sure there is anything we disagree on.

Ender

 

[Syntax]

I never said it was necessary to believe in God to believe in objective moral principles. I said it was necessary for God to exist for objective moral principles to exist.

I believe that too. Just be aware that many atheists will disagree.

If atheists are right about God then they are wrong about morality; it is only if they are wrong about God that they can be right that morality objectively exists.

Yes, as Christians we believe this.

I wanted to point out that if there is no way to know what the objective moral values are then they might as well not exist

Ok, but so what? This is trivially true.

because this implies that in addition to **believing in God we also have to believe **that God somehow enabled us to discover those values.

No. Notice what you just said: “we have to believe that God helps us discover these values in order to believe…what? [what is the moral thing to do?].” This is what I am claiming is false. As Christians, we do think believing that God directs us to the correct moral values is necessary to know the specifically **Christian **moral principles are true. But our very belief isn’t a necessary condition for knowing **all ** human moral principles are true. There are some moral principles we can know that are true independent of whether or not we believe that God directed us to them. Moral atheists surely believe this.

This conversation may be over: I’m not sure there is anything we disagree on.

Perhaps.

 

[Betterave]

No. Notice what you just said: “we have to believe that God helps us discover these values in order to believe…what? [what is the moral thing to do?].” This is what I am claiming is false. As Christians, we do think believing that God directs us to the correct moral values is necessary to know the specifically **Christian **moral principles are true. But our very belief isn’t a necessary condition for knowing **all ** human moral principles are true. There are some moral principles we can know that are true independent of whether or not we believe that God directed us to them. Moral atheists surely believe this.

How do you ground the distinction between Christian moral principles and human moral principles in terms of the human capacity for judgment? What makes for ‘objectivity’ in the two cases? Ender, if I understand him, wants to insist that moral objectivity is always related to a divine fiat. But where we have no objective conviction regarding a properly divine fiat, what can we do? Can we give up on morality? Is it humanly possible to think it’s all an illusion, and that morality is just a matter of opinion? Or will the ‘objectivity’ of morality not necessarily be reconstituted on alternate grounds in this case? After all, Ender’s conception of ‘objectivity’ is hardly something that is forced upon us by ‘reality itself.’

 

[Syntax]

How do you ground the distinction between Christian moral principles and human moral principles in terms of the human capacity for judgment?

In terms of the capacity to judge, I would say there is no difference. But in terms of the *content *of those judgments, yes, there is a difference. I think the capacity to pass objective moral judgments is the best evidence we have that objective moral principles exist apart from having to appeal to any theological arguments. And some atheists would agree.

What makes for ‘objectivity’ in the two cases? Ender, if I understand him, wants to insist that moral objectivity is always related to a divine fiat. But where we have no objective conviction regarding a properly divine fiat, what can we do? Can we give up on morality?

We are getting into the Euthyphro’s chicken-or-the-egg dilemma. I agree that the atheist lacks any divine fiat to objectively sanction moral principles that the Christian has. However, as far as I know, atheists who are moral realists will say that God’s divine decree makes moral principles no more objectively binding than the absence of that decree since obeying Divine Command X merely because God commanded it makes doing X no less arbitrary than doing X because X is part of the Good. So they will say that Theists are just as at a loss for providing an ulitmate ground for morality that Atheists are as Moral Realist Platonists. I know two Atheists who are platonists about morality in this respect in my department.

Of course, this is a big topic, and I don’t hold firm opinions about the details, although I am a Volantarist of sorts just like any Christian about the source and ground of morality.

Is it humanly possible to think it’s all an illusion, and that morality is just a matter of opinion? Or will the ‘objectivity’ of morality not necessarily be reconstituted on alternate grounds in this case?

I think most attempts at grounding objectivity would either propose a “social-constructivism” route (which just sounds like cultural relativism to me) or just stick with the Platonic form of the Good. I am not defending atheist moral realism, of course. But the dilemma does bring up interesting philosophical questions.

