The Moral Argument

[Moral Orel]

Now with regards to whether or not God always does what is the best thing to do, I think it helpful to remember that what is "best" will be determined by God, not us.

That's a weird way to phrase it. "Determined"? That makes it sound like he mulls it over and decides. He just knows what is best because it is His nature, right?

I just brought up the butterfly effect because if you consider all the possibilities of all the possible outcomes of all the possible actions it would seem strange to think that two different actions produce exactly and perfectly the same amount of "goodness". And God, by nature, would always do the thing that produces the most goodness, right? He certainly couldn't ever do an action that produces more "evil" than an action that produces more "good" because that would be contrary to His nature.

 

[anonymous person]

Interestingly, the way anonymous argues here, completely refutes his solution of the moral dilemma he posted.
We do not know whose death results in "greater good" (we do not know if and who of the guys on the railtracks are Amalektities, Hitler´s eventual parents; we do not know what effect they will have in regards to the "greater good" God pursues "objectively").
One day it´s "do not kill them, I want them to have free will", the next day it´s "kill them, I´m out of patience".
So it´s all guesswork, and - unless God gives me a direct command for each single action - his "objective" morality doesn´t help one iota with anything.
Heck, to go by ap´s responses, we can´t even identify God´s "greater/greatest good", to begin with.
We are left to our human devices, our human values, our human standards, opinions and estimations.

What you have said helps reinforce my advice to Nicholas. You are right. We don't know what will ultimately happen as a result of our actions if all we have is our finite abilities to rely on.

But if we rely on God who sees and knows all to guide us through life, we can be sure that He, like the air traffic controller who sits high and looks low, knows what is best for all of us.

Without this guidance, we are left pretty much like you called it, hoping, guessing, wondering whether or not what we choose is the best choice. We have to walk through life never really knowing if we have made the right choices. We hope we have of course, but there is always that lingering thought, that shadow that follows us that reminds us that we are just doing what we can.

Not so for the one who follows God and is led by the Spirit of God. Such a man can be bold as a lion and know that what he is doing is serving ends that he can only fathom and that will one day be woven into a most beautiful tapestry, the handiwork of a Holy, Almighty, and all knowing God.

 

[quatona]

One greater good accomplished that the scripture is clear on, is that the nation of Israel was preserved as a remnant from the evil intentions of her enemies, from which the Messiah would later come, who would be Savior of the world.

If that was the "greater good", God could have accomplished that by acting earlier and with less destructive efforts.

We were talking about what being unchanging and perfect and eternal means. These terms are referent to God's nature, i.e. what He is intrinsically, irrespective of the extrinsic.

No, that´s not what I was talking. Maybe you and the mouse in your pocket preferred to talk about it in avoidance of the actual point, though.

God's will included Him waiting the time He did until He executed judgment. He had His reasons. I don't know specifically what they were.

Ok, so God´s objective standards, values and what´s required for futhering them at which point in time is a mystery to even you, his spokes-person.

God knowing what will happen in the future does not mean that what happens is unavoidable.

Are you telling me that when God knows X will happen, Y may happen instead?

God's foreknowledge is what He knows, not what He does.

God doesn´t know what he will do?

I can know that if I open a can of tuna and place it on the floor that my cat will gobble it up, but my mere knowing this does not cause the cat to eat it.

And that´s got to do what with anything?

 

[anonymous person]

That's a weird way to phrase it. "Determined"? That makes it sound like he mulls it over and decides. He just knows what is best because it is His nature, right?

Good point. You are right. God is not like us. He does not have to ponder or mull over anything.

I just brought up the butterfly effect because if you consider all the possibilities of all the possible outcomes of all the possible actions it would seem strange to think that two different actions produce exactly and perfectly the same amount of "goodness". And God, by nature, would always do the thing that produces the most goodness, right? He certainly couldn't ever do an action that produces more "evil" than an action that produces more "good" because that would be contrary to His nature.

You are getting it now! Very good very good.

You did use a phrase "most goodness" and this reminded me of a question Dr. Craig addressed in a podcast. He was addressing an argument that said that if God created a world, He would have to create the best possible world or a world that had the most goodness as you say.

