Why Should God Be the Moral Authority?

[Oreoracle]

Hello everyone, I’m new to these forums. I don’t subscribe to any established religion, though I do have vague religious beliefs. I don’t believe that religion is a basis for ethical principles, though, so I’ll try my best to fit in here, despite the differences.

Now, to the question. Typically, I will hear three responses from Christians in this order (I know; predictable, right?). I’ll try to outline the situation:

1. First, the typical Christian will say that it is only fitting that God be the moral authority because he did, after all, create all those subject to it. This seems to me to be evidently absurd. God should be able to demand anything of us just because he created us? What of our happiness or suffering? People tell me “You should be grateful. You want to live, right? He gave you that life.” Well, that’s the problem: I want to live because I’m alive. He didn’t fulfill a being’s interests by creating them. Instead, he created a being with a desire (of living) that will eventually fail to be satisfied, not even counting the living’s other interests.
2. When the same person sees that argument failing, weakening, or simply not appealing to the opponent, they will fall back on God’s omniscience. It only makes sense that God set the rules, they say, because he knows everything, and thus can predict/foresee the exact results of such rules. This argument is weaker than the first. We see its weakness when we contrast it with Hume’s proposal of the is-ought gap, which claims that, since the properties of goodness and badness don’t seem to be natural (as compared to such adjectives used as fine sand or gnarled wood), and because they only seem to exist in one’s opinion of concrete items/circumstances, all sense of morality is subjective, or emotion-based. Moral knowledge is impossible. While I must agree that, if God can be proven to know more than any being (I don’t know how one can use inferior intelligence to discover a superior intelligence), and he shares our interests, he should be our moral authority. This is only true, of course, if God shares our interests, which, given that he is made out to be such an alien being, may be a bit of an ambitious assumption. In short, God has the infallible means to get whatever he wants, and we ought to follow him so long as our wants and his match. But just by flipping through the Bible, I doubt that’s the case.
3. Lastly, and in desperation, the Christian proponent makes the ironically feeble claim that, because God is the most powerful (whatever you take that to mean), he should be the moral authority. I don’t think I even have to point out why this is not only a ridiculously unconvincing argument, but also a dangerous mindset. This is a “might makes right” philosophy that not only divides God and creatures, but society as well (because it asserts that power means everything). To make this post complete, I must evoke Hitler for a moment. Notice that he fit the bill in both arguments (2) and (3), but we wouldn’t consider him to have the moral high ground over almost anyone.

Am I right in my analysis? Are there additional proposals or objections?

 

[agangbern]

Did you ever question your own father why he exercised moral authority over you? Under what circumstance did you question him? And by what authority did you have to question your own father?

 

[Eucharisted]

Your question is ironic. You need authority to question a man’s authority, so you need authority to question God’s Authority. By questioning God’s Authority, you’re making yourself out to be the Moral Authority. Now, why you be the Moral Authority?

 

[davidv]

Because God is Good. What is Good is moral.

 

[grannymh]

Hello everyone, I’m new to these forums. I don’t subscribe to any established religion, though I do have vague religious beliefs. I don’t believe that religion is a basis for ethical principles, though, so I’ll try my best to fit in here, despite the differences.

Now, to the question. Typically, I will hear three responses from Christians in this order (I know; predictable, right?). I’ll try to outline the situation:

Am I right in my analysis? Are there additional proposals or objections?

Dear Oreoracle,

This place is full of differences!

As a starting point for discussion, let’s assume that there is another proposal as to why God should be the moral authority. Only let’s start from a point different than a religious base. That is, both of us do not belong to any organized religion. (Being Catholic has never limited my imagination. )

Can we agree that moral or ethical principles are important? What are some of the common, everyday ones? These are just beginning questions to get ideas flowing.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

Sorry, but I don’t really see you defeating the arguments you raise. I see you rejecting them, but not defeating them.

If there is a Supreme Being, that being is only possible source for moral authority, because only such a being is in a position to arbitrate. It’s a Nietzsche thing. Without God, you no longer have good vs. evil, because you can’t establish an objective morality. All you have left is good vs. bad. Good vs. bad is subject to different situations and cultural mores, and it carries no objective truth with it.

Without some moral arbiter, stabbing a little old lady and taking her purse is exactly as “moral” as helping her cross the street. Who is in a position to judge? You? Britney Spears? Barack Obama? We’re all standing at the same level, and none of us has the authority to make that call. Some day, we’ll all be dead, and our opinions on the matter will be dead with us.