After all, Ender’s conception of ‘objectivity’ is hardly something that is forced upon us by ‘reality itself.’

***I might ***agree, since I’m not so sure that objectivity does not force itself on us by reality itself. Of course God is the source of this created reality, but do I think objective moral qualities and properites lie within human actions and behavior themselves, and many of them are transparent to people who don’t believe in God. (However, I could change my mind, too.)

And I know some atheists definitely would not agree with your above statement either. But is this so objectionable? After all, if a Theist were trying to make a case that God exists to the Atheist who agreed objective morality exists by appeal to the argument from Objective Moral Principles, he has support in the human capacity for objective moral judgment-making which does not seem likely to be a product of naturalistic and random evolutionary forces. So hey, I’m ok that Atheists think this. It lends more support for Theist arguments anyway.

 

[Ender]

Ok, but so what? This is trivially true.

Apparently it isn’t that trivial as we disagree over what it implies.

Notice what you just said: “we have to believe that God helps us discover these values in order to believe…what? [what is the moral thing to do?].”

No, this is not what I said. The comment you put quotation marks around is not mine; it is your interpretation of what I said. You don’t get to alter my words and then disagree with the rewording.

As Christians, we do think believing that God directs us to the correct moral values is necessary to know the specifically **Christian **moral principles are true.

If moral values are objectively true then strictly speaking there are no such things as Christian moral principles. Either moral principles are objectively true or they are not and if they are objectively true then, as you said before, they are true for everyone. Perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by Christian moral principles.

But our very belief isn’t a necessary condition for knowing **all ** human moral principles are true. There are some moral principles we can know that are true independent of whether or not we believe that God directed us to them. Moral atheists surely believe this.

I didn’t say one had to believe in God to know the truth; I said that God had to make the truth knowable. I didn’t associate knowing with believing. I do not believe, however, that we can know any moral truths apart from God directing us to know them and I think there is no justification in believing we have discovered them without his directing us to them. I know there are people who believe they have discovered objective moral truths on their own; I am claiming that they are mistaken. They may well have discovered objective moral truths - nothing prevents this - they are mistaken in believing that they found them without direction.

Ender

 

[Syntax]

Apparently it isn’t that trivial as we disagree over what it implies.

“Implies” means “logically implies.” You said, “I wanted to point out that if there is no way to know what the objective moral values are then they might as well not exist.”

I agree. Now can you tell me what conclusion logically follows from this statement alone?

No, this is not what I said. The comment you put quotation marks around is not mine; it is your interpretation of what I said. You don’t get to alter my words and then disagree with the rewording.

I put my interpretation in brackets, Ender. In common language practice, these brackets …] indicate you didn’t say what was in those brackets. But you said everything else outside those brackets. Maybe if you were more clear I wouldn’t have to do this so often?

Just so you know, I pause a lot before I type things out because sometimes our language is very sloppy if we don’t pay attention to our writing and how the reader is going to interpret it. So you always have to keep your audience in mind.

If moral values are objectively true then strictly speaking there are no such things as Christian moral principles.

Ok, but you are only talking about all those principles that are directly contrary to any principles included in the canon of Christian moral principles. If those were true, then, yes, Christian moral principles would be false. But some secular moral principles can overlap Christian moral principles.

And hopefully you are aware by now that “objective” does NOT merely mean “universal” in moral philosophy, and that, if there is a secular principle that purports to be an objective moral value, but is false, it is thereby not an objective moral principle at all. Let me make the following idea clear:

(1) A moral principle is objective only if that principle is true.

Therefore, it is NOT the case that

(2) a moral principle is objective if and only if that moral principle is universal.

The former statement is true, the latter is false. So some universally accepted principles can be false, and hence they are not objective moral principles. Even if the entire world believed that “torturing babies is morally permissible” they would be believing something objectively false–hence “torturing babies is morally permissible” is NOT an objective moral principle.

