Why Should God Be the Moral Authority?

[Oreoracle]

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

God apparently thinks that Hell is the necessary punishment for a sinner. And it is he who makes this a consequence. One does not just poof into Hell; God sends them. It is perfectly avoidable, despite wickedness, if only God did not enforce the punishment.

 

[Oreoracle]

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:

Thanks. I’ll be sure to check it out.

 

[davidv]

God apparently thinks that Hell is the necessary punishment for a sinner. And it is he who makes this a consequence. One does not just poof into Hell; God sends them. It is perfectly avoidable, despite wickedness, if only God did not enforce the punishment.

This statement indicates that you don’t really know what hell is. Please check out any of the multitude of threads on this subject that are available on CAF.

 

[Oreoracle]

This statement indicates that you don’t really know what hell is. Please check out any of the multitude of threads on this subject that are available on CAF.

I was, as I said earlier, speaking of the “lake of fire” idea of Hell. Which seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

I know that some say Hell is merely the state of being separated from God. But tell me: do you think God should be at all exclusive with whom he brings to Heaven?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I know that some say Hell is merely the state of being separated from God. But tell me: do you think God should be at all exclusive with whom he brings to Heaven?

I don’t think God is exclusive. I think we are exclusive. We exclude ourselves from God by our own free will. God does not want us in Hell. We choose to be without Him, and he honors this choice.

A school child does not want to attend class and gets an F. That is the child’s choice, not the teacher’s. The child knew that he was not going to be rewarded for his laziness.

Is that also a problem for you?

 

[grannymh]

I wouldn’t say correct. “Correct” makes it sound like we’re talking about facts.

Personally, I think values are facts of life. In any case, are the values of Hitler and the Allies mutually exclusive?

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.

Well said. I am sure Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers Party’s mistake in ethical reasoning was the rejection of a general respect for life. I added the full name for Nazi Party because it demonstrates that a lot of people agreed with Hitlers values.
This may sound like a dumb question, but it is important to address if we are to eventually get to the thread’s topic – in my opinion. Were the people in Poland worthy of a general respect for life?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[Oreoracle]

*A school child does not want to attend class and gets an F. That is the child’s choice, not the teacher’s. The child knew that he was not going to be rewarded for his laziness.
*

Ah, but there’s a reason for that (most of the time). Grades are representative of a student’s mastery of the subject. Cushioning a student’s grades would convey the idea that they know the subject better than they actually do, which is harmful (and only harmful) when it becomes the time where they’re expected to apply it skillfully in their career.

Moral character is useful (and only useful) when it influences actions. However, since God can snap his fingers and stop an evil action, moral character is useless if he applies his ability. Thus, he could accept heartless murderers into Heaven, make them happy, and make it so that they don’t make others suffer. Sounds ideal to me.

Now, God certainly does not have a moral duty to entertain my happiness; he is not morally required to do good. He should not cause others suffering without regard to the consequences though, which is why I oppose the traditional idea of Hell.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Moral character is useful (and only useful) when it influences actions. However, since God can snap his fingers and stop an evil action, moral character is useless if he applies his ability. Thus, he could accept heartless murderers into Heaven, make them happy, and make it so that they don’t make others suffer. Sounds ideal to me

I think it’s a waste of time to dispute this kind of logic. Sounds like you want all heroes and villains to get the same reward, deserved or undeserved. Or it sound like you expect God to violate our free will and treat us as puppets, preventing us from doing evil by snapping His fingers.

No thanks.

 

[promethius]

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

Agreed. I don’t think I’ve EVER heard a christian use ANY of the reasons listed in the original post. To clarify for the original poster: your faulty premise was the contrivance of positions that the church and its members don’t hold. In other words, your original post is nothing more than a strawman argument… insulting at best because obviously, if these are answers that christians have given you, you need to ask around more.

The first question we have to ask is whether there can be an ethical standard or “rule of thumb” to speak of. I think we’re in agreement here, there is at least SOME moral standard we have to adhere to. But what about the NATURE of that moral standard?

I think we run into a philosophical breakdown here though. You’re a teleological ethicist. To wit (for those who don’t know): you support subjective morality in that you think it possible to measure the consequences of an action and then to judge the morality of said action against the consequences. I say hogwash. There’s no way for you to accurately predict consequences other than using unreliable social “norms”. For example, you may try to minimize suffering for a person being struck, only to find out that said person was a masochist and was gaining pleasure from being hit. I’m a deontological thinker: right and wrong is determined by set principles and is totally regardless of consequences. (for the record: I’m a blend of Kantian and Divine Command theory with a hint of prima facia ethics mixed in)

Okay, so we’ve arrived at our ethical disjoint, but again you don’t seem to have a problem with the deontological school of thought so much as you have with the specific idea of Divine Command. So now we arrive at the next question (because we are now assuming deontology is correct): does God tell us that something is good because it fits with the natural law, or is something good and fits with the natural law because God tells us? In other words, which is independent of the other? Or yet another way: does God derive goodness from following a universal and independent natural law, or does God determine the natural law?

