Why Should God Be the Moral Authority?

[Non_sum_dignus]

“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?

Like I said, objective morality exists outside the individual’s perceptions and sensibilities. Even people who agree on God as the ultimate moral arbiter are going to have different ideas about what really constitutes good and evil. People who agree on what is good and evil will likely have different ideas on why God sees things as good or evil.

The question of this thread is simply, “Why Should God Be the Moral Authority?” The answer is that only a supreme being can occupy the position. For purposes of this debate, I’m not even claiming that there is a God. But I am pointing out that, without a God, morality crumbles to the ground. All we have left is the preference of the majority, and we only have that if the majority is prepared to back up its preferences with violence.

The demanding thing about an objective morality is that it exists outside the self; it must be sought. This means that drawing closer to that objective standard requires effort and humility, two things of decreasing value in modern society. An objective morality also denies us the comfort of rationalizing our preferences into some sort of good. It’s easy to see why such an idea might not be popular, even though people do seem to have an instinct toward an objective morality.

 

[grannymh]

The demanding thing about an objective morality is that it exists outside the self; it must be sought. This means that drawing closer to that objective standard requires effort and humility, two things of decreasing value in modern society. An objective morality also denies us the comfort of rationalizing our preferences into some sort of good. It’s easy to see why such an idea might not be popular, even though people do seem to have an instinct toward an objective morality.

I believe that the instinct toward an objective morality is an innate human instinct for natural law, the kind which applies to the human residents of the universe. However, it has been many decades since I’ve heard discussions about that kind of natural law, so I am at a loss.

Would an instinct to natural order be a more modern way of saying the same thing?

Would this “instinct” parallel physical order in the universe?

Oreoracle, we need you. Can you tweak the Utilitarian axioms to seeking order or an orderly relationship between people? To me one’s own good does, in a sense, depend on order to work well.

This is where I am coming from. There is no doubt in my mind that objective good or objective morality exists on this earth. There may be just a handful of moral principles, but they are important for society to function.

Since I believe that unity and order is observable in the universe as a whole, it follows that individual elements, such as human beings, would also need unity and order to function. The source would be the existence of objective morality.

Here is where the understanding of objective and subjective comes in. Objective takes place outside of one’s mind. It is external. It does not depend on our feelings. For example, empirical science is objective. Subjective comes from within us. I would expand the interior sources beyond the emotions to maybe memory, deduction, intuition, reasoning, etc. I have a personal fondness for experiential learning but am not sure where it fits in.

To put all this into real life, we need to test relativism to see if it really works globally. If it doesn’t, than we have to look at the topic question.

Remember, Rome wasn’t built in a day – except on movie sets. Anyway, I will be gone for a bit.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[Cluny]

Why Should God Be the Moral Authority?

Why not God?

Do you have a better candidate?

You, perhaps?

Why should YOU be the moral authority?

It should really be me, but I don’t have the time, thank you.

 

[JDaniel]

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

That all of the arguments (and I use that word loosely) posed, in your opening statement, are either unjustified, untrue, or irrelevant. IOW, they’re all bogus, along with all of the tributaries sprouting from them…

You call yourself a “theist”. What flavor of religion is that? Why not identify yourself? We won’t bite. Although, we won’t turn away from being your huckleberries if warranted.

jd

 

[Oreoracle]

You call yourself a “theist”. What flavor of religion is that? Why not identify yourself? We won’t bite. Although, we won’t turn away from being your huckleberries if warranted.

So you’re not satisfied by the dictionary definition? Okay, I’ll tell you. When I say “theist”, I mean I am someone who believes in a benevolent, creator god and a joyful, non-exclusive afterlife. I haven’t even decided if my god’s character is masculine or feminine, but I don’t see why such details matter. I also mean that the existence of this god (or any god, for that matter) is irrelevant to my ethical system, utilitarianism.

 

[Sarpedon]

On utilitarianism:

newadvent.org/cathen/15241c.htm

 

[Oreoracle]

Thanks for providing the link for others, Sarpedon. I always try to explain it myself, because many internet definitions of utilitarianism are faulty.

 

[Sarpedon]

Would you say your particular brand of utilitarianism is the same as discussed in the encyclopedia article? There are several types out there so I was just wondering which theory you subscribe to.

