Morality is objective, except when it isn't

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
"It is objectively wrong for X to kill a child."

Christians would normally agree until you point out that God killed hundreds of children in the Old Testament.

"But God knew they would grow up evil" or "But God knew they'd go straight to heaven" or "But God has a divine plan."

There are no "buts" when it comes to objective morality.

"It is objectively wrong for X to kill a child, unless X=God" is subjective morality because the morality of the statement is subject to what X is.

Christians understand that morality must be objective in their worldview because Jesus had to die. It was absolutely required with no exceptions. There was no other way for souls to be saved. This means that Jesus/God is/are subject to morality. But then that means that God committed evil acts by killing children.

The alternative is that morality is subject to God. God can do whatever he wants. That "solves" the child-killing problem, but raises a new problem. If God can do whatever he wants, then why did Jesus die on the cross? He could've just saved us all as an act of will.

Skipping to the end, there's no answer to this issue except to claim that I've presented a false dichotomy. These responses will be automatically ignored unless the third possibility is clearly and thoroughly defined and explained.
 

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
It sounds like you're trying to present the Euthyphro Dilemma which is, indeed, a false dilemma. Moral reality is rooted in the character of God. God is not subject to a moral norm that is outside of himself because God is himself the moral norm. But God is also not arbitrary or whimsical in his commands because his commands are rooted in the reality of his eternal and unchanging character.
 
Upvote 0

SigurdReginson

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2020
479
641
40
PNW
✟45,517.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
It sounds like you're trying to present the Euthyphro Dilemma which is, indeed, a false dilemma. Moral reality is rooted in the character of God. God is not subject to a moral norm that is outside of himself because God is himself the moral norm. But God is also not arbitrary or whimsical in his commands because his commands are rooted in the reality of his eternal and unchanging character.

Ick... Really? So because god has complete authority, he can do what he likes.

Not a fan of that explanation. o_O
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Ick... Really? So because god has complete authority, he can do what he likes.

Not a fan of that explanation. o_O

God is not constrained by anything outside of himself and always does what is pleasing to him. Thankfully, what is pleasing to God and what is best for his creation perfectly coincide.
 
Upvote 0

SigurdReginson

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2020
479
641
40
PNW
✟45,517.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
God is not constrained by anything outside of himself and always does what is pleasing to him. Thankfully, what is pleasing to God and what is best for his creation perfectly coincide.

Unless you're the Medianites I guess...

I feel that the explanation that "it's ok for god to do whatever he wants because he has complete authority" passes the buck of responsibility.

With even more responsibility comes an even higher standard, imo. Maybe I'm missing something...
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Unless you're the Medianites I guess...

I feel that the explanation that "it's ok for god to do whatever he wants because he has complete authority" passes the buck of responsibility.

God takes full responsibility for all his actions. To whom would he be passing the buck?

With even more responsibility comes an even higher standard, imo. Maybe I'm missing something...

If there is a higher standard than God, then God would not be God. The higher standard would be God.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: coffee4u
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
God is himself the moral norm.

I think you mean that God's actions and/or intentions are the moral norm (which would be bad, since he kills children). If I believe a law, or if I create a law for the whole world to follow, I am not that law. If I have 8 cats, I am not the number 8. If I am not my actions; I do my actions. I am not my properties; my properties are descriptive of me.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
God is not constrained by anything outside of himself and always does what is pleasing to him. Thankfully, what is pleasing to God and what is best for his creation perfectly coincide.

Except for the vast majority of conscious souls going to hell forever?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I think you mean that God's actions and/or intentions are the moral norm (which would be bad, since he kills children). If I believe a law, or if I create a law for the whole world to follow, I am not that law. If I have 8 cats, I am not the number 8. If I am not my actions; I do my actions. I am not my properties; my properties are descriptive of me.

God's character and God's will are the foundation of all legitimate moral norms.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,405
15,551
Colorado
✟427,828.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
It sounds like you're trying to present the Euthyphro Dilemma which is, indeed, a false dilemma. Moral reality is rooted in the character of God. God is not subject to a moral norm that is outside of himself because God is himself the moral norm. But God is also not arbitrary or whimsical in his commands because his commands are rooted in the reality of his eternal and unchanging character.
How do we know that the character of God is good?

What if its just "ok"... or even "bad"? Then we'd be stuck with believers trying to be Ok or bad.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
How do we know that the character of God is good?

What if its just "ok"... or even "bad"? Then we'd be stuck with believers trying to be Ok or bad.

Similar to GE Moore's naturalistic fallacy, it actually makes no sense to ask whether or not God's will is good. It's like asking if "good" is good.
 
Upvote 0

SigurdReginson

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2020
479
641
40
PNW
✟45,517.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
God takes full responsibility for all his actions. To whom would he be passing the buck?

To shirk his responsibility because of his status as supreme being would be to shrug off all responsibility. He'd be passing the buck to whatever unlucky sap has to pick up the pieces. Namely; us.

If there is a higher standard than God, then God would not be God. The higher standard would be God.

The only standard we have to go on is the standard he gave us, and the standard he wrote onto our hearts, right?

I can't help but think that if he did something that I feel would repulse to think about doing myself, I have every right to feel repulsed at the thought of him doing that thing...

I'm not impressed.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
To shirk his responsibility because of his status as supreme being would be to shrug off all responsibility. He'd be passing the buck to whatever unlucky sap has to pick up the pieces. Namely; us.

How is it that God shirks responsibility?

The only standard we have to go on is the standard he gave us, and the standard he wrote onto our hearts, right?

I can't help but think that if he did something that I feel would repulse to think about doing myself, I have every right to feel repulsed at the thought of him doing that thing...

I'm not impressed.

It would not be strange if you find God's commands or actions personally offensive. Just because God offends us does not mean that God is wrong. Perhaps we are wrong. It would be strange if God appeared to violate his own commands. Is there such an instance of this?
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,405
15,551
Colorado
✟427,828.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Similar to GE Moore's naturalistic fallacy, it actually makes no sense to ask whether or not God's will is good. It's like asking if "good" is good.
No need to blow up the word "good" here.

One can make a pretty solid naturalistic argument for "good" in terms of that which enables enduring human satisfaction.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
No need to blow up the word "good" here.

One can make a pretty solid naturalistic argument for "good" in terms of that which enables enduring human satisfaction.

This would be a different question. You may be asking "does God's will enable enduring human satisfaction?"

But we could also ask "is enabling enduring human satisfaction good?" Hence the naturalistic fallacy.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,405
15,551
Colorado
✟427,828.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
This would be a different question. You may be asking "does God's will enable enduring human satisfaction?"

But we could also ask "is enabling enduring human satisfaction good?" Hence the naturalistic fallacy.
I think thats what good is, at least partly. I mean, what else would it be? Certainly not some arbitrary who knows what.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I think thats what good is, at least partly. I mean, what else would it be? Certainly not some arbitrary who knows what.

So if that's what you think that good is, then you understand that it makes no sense to ask whether or not human satisfaction is good. Because, for you, these things are identical.

This is where I'm coming from with God's will. I do think it makes sense to ask whether human satisfaction is good. But I don't think that it makes sense to ask whether God's will is good. Because these things are identical.
 
Upvote 0