Source of Morality

[YDOAPS]

This is a question about sin. Is sin classified as sin solely due to God labeling it as such, or did God label sin as sin because it is sinful for an underlying reason?

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Sin is classified as:

Something that greatly increases the chance of harm to oneself, nature, someone else, or harm in general. It's a common sense thing. If God didn't make it such then people would have a far harder time following Him.

 

[Verv]

I would say both.

God said it was a sin and there was a reason it was a sin.

You are trying to manufacture a poll that says God's sanctioning isn't necessarily reasonable by making the only other choice appear as "because there is a reason," like choosing God is choosing the opposite of reason.

I do not like that. There is a reason and God recognized it.

I won't vote in this one.

 

[cantata]

None of the above.

 

[elcapitan]

Ah, yes, the age-old Euthyphro dilemma.

Frankly, I don't like the wording of the OP. "Sin" could be interpreted as being against the will of God by definition, even if the action was not "immoral" in any other way (e.g. eating the forbidden fruit).

I think it would be better to refer to morality in general.

In other words, are acts moral or immoral because:
1.God decides what is moral., or
2.The source of morality is external to God.

If you choose 1, then morality is arbitrary.
If you choose 2, then God is not necessary for morality.

As is usually the case with this sort of thing there are people who want it both ways:

I would say both.

God said it was a sin and there was a reason it was a sin.

But you can't have it both ways. If there is a "reason" that God decided what is moral, then the source of morality is external to God. period.

 

[cantata]

But you can't have it both ways. If there is a "reason" that God decided what is moral, then the source of morality is external to God. period.

QFT.

I love this problem. I also think it's rather interesting (and rather meaningless) when people say God is 'good'.

 

[The Nihilist]

I would say both.

doesn't work that way, euthyphro

 

[Poverello78]

The two possible answers are not mutually exclusive alternatives.

Your poll is a strawman.

 

[Beanieboy]

I live by the motto of "do what you will, but harm no one."
Love your neighbor as yourself is another way to say something similar.

I don't want someone to kill me, lie to me, steal my stuff, etc., and so I shouldn't do that to anyone else.

It's a simple concept, really. Unfortunately, when you bring into it, "What does the bible say about X", it moves from common sense to one of legaleze, and trying to justify that something that people are opposed to is ok because God says so, or something that people are not opposed to is wrong simply because, they claim, God says so.

Because of that, you will see nonChristians confused by Christians. Homosexuality, they will claim, is wrong, then see nothing wrong with working on the Saabath, saying that it doesn't count, or that because they believe, they are no longer held to the Law. The Law then becomes rather pointless, because you are only held to it if you don't believe, and not held to it if you do believe.

 

[Poverello78]

Ah, yes, the age-old Euthyphro dilemma.

Frankly, I don't like the wording of the OP. "Sin" could be interpreted as being against the will of God by definition, even if the action was not "immoral" in any other way (e.g. eating the forbidden fruit).

I think it would be better to refer to morality in general.

In other words, are acts moral or immoral because:
1.God decides what is moral., or
2.The source of morality is external to God.

If you choose 1, then morality is arbitrary.
If you choose 2, then God is not necessary for morality.

As is usually the case with this sort of thing there are people who want it both ways:

But you can't have it both ways. If there is a "reason" that God decided what is moral, then the source of morality is external to God. period.

This is not true either. There is no contrast between 'God' and 'morality'. God and morality are synonymous and neither changes.

You are taking metaphor literally, which is the cause of your false dilemma (i.e. "God says it is good, and therefore it is good" is a metaphor).

 

[Poverello78]

doesn't work that way, euthyphro

In fact, it does.

 

[quatona]

The two possible answers are not mutually exclusive alternatives.

Sure they are.

Your poll is a strawman.

To tell from your criticism, you actually didn´t mean to point out a "strawman" fallacy.

 

[The Nihilist]

This is not true either. There is no contrast between 'God' and 'morality'. God and morality are synonymous and neither changes.

You are taking metaphor literally, which is the cause of your false dilemma (i.e. "God says it is good, and therefore it is good" is a metaphor).

God is the same thing as morality? I'm pretty confident that's not in the bible, so you're going to have to explain and justify your claim

 

[Poverello78]

Sure they are.

To tell from your criticism, you actually didn´t mean to point out a "strawman" fallacy.

It is a strawman because it assumed that God is not real.

If God is real, then "because God said so" is a real reason; yet the poll makes it look as though a real reason and "because God said so" are mutually exclusive alternatives.

The poll is based on atheistic presupposition and is therefore moot.

 

[Poverello78]

God is the same thing as morality? I'm pretty confident that's not in the bible, so you're going to have to explain and justify your claim

I don't recall mentioning the Bible.

However, the Bible does say that God is good, and that God never changes.

What's missing?

 

[The Nihilist]

I don't recall mentioning the Bible.

However, the Bible does say that God is good, and that God never changes.

What's missing?

That's the most ridiculous attempt at an argument I've seen in a while. Why don't you try again?

 

[Poverello78]

That's the most ridiculous attempt at an argument I've seen in a while. Why don't you try again?

You can't refute the implications, so you resort to making fun?

Silly.

 

[cantata]

It is a strawman because it assumed that God is not real.

If God is real, then "because God said so" is a real reason; yet the poll makes it look as though a real reason and "because God said so" are mutually exclusive alternatives.

The poll is based on atheistic presupposition and is therefore moot.

Darn. From your first post I thought you were going to present a theologically interesting argument.

The question is about whether or not there are any contingent (or non-God) reasons for a particular act being a sin.

If you think that God's command makes things sin or not sin, that's fine. You will leave yourself open to the claim that God's commands are therefore arbitrary, however.

The straw man fallacy is when someone sets up an argument that their opponent never presented, which is easier for them to knock down than their opponent's actual argument. The OP does not specify an opponent or an argument, so this is not an example of the straw man fallacy.

 

[Poverello78]

Non Sequitur

"God's command" is metaphor.

Your argument is based on an archaic literalistic view of God being a man in the sky who is contrasted with "what He commands" (i.e. it is not good until God commands it), but that metaphor is merely a way of expressing what God actually is at all times--it was used by the people of that time to express Truth in a manner which they could understand.

This is an example of a strawman in that his supposed two mutually exclusive alternatives fail to offer a third alternative, which is both. He is attempting to make it look as though either God said it or there is an underlying reason; it is biased presupposition, as I pointed out previously.

 

[quatona]

It is a strawman because it assumed that God is not real.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
This site is a good starting point for getting information on logical fallacies.

If God is real, then "because God said so" is a real reason; yet the poll makes it look as though a real reason and "because God said so" are mutually exclusive alternatives.

No. If I am real and say "this is wrong", this doesn´t make it a real reason. It makes it a statement of really existing person/entity.
The question of the OP was pretty clear, and semantics trickery won´t help evading it.