Why Should God Be the Moral Authority?

[Daedelus76]

I’d like to know which countries are these. I want to study them.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

I saw a competing study that suggested that dualism, a belief in the Devil and Hell, more than God, contributed to dysfunction, whereas a generalized belief in a higher power and social participation contributes to a benefit. Sweden has very low church attendance, but the percentage that have belief is God is about 55 percent of the country, yet few people believe in the Devil. OTOH, in the US a higher percentage of theists attend church, deny evolution, and believe in the Devil.

Denmark and Iceland are relatively happy countries according to the World Database of Happinesss, they are also relatively secular. Ireland and Mexico are less secular but very happy. The US is below some third-world countries, OTOH.

 

[Sarpedon]

Was it you that mentioned, some bunch of posts back, something about the word “ought”? What did you mean by that?

There is a distinction between the “world that is” and the “world that ought.” The world that is comprises things as they actually are. The world that ought comprises things as they should be. This distinction is paramount. Ethics, as the study of what we should do, is really the study of how we can bring about the world that ought.

Utilitarianism suffers from an attachment to the “world that is.” The observation is made that most people act in order to further selfish desires. While this is probably a true observation, this concerns is only the “world that is,” not the “world that ought” of ethics. Just because almost everybody acts in a selfish way does not mean that we ought to act selfish. We don’t need ethics to tell us what we already do. We need ethics to tell us what we should do.

I believe that the human spirit is capable of striving for something beyond self-interest and pleasure, and that the revelation of God gives us what we need to search for that goal.

 

[grannymh]

Can I ask you a few questions? Would you say that other animals’ lives have intrinsic value? Would you say that plant life has intrinsic value? What’s the difference between a plant that can’t feel, and a human that can’t feel? Both their bodies strive for life, after all.

Ask anything… And I will probably open my dictionary again. According to the dictionary intrinsic means: “of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.” That works for me since it applies to humans, animals, anything. In reply to your question: “Would you say that other animals’ lives have intrinsic value?” Yes, lots of value as I mentioned in post 289. “Would you say that plant life has intrinsic value?” Yes.

“What’s the difference between a plant that can’t feel and a human that can’t feel?”
A human who can’t feel is dead. As a former volunteer chaplain in a hospital, I’ve been with people before and after their death. There is some kind of feeling until death. The exception might be a person in a very deep coma, possibly brain dead.
The one plant which can feel is the Venus flytrap. One of my sons had one and he gave it dead flies. As I recall, the plant soon gave up.

Now, if you are talking feeling as in emotions, I have been amazed at the emotions, sometimes barely perceptible to onlookers, of a person moments before death. There is a very old saying – it takes energy to die.

o.k. I’ll get back to your original idea of comparing plants and animals. As you know, there is a hierarchy of living things. Usually, comparisons are from level to level. An animal can do more things than a plant and a man can do more things than animal. Striving for life is common to all. How they keep living differs. A plant depends on its roots, sun, and rain since it can’t move about. An animal has to remember in a sense where food is located in the summer and winter so it can migrate efficiently. A human has to have money in his pocket otherwise being able to walk to the store is useless.

I’m getting to sound like an old granny. But–when I was in school, anything about nature fascinated me. I was intensely curious. I still am. Thus, when I was learning about “living things” in science, I would continue to think about them while walking, etc. My favorite was to think about all the things that humans do that other animals can’t. Try it some time.

Blessings,
granny

All humans, even the tiny ones, are worthy of love.

 

[grannymh]

I know that I would feel no reason to live without the hope for happiness.

Doesn’t that sound like a New Testament Bible writer? Only the Bible writer would add four more words to the sentence. It would read: “I know that I would feel no reason to live without the hope for happiness in eternity with God.”

Happiness is only one part of the equation. Eventually, all of us have to face up to the concluding portion which says where true and everlasting happiness is.

 

[grannymh]

No, I simply do not believe that true fulfillment comes through having “happy feelings.”

Your “value” is positive emotions. My value is union with God. While we are motivated by our desire to “fulfill” ourselves, this fulfillment is found by dying to ourselves for God, as God does for us, and not through emotions. If we are motivated by a partial desire for positive emotions for ourselves and a partial desire for the positive emotions of others, there is a great risk. While positive emotions are not bad and we should want them for ourselves and others, they need to kept within the bounds of the relationship with God. When we seek our own and others “positive emotions” without this check, anything can happen.

Just a thought.

The phrase “dying to ourselves” most likely is not familiar to others on this thread. I’m not even sure if I understand it completely. Would you please give your explanation of what it means. Thanks.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

As a scientific observation, I agree with you. Very few people have developed the capacity to truly love without self-interest. Due to the corruption of sin, most people rarely have pure intentions. That being said, ethics is concerned with what should be done, not what is done. Even if very few people achieve a truly ethical life, this does not mean that the ethical standard does not apply.