Here’s the breakdown: a pure Kantian would say that natural law is independent. That if God gives us commands, it is because those commands fit in with the natural law. That’s a possible response to your answer above… and one that I suspect an educated Christian would give you. The answer would also include SOMETHING of your options in that God is omniscient and so His authority to play moral leader stems from perfect knowledge of objective natural law. The idea that His interests are different than ours is irrelevant at that point, since the natural law IS our interest.

A Divine Command theorist, on the other hand, would say that something is good because God says so. Here’s where your objection comes into play.

That’s where the Kantian influence on Divine Command theory comes in… the question of “WHAT about God’s saying so creates something good?” In this case I offer you another proposition: that God’s word makes the natural law… when God says something is good, the very concept of moral theory and benefit to us as humans is rewritten. Example: God tells us do not murder your spouse. Humans derive no intrinsic benefit from murdering our spouses. However, God designed praying mantises and black widows, which both murder their spouses. In fact, God designed them FOR murder of spouses… but at the same time, the natural law is different for said lower animals: they can’t mate without murdering their spouses.

Now, we know that the word of God is perfect (without flaw), eternal (does not change through all time) and universal (applies in all places and all existances), so God is not going to tell us to start murdering each other… however, I would like to throw out philosophically that if God DID command such an act that we would find an intrinsic benefit from following it would be present after such a point. In the same way, all the morality of the Divine Command theory can be traced to intrinsic benefits to both societies and/or individuals: whatever God has told us is good has direct benefits to mankind.

I could go on rambling, but I think it would be good to stop here for response first…

 

[agangbern]

God apparently thinks that Hell is the necessary punishment for a sinner. And it is he who makes this a consequence. One does not just poof into Hell; God sends them. It is perfectly avoidable, despite wickedness, if only God did not enforce the punishment.

No. God does not think it that way. And He does not send people to hell. People are the ones themselves going there. They were not sent there by God. In fact, God wants to cover them with His wings as a hen would cover her chicks. But they simply rebel against God, and they chose to go to hell.

 

[Oreoracle]

Well said. I am sure Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers Party’s mistake in ethical reasoning was the rejection of a general respect for life. I added the full name for Nazi Party because it demonstrates that a lot of people agreed with Hitlers values.
This may sound like a dumb question, but it is important to address if we are to eventually get to the thread’s topic – in my opinion. Were the people in Poland worthy of a general respect for life?

I would say that all sentient beings are worthy of the general respect of their lives, for utilitarian reasons (in order for happiness to exist, sentient life has to exist). That’s not to say that there should be an indefeasible rule prohibiting killing, as there are exceptions regarding utility.

Agreed. I don’t think I’ve EVER heard a christian use ANY of the reasons listed in the original post.

You must hear from sensible Christians then!

To clarify for the original poster: your faulty premise was the contrivance of positions that the church and its members don’t hold. In other words, your original post is nothing more than a strawman argument… insulting at best because obviously, if these are answers that christians have given you, you need to ask around more.

My intention was not to point out Church or biblical doctrine, but rather to refute (even if it is through an argumentum ad absurdum) arguments that I’ve heard. Any insulting was unintentional.

The first question we have to ask is whether there can be an ethical standard or “rule of thumb” to speak of. I think we’re in agreement here, there is at least SOME moral standard we have to adhere to. But what about the NATURE of that moral standard?

I think we run into a philosophical breakdown here though. You’re a teleological ethicist. To wit (for those who don’t know): you support subjective morality

A question here: is there any such thing as an objective morality? If so, how is it an exception to Hume’s is-ought gap?

Okay, so we’ve arrived at our ethical disjoint, but again you don’t seem to have a problem with the deontological school of thought so much as you have with the specific idea of Divine Command.

Sorry, but you’re wrong. I just so happen to find the Christian deontology to be particularly appalling.

I have no idea how the means can justify themselves. What’s wrong with lying, other than the possibility of suffering? And earlier, you mentioned that it seems clear that we need some ethical code. Why would we need one, other than to moderate consequences?

