Why Should God Be the Moral Authority?

[Oreoracle]

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?

Now you’re getting it!

Now, reasoning could be involved. My emotion tells me to value the axioms “maximise happiness” and “minimise suffering”, but my reasoning is what allows me to recognize that Christianity does not uphold those axioms when it is applied in ethical matters.

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.

 

[Sarpedon]

Which person’s emotions get to have the privilege of defining policy matters for everyone else?

 

[MarcoPolo]

I read a few posts so I apologize if this repeats something. But to open the scope of the question in the subject line, I think one has to first realize God created the physical realm with it’s laws. We live in a universe in which we see gravity, laws of thermodynamics, certain constants, etc… Now morality is an unseen matter, part of the spiritual realm, which also operates with certain laws, properties.

If you’re a Scripture believer, so many times did Christ Incarnate demonstrate what was happening spiritually by doing something visibly. He healed the paralytic who’s affliction was now gone, and then He said He forgave the paralytic’s sin. What Christ was really showing us is what happens to a sinner who’s sin is taken away. One is a physical affliction, the other is a spiritual affliction. Christ was able to show healing physically, and thus by that demonstration depicted what happens spiritually when we are healed of sin.

So the operation of the physical universe with it’s laws is no different than spiritual realities. They both operate within certain parameters. That’s why the Church teaches, for example, a woman cannot be a priest. It is a spiritual impossibility. So too is it a spiritual impossibility for one to knowingly commit murder and have it not be a sin.

 

[Oreoracle]

Which person’s emotions get to have the privilege of defining policy matters for everyone else?

A person doesn’t have authority, a person’s values do. An authoritive figure is appointed only because we generally agree with his values. As for “whose values win?” I would say that, since most everyone disagrees on principles, it would be ideal to debate on the topic, and whichever principle(s) is most persuasive to the majority ought to win out. Of course, disagreements will still exist, but that’s morality for you.

 

[Sarpedon]

A person doesn’t have authority, a person’s values do. An authoritive figure is appointed only because we generally agree with his values. As for “whose values win?” I would say that, since most everyone disagrees on principles, it would be ideal to debate on the topic, and whichever principle(s) is most persuasive to the majority ought to win out. Of course, disagreements will still exist, but that’s morality for you.

Morality is determined by consensus?

I would urge you to research the level of support for the Nazi party and its policies amongst the majority German population.

 

[Oreoracle]

Morality is determined by consensus?

I would urge you to research the level of support for the Nazi party and its policies amongst the majority German population.

Again: I’d disagree with them, and feel it is my duty to try to persuade people who think like them to think more like me (like every person already does).

Morals are not objective, natural laws. Let’s compare a moral to an actual natural law, like gravity. I can defy a moral, but can I defy gravity?

 

[grannymh]

grannymh;4925162:

None taken, but I’m not sure what you mean when you say that my answer was unrealistic.

I’ll explain when I return. I also have a problem with inverse properties in the sense of being somewhat unrealistic.

I think we both mean different things by “objective morality.” Let me ask a question so that I understand. We can agree that the statement “killing is wrong” is subjective, but that “Fred feels that killing is wrong” is objective, right?

I just finished asking Non sum dignus questions. This makes three of us…

My preference is to begin with a prime or basic moral statement or objective truth. (My vocabulary has disappeared with the snow — Someone please fill in my senior “blanks.”)

Thus, I would state that human life is sacred. Therefore, an objective moral principle would be that killing is wrong. This objective moral principle needs to be applied to real life. How does application of the moral principle occur? Here’s my guess. Application comes about through evaluation and/or judgment and finally action. One can evaluate subjectively according to relative circumstances. If a legal judgment is involved, that would be done objectively, hopefully.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[Oreoracle]

I’ll explain when I return. I also have a problem with inverse properties in the sense of being somewhat unrealistic.

I just finished asking Non sum dignus questions. This makes three of us…

My preference is to begin with a prime or basic moral statement or objective truth. (My vocabulary has disappeared with the snow — Someone please fill in my senior “blanks.”)

Thus, I would state that human life is sacred. Therefore, an objective moral principle would be that killing is wrong. This objective moral principle needs to be applied to real life. How does application of the moral principle occur? Here’s my guess. Application comes about through evaluation and/or judgment and finally action. One can evaluate subjectively according to relative circumstances. If a legal judgment is involved, that would be done objectively, hopefully.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

I think we mean the same things then. Your belief in human life being sacred is an expression of emotion, and is therefore subjective. However, you apply the principle objectively.

