How did God get his morals?

[talquin]

How did God get his morals?

 

[Golden Yak]

How did God get his morals?

Great question. It's one I like to ask whenever a theist says 'If you don't believe in God, how do you get your morals?'

 

[Paradoxum]

I'd say the same place that some atheists get theirs.

(Reason, principles, empathy, etc)

 

[golgotha61]

How did God get his morals?

To ask how something was acquired or gotten, is to assume that there was an original lacking. Referencing your question, that would be to say that at some point God was immoral. This is illogical since morality or immorality did not exist until that which was contradictory to God was revealed or came into existence. There cannot be a recognition of morality until there is an existence of immorality. What is immoral/evil is whatever is contradictory to God. So, in fact it would be illogical to refer to God as moral until that which was contradictory to Him came into existence.


It is not that God acquired morality, it is that He defined morality after the contradiction to Him came into existence. He revealed the contradiction and defined it as evil/immoral. Until the contradiction came into existence there was no reference to moral or immoral.

 

[Tree of Life]

Morality is that which accords with God's character. All things that are truly moral are attributes of God and have been with him eternally. You can't separate God and morality.

 

[Resha Caner]

Do you want an honest answer? The honest answer to "how" is: I don't know. In addition, I don't see why it matters. Discussions about morals most often become very utilitarian.

 

[parsley]

Here in the US, we say that our rights came before any laws did -- they are part of the human experience, with mutually-understood sense of justice. Rights tie in with morality -- how we treat each other.

You know that if you worked for something, you have earned the right to keep what you own, without anyone else robbing that from you.

That is basic ethics. Morality.

The details tend to relate to the core rights. Jesus said that if we keep love in mind, the law falls into place. If we love our neighbor, we do not steal his wife. If we love our friends, we do not expose them to ebola.

What God presented to us was a well-thought-out system of operations, after generations of humans interacting-- amid greed, poverty, natural disasters, and disease. It seems more common-sense than religious teachers present it.

There may be things we disagree with, but we don't always have the full background. Red tide, trichinosis, STD's, gut enzyme conflicts, stachybotris ... those played a part.

 

[FireDragon76]

I agree with what Tree of Life said. God didn't "get morals". Goodness is what God does by nature.

 

[Resha Caner]

I agree with what Tree of Life said. God didn't "get morals". Goodness is what God does by nature.

I agree, but I also understand why that answer doesn't satisfy the challenge. It's just my opinion, but I answer by saying that since God is the creator, He knows the intended use of all things, and so knows what will optimize that use ... which we would interpret as being "good". Like I said, a very utilitarian answer.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Morality is that which accords with God's character. All things that are truly moral are attributes of God and have been with him eternally. You can't separate God and morality.

I agree with what Tree of Life said. God didn't "get morals". Goodness is what God does by nature.

Is Yahweh's nature good because it's his, or is it his because it's good?

Which horn of Euthyphro do you care to impale yourself on?

 

[Received]

What makes you think God needs to "get" them?

 

[Tree of Life]

Is Yahweh's nature good because it's his, or is it his because it's good?

Which horn of Euthyphro do you care to impale yourself on?

Nah. I don't think that dilemma really causes any problems.

But the way you've put it I suppose I would respond: it's good because it's his. Goodness is an attribute of God and all good derives from him.

The Euthyphro dilemma would then seek to demonstrate how this would make "goodness" arbitrary - able to change at God's whim. But this is not the case. Goodness is based in the eternal attributes of God that are unchanging. It's the furthest thing from arbitrary.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Nah. I don't think that dilemma really causes any problems.

But the way you've put it I suppose I would respond: it's good because it's his. Goodness is an attribute of God and all good derives from him.

The Euthyphro dilemma would then seek to demonstrate how this would make "goodness" arbitrary - able to change at God's whim. But this is not the case. Goodness is based in the eternal attributes of God that are unchanging. It's the furthest thing from arbitrary.

That does nothing to escape the dilemma. All it does is reformulate it.

If Yahweh chose this attribute, then goodness is subject to his whim.

If Yahweh did not choose this attribute, then goodness is greater than his nature, and necessitates no ontological basis in him.

Pick your horn.

 

[Tree of Life]

That does nothing to escape the dilemma. All it does is reformulate it.

If Yahweh chose this attribute, then goodness is subject to his whim.

If Yahweh did not choose this attribute, then goodness is greater than his nature, and necessitates no ontological basis in him.

Pick your horn.

Nah. Yahweh is good. He didn't arbitrarily choose what's good. Neither did he make his decision based on something higher or other than himself.

No dilemma!

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Nah. Yahweh is good.

We have a word for good already. It's called 'good'. It's a perfectly adequate word that does not necessitate supernatural non-concepts like 'gods' being shoehorned into it.

Except you don't actually mean 'Yahweh IS good' anyway. You mean it is part of his nature, which once again begs the same questions as before. Back to square one.

He arbitrarily choose what's good. Neither did he make his decision based on something higher or other than himself.

Assuming you meant to type 'he did not arbitrarily choose what's good', your two sentences here say essentially the same thing, and you're only addressing one horn of the dilemma - the problem of arbitrariness. You've impaled yourself on the other horn.

 

[Tree of Life]

We have a word for good already. It's called 'good'. It's a perfectly adequate word that does not necessitate supernatural non-concepts like 'gods' being shoehorned into it.

Except you don't actually mean 'Yahweh IS good' anyway. You mean it is part of his nature, which once again begs the same questions as before. Back to square one.



Assuming you meant to type 'he did not arbitrarily choose what's good', your two sentences here say essentially the same thing, and you're only addressing one horn of the dilemma - the problem of arbitrariness. You've impaled yourself on the other horn.

The other horn would be that there's a standard other than God that even he submits to. But this is not the case. The standard is God himself. Neither arbitrary, nor a standard outside of God to which he submits.

No dilemma

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The other horn would be that there's a standard other than God that even he submits to.

That is precisely the horn you've impaled yourself on, by denying Yahweh as the author of goodness (the other horn). Goodness is good all on its own, and necessitates no ontological basis in him.

But this is not the case. The standard is God himself.

Once again, that does nothing to avoid the dilemma. All you're doing is reformulating it by switching a few words around.

Can Yahweh deny this standard?

Can Yahweh not deny this standard?

Pick your horn.

 

[Tree of Life]

That is precisely the horn you've impaled yourself on, by denying Yahweh as the author of goodness (the other horn). Goodness is good all on its own, and necessitates no ontological basis in him.



Once again, that does nothing to avoid the dilemma. All you're doing is reformulating it by switching a few words around.

Can Yahweh deny this standard?

Can Yahweh not deny this standard?

Pick your horn.

God cannot deny the standard because he cannot deny himself. God is the standard.

 

[Paradoxum]

What makes you think God needs to "get" them?

Well, why does God have the morals it has?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

God cannot deny the standard

Then goodness is what it is, independent of him. You have chosen the second horn, once again.

because he cannot deny himself. God is the standard.

A standard you've denied him authorship of. As such, goodness exists all on its own.

Even if I imagine that it may be intrinsic to Yahweh's nature to integrate with goodness by some fantastical mechanism, goodness is still necessarily ontologically independent of him.