Morality is objective, except when it isn't

Larniavc · Feb 23, 2021

Tree of Life said:
How so?

I’m surprised you need to ask. Is it not covered on your Apologetics course?

“God is not subject to a moral norm that is outside of himself because God is himself the moral norm.”

All morals from thinking entities are subjective.

Except God. That is special pleading.

You can’t say “all things are y. Except x” and expect anyone to believe ‘all things are y’.

Larniavc · Feb 23, 2021

Tree of Life said:
God's will is good in the sense that it perfectly coincides with human wellbeing.

Dunno about that. Imagine a gay Christian who remains single and miserably (maybe even killing themselves) because of God’s ‘will’ that they not be who they are.

InterestedAtheist · Feb 23, 2021

Tree of Life said:
It sounds like you're trying to present the Euthyphro Dilemma which is, indeed, a false dilemma.

Hello! Did someone say the E word?

Tree of Life said:
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.

I'm afraid you haven't solved Euthyphro's Dilemma. You've just fallen into Euthyphro's Trap.
If you say that goodness and morality are themselves rooted in God's character, then goodness mean simply "what God is." This makes it a meaningless tautology. ("God is goodness. And what does goodness mean? What God is. ")
This turns out to be nothing but complete moral relativity, at its most extreme. God could have said that anything at all was good, and to you, it would have been. If God had said that cruelty and injustice were good, then they would be.
Would you object that God would not have said those things because they were bad? So what? If He had said them, they would have been good, because whatever God says is good, is. You told us so.
Can you think of some reason why cruelty and injustice are bad, so God would not say them? Then you are judging God by an external standard.
Would you tell us that God did not, in fact, say that something bad was good? Then you have just judged God by an external standard again (that is to say, God said, "X is good," and you said, "Yes, it is," as if you could confirm it by some other knowledge.)
In short, if you say that goodness is based on God's character, then "goodness" is now free-floating, bereft of meaning. Since anything God says would be good, goodness could mean anything; and therefore it means nothing.

Tree of Life said:
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.

Interesting! I think you gave the game away there. You're saying that goodness is that which is best for creation. So you do have an external standard by which you measure goodness ("that which is best for the world,") and God is not the foundation of your morality.

Oompa Loompa · Feb 23, 2021

Nihilist Virus said:
So you do agree that killing children is bad, then?

Depends on who is killing the child and for what reason. Need context.

Nihilist Virus · Feb 23, 2021

Oompa Loompa said:
Depends on who is killing the child and for what reason. Need context.

Lol, read your statement again and tell me it doesn't sound exactly like what a pro choice person would say.

Tree of Life · Feb 23, 2021

Larnievc said:
I’m surprised you need to ask. Is it not covered on your Apologetics course?

“God is not subject to a moral norm that is outside of himself because God is himself the moral norm.”

All morals from thinking entities are subjective.

Except God. That is special pleading.

You can’t say “all things are y. Except x” and expect anyone to believe ‘all things are y’.

I'm fine if we want to say that morality is subjective because it's based on God's perspective. The thing about God, though, is that he is an absolute being. So morality is based upon an absolute subject.

Tree of Life · Feb 23, 2021

Larnievc said:
Dunno about that. Imagine a gay Christian who remains single and miserably (maybe even killing themselves) because of God’s ‘will’ that they not be who they are.

Lots of interesting assumptions in this post.

Larniavc · Feb 23, 2021

Tree of Life said:
I'm fine if we want to say that morality is subjective because it's based on God's perspective. The thing about God, though, is that he is an absolute being. So morality is based upon an absolute subject.

But he’s always changing his mind.

Tree of Life · Feb 23, 2021

Larnievc said:
But he’s always changing his mind.

Numbers 23:19
God is not man, that he should lie,
or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Has he said, and will he not do it?
Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

Larniavc · Feb 23, 2021

Tree of Life said:
Numbers 23:19
God is not man, that he should lie,
or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Has he said, and will he not do it?
Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

Oh, summer child.

“So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people,” Exodus 32:14 - he changes his mind.

And here he tells lies.

