Arbitrary objective morality

[Danhalen]

I am sure that I need not say that I am a moral relativist. Yet I feel that I must say that I have grown quite enamoured of the foundation of morality that the Fellowship of Reason(R) uses to determine what is moral. That is; that which most successfully allows mankind to flourish in their lives (thanks Eudaimonist).

That being said, what good is a system of morality that is based on the arbitrary whim of deity? What does it really say about the system itself? What good does it do for us if it is only in place to glorify the being that put it in place? I understand that some of the moral commandments given by God are iherently good (that is, they allow for the flourishment of mankind), yet some of the moral commandments seem to be rather arbitrary. What do these moral commands accomplish, and what good are they?

 

[Code-Monkey]

Good questions.

I am sure that I need not say that I am a moral relativist. Yet I feel that I must say that I have grown quite enamoured of the foundation of morality that the Fellowship of Reason(R) uses to determine what is moral. That is; that which most successfully allows mankind to flourish in their lives (thanks Eudaimonist).

I'm a bit curious. If the morality that God makes up is arbitrary because he has made it up, then why would you be enamoured by the morality that Bob and Hank makes up? If the made-up morality of an omniscient God is arbitrary, then surely the morality made up by FAR less than omniscient Hank needs to be questioned as well.

That being said, what good is a system of morality that is based on the arbitrary whim of deity? What does it really say about the system itself? What good does it do for us if it is only in place to glorify the being that put it in place? I understand that some of the moral commandments given by God are iherently good (that is, they allow for the flourishment of mankind), yet some of the moral commandments seem to be rather arbitrary. What do these moral commands accomplish, and what good are they?

Just a few points...

1. The Christian idea is that God doesn't change (in the sense that his moral character doesn't change). Thus, if God says something is moral, then he hasn't just "made it up", rather it's what his character has been like eternally.

2. If we can agree that made-up morality is arbitrary (and it looks like that's your criticism against God, so perhaps we can), then it seems we can agree that morality only really exists if it was not made-up. Right? Good. At this point we must either decide that God is moral or he is not.

Now, think of morality as like water in a glass. We are stipulating that we can't "add" water to the glass, as that would imply that morality is being made-up and is arbitrary or not truly objective. So it would seem that total amount of morality must exist within the only uncreated being. Otherwise, again, morality has been created. So however much water is in the glass to begin with, that's the most full a glass can possibly be.

In short, either God is absolutely moral or morality doesn't really exist.

3. If God creates the universe, then it's fairly safe to say that he has a purpose in mind. I don't build up something with my left hand only to destroy it with my right. So we can assume that God would create his creation with a purpose in mind, an end goal. It stands to reason that just as we don't create with one hand and destroy with the other that God also wants his entire creation to get along perfectly. Thus the creation can perfectly achieve his plan/purpose. So ideally he wants his creation to follow his plan, and in doing so the creation would "feel" like it is behaving perfectly and the creation would get along perfectly with each other.

4. I don't think biblically that we are here solely to glorify God. He seems pretty intent on us being individuals. He seems to love our uniqueness. But we do, hopefully, want to glorify truth, beauty, courage, all the good virtues, reason, logic, wisdom, and so forth. By doing so we also glorify God, who is the source of those virtues. Our living our life in accordance with being perfect glorifies God more than anything else.

5. Some of the moral commands were pretty specific to Israel at various times. Even some of the NT commands most biblical scholars believe were specific to that church for that timeframe. I suspect those moral laws do a number of things.
A. I think they helped the people out with their specific moral issues they were dealing with.
B. I think it serves to help show us what the character of God is like. Of course this is more difficult if we don't understand the context that the moral law was given.
C. It also seems to help us realize that while there's an objective moral law, the situation sometimes call for different responses.

Anyway... those are my quick thoughts.

If you have questions about specific moral laws, like why did God tell them not to eat the meat with the blood still in it, or stuff like that, then just ask more specifically.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am sure that I need not say that I am a moral relativist. Yet I feel that I must say that I have grown quite enamoured of the foundation of morality that the Fellowship of Reason(R) uses to determine what is moral.

Glad to hear it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

1. The Christian idea is that God doesn't change (in the sense that his moral character doesn't change). Thus, if God says something is moral, then he hasn't just "made it up", rather it's what his character has been like eternally.

