Why Should God Be the Moral Authority?

[JDaniel]

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.

Yes. A clever rapist could present a clever argument that his happiness was much greater than any unhappiness of the victim’s, so he should be acquitted.

There would be no standard of law or equity. It would all be relatively relative.

jd

 

[grannymh]

I don’t think Humanism rejects any possibilities. Humanists don’t have any special knowledge that anyone else don’t have about whether or not gods exist. Humanists choose to live as though this life is of utmost importance and try to live the best life we can live. We can either live as though our life is a preparation for an afterlife, or we can live as though this life is the only life we have. This choice is based on our assessment of the evidence for the truth of any particular religion. Anything is possible, but what do we do in the face of uncertainty?

Best,
Leela

Obviously, you must be talking about a generic brand of humanists.

 

[JDaniel]

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…

Perfect.

jd

 

[Oreoracle]

Alright JDaniel, so now you’ve affirmed Christianity, Humanism, and Kantianism. Care to make up your mind?

Now you’re grasping at straws, or just grasping.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

You must hear from sensible Christians then!

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.

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?

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?

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.

How about this: if I, as the subject of King Fred, were to get an overwhelming emotion of satisfaction because my King sent his soldiers to wipe out an entire population who might have usurped my ability to eat and drink and otherwise permit me to prosper.

That genocide is wrong can only be arrived at by an appeal to the higher authority of God. On the other hand, that a particular genocide is right can only be arrived at the same way.

An example from today: embryological stem cell research, that kills on average 250 living human beings for every experiment, without having produced one single redeeming, or positive result. Zero. These researchers have not a single win under their belts, including those using animal embryos.

Where’s PETA when you need them?

jd

 

[Oreoracle]

How about this: if I, as the subject of King Fred, were to get an overwhelming emotion of satisfaction because my King sent his soldiers to wipe out an entire population who might have usurped my ability to eat and drink and otherwise permit me to prosper.

That genocide is wrong can only be arrived at by an appeal to the higher authority of God. On the other hand, that a particular genocide is right can only be arrived at the same way.

What are you talking about? Killing a person almost always eliminates more potential happiness than can be gained from killing them.

Again, you’re not even grasping at straws, just grasping.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Hear! Hear!

jd

 

[Sarpedon]

What are you talking about? Killing a person almost always eliminates more potential happiness than can be gained from killing them.

“almost always?”

A good ethical theory is supposed to prevent bad things 100% of the time- not most of the time.

 

[JDaniel]

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

(What’s wrong, Mike. Are we not getting enough protein in our diet?)

jd

 

[Oreoracle]

“almost always?”

A good ethical theory is supposed to prevent bad things 100% of the time- not most of the time.

Killing the leader of a party of terrorists so that they don’t oppress the masses seems justifiable to me.

 

[Leela]

Killing the leader of a party of terrorists so that they don’t oppress the masses seems justifiable to me.

I agree. The only thing that has ever controlled violence is stronger violence in saner hands.

 

[JDaniel]

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

Shhhhhh. mine!

jd

 

[JDaniel]

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).

Not me! I often get a feeling of wanting to kill someone.

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?

You’re confused. The Law of Gravity is a Law of Nature. Natural law is something else. You need to get out more.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

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.

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.

Not so.

No. 6. Thou shalt not murder.

No. 8. Thou shalt not steal.

jd

 

[Mijoy2]

Hi Oreoracle.

Interesting name by the way, tough to pronounce.

I have two answers for you. One good the other probably not so good. I’ll start with the good answer and hope it hasn’t been suggested yet (I did not read the entire thread).

1. The answer is, since I am not equipped or capable of answering your question to your satisfaction, please read Mere Christianity because I do believe C.S.Lewis is capable.
2. Now for the not so good answer (mine). Your questions seem to come from a primary premise of something like, -God created me, I did not (of course) ask to be created, yet now that I have been created, religion dictates I accept His authority. Seems unfair and unjust. Please forgive me if I captured this wrong. If I am at least on track I’d ask you to allow yourself to attempt (even though I realize it may go against your basic principle) for a moment to take look at the overall picture from a higher perspective. Encompass everything in your view as if you are looking at your life from the perspective of the creator. Now, try to accept the concept that God is Love. Not that God loves, or that God is loving but that God is Love.

