Why should one follow the moral law?

[4Horsemen]

I don’t think morality is written on our hearts either. A common presumption people seem to make is that people are basically good. I don’t want to go so far as to say people are basically bad but there is the aspect of concupiscence, our tendency towards evil due to our fallen nature. If we were basically good and had this code written into our hearts for us to learn from ourselves God would not have so blatantly disclosed the things He has, commanding us to transmit them throughout all lands down the generations. The delivery of the ten commandments is a sign to me that we need to be taught what we ought to do and it doesn’t come naturally.
.

I don’t think we are either basically good or evil, but that we have a fallen human nature prone to choose what is self-serving. St. Paul wrote so well about this paradox within us:

"For when we were in the flesh, our sinful passions, awakened by the law, worked in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, dead to what held us captive, so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit and not under the obsolete letter. . . What then can we say? That the law is sin? Of course not! Yet I did not know sin except through the law, and I did not know what it is to covet except that the law said, ‘You shall not covet’ . . . Sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin, worked death in me through the good, so that sin might become sinful beyond measure through the commandment. We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold into slavery to sin. What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I concur that the law is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. . . "(Romans 7:5-15)

From reading that passage, it appears to me that we do have a tendency to evil, and the law (Commandments) confirms that and make us realize that. So is the law written in our hearts? It seems that only when we have formed our consciences. (But what about people in indigenous tribes? Aren’t they under the “law?”) I know I just did a turnabout on this, but maybe someone can enlighten on this subject.

A short answer for the question this thread poses is that God requires it. That’s why He gave us the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament and the Two Greatest Commandments in the New Testament, which sums up the “law and the prophets.”
“Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God with thy whole heart, soul, mind and strength. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

 

[Oreoracle]

A short answer for the question this thread poses is that God requires it.

But surely we can’t consider that answer sufficient, or at least anymore than the reply “We should do such-and-such because George requires it.” One must still answer why we should comply to God’s commands.

 

[Shin]

But surely we can’t consider that answer sufficient, or at least anymore than the reply “We should do such-and-such because George requires it.” One must still answer why we should comply to God’s commands.

We obey God because He is absolute infinite good and perfection, and we are not.

 

[davidv]

But surely we can’t consider that answer sufficient, or at least anymore than the reply “We should do such-and-such because George requires it.” One must still answer why we should comply to God’s commands.

If George is the owner of a company and he is speaking to his employees how many would still be his employees if they disregarded his commands? At some point an argument based on authority holds true.

 

[tonyrey]

But surely we can’t consider that answer sufficient, or at least anymore than the reply “We should do such-and-such because George requires it.” One must still answer why we should comply to God’s commands.

Surely the answer is that God is love and His command to love is the only way we can be perfectly united - so that “My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full.”.

 

[Oreoracle]

We obey God because He is absolute infinite good and perfection, and we are not.

Goodness and perfection assume compliance with standards. If God is good and perfect by his own standards, then I suppose you are positing an argument from authority, am I right? I know he is not good by my standards, and I see no reason to hold him as the moral authority. So I’m guessing your faith in him is a subjective axiom.

If George is the owner of a company and he is speaking to his employees how many would still be his employees if they disregarded his commands? At some point an argument based on authority holds true.

I tend to value people based on their ideals, not because they are a particular person. Would you disagree?

Surely the answer is that God is love and His command to love is the only way we can be perfectly united - so that “My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full.”.

But you see where we run into a dead-end, right? Why value love? Or unity? As I said many times before: inevitably, emotions will always attempt to justify themselves in ethical statements.

 

[severntofall]

Assume that the person in question does not believe in an afterlife, or is not interested in it. Why should he “do good”, save for a satisfied conscience?

People doing good rather than evil benefits the species as a whole. Perhaps thats why most of us feel a certain amount of happiness when we do something kind or assist someone in need.

 

[severntofall]

If George is the owner of a company and he is speaking to his employees how many would still be his employees if they disregarded his commands? At some point an argument based on authority holds true.

