Where does morality come from?

[SonOfSophroniscus]

Hi brothers, I was just wondering as to the nature of ethics and thought of this.

 

[Chie]

Hi brothers, I was just wondering as to the nature of ethics and thought of this.

We know morality and ethics are in most of us. We can have these without a relationship with our Lord but Where there are lack in these, the Holy Spirit will lead us into the will of God concerning those that don't come natural to us if we will walk in the spirit.

 

[Piedpiper123]

God created us with a sense of right and wrong.

 

[dies-l]

Hi brothers, I was just wondering as to the nature of ethics and thought of this.

Even though I am not a Catholic, I kinda like Aquinas' take on the issue. The short answer is that God created us a basic sense of morality (the Natural Law). But, according to Aquinas, due to our sinfulness, our consciences become blurred, and we are not always able to judge absolute right and wrong (the Eternal Law) solely through our consciences. That is why God has revealed Himself to us and has direcly informed us through His revelation (the Word), and has explained to us those elements of morality that we may not be discern on our own (the Divine Law). I hope this helps. I apologize to any Catholics or Aquinas fans for any slight misinterpretations of the Treatise on Law; I am still trying to grasp it, but I think I have the basics down fairly well.

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

Ok, this makes sense. But there is a problem; having just looked into the Divine Command theory of morality, the Euthyphro dilemma poses a major problem. It runs like this:

If God tells us [or instills in us] what right and wrong are, are they right and wrong because he says so, or because those things simply *are* right or wrong? If the first, then right/wrong become arbitrary, and if the latter then we can God has nothing to do with what is actually right/wrong.

 

[dies-l]

Ok, this makes sense. But there is a problem; having just looked into the Divine Command theory of morality, the Euthyphro dilemma poses a major problem. It runs like this:

If God tells us [or instills in us] what right and wrong are, are they right and wrong because he says so, or because those things simply *are* right or wrong? If the first, then right/wrong become arbitrary, and if the latter then we can God has nothing to do with what is actually right/wrong.

I am not much a philospher type, but let me point out the problem that I see: It seems that the dilemma assumes that God and "right" are two distinct things. But, Christian teaching is that God is the right. That is to say that God doesn't create love, but rather that God is love. God does not create justice; God is justice. The same thing can be said of any moral value. Since God created everything, the nature of God is built into the nature of creation. The good in the temporal (Creation) is that which is most like God (the Eternal). Morality, therefore, is about seeking the good, seeking that which is most like God. As such, morality is intrinsically tied to God.

So, according to your dilemma, morality must be completely arbitrary. I don't quite understand why this would have to be so. Morality, i.e., to do the right thing, as I suggested before, is to conduct onself in such a way that is most like God. Right and wrong are not, therefore, arbitrary, but are intrinsically linked to who God is.

In light of this, the dilemma seems to rely on a belief that God is temporal, that is that he has a beginning, and that someone or something created God and instilled in God a certain set of values at the expense of another set of values. But, if God is etrernal, then there is no reason to ask, "why is God like this as opposed to some other way?" God just is the way He is. He created man in His image, to strive to be the way that God is, and He has instilled in us a nature that allows us to strive to be like Him. But, He has also instilled in us free will, which allows us to choose not to be like Him. And, since the beginning of Creation, we have in various ways and to various extents, chosen not to pursue Him complely.

So, I don't know if that adds anything. But, frankly, I don't understand the dilemma in the first place. I don't think that the options listed are the only two possible conclusions.

 

[Digit]

Ok, this makes sense. But there is a problem; having just looked into the Divine Command theory of morality, the Euthyphro dilemma poses a major problem. It runs like this:

If God tells us [or instills in us] what right and wrong are, are they right and wrong because he says so, or because those things simply *are* right or wrong? If the first, then right/wrong become arbitrary, and if the latter then we can God has nothing to do with what is actually right/wrong.

Can you explain why right/wrong become arbitrary if God defines them, as I am not following this.

Thanks,
Digit

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

Well, the response also becomes abundantly circular. If God says 'Do X', then is becomes morally 'good' to do X. Such as, throwing babies into rivers, patricide, etc.

 

[dies-l]

Well, the response also becomes abundantly circular. If God says 'Do X', then is becomes morally 'good' to do X. Such as, throwing babies into rivers, patricide, etc.

Still not following your reasoning. In order for morality to exist, there has to be a source. One person might say that their moraliy is determined by their own reasoning. Another might say that thier morality is determined by what the majority thinks is right. Christian teaching is that morality derives from (a) the One who created everything, including us, and (b) the One that has no beginning or end. This seems to me to be the least arbitrary source that one can choose to derive his or her morality from.

Also, I don't understand how this reasoning is circular. You say the reasoning goes: God says, "do X," and so "X" is morally good. There is no circle in ths reasoning. For this to be circular, you would also have to argue that God says do "X" because it is morally good. I, for one, never even implied such an argument.

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

There are a couple of problems if there are no moral values, as i) what is good is based upon God's whim, and when he created the world such things as rape/murder/theft might have been considered virtuous, and ii) it implies that calling God 'good' makes no sense whatsoever. There are others, check out the Euthyphro problem if you're interested.