1 Kings 22:19-24 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.

And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.

And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade [him], and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Jeremiah 4:10
Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.

Jeremiah 20:7
O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.

2 Thessalonians 2:11
For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

2 Chronicles 18:22
Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.

Ezekiel 14:9
And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet

Have you even read the Bible? I have.

Tree of Life · Feb 23, 2021

Larnievc said:
Have you even read the Bible? I have.

No

TLK Valentine · Feb 23, 2021

Tree of Life said:
God's character and God's will are the foundation of all legitimate moral norms.

You left out God's actions.

Oompa Loompa · Feb 23, 2021

Nihilist Virus said:
Lol, read your statement again and tell me it doesn't sound exactly like what a pro choice person would say.

Bare with me for a second. The point that I was making is that it is impossible for morality to be anything but relative in a secular world view. But I'd wager that you do not believe objective morality exists. Rather, you are challenging the assertion made by Christians by pointing out some hypocrisy. Is that correct?

Tree of Life · Feb 23, 2021

TLK Valentine said:
You left out God's actions.

We can include God's actions to an extent. There are things God does that we cannot do nor be expected to do, though. Things like parting the Red Sea or sending plagues upon Egypt, for example.

TLK Valentine · Feb 23, 2021

Tree of Life said:
We can include God's actions to an extent. There are things God does that we cannot do nor be expected to do, though. Things like parting the Red Sea or sending plagues upon Egypt, for example.

One would assume that God does not break his own moral code. If God did it, it must be moral.

And the things we could not or be expected to do then, we can do (albeit with considerably more difficulty) now.

In the case of the Red Sea, God allowed the passage of one group of people while drowning another. If such an event happened downstream of a dam, one could accomplish something similar by manipulating the spillway controls...

And plagues? Our capacity for biological warfare has advanced considerably, to say the least, since Biblical times... I can assure you that it would be quite easy to send a plague upon Egypt in this day and age...

But what makes such an act moral or immoral?

Nihilist Virus · Feb 23, 2021

Oompa Loompa said:
Bare with me for a second. The point that I was making is that it is impossible for morality to be anything but relative in a secular world view. But I'd wager that you do not believe objective morality exists. Rather, you are challenging the assertion made by Christians by pointing out some hypocrisy. Is that correct?

I would not use the word hypocrisy here. It's an issue of contradiction.

2PhiloVoid · Feb 23, 2021

Nihilist Virus said:
"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.

Haven't we already been through more than one discussion on this with you before, NV?

Nihilist Virus · Feb 23, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
Haven't we already been through more than one discussion on this with you before, NV?

I'd wager your response was basically name dropping a bunch of obscure academics, followed by a word salad that I would need to untoss.

cvanwey · Feb 23, 2021

Tree of Life said:
It sounds like you're trying to present the Euthyphro Dilemma which is, indeed, a false dilemma.

You are not the first apologist to point this out. Yes, a true dilemma would be (A, and not A). But nothing in your response looks to solve the topic, for which you yourself brought up or presented? The "Euthyphro" demonstrates that either horn, (A or B), represents a problem. Apologists, like yourself, already acknowledge this reality. Hence, like to instead start by pointing point out that the mere title is not a "true dilemma", by definition But then, go on thinking you have presented an option C). Well, let's check it out below...

Tree of Life said:
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.

What does "Euthyphro's Problem" identify?

A): X is good because God commands X
B): God commands X because X is good.

If one opts for option A), then morality is arbitrary.
If one opts for option B), then God appeals to a standard outside Himself.

Your response above looks to land smack-dab upon option A), rather than to bring about an option C)?

cvanwey · Feb 23, 2021

Tree of Life said:
No

I take it, I'm not the only one here whom notices... When someone offers a direct rebuttal to one of your assertions/assumptions, you do not respond. Are we all to take this lack of response as a concession?

Morality is objective, except when it isn't

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Hide The Pain

Hide The Pain

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Hide The Pain

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Hide The Pain

I've already read the books you want burned.

Well-Known Member

Hide The Pain

I've already read the books you want burned.

Infectious idea

Critically Recalculating!

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency