Morality is objective, except when it isn't

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
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.
"Good" is just what we approve of morally, as a society. There's no intrinsic content to "good" apart from the facts and experiences of life. In that context, enduring human satisfaction will typically drive a lot of what we call "good".
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,271
7,628
51
✟312,681.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
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.
Special pleading.
 
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
"Good" is just what we approve of morally, as a society. There's no intrinsic content to "good" apart from the facts and experiences of life. In that context, enduring human satisfaction will typically drive a lot of what we call "good".

I disagree that "good" is simply what our species or society happens to approve of. I believe it's more objective than that - rooted in the will of the creator.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I disagree that "good" is simply what our species or society happens to approve of. I believe it's more objective than that - rooted in the will of the creator.
its not about "happens to" as if its some arbitrary thing that can be successfully redefined based on ... whatever.

There are deep natural facts about what makes humans happy and what help societies function. Those two are actually deeply intertwined. So enduring conceptions of whats "good" are actually rather objectively grounded. I would add that there are also fleeting experimental conceptions of the good that sometimes end up in social destruction.
 
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
its not about "happens to" as if its some arbitrary thing that can be successfully redefined based on ... whatever.

There are deep natural facts about what makes humans happy and what help societies function. Those two are actually deeply intertwined. So enduring conceptions of whats "good" are actually rather objectively grounded. I would add that there are also fleeting experimental conceptions of the good that sometimes end up in social destruction.

I do agree that "good" deeply coincides with how we were created. God's will - as the creator - is most wise and beneficial for his creation to embrace.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I do agree that "good" deeply coincides with how we were created. God's will - as the creator - is most wise and beneficial for his creation to embrace.
All I'm proposing is a naturalistic explanation for human morality. And I do find it sufficient.

Of course it does blow up the notion of "the good" as some kind of ultimate standard, set for humans from...."outside". But honestly I dont even really understand that notion. It just pushes the problem of what is "good" off into some other inaccessible realm.
 
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
All I'm proposing is a naturalistic explanation for human morality. And I do find it sufficient.

Of course it does blow up the notion of "the good" as some kind of ultimate standard, set for humans from...."outside". But honestly I dont even really understand that notion. It just pushes the problem of what is "good" off into some other inaccessible realm.

There's nothing inaccessible about the will of God. Being created in his image, we naturally have a strong sense of his moral will. It's written on our hearts and in many ways "common sense" to us. It's also clearly revealed in Scripture.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: plugh
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
There's nothing inaccessible about the will of God. Being created in his image, we naturally have a strong sense of his moral will. It's written on our hearts and in many ways "common sense" to us. It's also clearly revealed in Scripture.
Even if true it doesnt explain why that will is "good", other than to effectively say: "it just is.".... in other words: no expressible reason. That seems quite unsatisfactory.
 
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
Even if true it doesnt explain why that will is "good", other than to effectively say: "it just is.".... in other words: no expressible reason. That seems quite unsatisfactory.

If you want to understand "good" to be in relation to human wellbeing then we can have a meaningful conversation on that level. God's will is good in the sense that it perfectly coincides with human wellbeing.

Psalm 34:11-12
11
Come, O children, listen to me;
I will teach you the fear of the Lord.
12 What man is there who desires life
and loves many days, that he may see good?

It makes perfect sense to ask: "would embracing God's will make my life better?" or "would embracing God's will make society better?"
 
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

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
If you want to understand "good" to be in relation to human wellbeing then we can have a meaningful conversation on that level. God's will is good in the sense that it perfectly coincides with human wellbeing.

Psalm 34:11-12
11 Come, O children, listen to me;
I will teach you the fear of the Lord.
12 What man is there who desires life
and loves many days, that he may see good?

It makes perfect sense to ask: "would embracing God's will make my life better?" or "would embracing God's will make society better?"
Bingo.... But what that says is God's will is unnecessary as the source of the "good".

I do think that expressing the good as the will of the divine may have been critical for social order, as human wellbeing is only really understood by the very wise, and their wisdom needed some real force behind it. Maybe still does.
 