Where did those moral ideas come from? What are they for? Are they just what "happened to be there"? This sounds very arbitrary to me.

It's like if God prefers chocolate to vanilla icecream, and this preference is eternal, than that's what must be regarded as good.

Now, think of morality as like water in a glass.

Why are you using this analogy? Why is morality like some kind of substance? Why isn't morality recognized rather than created? Something like recognizing gravitational principles rather than creating them.

 

[Kris_J]

I understand that some of the moral commandments given by God are iherently good (that is, they allow for the flourishment of mankind), yet some of the moral commandments seem to be rather arbitrary. What do these moral commands accomplish, and what good are they?

Which ones?

 

[Code-Monkey]

Where did those moral ideas come from? What are they for? Are they just what "happened to be there"? This sounds very arbitrary to me.

It's like if God prefers chocolate to vanilla icecream, and this preference is eternal, than that's what must be regarded as good.

I'm not sure I understand your questions. Where do God's moral ideas come from? It's like asking where did God come from? Why do they have to come from somewhere?

It's as arbitrary as logic is I suppose. In the same way logic wasn't created, rather it's just a part of God's character, so is morality.

Logically, if God creates something, then he has a purpose for his creation. His purpose would be what morality is. It's a rule for human behavior. As some have argued, the greatest possible thing God could do is to create a human that can love without being forced. He created us with his purpose in mind. We can say, "yes, but there's no actual need to follow his purpose." And that's fine. It just means that we're likely to experience quite a bit of grief in doing so. If he has long-term plans for us, then we likely will have thrown ourselves out of those plans. Also, as he created people for that original purpose, if we rebel, then it'll be similar to trying to drive the wrong way in traffic. Life will most likely "hurt" quite a bit and it simply won't make sense.

Why are you using this analogy? Why is morality like some kind of substance? Why isn't morality recognized rather than created? Something like recognizing gravitational principles rather than creating them.

The analogy works well as a substance as it demonstrates that God would necessarily be purely good, and immorality would be a lack of that goodness. It shows how it's illogical to suggest that God is somehow immoral. Either morality exists and God is absolutely moral, or morality does not exist.

But yes, I agree that we discover morality in the same way we discover mathematics. Morality is that same sort of absolute, objective thing. Trying to "create morality" does no good.

 

[Danhalen]

I'm a bit curious. If the morality that God makes up is arbitrary because he has made it up, then why would you be enamoured by the morality that Bob and Hank makes up? If the made-up morality of an omniscient God is arbitrary, then surely the morality made up by FAR less than omniscient Hank needs to be questioned as well.

If Bob and Hank base their moral foundation in reason, then it is not arbitrary. When we say that an action is moral because it allows for the flourishment of mankind, we have given a reason to say that action is moral. Not just because we say it is moral. Therein lay the difference.

1. The Christian idea is that God doesn't change (in the sense that his moral character doesn't change). Thus, if God says something is moral, then he hasn't just "made it up", rather it's what his character has been like eternally.

That is fine by me, but it says the same thing. God arbitrarily set morality in eternity. Does it really matter if God determined morality in a temporal reference versus an eternal one?

2. If we can agree that made-up morality is arbitrary (and it looks like that's your criticism against God, so perhaps we can), then it seems we can agree that morality only really exists if it was not made-up. Right?

Incorrect. Whether or not morality is made up has no bearing on the existence of the concept. Morality is (IMHO) a conceptual thing, and has no "real" existence.

Good. At this point we must either decide that God is moral or he is not.

I do not think we need to decide if God is moral or not. If God is the arbiter of morality, then God transcends morality. Not to say that God is above the rules set forth, but God is the rule set forth.

Now, think of morality as like water in a glass. We are stipulating that we can't "add" water to the glass, as that would imply that morality is being made-up and is arbitrary or not truly objective.

I disagree. If morality is an arbitrary judgement from God, it can still be objective (since God is the measure by which we judge morality). God is the hand that holds the glass, the glass is the universe, and morality is the water. God measures the depth of morality by the rim of the glass. The glass can be spilled or filled by God.

So it would seem that total amount of morality must exist within the only uncreated being. Otherwise, again, morality has been created. So however much water is in the glass to begin with, that's the most full a glass can possibly be.

God creates moral law. We can also say that God created morality with the universe. If God is the arbiter of morality, then God created morality. Are you implying that morality transcends God?