This is a very important statement: “Even if very few people achieve a truly ethical life, this does not mean that the ethical standard does not apply.”

This is only possible when the ethical standard is based on objective reality and is not dependent on subjective thinking which blows with the wind. The only thing which can serve as the concrete foundation for the solid ethical standard is something Who is beyond the realm of human nature.

 

[grannymh]

I believe that the human spirit is capable of striving for something beyond self-interest and pleasure, and that the revelation of God gives us what we need to search for that goal.

:clapping:

granny

 

[JDaniel]

timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

I read this Times reporter’s story and, for the life of me, I can’t figure out why a sophisticated news organization would print such rubbish. This article, and the underlying so-called research study, are blatantly perfect examples of the fallacy of Questionable Cause. If A and B occur together (and it’s not even proven that they occur “regularly” together, but, even if they did, the fallacy would still be apropos), then, A is the cause of B. For example, I could say, you only see smog in the daytime, so the sun must be the cause of the smog, or else the daytime is. Surely you must have noticed that?

I saw a competing study that suggested that dualism, a belief in the Devil and Hell, more than God, contributed to dysfunction, whereas a generalized belief in a higher power and social participation contributes to a benefit. Sweden has very low church attendance, but the percentage that have belief is God is about 55 percent of the country, yet few people believe in the Devil. OTOH, in the US a higher percentage of theists attend church, deny evolution, and believe in the Devil.

All of these examples appear to be biased in the same way as your example above. You must start reading this junk with a more critical eye.

Denmark and Iceland are relatively happy countries according to the World Database of Happiness, they are also relatively secular. Ireland and Mexico are less secular but very happy. The US is below some third-world countries, OTOH.

The World Database of Happiness? Did they commit the same fallacy?

Sorry, this does not urge me to throw out the bath water with the baby in it. Keep scouring, but, look for better stuff.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

There is a distinction between the “world that is” and the “world that ought.” The world that is comprises things as they actually are. The world that ought comprises things as they should be. This distinction is paramount. Ethics, as the study of what we should do, is really the study of how we can bring about the world that ought.

Utilitarianism suffers from an attachment to the “world that is.” The observation is made that most people act in order to further selfish desires. While this is probably a true observation, this concerns is only the “world that is,” not the “world that ought” of ethics. Just because almost everybody acts in a selfish way does not mean that we ought to act selfish. We don’t need ethics to tell us what we already do. We need ethics to tell us what we should do.

I believe that the human spirit is capable of striving for something beyond self-interest and pleasure, and that the revelation of God gives us what we need to search for that goal.

So, you don’t think that being motivated by the desire for happiness and the diminishment of pain, for all, is something we might aspire to and should do?

jd

 

[Sarpedon]

So, you don’t think that being motivated by the desire for happiness and the diminishment of pain, for all, is something we might aspire to and should do?

We should be primarily motivated by the desire to love God, which is separate from emotions or pain.

That being said, it is not wrong to take pleasure and pain into account. The key point, however, is that our desire to have pleasure and avoid pain must not conflict with our primary purpose, which is to love and follow God. There is nothing wrong with trying to make yourself happy as long as you are not disobeying God. Pleasure and pain can be taken into account, but the objective law of God must be taken into accout first.

For example, suppose all of humanity could have incredible happiness for 100 years if only an innocent person would die. As a Catholic, I could not murder the person in cold blood for majority pleasure. To do so would compromise his God-given rights, which is disobeying the law of God. It would be better for the whole world to suffer earthly pain than to disobey God and harm another person. That being said, if I could bring about that happiness while still following the objective law of God, I could morally seek it out for myself and others. In many cases, especially if other people are concerned, it is actually admirable to seek earthly happiness, as long as we don’t let it obscure and consume our ultimate purpose and obligation.

 

[Sarpedon]

This is only possible when the ethical standard is based on objective reality and is not dependent on subjective thinking which blows with the wind. The only thing which can serve as the concrete foundation for the solid ethical standard is something Who is beyond the realm of human nature.

Exactly! Group consensus does not make a right. If every single person but yourself wants to jump off a cliff, it is still bad to do so.

 

[Sarpedon]

The phrase “dying to ourselves” most likely is not familiar to others on this thread. I’m not even sure if I understand it completely. Would you please give your explanation of what it means. Thanks.

“Dying to ourselves” means that we no longer live for ourselves, but for God and secondarily the rest of humanity. “It is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”

This does not mean that we should have no individual personality, or that we cannot take personal needs into account. God created us as individuals, each with inherent dignity and worth. Furthermore, God created our bodies and minds for us, so we have a moral obligation to take care of them. All that “dying to ourselves” means is that we no longer act out of selfish self-interest, but rather out of selfless love for others. We allow ourselves to be the “hands and feet” of God working in the world for the salvation of souls.

