The Moral Argument

[anonymous person]

The reasoning still stands. I didn't mean if He added one more person right now. I mean if He could design a world with 10 billion souls that went to heaven, or a world with 20 billion souls that went to Heaven, wouldn't He make the world with 20 instead of 10? If he only makes 10, that's 10 billion good deeds He could have done, but chose not to without a "good" reason.

The answer to this question is no. I got that answer by looking at the world He did make, indeed this world. There will be a finite number of souls that go to heaven. Let's say the number is 1 billion. Since God has created a world wherein 1 billion go to heaven, then it necessarily follows that He has not created a world wherein 2 billion go to heaven. Therefore it follows that God's nature does not require Him to create a world with a particular number of finite goods i.e. 2 billion over 1 billion. He could create a world with just two people in it if He wanted.

Good question though. Very good.

So the world is the way we see it, and is populated by the people that are here, to the capacity that it is, with the history and future that it has, because it is the best possible world.

No I do not think this is the best possible world God could make. I do not think there even is any such thing. Once again, "best possible world" implies that there is a maximum value or a maximum world such that none could be greater.

Look at it this way for a moment. In the absence of any possible world, you have the Triune God existing eternally and necessarily, and is of infinite value in and of Himself. Therefore if God creates any good distinct from himself that good does not increase the overall value of the world because God is already of infinite value. The addition of those goods don't increase the overall value of the world because it is already infinitely valuable.

Any number plus infinity is still infinity. God existing necessarily gives whatever world He creates the infinite value it has, not the many goods He may create in that world. Thus there is no ceiling or limit or maximum value that can be reached when it comes to the quantity of good in any possible world, for any possible world will contain God, an eternally existing being of infinite value.

Doing it differently from the start would make it less than perfect and would have less good come as a result of it.

Or can God simply not do something that is "good" because He doesn't feel like it?

Exactly. Although the word feeling may be a little misleading.

God creating our world was an act of grace. Nothing constrained Him to create. Nothing forced Him to create. He created of His own volition.

As Dr. Craig states:

I think here what we would say is that God's decision to create a universe is an act of God's grace. It is something that is undertaken freely by God simply as an expression of his goodness; not something that he had to do. He did it for the benefit of created beings, that they could enjoy the incommensurable good of fellowship with God, a source of infinite value and love. So creation like salvation is purely an act of grace.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/two-arguments-against-god#ixzz45OS8dxGs

 

[Ana the Ist]

Missed the first quote and I'm adding to my response.
WE don't all agree that torturing a baby for fun is bad? We can't agree on that? We can't agree that lying other than to save someone's feelings or life is bad? We all can't agree that rape of babies is bad?

If I'm to assume that under some circumstances these things are happening...then why wouldn't I assume that the person doing them doesn't agree with your moral view of these behaviors? Do you think that someone who has fun torturing babies thinks it's bad to do? Probably not, right? So clearly...we don't all agree.

Furthermore, since when does agreement between the opinions of people create an objective fact? If everyone agreed that the earth was flat...would that make it objectively flat?

Ok. If a man decides that another man is unfit to live and thinks he is justified in thinking this, does that make it good or can we all agree it is bad?

This is a rather broad example...frankly this happens all the time. It's called a death sentence. One man (a judge) thinks another man (a convicted criminal) is unfit to live and that he's justified in making that decision. People argue over whether or not this is moral all the time.

 

[anonymous person]

Wonderful...taking it off the table is exactly the point. My opinion on any specific moral behavior can't possibly prove or disprove objective morality. My opinion can only relate to subjective morality (since any discussion of my opinion is a discussion of my subjective beliefs).

You are begging the question that moral values and duties are subjective. You cannot object to premise 2 of the moral argument by begging the question for its contradictory.

If you told me you thought that two and two was four and I said that is just your subjective opinion, what would your response be?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I used the phrase "regardless of what anyone thinks".

Did you see that phrase? That implies objectivity, or human independency, not subjective human dependency.

To convey this notion in other areas, we say things like 2+2=4 regardless of what anyone thinks about the matter.

We say that Raleigh is the capital city of North Carolina regardless of what anyone thinks.

We say that North America is a continent consisting of three countries regardless of what anyone thinks.

All of these propositions are objectively true. Their truth is NOT DEPENDENT on what anyone thinks. The propositions would be true even if every human was brainwashed into thinking they were false.

Likewise, when I say that the Al-Qaeda men were wrong regardless of what anyone thinks, I am talking about a moral fact.

Do you understand?

I totally understand what you mean by "objective". Here's the problem...

You started off by asking for what I think. You said "blah blah blah if you think it's wrong regardless of blah blah blah"...you're specifically referring to what I think.

What I "think" is always going to be a subjective opinion unless it's something that I can prove as an objective fact that exists regardless of what I think.

So when you go about showing something to be "objectively immoral or moral" you should be able to do so without appealing to what anyone thinks. Just like you can prove that 2+2=4 whether or not I think it does.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are begging the question that moral values and duties are subjective. You cannot object to premise 2 of the moral argument by begging the question for its contradictory.

Do you want me to post the definition of "subjective" for you? When you ask me what I think...you're by definition asking for my subjective opinion.

If you told me you thought that two and two was four and I said that is just your subjective opinion, what would your response be?

I can prove it to you objectively. Then I would go about doing just that...the very thing that you can't seem to do with objective morals.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are begging the question that moral values and duties are subjective. You cannot object to premise 2 of the moral argument by begging the question for its contradictory.

If you told me you thought that two and two was four and I said that is just your subjective opinion, what would your response be?

Here, just for future reference...the first definition of "subjective" that I came across...

"
adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective )."

Do you understand why when you ask for what I think...you're by definition asking for a subjective opinion?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Anonymous Person would disagree with you on this. He specifically said that we get objective morals from god's commands.

I guess he'll take that up with me.

I would say that they agree on their opinions. It's really no more difficult than explaining why the vast majority of men prefer big bouncy boobies...that doesn't make them objectively good.

Ok, if it is just about opinions yours and theirs are no more valid or "right" than ours...agreed?

Besides, I'm only outraged when it happens under certain circumstances. In some circumstances...I'm not outraged at all.

What circumstances produce outrage and what types of circumstances do not?

You're making a different objective moral argument than the one I addressed. Would you mind stating your argument for objective morals in full so I can address it?

I believe that objective morality exists and that every human's have an innate sense of right and wrong. I believe that objective moral values exist as well as our free will to live by them or to twist or divert them but that even then right and wrong do exist regardless. I believe that there is no binding moral system that accounts for these moral values or explains how objective moral values exist without God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If I'm to assume that under some circumstances these things are happening...then why wouldn't I assume that the person doing them doesn't agree with your moral view of these behaviors? Do you think that someone who has fun torturing babies thinks it's bad to do? Probably not, right? So clearly...we don't all agree.

Does having this person believe it is a good thing to do make it good?

Furthermore, since when does agreement between the opinions of people create an objective fact? If everyone agreed that the earth was flat...would that make it objectively flat?

You do think that objective facts exist, right? Objective moral values exist whether or not all people agree or not. Hitler's opinion was that he was morally right but just because he thought it was morally right doesn't mean it was. We innately know that it was immoral. His opinion doesn't change the objective fact that it was immorally wrong.

This is a rather broad example...frankly this happens all the time. It's called a death sentence. One man (a judge) thinks another man (a convicted criminal) is unfit to live and that he's justified in making that decision. People argue over whether or not this is moral all the time.

Those people that argue over whether or not this person should be put to death doesn't negate the innate moral fact that the convicted criminal was wrong.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ok, if it is just about opinions yours and theirs are no more valid or "right" than ours...agreed?

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "valid". If you mean "objectively true"....then yes, all moral opinions are equal in that way. If you mean "worthy of consideration"...then no, I consider my opinions and the opinions of those I love and respect first (or with higher regard) than the opinions of a total stranger.

What circumstances produce outrage and what types of circumstances do not?

I suppose all the children murdered in the bombing of Hiroshima would be a good example. Abortions would be another (if you consider those children). I can probably come up with more if you really want...but why? Why can't we use more common, everyday, regular type moral situations for these discussions instead of these extreme examples?