So now we arrive at the next question (because we are now assuming deontology is correct):

Again: “Correct” is the wrong word, because morality is subjective. Emotion is the only thing that makes one condition preferable to another. Until someone convinces me that this is wrong, we cannot have a fruitful discussion.

 

[Sarpedon]

How do you know what a “good” consequence is?

Is it through appealing to ultimate principals (i.e. we have human rights)? If not, what criterion do you use to determine what a good outcome is? How do you know that suffering from lying is a bad outcome?

God by his nature is love. This love is self-sacrificial, not warm fuzzies. God created us because He wanted to give us the capacity to love as He does. God did not have to, but He chose to out of self-sacrifice, which is His nature.

God tells us that certain actions are wrong because certain things are contrary to the cultivation of this love. It’s not as though God just tells us to do them arbitrarily, rather, the actions are simply contrary to the nature of God and contrary to the way God created us.

For example, porn is wrong because it fosters a tendency to view women as means to pleasure rather than ends in of themselves. In addition, it can spread thin and reduce the effectiveness of the sexual bonding hormones oxytocin and AVP. This counteracts our purpose in life (selfless love of God and man) and is thus contrary to this foundational self-sacrificial love of God.

In short, actions are wrong because they are contrary to the nature of God and thus to our created nature that comes from God’s nature and will. Moral commands are not arbitrary rules made up by God, but rather foundational laws that cannot be changed.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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?

God as represented in the Bible is an unreliable guide, for there are things that are said to be his will, or are presented as such, that are immoral. In addition to which, the Bible is inconsistent: Joshua 7, which implies that when member of a family is at fault all are, is contradicted by Ezekiel 18, which insists that guilt & innocence are purely individual.​

FWIW, the Hitler argument is relevant to parts of the OT - Saul was rejected from the kingship for failing to exterminate the Amalekites man, woman, child, & livestock (1 Samuel 15). If the morality of the entire OT is compatible with that of the NT, and is still in force, it follows that Christians can (should ?) utterly exterminate every single member of both army & civilians. IOW, they should behave as the Nazis did in Poland & Eastern Europe, only more so. Which rather suggests Hitler was blameworthy only because he was born too late - had he lived in the OT, he might have been a model of faith, like Joshua & some others. The immorality of bombing non-combatants (an action absolutely forbidden by Catholic teaching) ought to prove clearly enough that 1 Samuel 15 is not sound Catholic morality; but since it is not, what becomes of the - erroneous, but not uncommon - idea that the OT’s morality is still all of it valid for Christians ?

BTW, what is to stop Christian morality improving upon that of the NT ? Why is the idea seemingly unthinkable ? Does it really follow that because Paul did not object to slavery, it is therefore morally good for Christians to possess slaves, & for this to last for all time to come ? Slavery in the Roman world was extremely brutal - a slave, in the words of Varro, was an "instrumentum animatum, “an animated machine”. Why can not Christian moral ideas not develop so that features of society previously tolerable become intolerable ? This is AFAICS what has in fact taken place, even though the idea of such change, like the fact of it, may both in principle be repellent to some.

 

[grannymh]

I would say that all sentient beings are worthy of the general respect of their lives, for utilitarian reasons (in order for happiness to exist, sentient life has to exist). That’s not to say that there should be an indefeasible rule prohibiting killing, as there are exceptions regarding utility.

At the moment, I cannot think of the word that would describe your answer. So I will use the words " lacking in reality." No offense meant. The other phrase which comes to mind is “people living in an ivory tower”. Please. Since you evoked Hitler to make your opening post complete, I should be able to evoke him to lay the foundation for a proposal in addition to the three examples you presented in post 1. So, here are my two questions.

1. Are the values of Hitler and the Allies mutually exclusive?
2. Were the people in Poland worthy of a general respect for life?

morality is subjective. Emotion is the only thing that makes one condition preferable to another. Until someone convinces me that this is wrong, we cannot have a fruitful discussion.

“Morality is subjective” is a tenet of relativism. I am comfortable with looking at utilitarianism in terms of relativism. Are you?

It appears to me that emotion is not only one of the things that makes one condition preferable to another, it is also a fact. In other words, the choice of one condition over another is based on the fact of emotion. Greed, usefulness, power, practicality are other facts which can influence choice.

I am assuming that the proving “wrong” in the above refers to “Morality is subjective.” Actually, morality can be subjective, can be objective per usage by Non sum dignus, post 6, and can be non-existent as in amoral. Since morality is in the topic, a good discussion has to consider all possibilities.

NOTE: The question as to what is meant by “objective morality” was asked back in post 7 and again in post 31. Did I miss the answer? Where? I sure would like to see an answer.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[Mike_Dye]

I look at these questions and still I come back over and over. Sometimes I think I need therapy.