In short, either God is absolutely moral or morality doesn't really exist.

If God is the judge of morality, I agree. Problem is, I don't agree that God is the judge of morality.

3. If God creates the universe, then it's fairly safe to say that he has a purpose in mind. I don't build up something with my left hand only to destroy it with my right. So we can assume that God would create his creation with a purpose in mind, an end goal. It stands to reason that just as we don't create with one hand and destroy with the other that God also wants his entire creation to get along perfectly. Thus the creation can perfectly achieve his plan/purpose. So ideally he wants his creation to follow his plan, and in doing so the creation would "feel" like it is behaving perfectly and the creation would get along perfectly with each other.

The truth is, we sometimes create things merely to please ourselves. We do this arbitrarily. I even sometimes create things that are later discarded by myself for no good reason. I don't see why God would not be capable of doing the same thing. Furthermore, since God is the only perfect thing in existence, then any decision to create would be an arbitrary decision since there is no need, other than perfect desire, to create anything.

4. I don't think biblically that we are here solely to glorify God. He seems pretty intent on us being individuals. He seems to love our uniqueness. But we do, hopefully, want to glorify truth, beauty, courage, all the good virtues, reason, logic, wisdom, and so forth. By doing so we also glorify God, who is the source of those virtues. Our living our life in accordance with being perfect glorifies God more than anything else.

5. Some of the moral commands were pretty specific to Israel at various times. Even some of the NT commands most biblical scholars believe were specific to that church for that timeframe. I suspect those moral laws do a number of things.
A. I think they helped the people out with their specific moral issues they were dealing with.
B. I think it serves to help show us what the character of God is like. Of course this is more difficult if we don't understand the context that the moral law was given.
C. It also seems to help us realize that while there's an objective moral law, the situation sometimes call for different responses.

Anyway... those are my quick thoughts.

If you have questions about specific moral laws, like why did God tell them not to eat the meat with the blood still in it, or stuff like that, then just ask more specifically.

I don't understand how to tie in the last two points. It still seems to me a rather arbitrary decision based on the text you have provided. As far as specific laws, I have no questions. It seems to me that all of morality becomes arbitrary if God just decided what was moral.

 

[Danhalen]

Which ones?

All of them.

 

[]RiSeN[]

Human born morality which "helps humanity flourish" is product of hindsight through trial and error. God is the only One whos morality is truely pre-emptive and preventative in its nature.

 

[Danhalen]

Human born morality which "helps humanity flourish" is product of hindsight through trial and error. God is the only One whos morality is truely pre-emptive and preventative in its nature.

Yet we could not recognize it, if it weren't for hindsight.

 

[Code-Monkey]

If Bob and Hank base their moral foundation in reason, then it is not arbitrary. When we say that an action is moral because it allows for the flourishment of mankind, we have given a reason to say that action is moral. Not just because we say it is moral. Therein lay the difference.

Ok. But do you agree that Logic or reason itself is not sufficient enough to base morality on? For example, if you start off with a premise we both agree is immoral (like green people are evil), then we can use that premise and logic to suggest that green people should be killed. In short, regardless if you use logic or not, if the premise is flawed, then the result from the logic is flawed. Garbage in, garbage out. Right? I think you'll agree to that. So we have logic, which I agree is a GREAT thing to use, but ultimately we must have moral axioms to use with our logic. And these moral axioms are not themselves come by through logic, rather they are simply our starting points.

So either every man makes up his own starting points and it's arbitrary as you suggest, or God makes up the moral starting points, and again you are suggesting that that too would be arbitrary.

That is fine by me, but it says the same thing. God arbitrarily set morality in eternity. Does it really matter if God determined morality in a temporal reference versus an eternal one?

No, I don't think the within time or out of time makes a difference. The "God doesn't change" part is important is because it means God's moral axioms don't change. Whereas my personal made-up moral axiom today might be X but tomorrow is NOT X, God's moralily does not change. It's fixed, objective, absolute, ...

I do not think we need to decide if God is moral or not. If God is the arbiter of morality, then God transcends morality. Not to say that God is above the rules set forth, but God is the rule set forth.

It doesn't seem consistent to me to say God transcends morality and also IS the rule set forth. But by and large I do accept the "God is the rule set forth" sentence.