There are no objective morals even if a god exists who ordered us to obey his commands. Merely being a position of authority does not mean that you have the best interest of your subjects at heart. If a god exists, he may have the ability to insist upon our subservience, but that does not mean that his commands are made for our benefit. One can possess legal authority via physical intimidation, but true moral authority lies behind the intent of its origin. This god you suggest invented morality is the same god who invented tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, famines, vicious animal attacks and etc; not exactly the resume of a individual who is concerned about our well being. Either rape is evil because we say it is or because god says it is, either is subjective to the will of the originator. The best morality would be one that came from those who personally stand to gain and lose as a result of its enforcement; as it will most likely be the best reflection of the desires of those whose behavior it serves to modify. Even if morality is objectively based (rape is wrong because rape is wrong) it would still be dependent upon us to figure this out. We would still be operating under an assumption that we know what is moral and immoral whether it was true or not. I will say this: convincing a person that they should obey your commands or they will burn in hell forever means that they will probably do what you ask. Unfortunately, what they are asked to do is where the trouble usually starts. If morality means nothing more than doing what one is told, then our morality has been kidnapped by a small and often unscrupulous bunch.

 

[tonyrey]

But you see where we run into a dead-end, right? Why value love? Or unity? As I said many times before: inevitably, emotions will always attempt to justify themselves in ethical statements.

You could call God a “dead-end”. But you would be wrong because God could also be called a “live-beginning”! In reality the Supreme Being cannot be circumscribed or described in terms of human categories. Love and unity are not emotions. They are ultimate facts.

 

[Leela]

Hi severntofall,

There are no objective morals even if a god exists who ordered us to obey his commands.

Pragmatists think of “objective” in terms of things that are easy to get agreement about amd “subjective” as things that are hard to get agreement about. Instead of a categorical dualism we have a continuum of intersubjective agreement. In that sense, some morals are objective (no rape, stealing, slavery) and others subjective (God must be called by his “true name”).

Merely being a position of authority does not mean that you have the best interest of your subjects at heart. If a god exists, he may have the ability to insist upon our subservience, but that does not mean that his commands are made for our benefit. One can possess legal authority via physical intimidation, but true moral authority lies behind the intent of its origin. This god you suggest invented morality is the same god who invented tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, famines, vicious animal attacks and etc; not exactly the resume of a individual who is concerned about our well being. Either rape is evil because we say it is or because god says it is, either is subjective to the will of the originator. The best morality would be one that came from those who personally stand to gain and lose as a result of its enforcement; as it will most likely be the best reflection of the desires of those whose behavior it serves to modify. Even if morality is objectively based (rape is wrong because rape is wrong) it would still be dependent upon us to figure this out. We would still be operating under an assumption that we know what is moral and immoral whether it was true or not. I will say this: convincing a person that they should obey your commands or they will burn in hell forever means that they will probably do what you ask. Unfortunately, what they are asked to do is where the trouble usually starts. If morality means nothing more than doing what one is told, then our morality has been kidnapped by a small and often unscrupulous bunch.

This reminds me of Plato’s dilemma which goes something like this: Is what is what we know as morality good to do because God commands it or does God command it because it is good to do? The first horn makes morality the whim of God which leads to the question of this thread. Why should we follow such commands if they are merely capricious? While the second suggests that God is irrelevent to morality. God is following some law higher than himself.

Best,
Leela

 

[Thales]

This reminds me of Plato’s dilemma which goes something like this: Is what is what we know as morality good to do because God commands it or does God command it because it is good to do? The first horn makes morality the whim of God which leads to the question of this thread. Why should we follow such commands if they are merely capricious? While the second suggests that God is irrelevant to morality. God is following some law higher than himself.

What if God is goodness? What is good is God. He is the essence of the thing. Everything else is evil because it is a distancing from the good. Things that are evil have in their end misery, despair, and suffering. Both Plato’s examples assume goodness as something outside of God. The problem for us material beings becomes knowing what is good. If we take your definition or any other persons it would most likely be that we don’t agree (at least on a good many things) and we could very well both be wrong. As we cannot know the true mind of God we cannot know what goodness is either. Through trial and error and experience we discover what seems best for us, but no one can ever say they know for sure. That is where faith and revelation come in for the Christian. God reveals His plans for us, including moral law and all the rest, through things like the Bible, Jesus Christ and His Church. It’s up to us, since we are at the moment of the material world and unable to touch that which is outside of it, to have faith in what God has revealed. Revelation may be complete, but again being of limited capacity for understanding, we may not comprehend everything just yet, i.e. why a child dies, hurricanes, disease, etc. Everyone who has read Job will understand this.

The atheist slowly advances toward pride and arrogance the more they push God away. It is inevitable because someone has to decide what is good and what is not. You set yourself up as your own God or you have to think your idea of good is reserved for yourself. The atheist has either no effectiveness in espousing his/her ideas of goodness or has to take extreme authority, become totalitarian, if they want others to accept their ideas of goodness.

 

[Leela]

What if God is goodness? What is good is God. He is the essence of the thing. Everything else is evil because it is a distancing from the good. Things that are evil have in their end misery, despair, and suffering. Both Plato’s examples assume goodness as something outside of God.