 

[JDaniel]

On utilitarianism:

newadvent.org/cathen/15241c.htm

Sort of gives you the reason behind the embryo marketplaces being set up now in England. They have become a people who have no regard for the intrinsic worth of a human being. It’s a good thing they count us as allies. They’re going to need us in the future.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

So you’re not satisfied by the dictionary definition? Okay, I’ll tell you. When I say “theist”, I mean I am someone who believes in a benevolent, creator god and a joyful, non-exclusive afterlife. I haven’t even decided if my god’s character is masculine or feminine, but I don’t see why such details matter. I also mean that the existence of this god (or any god, for that matter) is irrelevant to my ethical system, utilitarianism.

Well, that wasn’t so bad was it. Now I know what I’m dealing with.

I will tell you this: I have no use for utilitarianism. (Just a joke, don’t get angry.)

:egyptian:

jd

 

[Leela]

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.

You are obviously not the first to ask such questions. To paraphrase Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma, “Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?”

If God had good reasons for making somethings right and some things wrong, then we should be able to appeal to those reasons directly. We should be able to “cut out the middle man.” If God did not have good reasons then we have no reason to do what he wants. Well, except for the whole damnation thing. But I don’t go in for that.

Best,
Leela

 

[JDaniel]

So you’re not satisfied by the dictionary definition? Okay, I’ll tell you. When I say “theist”, I mean I am someone who believes in a benevolent, creator god and a joyful, non-exclusive afterlife. I haven’t even decided if my god’s character is masculine or feminine…

And, as a logical extension from this philosophy, you create god. But, that would mean that you also create the universe. That would mean that First Cause was not, in fact, the First Cause; you were, or, are (I can’t figure out the proper tense here). You are also the Prime Mover. Well, not just you, but, each and every one of us is. We all create gods, or, am I wrong and it’s only you that gets this honor? There must be, let’s see, about 6.45 billion existing gods now, if you include about 3 billion gods-to-be because, as soon as the babies and children grow up, they’ll be creating their own gods!

Of course, we could all have a meeting - perhaps without the kids - and vote on which god is the best god for the group. Then, each time a group of kids achieves 18 years old (arbitrary, yet logical) we could call another meeting of everybody and determine the tenure of the last god. Hmmm. An interesting anti-abortion argument grows out of this. Each time we kill an unborn baby, we murder a possible god. I could use that (pun intended).

Not a bad idea. Keep the kids out of the world meeting… All those people… Pressed together… Just think of the pleasure and happiness that we could all participate in! I mean, after all, “pleasure and happiness” - that’s what it’s all about, right? We could have food flown in from all parts of the world! The best wines! I thnk I should be King.

but I don’t see why such details matter.

Right you are. Worry about the details later.

I also mean that the existence of this god (or any god, for that matter) is irrelevant to my ethical system, utilitarianism.

Let’s see. Shall we use your ethical system, or mine. Oh, but of course, since I will be the King, we’ll use mine. Don’t worry though, I’ll be a benevolent ruler. Except when it comes to money. I need money. Oh, and property. I need property. Oh, and I need that car - oh, that’s your car. Well, you won’t mind, will you? I mean, seriously.

jd

 

[agangbern]

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.

Would you please show here the process of your reasoning? I mean, how you arrived to the conclusion that,
a) you should value the axioms “maximize happiness” and “minimize suffering”; and
b) Christianity does not uphold those axioms.

 

[JDaniel]

Would you please show here the process of your reasoning? I mean, how you arrived to the conclusion that,
a) you should value the axioms “maximize happiness” and “minimize suffering”; and
b) Christianity does not uphold those axioms.

Agangbern:

Google “hedonism” and “epicureanism”. The philosophy of utilitarianism is a descendant of these former philosophies.

You are exactly right, Christianity does not uphold those views. See my post just above.

jd

 

[Leela]

Agangbern:

Google “hedonism” and “epicureanism”. The philosophy of utilitarianism is a descendant of these former philosophies.

You are exactly right, Christianity does not uphold those views. See my post just above.

jd

It sounds to me like Oreoracle is talking about Humanism:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality, without resorting to the supernatural or alleged divine authority from religious texts.[1][2] It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems. Humanism can be considered as a process by which truth and morality is sought through human investigation and as such views on morals can change when new knowledge and information is discovered. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.