I disagree. If morality is an arbitrary judgement from God, it can still be objective (since God is the measure by which we judge morality). God is the hand that holds the glass, the glass is the universe, and morality is the water. God measures the depth of morality by the rim of the glass. The glass can be spilled or filled by God.

Ok... it becomes a moot point if God doesn't change, then he won't add or subtract water from the glass.

What about if we say God is the "moral rule set forth" and then Hank decides that while God says X is wrong, Hank wants X to be right. Is there any notion that Hank's personal idea about morality now becomes the objective standard? It seems to me that if morality changes, then we can't say that it actually is an absolute standard. This seems true by definition. If God can't or doesn't change, then all is good. But if God could change or if people can someone suggest moral laws, then it appears to lose it's objectiveness, it's absoluteness (is that a word?).

God creates moral law. We can also say that God created morality with the universe. If God is the arbiter of morality, then God created morality. Are you implying that morality transcends God?

No, I was trying to say that the most amount of morality that can possibly exist must exist within God. Otherwise, there is not a true objective standard for morality, it's just something people make up. Without an objective standard, we can't measure or compare morality in the sense of what is more moral. In a similar way, without an order to the alphabet we can't objectively compare which letter comes before another letter.

So in short, either there is a real moral standard and that standard exists in God's virtue. He could have created it, but it wasn't arbitrary, rather it was just the only possible morality he could have created by his virtue. Or there is no real moral standard, and everyone's morality really no "better or worse" than anyone else's morality.

The truth is, we sometimes create things merely to please ourselves. We do this arbitrarily. I even sometimes create things that are later discarded by myself for no good reason. I don't see why God would not be capable of doing the same thing. Furthermore, since God is the only perfect thing in existence, then any decision to create would be an arbitrary decision since there is no need, other than perfect desire, to create anything.

Yes, we could assume that God might be capable of that. If God one minute says X is good, the next X is bad, then there is no longer the possiblity of a real moral standard. It truly is arbitrary at that point.

I think one of the reasons I don't jump to assume that God might be that way is that I don't see any reason to add multiple personalities or conflicting personalities to God. I think he can be explained with a single desire or at least a single, consistent set of desires. It's sort of using Occam's razor on God's personality or character.

The whole "If God is perfect then why did he need to create us" is a good question, but it seems pretty different from this topic. I'll be happy to address it in another thread or later if you'd like.

I don't understand how to tie in the last two points. It still seems to me a rather arbitrary decision based on the text you have provided. As far as specific laws, I have no questions. It seems to me that all of morality becomes arbitrary if God just decided what was moral.

If God is an omnipotent being, capable of being perfectly logical, then doesn't it stand to reason that he also can use "reason" to come up with his moral law? I guess I don't understand why you think some being far more intelligent will come up with an arbitrary moral law while you think that you are going to use "reason and logic" and come up with something that's not arbitrary.

Going back to what I said up top... if we can use logic to come to any conclusion as long as we start with certain premises, and we get to make up the premises, then why does it matter that we use logic?

For example...

x = our premise
f(x) logic function

f(x) = 2x + 1

So if 7 means "we should all love our neighbors as ourselves" and 9 is "murder your friends", the the fact that we use logic is neat, but plug in 3 or 4, use logic, and we still get very different moral laws. Ultimately if we make it up it still seems very arbitrary.

And maybe this is your point. You said you are a moral relativist, right? Meaning that you don't believe there is a real moral right. So "love your neighbors" is not morally better or worse than "kill your neighbors". Is that right?

 

[]RiSeN[]

Yet we could not recognize it, if it weren't for hindsight.

Thats where accepting and believing our Creator wants whats best for us comes in. Its called faith. As a theory; based on passed experiences i have observed that through attempting to counter or ignore Gods moral laws, there is overall deterioration in my quality of life. So, i can simply accept this knowledge and keep making the same mistake of not listening to God, or i can put the knowledge into practice, translating it to wisdom, and make the correlation between Gods advice and my choices so as to 'flourish'.

And Jesus's sacrifice gives us the chance to be reborn and to forgive our constant doubting of God and our choice to assume we are able to 'see' for ourselves whats good and bad.