 

[Sarpedon]

Again: I’d disagree with them, and feel it is my duty to try to persuade people who think like them to think more like me (like every person already does).

If there was no one left in the world to oppose them, would their actions be moral?

What is this “duty” you speak of? Is it an ethical obligation? Is it your personal emotional state?

Morals are not objective, natural laws. Let’s compare a moral to an actual natural law, like gravity. I can defy a moral, but can I defy gravity?

No, you cannot deny gravity. If you leap off a cliff with no parachute, you will die, unless you grab a branch.

You cannot deny morality either. If you murder someone, you will go to hell, unless you grab the hand of God in repentance.

You can refuse to follow both laws, but they both have consequences that no one can escape.

 

[jmcrae]

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?

Uh - yeah, actually. For the same reason that if I want my painting to be a bowl of fruit, then it will be a bowl of fruit, regardless of what it wants. And I will fight with it until either it is a bowl of fruit, or else I destroy it, because I am its creator, and that’s what I do.

 

[Oreoracle]

If there was no one left in the world to oppose them, would their actions be moral?

To them? Yes it would be. To me? That line of questioning is vacuous, because if the Nazis are the only ones left, I’m not around to have an opinion.

What is this “duty” you speak of? Is it an ethical obligation? Is it your personal emotional state?

It is good to me. It isn’t an obligation or just act, because utilitarianism does not consider inaction bad, just not good. There is, in utilitarianism, moral neutrality.

No, you cannot deny gravity. If you leap off a cliff with no parachute, you will die.

You cannot deny morality either. If you murder someone, you will go to hell.

You can refuse to follow both laws, but they both have consequences that no one can escape.

But ethics are not worded like laws are. For instance, a law would be something like “if you steal, the police will attempt to arrest you, and you will be kept X years in prison.” But that’s not a moral statement, it is a factual one. However, “killing is wrong” points at nothing concrete, as the law does.

 

[grannymh]

Again: I’d disagree with them, and feel it is my duty to try to persuade people who think like them to think more like me (like every person already does).

Morals are not objective, natural laws. Let’s compare a moral to an actual natural law, like gravity. I can defy a moral, but can I defy gravity?

At last, I can take advantage of my age.
Many moons ago, people considered two kinds of natural law. The first included the physical universe with its gravity etc. The second kind applied to the human residents of the universe. It could be that the concept of natural law for humanity morphed into something else that I am not aware of.

As I recall, most of natural law and its subsequent applications could be figured out by reason. That did not mean that it was always followed or applied for the betterment of humanity. It just meant that if you had time to sit on a rock looking out over the ocean, you could eventually figure out how humans should act with one another.

Blessings,
All human life is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

I think we mean the same things then. Your belief in human life being sacred is an expression of emotion, and is therefore subjective. However, you apply the principle objectively.

Sorry. But I refuse to have my humanity classified by any emotional subjective belief. Or should I be grateful that my belief in my own humanity was not designated as an expression of emotional disgust? A subjective belief as was the therefore conclusion above is subject to change according to whoever looks upon me.

Maybe someone will subjectively believe that being human is the same as being a horse and turn me into glue.:bighanky:

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[jmcrae]

Sorry. But I refuse to have my humanity classified by any emotional subjective belief. Or should I be grateful that my belief in my own humanity was not designated as an expression of emotional disgust? A subjective belief as was the therefore conclusion above is subject to change according to whoever looks upon me.

Maybe someone will subjectively believe that being human is the same as being a horse and turn me into glue.:bighanky:

As long as there is breath in my body, nobody will ever turn you into glue.

And why not? Even though we have never met, you are the “other self” of me - whatever happens to you, happens to me. This is what Jesus was talking about when He told us to love one another in the same way that we love ourselves. Ultimately, this commandment is the basis of all human morality - that I never do to you, or allow anyone else to do to you, what I would not have done to me. It’s objective because we are all the same. None of us would like to be turned into glue, and so we all know that, if turning me into glue is bad, then turning any human being into glue is bad.

 

[Oreoracle]

Sorry. But I refuse to have my humanity classified by any emotional subjective belief. Or should I be grateful that my belief in my own humanity was not designated as an expression of emotional disgust? A subjective belief as was the therefore conclusion above is subject to change according to whoever looks upon me.