I believe that objective morality exists and that every human's have an innate sense of right and wrong. I believe that objective moral values exist as well as our free will to live by them or to twist or divert them but that even then right and wrong do exist regardless. I believe that there is no binding moral system that accounts for these moral values or explains how objective moral values exist without God.

That's not uncommon amongst christians who believe in objective morality. The problem as I see it...is demonstrating these objective morals exist. How can you even begin to do that?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Does having this person believe it is a good thing to do make it good?

Do you mean "objectively good"? Isn't that how you were attempting to prove objective morality a moment ago? By appealing to what people believe?

You do think that objective facts exist, right? Objective moral values exist whether or not all people agree or not. Hitler's opinion was that he was morally right but just because he thought it was morally right doesn't mean it was. We innately know that it was immoral. His opinion doesn't change the objective fact that it was immorally wrong.

Yes I believe in objective facts. We can demonstrate objective facts though...we can't seem to do that with morality. I understand that you believe that everyone innately knows what is objectively good and bad...but I don't see how you can reconcile the widespread disagreement that we have regarding these moral positions on so many many topics.

Those people that argue over whether or not this person should be put to death doesn't negate the innate moral fact that the convicted criminal was wrong.

I thought you were arguing that the person killing them is wrong. You're saying it's right to justifiably end someone's life then?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "valid". If you mean "objectively true"....then yes, all moral opinions are equal in that way. If you mean "worthy of consideration"...then no, I consider my opinions and the opinions of those I love and respect first (or with higher regard) than the opinions of a total stranger.

So all opinions are "objectively true"?

I suppose all the children murdered in the bombing of Hiroshima would be a good example.

Why does this not cause outrage in you and the OT killing of the children you call atrocities?

Abortions would be another (if you consider those children).

Why is this something in your opinion does not outrage you? What are they but children?

I can probably come up with more if you really want...but why? Why can't we use more common, everyday, regular type moral situations for these discussions instead of these extreme examples?

Because when discussing objective morality most atheists and unbelievers like to point to the Bible and the extreme examples there to argue with.

That's not uncommon amongst christians who believe in objective morality. The problem as I see it...is demonstrating these objective morals exist. How can you even begin to do that?

You do realize that there are many non-Christians that believe in objective morality, right?

 

[Moral Orel]

I think here what we would say is that God's decision to create a universe is an act of God's grace. It is something that is undertaken freely by God simply as an expression of his goodness; not something that he had to do. He did it for the benefit of created beings, that they could enjoy the incommensurable good of fellowship with God, a source of infinite value and love. So creation like salvation is purely an act of grace.

So then God's goodness only constrains Him from doing evil, but choosing to not do good, for no reason at all, is not evil in the slightest. God could have created a world in which everyone ends up in Hell with no chance of ending up anywhere else (or even nowhere for that matter). When this all started we were talking about why God had to have all the Amalekite's slaughtered. You said that He had to do it because of it being part of His nature even though He didn't want to. But now it seems as though He could have done nothing and His nature would have been totally fine with that.

So which is it? Can God do nothing when He has the opportunity to do good, or must He do good? If He is simply restrained from doing evil, then why say that His nature is "goodness" and not that there is simply no evil in Him? I thought we were on to something, but you seem to have gone backwards now.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you mean "objectively good"? Isn't that how you were attempting to prove objective morality a moment ago? By appealing to what people believe?

I mean good. If the person doing it thinks it is good does than make it good?

Yes I believe in objective facts. We can demonstrate objective facts though...we can't seem to do that with morality. I understand that you believe that everyone innately knows what is objectively good and bad...but I don't see how you can reconcile the widespread disagreement that we have regarding these moral positions on so many many topics.

But we do agree about the Objective moral values such as murder is bad (murder being unjustified killing)lying is bad, rape is bad. Slavery is bad. Torturing babies for fun is bad. We might have those that ignore this basic innate moral compass, or twist it to get what is desired and not feel bad about it, but it is still there. People disagree because they have free will and can override these objective moral facts.

I thought you were arguing that the person killing them is wrong. You're saying it's right to justifiably end someone's life then?

I was. You are the one that brought up the disagreement in ending a criminal's life.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So all opinions are "objectively true"?