All love in this world is of God. There exists no love without Him. Now try to believe for a moment that the reason God created you was to love you infinately and for you to learn to love him infinately in return. Love cannot be coherced or implanted or forced. Love must be freely given. Trust that God will give you graces to learn how to love Him and will allow you to accept or reject these graces. Ask yourself if your attempts to find the answer to your inquiries here is possibly coming from this grace.

Finally, allow yourself to think for a moment that we are all created for this purpose. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls. There exists no other reason or purpose for our existance. He is the creator and we can reject His love. But it is absurd and senseless to reject His love. It would like creating an automobile to be used as a shovel…totally irrational.

Hope this holds some meaning.

 

[Sarpedon]

Killing the leader of a party of terrorists so that they don’t oppress the masses seems justifiable to me.

The difference is that utilitarianism has no defined boundaries, while many religions like Catholicism do.

Catholicism teaches that it is never moral to take another’s life unless it is the minimum response necessary for self-defense. Even then, conditions still apply. If you are going to kill a political leader that has been doing crimes serious enough to warrant his or her assassination, you still need to have a plan of how to stabilize the country afterward. You can’t just kill him or her and let the country fall into chaos. There are many more examples like this.

The above is only an example of a more general approach. Catholicism and several other religions provide clear guidelines on what is moral, how to factor in special conditions, the steps that need to be taken to ensure justice, etc. In a confusing world, these guidelines are necessary to keep things in bounds.

Utilitarianism, on the other hand, does not have these bounds. There is a general principal of “greatest happiness for the greatest number of people,” but no absolute guidelines on how to put this into effect. It is impossible to fully gauge the full effects of any one action (would you run a poll before every action?). Furthermore, “happiness” cannot be easily defined for the masses (most Germans were happy with Hitler, even to the bitter end).

All of these ambiguities in utilitarianism mean that utilitarianism is not a stable foundation for society. You yourself said that your moral opposition to the Holocaust is only your personal conviction. The German state had a very different opinion. If “all you can do” is try to convince the German state that their actions are wrong, you should not be surprised if the German state tries to convince you that their actions are right. See where this is going?

Utilitarians think that “the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people” is in everyone’s self-interest. They think that people will recognize this and will thus try to support their own and everyone else’s happiness. The problem is that happiness is not defined. What if the vast majority of people would receive great happiness by eliminating the small, inferior races? Mathematically, the overall level of happiness may be greater if the “inferior” races are eliminated, due to the larger numbers of the majority doing the ethnic cleansing. Any other issue could be substituted for race and be justified by the mathematical result.

The fundamental problem in utilitarianism is two-fold:

1. Happiness is not defined as anything concrete and consistent. It can be understood to be anything.
2. By appealing to “greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people” utilitarianism resorts to a mathematical standard. This is not a good standard. Coupled with the ambiguity listed above, anything can be justified with enough popular support and popular desire.

 

[JDaniel]

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

I wish you the best, Granny.

Somehow, I don’t think Granny comes close to even replicating an ounce of that “invincible ignorance” stuff I’ve been witness to, in this thread.

jd

 

[grannymh]

The Law of Gravity is a Law of Nature. Natural law is something else. .

jd

How would you explain Natural Law the one for human residents of the universe?

 

[Oreoracle]

You can’t just kill him or her and let the country fall into chaos.

I never said you should. But I suppose, in the case of Iraq, America has prevented more suffering overall by taking them out. It is not our moral duty to coach them.

Let’s say that I stop a criminal from robbing a bank by restraining him until the police arrive. Because of his and my own action, he is in prison and is a social pariah. Is it my moral duty to preach my ethical opinions to him, bail him out, convince an unsuspecting person to give him a job, and fill his wallet in order to give him a good start for a new life?

There is a general principal of “greatest happiness for the greatest number of people,” but no absolute guidelines on how to put this into effect.

Absolute guidelines? You mean absolute, rigid, blind rules? As I stated earlier, they often miss the mark and fail to accomplish their purpose. It is better to keep your eyes on the prize.

 

[JDaniel]

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)

Not so. In both of your examples you describe objective phenomena. Both words, “God” and “happiness” are nouns. Nouns have objectivity.

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.

Not so. Ask anyone in Hell how it affects them. But, it is good that you have an emotive aspect that tells you to avoid it.

jd