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
Bingo.... But what that says is God's will is unnecessary as the source of the "good".

It seems to me that this verse directly connects "the fear of the Lord" to "the seeing of good". If you want to enjoy life, long days, and experience good (wellbeing), then you need the fear of the Lord.

I do think that expressing the good as the will of the divine may have been critical for social order, as human wellbeing is only really understood by the very wise, and their wisdom needed some real force behind it. Maybe still does.

Now we're talking in sociological terms and not theological terms. Expressing something as divine will can be useful sociologically. But I'm speaking theologically. I'm saying that human wellbeing really is directly connected to God and his will.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
It seems to me that this verse directly connects "the fear of the Lord" to "the seeing of good". If you want to enjoy life, long days, and experience good (wellbeing), then you need the fear of the Lord.



Now we're talking in sociological terms and not theological terms. Expressing something as divine will can be useful sociologically. But I'm speaking theologically. I'm saying that human wellbeing really is directly connected to God and his will.
I can see how that might be an article of faith. It might even be true for all I know. But even if true, its not really compelling as a reasoned argument. Thats all Im getting at.
 
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

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The OP seemed a little confused. I wasn't sure if you were trying to present the old Euthyphro Dilemma or if you were complaining about God's character.

You disputed the Euthyphro dilemma with nonsense. God is not "the moral norm" just like he is not the number 3. You clarified by saying, "God's character and God's will are the foundation of all legitimate moral norms."

So after saying that the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma, you do admit that morality is subjective (subject to God). You've firmly grasped that horn of the dilemma.

There was then a conditional second part to the thread. Perhaps I should have made a flow chart to avoid confusion. Let me explain. Since morality is whatever God says it is, what was the point of Jesus dying on the cross? Why did God not just forgive us all as an act of will?

Allow me to save us some time and predict the exchange.

ToL: Christ's sacrifice was consistent with God's nature and consistent with his morality, so that is why it happened.

NV: But God can easily break from his nature. It is not in his nature to kill children, yet he has killed hundreds or perhaps thousands.

Now you have to deny that killing children is part of his nature and therefore admit that he can break from his nature, and therefore he could just forgive us as an act of will; or you must admit that killing children is part of God's nature. But if killing children is part of his nature, and if his nature is the basis of morality, then killing children is good or at the very least it is not evil.
 
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
You disputed the Euthyphro dilemma with nonsense. God is not "the moral norm" just like he is not the number 3. You clarified by saying, "God's character and God's will are the foundation of all legitimate moral norms."

So after saying that the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma, you do admit that morality is subjective (subject to God). You've firmly grasped that horn of the dilemma.

Morality being subjective is not part of the dilemma. The dilemma is between morality being outside of God (a standard to which even God must submit) and morality being arbitrary.

There was then a conditional second part to the thread. Perhaps I should have made a flow chart to avoid confusion. Let me explain. Since morality is whatever God says it is, what was the point of Jesus dying on the cross? Why did God not just forgive us all as an act of will?

Jesus died to satisfy God’s demand for justice and also to satisfy God’s desire to save sinners. For God to forgive without a substitutionary atonement would be for God to violate his own desire for justice. God would not be pleased to do this.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Morality being subjective is not part of the dilemma. The dilemma is between morality being outside of God (a standard to which even God must submit) and morality being arbitrary.

You can compare my question to another question from antiquity. That's fine. But you cannot then say that my question isn't what it actually is because of the question you're comparing it to. I'm asking if morality is objective or subjective. You've indicated that it is subjective.

Furthermore, if morality is "outside of God" and he must submit to it, then it is objective. The case of morality being arbitrary is when he is the one who arbitrates morality and decides what is or isn't moral.



Jesus died to satisfy God’s demand for justice and also to satisfy God’s desire to save sinners. For God to forgive without a substitutionary atonement would be for God to violate his own desire for justice. God would not be pleased to do this.

We're already past this part. I predicted that you would say this and I offered a response. You not only ignored my response, but you redacted it entirely. Please, by all means, remain Christian. I don't want to see you represent my atheism so I see no need to engage you any further.
 
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