So, God is the only one who can be a moral authority. Human beings can only form an opinion and then use violence on each other to enforce it.

 

[Oreoracle]

Your question is ironic. You need authority to question a man’s authority, so you need authority to question God’s Authority. By questioning God’s Authority, you’re making yourself out to be the Moral Authority. Now, why you be the Moral Authority?

The purpose of this thread was meant to eventually lead us to question why we should have a moral authority at all. It’s not who you value, but what. Saying that you regard someone as a moral authority is another way of saying that you at least generally agree with their ethical reasoning. But why does a person place value toward God’s (or anyone’s) authority? Is it because God himself has some intrinsic, objective value, or is it because he values what others value? In that case, we’re valuing something other than the person.

Dear Oreoracle,

This place is full of differences!

As a starting point for discussion, let’s assume that there is another proposal as to why God should be the moral authority. Only let’s start from a point different than a religious base. That is, both of us do not belong to any organized religion. (Being Catholic has never limited my imagination. )

Can we agree that moral or ethical principles are important? What are some of the common, everyday ones? These are just beginning questions to get ideas flowing.

Thanks for the welcome, Granny. For the record, I’m a utilitarian, which puts me at a rather awkward (though necessary, I think) position. The everyday ethical principles are seen as inconsistent to utilitarians. For example, lying is seen as bad because it is a verbal (direct) form of deception, which means that it presents false information (at least, this information is believed to be false by the person providing it). Most of the time, if one acts on false information, suffering ensues. However, this is not always the case. As hedonism dictates, all conscious pursuits are at least slightly directed at the increase of one’s happiness or the reduction of one’s suffering. As such, all established virtues are aimed at those same goals. Because they sometimes miss the mark (cause more suffering than happiness, etc.), it is more efficient to follow the utilitarian axioms–“maximize happiness” and “minimize suffering”–than any absolute rules.

I became a utilitarian by being convinced of hedonism, not by selling my reasoning (which, ironically, I would have to use to determine the moral authority anyway) to another being, as some here suggest.

Sorry, but I don’t really see you defeating the arguments you raise. I see you rejecting them, but not defeating them.

If there is a Supreme Being, that being is only possible source for moral authority, because only such a being is in a position to arbitrate. It’s a Nietzsche thing. Without God, you no longer have good vs. evil, because you can’t establish an objective morality. All you have left is good vs. bad. Good vs. bad is subject to different situations and cultural mores, and it carries no objective truth with it.

Without some moral arbiter, stabbing a little old lady and taking her purse is exactly as “moral” as helping her cross the street. Who is in a position to judge? You? Britney Spears? Barack Obama? We’re all standing at the same level, and none of us has the authority to make that call. Some day, we’ll all be dead, and our opinions on the matter will be dead with us.

So, God is the only one who can be a moral authority. Human beings can only form an opinion and then use violence on each other to enforce it.

Before I can respond to anything you’ve said, I need to know what you mean by “objective morality”.

 

[grannymh]

For the record, I’m a utilitarian, which puts me at a rather awkward (though necessary, I think) position.

 

[Oreoracle]

For the record, I read you as saying you were an Unitarian. So if you catch any other crazy mistakes, let’s laugh and move on.

No problem.

Since utilitarianism is new to me as a philosophy, I checked my ancient dictionary which added another element to your description. It said: " …that conduct should be directed to promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons." This is an old definition. Is this definition current? Or has it been adapted to fit modern society? Or do you operate on your own definition?

Yes, that’s the political slogan for utilitarianism. If you followed those two principles I used, the greatest happiness for the greatest number would be the inevitable result. However, Bentham (the creator of utilitarianism) himself decided to drop “for the greatest number” because he realized that the number of people that benefit (become happier, satisfied, etc.) from a decision and the intensity of the benefit each receive are inverse properties. For instance, If you could give a set quantity of happiness to 10 people by dividing it amongst them, would it be better, worse, or all the same to divide it amongst 100 people as long as the same amount was gained? Since it’s an ethical philosophy in substance, I didn’t want to introduce it politically because it would add complications. So both definitions are valid, really.

You noted that the utilitarian axioms were “maximum happiness” and “minimize suffering” Do you see that as pertaining to the individual only? Or do you see it including others as the dictionary indicated?