Further, secular moral principles can overlap Christian Moral Principles such as “Do not cause gratuitous suffering unnecessarily.” This is the same objectively true moral principle for both secular and Christian circles. But different communities can interpret its other logical consequences differently when combined with other principles that can be either true or false.

Either moral principles are objectively true or they are not and if they are objectively true then, as you said before, they are -]true for everyone/-].

No, I didn’t say that. I said if a moral principle is true, it is therefore OBJECTIVELY BINDING ON EVERYONE. **Even if a moral principle is true, hence objectively true, someone can still believe it is false. Hence, if a moral principle is objectively true, this does not **logically entail it is universally accepted or believed by everyone.

But yes, a moral principle is true or false.

Perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by Christian moral principles.

Christian moral principles are all of those principles which God has decreed are true, either directly revealed or arising in a properly functioning human conscience. So ALL objectively true moral principles find their ultimate source in God. And some of them overlap with secular moral principles. But some secular principles are false, hence those secular principles that are false are not from God. Therefore, false principles are not objective moral principles.

I didn’t say one had to believe in God to know the truth; I said that God had to make the truth knowable.

Yes, God’s existence is a necessary condition for making the truth knowable.
But believing in God is not a necessary condition for knowing some moral truths.

I do not believe, however, that we can know any moral truths apart from God directing us to know them and I think there is no justification in believing we have discovered them without his directing us to them.

I agree. Here’s a further question:

So if we cannot know (or be justified in believing) any moral truths without God’s directing us to them, then

(1) are we futher required to know God has, in fact, directed us to this truth in order to be justified in believing it?
(2) or are we not further required to know God has, in fact, directed us to this truth in order to be justified in believing it?

I know there are people who believe they have discovered objective moral truths on their own; I am claiming that they are mistaken. They may well have discovered objective moral truths - nothing prevents this - they are mistaken in believing that they found them without direction.

I agree. So the very same question arises:

What if this person found a moral truth by God’s actual help but he or she didn’t know that it was actually God directing him or her. Would this person still be justified in believing that he or she found a moral truth?

 

[Betterave]

So if we cannot know (or be justified in believing) any moral truths without God’s directing us to them, then

(1) are we futher required to know God has, in fact, directed us to this truth in order to be justified in believing it?
(2) or are we not further required to know God has, in fact, directed us to this truth in order to be justified in believing it?

This is the crux of the matter, as I see it. As Christians we believe we live and breathe and have our whole being in complete dependence on God. So of course we require God’s ‘direction,’ somehow, for us to know or even just believe anything, whether it be subjective or objective, true or false. Our even being able to formulate a false proposition is a gift from our Creator! (At least I don’t see how a Christian could believe otherwise - that’s just the way it has to be, if Christianity is true - i.e., that’s what we have to believe, if we believe in Christianity… but for those who don’t believe…?)

So the question isn’t just about moral truths, it’s about any kind of truth. That said, I’ll let Ender pick his poison, I mean position, before saying any more.

 

[Syntax]

This is the crux of the matter, as I see it. As Christians we believe we live and breathe and have our whole being in complete dependence on God. So of course we require God’s ‘direction,’ somehow, for us to know or even just believe anything, whether it be subjective or objective, true or false. Our even being able to formulate a false proposition is a gift from our Creator! (At least I don’t see how a Christian could believe otherwise - that’s just the way it has to be, if Christianity is true - i.e., that’s what we have to believe, if we believe in Christianity… but for those who don’t believe…?)

So the question isn’t just about moral truths, it’s about any kind of truth. That said, I’ll let Ender pick his poison, I mean position, before saying any more.

I agree, but I’m not sure where I draw the epistemic line between different kinds of truth…

Just so there’s no confusion with Ender, I think those two question are better expressed by the simpler one below it. So let me repeat the question I am driving at:

"Suppose a person found a moral truth by God’s actual help but he or she didn’t know that it was actually God directing him or her.

Would this person still be justified in believing that he or she found a moral truth?’