It is possible to define God out of this dilemma as you describe. The same move is made when “the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker” runs into the question of who made “the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker.” All we need to do is add “…and who himself needs no maker” for it do be definitionally true that this one “thing” needs no maker. As Aquinas taught, when you reach a contradiction, make a distinction. Makes it rather easy to create a theology or philosophy that is self-consistent, doesn’t it?

Personally, I can’t make any sense of goodness being a thing or of things having essences. Instead I think of everything as being in relation to something else. When you try to say what something is outside of its relations to other things (its essence), you find yourself thinking of nothing at all.

The problem for us material beings becomes knowing what is good. If we take your definition or any other persons it would most likely be that we don’t agree (at least on a good many things) and we could very well both be wrong. As we cannot know the true mind of God we cannot know what goodness is either. Through trial and error and experience we discover what seems best for us, but no one can ever say they know for sure. That is where faith and revelation come in for the Christian. God reveals His plans for us, including moral law and all the rest, through things like the Bible, Jesus Christ and His Church. It’s up to us, since we are at the moment of the material world and unable to touch that which is outside of it, to have faith in what God has revealed. Revelation may be complete, but again being of limited capacity for understanding, we may not comprehend everything just yet, i.e. why a child dies, hurricanes, disease, etc. Everyone who has read Job will understand this.

Revellation sounds like a way out of the problem of not knowing what is good until you notice that lots of people claim to have revellations and they claim to have had contradictory moral truths revealed to them.

The atheist slowly advances toward pride and arrogance the more they push God away. It is inevitable because someone has to decide what is good and what is not. You set yourself up as your own God or you have to think your idea of good is reserved for yourself. The atheist has either no effectiveness in espousing his/her ideas of goodness or has to take extreme authority, become totalitarian, if they want others to accept their ideas of goodness.

I don’t know how you think you’ve gotten yourself out of the need to decide what is good. Why are you a Christian and not a Hindu or a Buddhist? Presumably this is your decision?

And where exactly does the arrogance and totilatarianism come in for me as a nonbeliever? Ironically, Christian seem to take such pride in saying how humble they are.

 

[tonyrey]

There are no objective morals even if a god exists who ordered us to obey his commands.

If there are no objective morals human rights are conventions and there is no reason why we should respect them . We can steal, rape and kill to our heart’s content - provided we are careful not be detected of course.

This god you suggest invented morality is the same god who invented tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, famines, vicious animal attacks and etc; not exactly the resume of a individual who is concerned about our well being.

God neither invented morality nor physical disasters. Morality stems from divine goodness. Disasters, as arch-sceptic David Hume noted, are caused by natural laws.

The best morality would be one that came from those who personally stand to gain and lose as a result of its enforcement.

God does not enforce moral laws but lets us choose for ourselves. We are the ones who stand to gain or lose, not God.

I will say this: convincing a person that they should obey your commands or they will burn in hell forever means that they will probably do what you ask.

That is a crass distortion of Christianity. God does not expect us to obey arbitrary laws blindly and threaten us with arbitrary punishment if we disobey Him. He warns us that if worship ourselves, ignore the plight of others and say “To hell with everybody else!” that is precisely what will happen to us. God does not punish anyone. We can already see what happens to people when they become obsessed with themselves and put themselves before everyone else. If we give way to our lust for power we punish ourselves by alienating ourselves from others and ending up in a state of self-imposed isolation and misery.

If morality means nothing more than doing what one is told, then our morality has been kidnapped by a small and often unscrupulous bunch.

I wonder who you’re referring to? Could it be a bunch like the Nazis or Stalinists?

 

[tonyrey]

It is possible to define God out of this dilemma as you describe. The same move is made when “the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker” runs into the question of who made “the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker.” All we need to do is add “…and who himself needs no maker” for it do be definitionally true that this one “thing” needs no maker.

It seems you prefer an infinite regress of physical causes…

As Aquinas taught, when you reach a contradiction, make a distinction. Makes it rather easy to create a theology or philosophy that is self-consistent, doesn’t it?

Is your scheme of things self-consistent? What is your interpretation of reality?

Personally, I can’t make any sense of goodness being a thing or of things having essences. Instead I think of everything as being in relation to something else. When you try to say what something is outside of its relations to other things (its essence), you find yourself thinking of nothing at all.

Do you define something solely in terms of other things? Or is its combination of qualities unique? That is what gives it its identity and makes it different from everything else.