 

[nadroj1985]

I am sure that I need not say that I am a moral relativist. Yet I feel that I must say that I have grown quite enamoured of the foundation of morality that the Fellowship of Reason(R) uses to determine what is moral. That is; that which most successfully allows mankind to flourish in their lives (thanks Eudaimonist).

Just curious: does Eudaimonist (and the Fellowship of Reason) think this is an absolute standard, or just another relative position? If the former, I'd be interested in hearing their defense of that position.

 

[Danhalen]

Ok. But do you agree that Logic or reason itself is not sufficient enough to base morality on? For example, if you start off with a premise we both agree is immoral (like green people are evil), then we can use that premise and logic to suggest that green people should be killed. In short, regardless if you use logic or not, if the premise is flawed, then the result from the logic is flawed. Garbage in, garbage out. Right? I think you'll agree to that. So we have logic, which I agree is a GREAT thing to use, but ultimately we must have moral axioms to use with our logic. And these moral axioms are not themselves come by through logic, rather they are simply our starting points.

I have no problem agreeing with this.

So either every man makes up his own starting points and it's arbitrary as you suggest, or God makes up the moral starting points, and again you are suggesting that that too would be arbitrary.

I am not suggesting that each man uses his own axiom. I am suggesting that each man agrees to a common axiom. That axiom, in the case of morality, is to encourage the flourishment of mankind. As ]Fa||eN[ has suggested, we may have come to this understanding through the hindsight of mankind's past errors. I would hope that you agree that the purpose of morality is to ensure the flourishment of mankind. Since the axiom is more of a social contract, rather than an individual enforcement, it is by no means an arbitrary beginning point.

No, I don't think the within time or out of time makes a difference. The "God doesn't change" part is important is because it means God's moral axioms don't change. Whereas my personal made-up moral axiom today might be X but tomorrow is NOT X, God's moralily does not change. It's fixed, objective, absolute, ...

The axiom I am basing my morality on does not change, nor does it have to change. The flourishment of mankind is what has kept us on this planet. Without it, we would have perished long ago. If I were to change the axiom (ever), I think we may have a problem surviving as a species.

It doesn't seem consistent to me to say God transcends morality and also IS the rule set forth. But by and large I do accept the "God is the rule set forth" sentence.

Yeah, poor wording on my part. How ever, I think that God giving the law implies that He is the arbiter of them. Not that He is the law, but the source of them.

Ok... it becomes a moot point if God doesn't change, then he won't add or subtract water from the glass.

Rather than go into another "does God change" debate (remember how dragged out the last one got?), let me simply state that morality is still the arbitrary decision of God. We follow the rules that God put forth because God said so. Sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

What about if we say God is the "moral rule set forth" and then Hank decides that while God says X is wrong, Hank wants X to be right. Is there any notion that Hank's personal idea about morality now becomes the objective standard? It seems to me that if morality changes, then we can't say that it actually is an absolute standard. This seems true by definition. If God can't or doesn't change, then all is good. But if God could change or if people can someone suggest moral laws, then it appears to lose it's objectiveness, it's absoluteness (is that a word?).

It is not an absolute standard. It never has been. The result of the action is what we judge. If the end result is the flourishment of mankind, we can say that the action was moral. Since we take things in the context of which they happen, there isn't really an objective standard by which we can judge an action until we see the end result. It is only in hindsight that we can call an action moral.

No, I was trying to say that the most amount of morality that can possibly exist must exist within God. Otherwise, there is not a true objective standard for morality, it's just something people make up. Without an objective standard, we can't measure or compare morality in the sense of what is more moral. In a similar way, without an order to the alphabet we can't objectively compare which letter comes before another letter.

So you are saying that we can not judge the end result of an action objectively? I beg to differ. Let's just say that I kill a man. Objectively speaking, we know that if I kill a man it is wrong. Now let's say that I killed this man because he was about to kill twenty innocent people with a machine gun. We can now say that I was moral in killing that man. Objectively, I did what was best.

So in short, either there is a real moral standard and that standard exists in God's virtue. He could have created it, but it wasn't arbitrary, rather it was just the only possible morality he could have created by his virtue. Or there is no real moral standard, and everyone's morality really no "better or worse" than anyone else's morality.

His virtue is what is arbitrary. Why did God command what He did? I have demonstrated how the flourishment of mankind is a good way to objectively qualify actions as moral.