Look at what he says in response:

Why couldn't the value of possible worlds simply go on to infinity without end? That there is no best possible world? In fact, I would say probably the majority of theists would be skeptical of the idea that there is a best possible world. Moreover, they would be doubly skeptical of the idea that this is unique – that there is only one world that is at that maximal range of level. Now, you might say, “But if God is maximally great and he alone exists then any other world that God creates couldn't be better in value.” But that doesn't imply that therefore creation is impossible. Infinity plus any finite number is still infinity. If you take infinity plus one, what is the answer? Well, infinity plus one is infinity. Infinity plus two is infinity. Infinity plus three is infinity. So if God, in virtue of his own existence, is already infinitely good, if that world has infinite value, a world in which God alone exists, any finite goods that God creates don't increase the value of that world any more than adding any finite number to infinity increases infinity. But that isn't to say that therefore these goods are illusory or that God couldn't create them. I don't see any reason to think that in virtue of God's maximal greatness that it is impossible for God to create finite goods which don't increase the overall value of that world but which are nevertheless real goods.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/two-arguments-against-god#ixzz45Mi4gWC1

 

[quatona]

What you have said helps reinforce my advice to Nicholas. You are right. We don't know what will ultimately happen as a result of our actions if all we have is our finite abilities to rely on.

So those "objective moral values and duties" that you are so vehemently arguing for (as if their existence made any difference for any given purpose), are unknowable and make no practical difference for our moral choices, anyway?
Ok.

 

[Moral Orel]

He was addressing an argument that said that if God created a world, He would have to create the best possible world or a world that had the most goodness as you say.

That's not what I'm getting at. Clearly the idea would be that it is good that there is evil. Something for us to be tested by or to learn from or whatever the reason may be, it is a "good" reason otherwise God wouldn't allow it to persist because by His own nature, he can't sit idly by while evil persists without a "good" reason to do so.

 

[anonymous person]

That's not what I'm getting at. Clearly the idea would be that it is good that there is evil. Something for us to be tested by or to learn from or whatever the reason may be, it is a "good" reason otherwise God wouldn't allow it to persist because by His own nature, he can't sit idly by while evil persists without a "good" reason to do so.

Precisely. You got it.

 

[Moral Orel]

Precisely. You got it.

For any given action that God might take, or might not take, there is one and only one "best" action to take (even if that is inaction).
God cannot do anything but the best action because it is his nature to be good and perfect, and anything less than the "best" action would be less good and less perfect.

Am I still right so far?

 

[quatona]

Without this guidance, we are left pretty much like you called it, hoping, guessing, wondering whether or not what we choose is the best choice.

Sounds like not even the 10CC are worth the paper they are written on, errr, the stone they are cut in.

 

[anonymous person]

So those "objective moral values and duties" that you are so vehemently arguing for (as if their existence made any difference for any given purpose), are unknowable and make no practical difference for our moral choices, anyway?
Ok.

No.

The point is clear. If left to our own devices, we are left making best guesses as to what the "greater good" will be. The whole history of applied/situational ethics and the debates and the arguments and the tried and abandoned ethical systems support this.

If we follow God's commands, a God who sees and knows all and who is the Summum Bonum, then we can be confident that the things we do are really for the greater good.

None of this has anything to do with knowing objective moral values and duties exist. Just because a guy does not know what all of the ramifications are of his actions and how they would work together to accomplish some end to which he by virtue of his finitude is not privy, it does not follow that he cannot know if raping a child is wrong, for example.

 

[anonymous person]

For any given action that God might take, or might not take, there is one and only one "best" action to take (even if that is inaction).
God cannot do anything but the best action because it is his nature to be good and perfect, and anything less than the "best" action would be less good and less perfect.

Am I still right so far?

Bear in mind that when we think of "best course of action for God to take", we have to keep in mind that this is going to take into account God's purposes for whatever specific action that He is undertaking which itself will find its part in God's overarching plan for humanity.

Let us take Amalek for instance. The Bible gives us a reason as to why God ordered the Amalekites to be destroyed.

What did Amalek and his people do? Centuries earlier "he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary, and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you, and he did not fear God...... You shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget."


The verdict to Saul when given the command centuries later: "Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have."

God's immediate purpose is clear. The Amalekites were to be destroyed because they preyed upon helpless people and they did not fear God. God waited centuries before executing judgment on them.

This would find its place in God's overarching plan for humanity in that it would serve to strengthen the nation of Israel from a continually antagonistic neighbor which sought to only do them harm. The Messiah would eventually come from David's descendants who, had the Amalekites gone unchecked, may very well have been overtaken and destroyed.

The preservation of the line of the Messiah, the Savior of the world, and the eradication of nomadic, ruthless, no good bandits who preyed upon helpless and weak people and who did not fear God were God's purposes that we know of in ordering the destruction. The destruction He ordered was the course of action He saw fit to order in accomplishing at least the aforementioned.

He did all of this while not abrogating their capacity to continue to be free moral agents.

 

[Moral Orel]

He did all of this while not abrogating their capacity to continue to be free moral agents.

Okay.... I never said he did. I suggested a long while back that he could have, but he didn't. You're saying that not being a "free moral agent" would be a bad thing though, right?