 

[Oreoracle]

John Stuart Mill would say that Jesus, for example, was pursuing a “higher pleasure” than most men. There’s no doubt in my mind that, though he felt unimaginable pain during the crucifixion, and though he guessed that he would, he felt that higher pleasure all the while, and planned to. People (such as Sarpedon, I’m afraid) often equate utilitarianism’s idea of happiness with sexual gratification, drinking, partying, etc., but this is not the case. There are levels that stand as high as Jesus’ spiritual happiness to as low as sexual pleasure. Calling this happiness “fulfillment” does not change the concept.

And how selfish is a god that thinks he should have the right to make me his guinea pig, or lab rat? He even admits to being a “jealous god.”

Also, I don’t see how you can start with the absolute “I should not kill (humans?)” and end up saying that you can kill, if it is in self-defense. It certainly sounds intuitively plausible, but the rule then becomes circumstancial, or relative. It shows a drift from absolutism, regardless of the reason.

 

[Oreoracle]

There is a distinction between the “world that is” and the “world that ought.” The world that is comprises things as they actually are. The world that ought comprises things as they should be. This distinction is paramount. Ethics, as the study of what we should do, is really the study of how we can bring about the world that ought.

Utilitarianism suffers from an attachment to the “world that is.” The observation is made that most people act in order to further selfish desires. While this is probably a true observation, this concerns is only the “world that is,” not the “world that ought” of ethics. Just because almost everybody acts in a selfish way does not mean that we ought to act selfish. We don’t need ethics to tell us what we already do. We need ethics to tell us what we should do.

I believe that the human spirit is capable of striving for something beyond self-interest and pleasure, and that the revelation of God gives us what we need to search for that goal.

All ethical systems are first based on is-premises, and then they make the logical leap across the is-ought gap toward the ought-conclusion. The primary is-premise in Catholicism is “the Christian god exists.” You then make the logical leap that God should be the moral authority.

 

[Sarpedon]

And how selfish is a god that thinks he should have the right to make me his guinea pig, or lab rat? He even admits to being a “jealous god.”

First, “jealous” needs to be understood in terms of the ancient original languages, not modern terms. Second, I don’t see how God offering you the free gift of eternal life is related to forced laboratory abuse.

Also, I don’t see how you can start with the absolute “I should not kill (humans?)” and end up saying that you can kill, if it is in self-defense. It certainly sounds intuitively plausible, but the rule then becomes circumstancial, or relative. It certainly shows a drift from absolutism, regardless of the reason.

It is entirely in line with objective truth. Objectivists do not blindly believe in any and all possible objective laws, but only the ones that come through a reasonable and legitimate system. I have evaluated Catholicism to be a very reasonable system (based on means not touched upon in this thread), and thus I trust that the absolute laws promulgated by it (such as only killing in self defense) are in fact from God.

 

[Oreoracle]

Doesn’t that sound like a New Testament Bible writer? Only the Bible writer would add four more words to the sentence. It would read: “I know that I would feel no reason to live without the hope for happiness in eternity with God.”

Happiness is only one part of the equation. Eventually, all of us have to face up to the concluding portion which says where true and everlasting happiness is.

How are “happiness” and “true happiness” different? Utilitarianism considers certain pleasures higher and lower, but other than that, they’re considered the same (they convert to the same feeling, albeit in differing amounts).

 

[Sarpedon]

All ethical systems are first based on is-premises, and then they make the logical leap across the is-ought gap toward the ought-conclusion. The primary is-premise in Catholicism is “the Christian god exists.” You then make the logical leap that God should be the moral authority.

Does this strike you as unreasonable?

The logical reason why we should look to a transcendent realm (i.e God) for moral guidance is that we can only have direct experience of the “world that is,” not “the world that ought.” We have never experienced the world that ought, so we can’t know, based on our experience, what it is like and how to bring it about. Thus, we turn to the transcendent realm in order to learn how to bring it about. **In other words, we can’t know what it is by ourselves, so we go looking for Someone who does. **

 

[Oreoracle]

**In other words, we can’t know what it is by ourselves, so we go looking for Someone who does. **

“We can’t know what it is.”

The “it” being the world that ought to be? You’re conflating is and ought. “Ought” is not in a state of existence, and so does not have a truth value or objectivity.

God cannot “know” what is right. He can have his own feeling of what is right, but moral knowledge is impossible.

 

[Sarpedon]

“Ought” is not in a state of existence, and so does not have a truth value or objectivity.

 

[Oreoracle]

You’re argument would be plausible if “objective” meant “unchanging” but it does not. I’m beginning to think that you don’t know what it means.