Revelation sounds like a way out of the problem of not knowing what is good until you notice that lots of people claim to have revelations and they claim to have had contradictory moral truths revealed to them.

The fact that different revelations disagree does not prove they are all false. It simply shows some of them are incomplete. They agree on basic principles which you yourself accept, e.g. the Golden Rule…

I don’t know how you think you’ve gotten yourself out of the need to decide what is good. Why are you a Christian and not a Hindu or a Buddhist? Presumably this is your decision?

A person who is a Christian, Hindu or Buddhist does not abnegate personal responsibility. Every individual has to apply general rules to particular situations and make his/her own decisions. The ultimate authority is our own conscience.

 

[4Horsemen]

Personally, I can’t make any sense of goodness being a thing or of things having essences. Instead I think of everything as being in relation to something else. When you try to say what something is outside of its relations to other things (its essence), you find yourself thinking of nothing at all.

 

[Thales]

And where exactly does the arrogance and totalitarian come in for me as a nonbeliever? Ironically, Christian seem to take such pride in saying how humble they are.

You don’t seem agnostic, and categorize yourself as atheist. In my opinion based on some of your comments I would say you’re antitheist, as you wish to dispel dogma and the idea of objective Truth with your philosophic pragmatism.
Unless you are also a nihilist you have some belief that goodness is preferable to evil, that there is some meaning, and there is some value to goodness. Without transcendence (Christian God, Hindu gods, Roman pantheon, etc.) the individual or some other individual has to define what is good. This individual becomes the highest thing because it has defined the most important thing to its existence. You become the center of your universe, or some other individual who you put your faith in does. If you think you are the ultimate that probably makes you somewhat self-centered (not exactly arrogant I guess). As one individual you are, to a great extent, lacking in authority. Depending on whether you care if others accept your ideas of goodness (most people do want a common morality these forums are evidence of that) you’ll have to have some sort of authority for others to believe it. You do not want everyone running around with freedom to construct their own morality as they see fit. Without transcendent authority you need earthly authority. The less people feel responsible to a transcendent authority (i.e. less religious) the stronger the government must be to get people to conform to their idea of what is good.

Some Christians might be proud of their humility and that’s quite contradictory, but that’s probably a minority who are not in the correct spirit of humility. That’s obvious. However, if you think it’s prideful to promote humility as a virtue, that’s not a very honest statement.

 

[severntofall]

If there are no objective morals human rights are conventions and there is no reason why we should respect them . We can steal, rape and kill to our heart’s content - provided we are careful not be detected of course.

The same is true even if there is an objective morality (I.e. rape is wrong because rape is wrong, the definition of a tautology). Even with the existence of an objectively based morality a person can (and to our knowledge many do) behave in any manner one would please. Fortunately via eons of evolutionary development, our species is as a whole adverse to abject chaos and wanton violence (unless being committed in the name of a great cause); there are of course exceptions. The sizable majority of us understand that adherence to the moral consensus is the most direct route to a happy and pleasurable life. Those of us who cannot usually find ourselves at the mercy of our judicial system.

God neither invented morality nor physical disasters. Morality stems from divine goodness. Disasters, as arch-sceptic David Hume noted, are caused by natural laws.

OK then, I guess blame should be assigned to the individual who created the natural laws.

God does not enforce moral laws but lets us choose for ourselves. We are the ones who stand to gain or lose, not God.

In other words, our adhereance to a moral code would be the same whether there exists a god or not.

That is a crass distortion of Christianity. God does not expect us to obey arbitrary laws blindly and threaten us with arbitrary punishment if we disobey Him. He warns us that if worship ourselves, ignore the plight of others and say “To hell with everybody else!” that is precisely what will happen to us. God does not punish anyone.

Assertion based moral codes:
“God said don’t do that”!
“No he didn’t”!
“Yes he did”!
Ergo: god said don’t do that.

We can already see what happens to people when they become obsessed with themselves and put themselves before everyone else.

I’m more afraid of those who are obsessed with their god. BTW, I know many non-believers and find them an extremely moral bunch of individuals (when they’re not raping and pillaging).

If we give way to our lust for power we punish ourselves by alienating ourselves from others and ending up in a state of self-imposed isolation and misery.

If you give away your ability to critically examine matters you usually become a devote theists.

I wonder who you’re referring to? Could it be a bunch like the Nazis or Stalinists?