Bear in mind that when we think of "best course of action for God to take", we have to keep in mind that this is going to take into account God's purposes for whatever specific action that He is undertaking which itself will find its part in God's overarching plan for humanity.

Believe me, I am. I'm taking into account all the different things that would have an impact on what is "best" even the things I have no knowledge of. They're all dimensions that "best" has to be measured by, making it impossible for there to be multiple "best" actions, that's all I'm getting at.

 

[bhsmte]

Interestingly, the way anonymous argues here, completely refutes his solution of the moral dilemma he posted.
We do not know whose death results in "greater good" (we do not know if and who of the guys on the railtracks are Amalektities, Hitler´s eventual parents; we do not know what effect they will have in regards to the "greater good" God pursues "objectively").
One day it´s "do not kill them, I want them to have free will", the next day it´s "kill them, I´m out of patience".
So it´s all guesswork, and - unless God gives me a direct command for each single action - his "objective" morality doesn´t help one iota with anything.
Heck, to go by ap´s responses, we can´t even identify God´s "greater/greatest good", to begin with.
We are left to our human devices, our human values, our human standards, opinions and estimations.

What you describe is; scramble mode, trying to explain the contradictions.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No.

The point is clear. If left to our own devices, we are left making best guesses as to what the "greater good" will be. The whole history of applied/situational ethics and the debates and the arguments and the tried and abandoned ethical systems support this.

If we follow God's commands, a God who sees and knows all and who is the Summum Bonum, then we can be confident that the things we do are really for the greater good.

None of this has anything to do with knowing objective moral values and duties exist. Just because a guy does not know what all of the ramifications are of his actions and how they would work together to accomplish some end to which he by virtue of his finitude is not privy, it does not follow that he cannot know if raping a child is wrong, for example.

How does one know what god commands?

 

[anonymous person]

How does one know what god commands?

This would be better asked in a separate thread.

The moral argument is about the ontology of objective moral values and duties, not epistemology.

 

[bhsmte]

How does one know what god commands?

For some, it tends to align with what works best for the individual, who is doing the perceiving.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This would be better asked in a separate thread.

The moral argument is about the ontology of objective moral values and duties, not epistemology.

Really? Because it would appear absolutely essential to your argument. Without a clear means of determining what god actually commands from what one thinks that god commands...your explanation of morality is entirely useless.

 

[Ana the Ist]

For some, it tends to align with what works best for the individual, who is doing the perceiving.

Lol meaning that it's entirely subjective

 

[Moral Orel]

Bear in mind that when we think of "best course of action for God to take", we have to keep in mind that this is going to take into account God's purposes for whatever specific action that He is undertaking which itself will find its part in God's overarching plan for humanity.

I thought about this some more. Do you think that God's "overarching plan for humanity" could be anything less than the most perfect, and most "good" (i.e. best) plan that God could design? For example, He couldn't, because of His nature, have a plan that ends in all of us being tortured forever just for a laugh, because that would be evil. And He couldn't design such a plan as to have even one person tortured, just for a laugh, because that would even still be evil, just less evil, and God isn't evil at all. Couldn't we even say that part of His plan can't include someone stubbing their toe, if the only difference between that plan and another plan is Him getting a laugh out of it? Therefore, the plan itself has to be the best possible plan and there can only be one best plan.

 

[anonymous person]

I thought about this some more. Do you think that God's "overarching plan for humanity" could be anything less than the most perfect, and most "good" (i.e. best) plan that God could design? For example, He couldn't, because of His nature, have a plan that ends in all of us being tortured forever just for a laugh, because that would be evil. And He couldn't design such a plan as to have even one person tortured, just for a laugh, because that would even still be evil, just less evil, and God isn't evil at all. Couldn't we even say that part of His plan can't include someone stubbing their toe, if the only difference between that plan and another plan is Him getting a laugh out of it? Therefore, the plan itself has to be the best possible plan and there can only be one best plan.

Interesting question, and while I agree that it would be contrary to God's nature to create a world wherein creatures are subjected to pain just so that He can sit back and laugh at their pain in a callous and apathetic fashion, for He is neither callous nor apathetic, I do not think this provides warrant for thinking that there is some maximum value of goodness a world can contain or that there is some "best" world.

As Dr. Craig pointed out earlier, why could not the value of possible worlds simply go on to infinity without end? I see no reason to think there is a "cap" or a maximum value world such that there could be no world better than it. For any world God created, there could be another world just like it with say, one more person in it that comes to know God, an incommensurable good and so on and on to infinity.

So while there can be worlds wherein there is less evil than this one or no evil at all, here I am thinking of a possible world wherein God and the angels exist or God alone exists, there does not seem to be any reason for thinking that there is a limit on the other end.