 

[StrawberryJam]

I agree, but I’m not sure where I draw the epistemic line between different kinds of truth…

Just so there’s no confusion with Ender, I think those two question are better expressed by the simpler one below it. So let me repeat the question I am driving at:

"Suppose a person found a moral truth by God’s** actual help **but he or she didn’t know that it was actually God directing him or her.

Would this person still be justified in believing that he or she found a moral truth?’

I could suppose **actual help **from your abrahamic God all day long.

Your connection to moral truth is lacking still.

 

[Syntax]

I could suppose **actual help **from your abrahamic God all day long.

Your connection to moral truth is lacking still.

False.

 

[Abu]

We received the concept of “nature” from Aristotle as: “Nature is a source or cause of being moved and of being at rest in that to which it belongs primarily in virtue of itself and not in virtue of a concomitant attribute.” From this the Scholastic definition: “the nature of a thing is its essence considered as a principle of operation.”

It may be helpful to understand that the concept of “person” is unknown before the Judeo-Christian lineage: Plato and Aristotle dealt only with statisms, and the individual has no significance in Stoic and Hindu thought – despite the awareness of some kind of human spirituality and immortality.

However, man is capable by his own activity of acquiring what is lacking and developing what is already possessed to fulfill his nature. So man can know his incompleteness; he can see what he is now and discover the direction of fulfillment by scrutiny of his own nature in body, mind and spirit – to achieve himself fully. As a free agent, he has an obligation to achieve himself fully, and this bond of obligation is the natural law. All that is knowable about man through psychology, history or any of the sciences is relevant to the natural law, is part of the natural law. The natural law is outside of man’s control because created by God in man’s nature.
[See Fr Paul M Quay, S.J., in *Why Humanae Vitae Was Right, Ignatius 1993, p 21-4]

The natural law means that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. It is something that man can discover by the basis of his own reason, if his understanding is not obscured by his culture – which happens to be in turmoil through relativism and selfism.

For example:
A moral problem arises when we oppose nature – and the purpose and meaning and nature of an action or function.
Any wrong action is against the natural moral law: stealing is; framing someone is; oppressing people is. The institution of property has the law of nature as its corollary — a law of morality which forbids stealing. The general principle being that good is to be pursued and evil avoided.
“His is a nature that is endowed with intelligence and free will. As such he has rights and duties, which together flow as a direct consequence from his nature. These rights and duties are universal and inviolable, and therefore altogether inalienable. [John XXIII, *Pacem in Terris, 1963].
CCC 2352 … “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.”

 

[DPMartin]

Is reason morality? Aristotle and men of such intellect have great ability to reason, but they are still born with the reasoning of Adam’s ways. Didn’t Adam have his reasons?

As far as the concept of “morality” or “morals” and it’s origin, history shows that it is Pope St. Gregory the Great that established “morals” in the Roman Catholic Church in such effectiveness that said establishment still remains through out the western culture and the Roman Catholic Church.

His, Commentary on Job, frequently known even in English-language histories by its Latin title, “Magna Moralia” is considered by many as the source thereof.

 

[Ender]

I put my interpretation in brackets, Ender. In common language practice, these brackets …] indicate you didn’t say what was in those brackets. But you said everything else outside those brackets.

I understood the brackets; what I dispute is everything else within the quotation marks. I was unable to find a post where I made the statement you attributed to me.

I don’t think we disagree on what the term “objectively true moral value” means.

Yes, God’s existence is a necessary condition for making the truth knowable.
But believing in God is not a necessary condition for knowing some moral truths.

Agreed.

So if we cannot know (or be justified in believing) any moral truths without God’s directing us to them, then

(1) are we futher required to know God has, in fact, directed us to this truth in order to be justified in believing it?
(2) or are we not further required to know God has, in fact, directed us to this truth in order to be justified in believing it?

Good question, and I’m not sure of the answer. We have to start from some point about which we can say “this is true”, and God surely has to direct us to that point. From then, however, a number of truths can be developed, so in that regard we don’t need to be led by the hand to discover everything. I’m not sure quite what to do with the conscience.

Ender