Precisely. Nazi Germany was almost entirely Catholic and Lutheran (and they elected Hitler and obeyed his every command). Hitler was certainly a theist of some variety and routinely referred to god when addressing the masses and discussing the deserved (in Germany’s eye’s not mine) fate of the Jews. Stalin was an atheist; however the majority of Soviets were still Christian. Japan was lead to do evil by their belief in their emperor-god and the order to drop weapons of mass destruction on two Japanese cities was made by a Christian.

 

[Leela]

Hi tonyrey, 4Horsemen,

Is your scheme of things self-consistent? What is your interpretation of reality?

I like to try to get my ideas to hang together like everyone else, so I value consistency. I’m just pointing out that self-consistent philosophical systems are a dime a dozen, so we don’t get far by claiming that our system is self-consistent.

As for my interpretation of relity, I don’t think that any one description of reality can ever hope to represent “The Way Things Really Are.” The philosophical project of trying to represent reality verbally to find the one true desription is one we’d be better off giving up on.

Do you define something solely in terms of other things? Or is its combination of qualities unique? That is what gives it its identity and makes it different from everything else.

The philosphical idea of an essence is not the sum total of all on objects qualities. The essence of an object is supposed to be what it really is apart from all those realatioinal qualities. It’s an idea that I think doesn’t work. What is the essence of 17? How can I know seventeen any better than to consider relations bewteen 17 and other numbers? Is the essence of seventeen any more 15+2 than it is square root of 289 or 100-83? Antiessentialists recommend thinking of everything the way we think of numbers because it is very hard to think of a number as having an essence.

The fact that different revelations disagree does not prove they are all false. It simply shows some of them are incomplete. They agree on basic principles which you yourself accept, e.g. the Golden Rule…

It is a revealled truth for the Mormoms and Muslims that Christianity is a false religion just as it is a revealled truth for Christians that Muslims and Mormons have it wrong. The “basic principles” don’t ammount to much when teh question becomes who will be saved from eternal damnation.

A person who is a Christian, Hindu or Buddhist does not abnegate personal responsibility. Every individual has to apply general rules to particular situations and make his/her own decisions. The ultimate authority is our own conscience.

Exactly. That’s why I can’t see why believers are in any different a position when you say that atheists have a problem in having to decide for themselves what is good.

Best,
Leela

 

[reggieM]

Exactly. That’s why I can’t see why believers are in any different a position when you say that atheists have a problem in having to decide for themselves what is good.

Believers have a reference point for conscience which is God. So, conscience is not really the ultimate authority. That’s a major difference with atheism. Believers must align their conscience to the law of God. In the end, God is the ultimate judge. Plus, believers appeal to a higher law which is not the individual or community.

 

[Leela]

Believers have a reference point for conscience which is God. So, conscience is not really the ultimate authority. That’s a major difference with atheism. Believers must align their conscience to the law of God. In the end, God is the ultimate judge. Plus, believers appeal to a higher law which is not the individual or community.

This is a philosophical/theological difference that is not a difference at all in practive when we try to justify our actions to others. Both of us have to choose what we think is right and say why we think so, and neither of us gets any mileage out of claiming to have a foundation for their beliefs.

The believer says “I believe X is right beacause I think that God wills it, and God is the ultimate authority,” but then she still needs to justify why she believes that X is what God wills. Others can simply say, “I don’t believe you have any special access to God’s will that I don’t have.” The believer’s so-called foundation has just failed to provide her with a knock-down argument in that conversation. She will need to convince others of her view in all the usual conversational ways.

The nonbeliever just says, “I believe Y is right for these reasons…” We are both in the position of giving our reasons to others and neither of us has a more solid foundation for doing that than the other. You may think that you have some advantage in claiming God as a foundation for your positions, but it is simply not the sort of foundation that will convince others that you are right. Anyone with a contradictory view can also claim God as the foundation for their beliefs. Such claims are just conversation stoppers unless you happen to be among a bunch of people who already believe the same things as you.

The only way it could help you to claim that “God wills it” is if you can convince others that you really do have some special access to God’s will that they don’t have. It’s tough to win any arguments that way, but you can choose to lose them that way. For example, if you disagree with the pope, you may choose to accept the claim that the pope knows God’s will better than you do. But that is still your choice. One that needs to be justified like any other. You are basically saying that you know as well as anyone that God’s will is to agree with the pope even if what he is saying seems wrong to you.

It is still your claim to know God’s will that needs to be justified, so I can’t see how that claim can give you any advantage. You are just begging the question. You are basically saying that believers have an advantage because they are right. Obviously everyone thinks they are right or they would think different things. In conversation, you should expect your claim to be right when based only on your knowing God’s will to carry no more weight than anyone else’s completely unsupported claim that you are wrong.