Maybe someone will subjectively believe that being human is the same as being a horse and turn me into glue.:bighanky:

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

So now you’re embracing invincible ignorance? What a shame; you showed so much promise too.

I wish you the best, Granny.

 

[Sarpedon]

To them? Yes it would be. To me? That line of questioning is vacuous, because if the Nazis are the only ones left, I’m not around to have an opinion.

I disagree. Murdering innocent Jews is always wrong whether people think it is wrong or not.

It is good to me. It isn’t an obligation or just act, because utilitarianism does not consider inaction bad, just not good. There is, in utilitarianism, moral neutrality.

Is moral neutrality good? Is that just your emotion, and not mine? Is not being good bad? Is being bad bad?

What I am trying to get at here is the fact that all moral subjectivists appeal to ultimate foundational truths whether they acknowledge them or not. You are operating within the framework of trying to pursue the good, which in of itself is a value. If this value and its pursuit is always good, then would you agree it is objective? If you think the pursuit of the good is only the pursuit of individuals towards a made-up or personally created idea, you have layed a very dangerous foundation for society.

But ethics are not worded like laws are. For instance, a law would be something like “if you steal, the police will attempt to arrest you, and you will be kept X years in prison.” But that’s not a moral statement, it is a factual one. However, “killing is wrong” points at nothing concrete, as the law does.

Of course it points at something concrete. Killing points toward eternal hell, which **is directly analogous to your prison example. **

Hell is only regarded as a real thing, like a physical prison, through religion. That’s why ethics cannot be divorced from religion, as many atheists assert. Without the realities of Hell, Heaven, and judgment, moral laws are simply empty statements, as you explained. That is why we should regard God as the “moral authority” of your thread topic.

 

[Oreoracle]

Sarpedon, I feel that happiness (or pleasure, whatever you want to call it) is the only thing good in itself. I feel that suffering is the only bad thing in itself. I admit that these are my feelings, and I want them because I want them, just as a Christian wants God/Truth/Light/whatever simply because they want it. This is not objective, this is a want justifying itself (a.k.a. subjective)

Why is Hell bad? It is bad because my feelings make me want to avoid suffering. Hell is not objectively bad, independent of my emotion.

 

[Sarpedon]

Sarpedon, I feel that happiness (or pleasure, whatever you want to call it) is the only thing good in itself. I feel that suffering is the only bad thing in itself. I admit that these are my feelings, and I want them because I want them, just as a Christian wants God/Truth/Light/whatever simply because they want it. This is not objective, this is a want justifying itself (a.k.a. subjective)

If I understand you correctly, you think that happiness is the only objectively good thing, and I suppose, the converse is the only objectively bad thing.

The best way to look at the Catholic perception of ethics is that God wants to have the objective good of true happiness (union with Him). God warns us that certain actions never work towards this goal. For example, murdering someone can never work towards true happiness, because it denies rights and causes suffering. God forbids murder, not as an exercise in arbitrary power, but because God, in His omnipotence, knows which actions will lead to your goal and which will destroy it. Without the guidance of God, we can’t fully understand what will give us true happiness and how we can achieve it. Moral laws revealed by God are not arbitrary, but simply God’s revelation to us of the full effects of our actions. These laws are objective and binding on all due to the nature of God and the fundamental way things were created, just as with physical laws.

Note: Suffering is not always bad, because we can use it to our spiritual advantage (as with an athlete and physical pain). However, to cause suffering to someone without their consent always works against the goal of true happiness and is thus always, in every situation, contrary to morality.

Why is Hell bad? It is bad because my feelings make me want to avoid suffering. Hell is not objectively bad, independent of my emotion.

Hell is bad because it is a rejection of the only thing that can fulfill your desires and who you are called to love in a reciprocal relationship. Certain actions always work against this goal, and are thus objectively wrong.

 

[Oreoracle]

If I understand you correctly, you think that happiness is the only objectively good thing, and I suppose, the converse is the only objectively bad thing.

You do not understand me. Let me again quote:

This is not objective, this is a want justifying itself (a.k.a. subjective)

And you are right in saying that causing/experiencing suffering is not always bad, so long as more happiness is gained in the long run due to that suffering.

 

[Sarpedon]

This is not objective, this is a want justifying itself (a.k.a. subjective)

Do you consider ethics to be the study of what we ought to do or simply a study of the effective methods of getting what we want, regardless of what that want is?