The axioms include all sentient beings. A variant of egoism is ethical hedonism, which promotes those same values, but for oneself. Utilitarianism includes others, even “lower” (I don’t like saying that) animals.

As to what we value, it seems to me that basically, the utilitarian ethical doctrine is that virtue is based on utility. I took that in the sense of being practical or efficient or using common sense. You mentioned established virtues. But it seemed that you were connecting them to hedonism which can also mean desire for pleasure and avoidance of pain. It doesn’t make too much difference to me if different terms are merged. I’m more interested in a general picture; however, I can see that both utilitarianism and hedonism can be driving forces for morals and ethical behavior.

I still need more thinking/ideas on moral and ethical principles. I’ve got my own sense of established virtues. For example, I would turn your example of direct deception (lying intentionally) into a virtue of truthfulness or maybe honesty.

A rule utilitarian would agree with you on the virtue of honesty, because always being honest generally reduces suffering. An act/classical utilitarian would say that it would be a bit irresponsible to always be honest if it any given time it would only harm others. That goes for all virtues, vices, rights, etc.

Sorry for the brevity of my reply, I gotta run for now.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Lastly, and in desperation, the Christian proponent makes the ironically feeble claim that, because God is the most powerful (whatever you take that to mean), he should be the moral authority. I don’t think I even have to point out why this is not only a ridiculously unconvincing argument, but also a dangerous mindset. This is a “might makes right” philosophy that not only divides God and creatures, but society as well (because it asserts that power means everything). To make this post complete, I must evoke Hitler for a moment. Notice that he fit the bill in both arguments (2) and (3), but we wouldn’t consider him to have the moral high ground over almost anyone.

This argument is fatally flawed; it is precisely because Hitler did not believe in God that he raised himself to supreme and dangerous power.

 

[JDaniel]

Hello everyone, I’m new to these forums. I don’t subscribe to any established religion, though I do have vague religious beliefs. I don’t believe that religion is a basis for ethical principles, though, so I’ll try my best to fit in here, despite the differences.

Now, to the question. Typically, I will hear three responses from Christians in this order (I know; predictable, right?). I’ll try to outline the situation:

1. First, the typical Christian will say that it is only fitting that God be the moral authority because he did, after all, create all those subject to it. This seems to me to be evidently absurd. God should be able to demand anything of us just because he created us? What of our happiness or suffering? People tell me “You should be grateful. You want to live, right? He gave you that life.” Well, that’s the problem: I want to live because I’m alive. He didn’t fulfill a being’s interests by creating them. Instead, he created a being with a desire (of living) that will eventually fail to be satisfied, not even counting the living’s other interests.
2. When the same person sees that argument failing, weakening, or simply not appealing to the opponent, they will fall back on God’s omniscience. It only makes sense that God set the rules, they say, because he knows everything, and thus can predict/foresee the exact results of such rules. This argument is weaker than the first. We see its weakness when we contrast it with Hume’s proposal of the is-ought gap, which claims that, since the properties of goodness and badness don’t seem to be natural (as compared to such adjectives used as fine sand or gnarled wood), and because they only seem to exist in one’s opinion of concrete items/circumstances, all sense of morality is subjective, or emotion-based. Moral knowledge is impossible. While I must agree that, if God can be proven to know more than any being (I don’t know how one can use inferior intelligence to discover a superior intelligence), and he shares our interests, he should be our moral authority. This is only true, of course, if God shares our interests, which, given that he is made out to be such an alien being, may be a bit of an ambitious assumption. In short, God has the infallible means to get whatever he wants, and we ought to follow him so long as our wants and his match. But just by flipping through the Bible, I doubt that’s the case.
3. Lastly, and in desperation, the Christian proponent makes the ironically feeble claim that, because God is the most powerful (whatever you take that to mean), he should be the moral authority. I don’t think I even have to point out why this is not only a ridiculously unconvincing argument, but also a dangerous mindset. This is a “might makes right” philosophy that not only divides God and creatures, but society as well (because it asserts that power means everything). To make this post complete, I must evoke Hitler for a moment. Notice that he fit the bill in both arguments (2) and (3), but we wouldn’t consider him to have the moral high ground over almost anyone.

Am I right in my analysis? Are there additional proposals or objections?

Actually, no you’re not.

Answer to second question: Yes. The one ultimate objection is that your entire argument is based on an extraordinarily faulty premise: it is pure contrivance.

jd

 

[Oreoracle]

Actually, no you’re not.

Answer to second question: Yes. The one ultimate objection is that your entire argument is based on an extraordinarily faulty premise: it is pure contrivance.

jd

What’s the one, extraordinarily faulty premise, then?

 

[Oreoracle]

This argument is fatally flawed; it is precisely because Hitler did not believe in God that he raised himself to supreme and dangerous power.

He used his power in such ways merely because of his values, which were apparently much different than ours. I don’t think it was because he was irreligious, or whatever. The point is that absolute power (infallible means to obtain any goal) is only useful if properly applied, and I happen to think that the god Christianity portrays is malicious at worst, and sluggish at best, because of the way he used, and did not use, his power.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I* happen to think that the god Christianity portrays is malicious at worst, and sluggish at best, because of the way he used, and did not use, his power.*

So you think he was malicious at worst and sluggish at best when Christ allowed himself to be crucified for our sins?

You think it was malicious at worst and sluggish at best when Christ taught us to love one another?

You think it was malicious at worst and sluggish at best when he preached the Sermon on the Mount that has inspired billions to follow him?

I’m not getting this “malicious at worst and sluggish at best”!

Nor do I think we appreciate blasphemies at this website.

 

[agangbern]

Oreoracle;4917210:

1. Lastly, and in desperation, the Christian proponent makes the ironically feeble claim that, because God is the most powerful (whatever you take that to mean), he should be the moral authority. I don’t think I even have to point out why this is not only a ridiculously unconvincing argument, but also a dangerous mindset. This is a “might makes right” philosophy that not only divides God and creatures, but society as well (because it asserts that power means everything). To make this post complete, I must evoke Hitler for a moment. Notice that he fit the bill in both arguments (2) and (3), but we wouldn’t consider him to have the moral high ground over almost anyone.

This argument is fatally flawed; it is precisely because Hitler did not believe in God that he raised himself to supreme and dangerous power.

In addition, Hitler’s power was empty of love, while God’s power is flowing with love. What God sow, that he reaps, except when what He sow falls on the rocks. For then the seed would not bear fruit. He sow love, and He reaps love. That is why, those who are His will recognize His voice. And that is why God should be the moral authority. Because of the love that He sowed in us.

 

[grannymh]

He used his power in such ways merely because of his values, which were apparently much different than ours. I don’t think it was because he was irreligious, or whatever. quote]

Agreed that his values were apparently much different than ours. Both sets of values appear to be mutually exclusive. Which one is correct? Why?

 

[Oreoracle]

I* happen to think that the god Christianity portrays is malicious at worst, and sluggish at best, because of the way he used, and did not use, his power.*

So you think he was malicious at worst and sluggish at best when Christ allowed himself to be crucified for our sins?

You think it was malicious at worst and sluggish at best when Christ taught us to love one another?

You think it was malicious at worst and sluggish at best when he preached the Sermon on the Mount that has inspired billions to follow him?

I’m not getting this “malicious at worst and sluggish at best”!

Nor do I think we appreciate blasphemies at this website.

Firstly, I’d like to know why you’d think damnation to Hell is necessary for anyone. And I mean the “lake of fire” Hell too.

 

[Oreoracle]

Agreed that his values were apparently much different than ours. Both sets of values appear to be mutually exclusive. Which one is correct? Why?

I wouldn’t say correct. “Correct” makes it sound like we’re talking about facts. As far as the values go, I think Hitler, like everyone does, developed his values from the ones he had at the beginning of his life. But I’m sure that we can agree that he overrode some of those previous values in the pursuit to glorify others. He successfully shrugged off a general respect of life, causing the development of the respect of others’ happiness to cease as well. That was his major mistake in ethical reasoning, in my opinion.

 

[grannymh]

Firstly, I’d like to know why you’d think damnation to Hell is necessary for anyone. And I mean the “lake of fire” Hell too.

FYI

There is a great thread in Apologetics that tackles the issue of Hell. It is called “No Poltroons in Heaven” At least check out the opening post which also asks “why?” Tell them that grannymh sent you. — ----It does get rolling.:stretcher:

 

[agangbern]

Firstly, I’d like to know why you’d think damnation to Hell is necessary for anyone. And I mean the “lake of fire” Hell too.

It is not necessary for anyone. No one needs it. Damnation in hell is simply the unavoidable consequence of one’s mortal wickedness.