Yes, we could assume that God might be capable of that. If God one minute says X is good, the next X is bad, then there is no longer the possiblity of a real moral standard. It truly is arbitrary at that point.

I am saying (assuming God is the author of morality), at one point there was no moral standard, then God decided that there would be. That's pretty arbitrary.

I think one of the reasons I don't jump to assume that God might be that way is that I don't see any reason to add multiple personalities or conflicting personalities to God. I think he can be explained with a single desire or at least a single, consistent set of desires. It's sort of using Occam's razor on God's personality or character.

I don't think we need to assume that God does change His moral standard to demonstrate any of this. You demonstrated quite clearly, in the other thread, your application of Occam's razor. I think it fits.

The whole "If God is perfect then why did he need to create us" is a good question, but it seems pretty different from this topic. I'll be happy to address it in another thread or later if you'd like.

I know it seems off topic, but I used it as a means to demonstrate the arbitrariness by which God functions.

If God is an omnipotent being, capable of being perfectly logical, then doesn't it stand to reason that he also can use "reason" to come up with his moral law?

In light of the fact that God never justified His law, it seems rather arbitrary. I am not suggesting that God is entitled to justify anything, but then God can't mind if I think its an arbitrary decision.

I guess I don't understand why you think some being far more intelligent will come up with an arbitrary moral law while you think that you are going to use "reason and logic" and come up with something that's not arbitrary.

If only I could claim that it was my idea. Again, when the logic and reason is hidden, it seems rather arbitrary. I like to justify the reason and logic behind the law I choose to abide by.

And maybe this is your point. You said you are a moral relativist, right? Meaning that you don't believe there is a real moral right. So "love your neighbors" is not morally better or worse than "kill your neighbors". Is that right?

If my neighbors are planning on killing me, I am (morally) justified in killing them in self defense. Am I wrong with that assumption?

 

[Danhalen]

Thats where accepting and believing our Creator wants whats best for us comes in. Its called faith. As a theory; based on passed experiences i have observed that through attempting to counter or ignore Gods moral laws, there is overall deterioration in my quality of life. So, i can simply accept this knowledge and keep making the same mistake of not listening to God, or i can put the knowledge into practice, translating it to wisdom, and make the correlation between Gods advice and my choices so as to 'flourish'.

And Jesus's sacrifice gives us the chance to be reborn and to forgive our constant doubting of God and our choice to assume we are able to 'see' for ourselves whats good and bad.

Notice the highlighted section of text. If it were not for hindsight, you would have no idea that God's law works (for you).

 

[nadroj1985]

As far as arbitrary morality goes, I think that any time you posit an objective morality, it is of necessity arbitrary. There is no reason for it to be the way it is and not another, for, if it was, then that reason would then be the objective moral standard.

If something is objective, it is independent of context; this means it can't be justified within a context. Therefore, it is arbitrary.

 

[Danhalen]

Just curious: does Eudaimonist (and the Fellowship of Reason) think this is an absolute standard, or just another relative position? If the former, I'd be interested in hearing their defense of that position.

I signed up for the FOR news letter, and I get the impression that it is an objective standard. It seems like a good objective standard because we can view the results of an action and then determine how well in line they are with the flourishment of mankind. This is just my opinion though. I'd ask Eudaimonist for a more concise answer.

 

[Danhalen]

If something is objective, it is independent of context; this means it can't be justified within a context. Therefore, it is arbitrary.

I hate it when people say what I am trying to say in a more efficient manner!!!!

Seriously though, that's exactly what I'm getting at.

 

[nadroj1985]

I signed up for the FOR news letter, and I get the impression that it is an objective standard. It seems like a good objective standard because we can view the results of an action and then determine how well in line they are with the flourishment of mankind. This is just my opinion though. I'd ask Eudaimonist for a more concise answer.

Emphasis mine ( )


My main problem with it would be that "flourish" is a really vague word, but even if it was specifically defined, it wouldn't solve any of the problems I have with the concept of objective morality.

 

[nadroj1985]

I hate it when people say what I am trying to say in a more efficient manner!!!!

Hahaha; I was just debating this at another forum actually -- it's a little hard to word correctly.

Seriously though, that's exactly what I'm getting at.

Yep. Not that it's really an objection to objective morality. When you get down to it, in a metaphysical sense, everything is arbitrary. There is no reason for the world to be the way it is and not some other way. It just is what it is.