Best,
Leela

 

[Oreoracle]

And, as a logical extension from this philosophy, you create god. But, that would mean that you also create the universe. That would mean that First Cause was not, in fact, the First Cause; you were, or, are (I can’t figure out the proper tense here). You are also the Prime Mover. Well, not just you, but, each and every one of us is. We all create gods, or, am I wrong and it’s only you that gets this honor? There must be, let’s see, about 6.45 billion existing gods now, if you include about 3 billion gods-to-be because, as soon as the babies and children grow up, they’ll be creating their own gods!

Of course, we could all have a meeting - perhaps without the kids - and vote on which god is the best god for the group. Then, each time a group of kids achieves 18 years old (arbitrary, yet logical) we could call another meeting of everybody and determine the tenure of the last god. Hmmm. An interesting anti-abortion argument grows out of this. Each time we kill an unborn baby, we murder a possible god. I could use that (pun intended).

Either this is a joke, or you grossly misinterpret utilitarianism. To use terms you’re familiar with, we “worship” happiness, not people (or gods). We obey the principle, not a ruler.

To answer Sarpedon’s question, I am act utilitarian, which means that I believe every scenario requires individual evaluation under the utilitarian axioms, and not general rules. Rule utilitarianism is a comical spin-off of act utilitarianism, as it uses general rules that, when followed, may cause you to knowingly reduce happiness.

Since you seem so interested (even if jokingly), would you like to hear my argument concerning abortion? Not all utilitarians feel the same way concerning killing, moral duties, etc. You should really ask before you make judgements.

 

[agangbern]

Agangbern:

You are exactly right, Christianity does not uphold those views. See my post just above.

jd

Which post? What post # is it? I did not see it.

 

[agangbern]

Agangbern:
Google “hedonism” and “epicureanism”. The philosophy of utilitarianism is a descendant of these former philosophies.
jd

Yes, I googled “hedonism” and “epicureanism”. And here is what found:

Hedonism can be conjoined with psychological egoism - the theory that humans are motivated only by their self interest - to make psychological hedonism: a purely descriptive claim which states that agents naturally seek pleasure. Hedonism can also be combined with ethical egoism - the claim that individuals should seek their own good - to make ethical hedonism the claim that we should act so as to produce our own pleasure.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism

Epicureanism emphasizes the neutrality of the gods, that they do not interfere with human lives. It states that gods, matter and souls are all comprised of atoms. Souls are made from atoms, and gods possess souls, but their souls adhere to their bodies without escaping. Humans have the same kind of souls, but the forces binding human atoms together do not hold the soul forever. The Epicureans also used the atomist theories of Democritus and Leucippus to assert that man has free will. They held that all thoughts are merely atoms swerving randomly. This explanation served to satisfy people who wondered anxiously about their role in the universe.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

I did not find the answer to my question:"how you arrived to the conclusion that
**you **should value the axioms “maximize happiness” and “minimize suffering”?;

How did **you **arrive to the conclusion that you should value hednonism and epicureanism? I mean you.

 

[tomarin]

Since you seem so interested (even if jokingly), would you like to hear my argument concerning abortion? Not all utilitarians feel the same way concerning killing, moral duties, etc. You should really ask before you make judgements.

I would like to hear the argument.

 

[Oreoracle]

I believe that the instinct toward an objective morality is an innate human instinct for natural law, the kind which applies to the human residents of the universe. However, it has been many decades since I’ve heard discussions about that kind of natural law, so I am at a loss.

Would an instinct to natural order be a more modern way of saying the same thing?

Would this “instinct” parallel physical order in the universe?

Oreoracle, we need you. Can you tweak the Utilitarian axioms to seeking order or an orderly relationship between people? To me one’s own good does, in a sense, depend on order to work well.

I think I know where our confusion about objective morality rests now. In order to answer, I’ll need you to answer a question: why should we value any of our instincts?

As for your other question, utilitarianism is based on hedonism, which claims that we all, regardless of the situation, act so as to increase our happiness (happiness being defined as the presence of pleasure and absence of pain) or reduce our suffering (suffering being defined as the absence of pleasure and presence of pain). This could be seen as an instinct in the form of an emotion. But again: why value the instinct/emotion? The only thing convincing me to do so is my emotion, which is why ethical systems are subjective. This is the case of an emotion justifying an emotion. We could reduce all moral answers to the reliance on emotion.

Why is killing bad? Because you value life. Why is life good? Because your emotions tell you so. Hence, subjective.