No. Have I been unclear on my position in some way? Morals are opinions...not facts. They have no objective basis.

Why does this not cause outrage in you and the OT killing of the children you call atrocities?

I'm comfortable with the reasoning behind it. I don't know what you're referring to about the OT...I've never brought it up.

Why is this something in your opinion does not outrage you? What are they but children?

I don't think someone not ready to be a mother should be a mother. Not every life has value to me.

Because when discussing objective morality most atheists and unbelievers like to point to the Bible and the extreme examples there to argue with.

I don't! I often disagree with atheists on topics...this can be one of them. How about this moral behavior....

You're at the cash register purchasing a soda. The cost comes to 1.01$...and you decide to take a penny from the "take a penny leave a penny" tray to pay for your soda....even though you know you have a penny in your pocket. Is this good or bad? Right or wrong?

You do realize that there are many non-Christians that believe in objective morality, right?

Yes but they don't usually frame the argument as you have...and I disagree with them as well.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I mean good. If the person doing it thinks it is good does than make it good?

To that person who thinks it's good...it's good. This is weird question. It's like asking me if someone thinks vanilla is tasty...is vanilla tasty? It is to that person.

But we do agree about the Objective moral values such as murder is bad (murder being unjustified killing)lying is bad, rape is bad. Slavery is bad. Torturing babies for fun is bad. We might have those that ignore this basic innate moral compass, or twist it to get what is desired and not feel bad about it, but it is still there. People disagree because they have free will and can override these objective moral facts.

I can probably come up with circumstances where I would find those behaviors acceptable...you probably would too.

I was. You are the one that brought up the disagreement in ending a criminal's life.

Well I'm thoroughly lost now...why don't we use my moral example since I've fully fleshed it out? Generalization doesn't work well in this conversation.

 

[quatona]

No.

The point is clear. If left to our own devices, we are left making best guesses as to what the "greater good" will be. The whole history of applied/situational ethics and the debates and the arguments and the tried and abandoned ethical systems support this.

If we follow God's commands, a God who sees and knows all and who is the Summum Bonum, then we can be confident that the things we do are really for the greater good.

None of this has anything to do with knowing objective moral values and duties exist. Just because a guy does not know what all of the ramifications are of his actions and how they would work together to accomplish some end to which he by virtue of his finitude is not privy, it does not follow that he cannot know if raping a child is wrong, for example.

Except when you start justifying such things with reference to the "summum bonum".

 

[quatona]

Do you think if Hitler and Stalin were killed when they were babies rather than live and kill millions that would be a moral or good thing?

Well, apparently God didn´t command anyone to kill them. So their existence obviously added to the "summum bonum" - so killing them would have been evil.

 

[quatona]

You are begging the question that moral values and duties are subjective. You cannot object to premise 2 of the moral argument by begging the question for its contradictory.

If you told me you thought that two and two was four and I said that is just your subjective opinion, what would your response be?

I would walk you through it, epistemologically. I woulnd´t say epistemology doesn´t matter, and just refer to a beyond-entity as the ontological explanation that there must be some correct (even though unknowable)answer.

 

[quatona]

A defense of premise two does not entail providing an epistemological thesis for objective moral values and duties either. For a defense of two, one need simply furnish at least one moral value and or duty which the recipient of the argument agrees is objective.

....then go for it. So far you haven´t managed to do so (unless you confuse "From my human pov, I strongly and vehemently disapprove of it" for "It´s objectively evil."
Even more importantly, in lack of a workable epistemology of "good/evil" the affirmation "It´s objectively evil" would be the person rashing to conclusions. So their subjective opinion as to what´s "objectively evil" would be baseless.
Without a working epistemology of "good/evil" the opinion of a person as to what´s "objectively good/evil" doesn´t help your argument. You are putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do you think if Hitler and Stalin were killed when they were babies rather than live and kill millions that would be a moral or good thing?

Baby murder? Time assassination? Immoral. Thank you for playing.

How would you feel if a nation today went around exterminating babies because they thought that they might grow up to attack their nation? Imagine hearing this in the news today. They would likely be charged with war crimes, possibly genocide. Would you defend that nation?


eudaimonia,

Mark