God as an ultimate source of morals?

[elopez]

This brings up an interesting problem concerning God's foreknowledge and free will which I hope to find the time to post about, but...
Back to the topic.

To me this problem is no problem at all and not really at all interesting. It seems to be the same regurgitated argument that doesn't really have much support.

I think if you dig deeper here it will become apparent there is still a problem of arbitrariness. When you consider the nature of God, you reflect on His love, compassion, wisdom, forgiveness, etc. One is lead to say God is good because these traits are maximal in Him (and for Christians were witnessed in Jesus). These traits are an integral part of God, or as you put it, immutable.

I'm not really sure I see any issue of arbitrariness.

I ask you to take a moment here to examine what it is we are doing when we say God is good for these reasons (if you would prefer not to focus on the particular aspects of His good nature, i.e. love, wisdom, etc., it will work just as well to say benevolence). The only reason we are able to affirm these aspects of his nature is good, is because we already have a preconceived notion of what it means to be good.

Yes but this preconceived notion of good may have originated from God anyway. Or so to say, God has written morality into our hearts.

It seems clear that once we come to understand this, there is no better reason for making God the source of morality and goodness, then there is for making some objective moral principle like the Golden Rule, or a Platonic Form.

I'm curious about your thoughts on this.

If we understand that morality is 'written' in our hearts then there is good reason God is the source of said morality and goodness.

 

[Metaphysicalwonderer]

God has written morality into our hearts.

I take it by heart you mean reason? This is a very ambigous statement.

 

[razeontherock]

This is a very ambigous statement.

This really is not an ambigous [sic] statement, and it's not ambiguous either
You're just not accustomed to "heart" being used in this context. Has elopez studied the Greek enough to shed some light on this? It's quite a well-defined concept, and it is not synonymous with "human reason."

 

[Metaphysicalwonderer]

I have managed to locate a very relevant quote which might illuminate my position in a more fitting manner than I have so far managed.

I believe this to be an accurate summary of your position:

"...we can think of God himself as the supreme standard of goodness. God does not consult some independent Platonic realm where the objective principles of goodness exist, but rather God just acts according to his necessarily good character."

And here is my objection to this view:

"But is not arbitrariness still present, insofar as it seems that it is arbitrary to take a particular individual as the standard of goodness, without reference to the individual’s conformity to general principles of goodness?"

The philosopher arguing from your point of view takes this objection very seriously and answers like this:

"...sooner or later, when we are seeking an answer to the question 'By virtue of what does good supervene on these characteristics?' we ultimately reach either a general principle or an individual paradigm...the claim that good supervenes on God is no more arbitrary than the claim that it supervenes on some Platonic principle."

Thoughts?

 

[Metaphysicalwonderer]

This really is not an ambigous [sic] statement, and it's not ambiguous either
You're just not accustomed to "heart" being used in this context. Has elopez studied the Greek enough to shed some light on this? It's quite a well-defined concept, and it is not synonymous with "human reason."

Very well. Would you mind shining some light on it then, rather than simply pointing out my deficiency in knowledge?

 

[elopez]

I take it by heart you mean reason? This is a very ambiguous statement.

Into our reason, our psyche, our soul, whatever. The point is God made aware to us of morality, hence our otherwise awareness of morality.

 

[elopez]

"But is not arbitrariness still present, insofar as it seems that it is arbitrary to take a particular individual as the standard of goodness, without reference to the individual’s conformity to general principles of goodness?"

There would be no other individual but God whom is the basis of goodness. God does not have to conform to goodness as goodness is essential to His nature.

If you mean man, not on of the basis of morality, ought to conform to goodness in order for morality to be present within him from God then I would still say no. That would only be favoritism. God is impartial, which is only an attribute of goodness.