 

[agangbern]

I just so happen to find the Christian deontology to be particularly appalling.

Emotion is the only thing that makes one condition preferable to another. Until someone convinces me that this is wrong, we cannot have a fruitful discussion.

So when you said, “I just so happen to find the Christian deontology to be particularly appalling.”, you actually mean you felt it is appalling. That such conclusion of appallingness came from your emotion, not from your reason, right?

 

[grannymh]

I look at these questions and still I come back over and over. Sometimes I think I need therapy.

:console:

 

[theMutant]

The reason that God should be the moral authority is because, without God, there is no moral authority. Without a belief in a higher authority than ourselves, “morality” becomes completely subjective and changing.

Now, it is absolutely true that certain atrocities have been done in the name of religion. However, there are two very important points about this.

1: Why do we consider these things to be atrocities? Because they violate our view of morality which has been provided to us by religion; in other words, by God. Without a view of morality that comes from religion, we would have no basis for considering these acts to be atrocities.

2: Not all religions teach the same thing about God, but all impose a code of behavior based on their view of God.

There have been a few (fortunately, very few) societies where the code of “morality” was specifically formed without regard to any religious view, instead relying on intelligence. These societies are the one’s typically brought up in response to questions like yours because they demonstrate what happens when God is rejected as the moral authority. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were such societies. The point here is that every society that has rejected God as a moral authority has committed these types of atrocities; without a single known exception.

While religion still has a strong influence in the United States, we have steadily moved away from considering God when determining what will be allowed in our society. Specifically, there is an influential movement that actively seeks to segregate religious views from the political arena to the point where citizens are made to feel that they are wrong to vote according to their religious beliefs. Consequently, our society has allowed atrocities like abortion and embryonic stem cell research. The justifications for these things are not based on God, religion, or even science (which has provided plenty of evidence that innocent individual human beings are being slaughtered in the name of convenience, and unnecessarily being slaughtered, for there are promising alternatives, in the name of science).

I had the opportunity to discuss this topic previously in these forums. Here are some links if anyone is interested.

Your religion, your crutch?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=50013

Your religion, your crutch?..Part 2
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=50478

In regard to God giving us the option of burning for eternity, this is the only way God could give us the greatest gift we have; free will. If there is no choice, then there is no freedom. The choice we have to make is to accept or reject God. We are free to reject him, but the result of that choice is eternity without him; which is Hell. If we don’t have the choice, then we have no free will and no freedom. God loves us too much to take that gift (free will) away.

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

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

There’s no fancy philosophical definition here. It refers to a morality that exists outside an individual’s perceptions and sensibilities.

If I beat you up and take your wallet, have I done something wrong? You might think so, since your jaw’s wired shut and you lost your wallet. The whole thing might seem a bit unfair to you. I, however, might say that your weakness entitled me to rob you, simply because you lacked the strength to defend yourself and your property.

We can argue the point endlessly between us, but the question, “Have I done something wrong?” will go unanswered. Is there a concept of good and evil carved into the universe somewhere that exists whether people agree with it or not?

 

[grannymh]

There’s no fancy philosophical definition here. It refers to a morality that exists outside an individual’s perceptions and sensibilities.

If I beat you up and take your wallet, have I done something wrong? You might think so, since your jaw’s wired shut and you lost your wallet. The whole thing might seem a bit unfair to you. I, however, might say that your weakness entitled me to rob you, simply because you lacked the strength to defend yourself and your property.

We can argue the point endlessly between us, but the question, “Have I done something wrong?” will go unanswered. Is there a concept of good and evil carved into the universe somewhere that exists whether people agree with it or not?

“Objective morality exists outside an individual’s perceptions and sensibilities.” That sounds perfect. So here are some more questions.

Would everyone, or a particular group, see the same objective morality?

Would honesty be a moral dictum, moral objective, moral principle, whatever?

Would an objective truth be that human life deserves respect?

Would you expand on how to find a moral arbitrator which you mentioned in post 6?

Relativism says that the group chooses moral principles so in a sense the group is the moral arbitrator. Technically, a religious group could choose different moral principles, saying that their arbitrator is God. Then another group can come along and say that moral principles are what works best and so on.

In my opinion, an objective moral principle is the key. I liked your question about a concept of good and evil being carved into the universe somewhere that exists whether people agree with it or not. This is a wonderful, obvious observation. Of course an independent concept exists. It sounds like natural law, the kind that applies to human residents of the universe.

What do you think?

So, how does one put the above together so that it can be in plain sight for the relativist?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.