Still not following your reasoning. In order for morality to exist, there has to be a source. One person might say that their moraliy is determined by their own reasoning. Another might say that thier morality is determined by what the majority thinks is right. Christian teaching is that morality derives from (a) the One who created everything, including us, and (b) the One that has no beginning or end. This seems to me to be the least arbitrary source that one can choose to derive his or her morality from.

Yes, but we have no way of relying on what God wants us to do bar referring to the bible, which can only be defended on circular grounds.

Also, I don't understand how this reasoning is circular. You say the reasoning goes: God says, "do X," and so "X" is morally good. There is no circle in ths reasoning. For this to be circular, you would also have to argue that God says do "X" because it is morally good. I, for one, never even implied such an argument.

 

[dies-l]

There are a couple of problems if there are no moral values, as i) what is good is based upon God's whim, and when he created the world such things as rape/murder/theft might have been considered virtuous, and ii) it implies that calling God 'good' makes no sense whatsoever. There are others, check out the Euthyphro problem if you're interested.



Yes, but we have no way of relying on what God wants us to do bar referring to the bible, which can only be defended on circular grounds.

I'm still not following. It doesn't seem that you are following me either. Morality is not something that is decided at the "whim" of God. Morality goes to the very nature of who God is. The specific applications may change over time, not because God has changed, but because conditions change. If you want to discuss this further, please provide Biblical examples of moral applications in which God appears to condone rape, murder, and theft.

Also, you still leave me wondering how any of this is circular. God says X by communicating that in His word; therefore, X is morally good. To be circular you would have to still have to show that God said X, because it is morally good. The fact that we can know that God said X because it is in His Word doesn't make the argument any more circular.

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

We can only know that it is God's word through the Bible, and the Bible says that it is true because it is God's word, would be a better example.

 

[dies-l]

We can only know that it is God's word through the Bible, and the Bible says that it is true because it is God's word, would be a better example.

But, I don't think that most Christians believe the Bible is God's Word just because it says it is. If this were the reasoning that we were to use, then we would also have to accept other "versions of God's Word" as well, such as the Quran. Christians, at least the ones I know, generally believe that the Bible is God's Word for one or more of at least two reasons:

(1) Faith. We all have to start with some basic assumptions about life that can neither be proven nor disproven. The scientist, fo example, assumes that the scientific method is a valid means of getting at proof and that eveything that occurs in the world happens in a given way, at a given pace, and that whatever outside forces (e.g., God) that may be connected with Nature always work in measurable and predicatble ways. If not for these assumptions, there would be no basis for scientific research. One such assumption for Christians is that God revealed Himself to us through the Bible. All of these basic assumptions, whatever they might be, rely to some extent on faith. It is really impossible to know anything, without accepting, on faith, your most basic presuppositions.


(2) Experience. For many people who have had a personal experience with God, the God of the Bible is the most like the God that they have experienced. Therefore, they accept that the God of the Bible must be the real God.

I am sure there are many more extra-biblical reasons that people accept the authority of Scripture, but for the puposes of illustration, here are two. But, I think you should get the point: for most of us who accept the moral authority of the Bible, the reason that we accept that authority is not simply because it says so. Therefore, I am still looking for a circular argument in this whole equation.

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

This very response begs the question. I didn't ask 'why Christians believe the Bible', re-read it please good sir.

But, I don't think that most Christians believe the Bible is God's Word just because it says it is. If this were the reasoning that we were to use, then we would also have to accept other "versions of God's Word" as well, such as the Quran. Christians, at least the ones I know, generally believe that the Bible is God's Word for one or more of at least two reasons:

(1) Faith. We all have to start with some basic assumptions about life that can neither be proven nor disproven. The scientist, fo example, assumes that the scientific method is a valid means of getting at proof and that eveything that occurs in the world happens in a given way, at a given pace, and that whatever outside forces (e.g., God) that may be connected with Nature always work in measurable and predicatble ways. If not for these assumptions, there would be no basis for scientific research. One such assumption for Christians is that God revealed Himself to us through the Bible. All of these basic assumptions, whatever they might be, rely to some extent on faith. It is really impossible to know anything, without accepting, on faith, your most basic presuppositions.


(2) Experience. For many people who have had a personal experience with God, the God of the Bible is the most like the God that they have experienced. Therefore, they accept that the God of the Bible must be the real God.

I am sure there are many more extra-biblical reasons that people accept the authority of Scripture, but for the puposes of illustration, here are two. But, I think you should get the point: for most of us who accept the moral authority of the Bible, the reason that we accept that authority is not simply because it says so. Therefore, I am still looking for a circular argument in this whole equation.

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

What makes the Bible true?

But, I don't think that most Christians believe the Bible is God's Word just because it says it is. If this were the reasoning that we were to use, then we would also have to accept other "versions of God's Word" as well, such as the Quran. Christians, at least the ones I know, generally believe that the Bible is God's Word for one or more of at least two reasons:

(1) Faith. We all have to start with some basic assumptions about life that can neither be proven nor disproven. The scientist, fo example, assumes that the scientific method is a valid means of getting at proof and that eveything that occurs in the world happens in a given way, at a given pace, and that whatever outside forces (e.g., God) that may be connected with Nature always work in measurable and predicatble ways. If not for these assumptions, there would be no basis for scientific research. One such assumption for Christians is that God revealed Himself to us through the Bible. All of these basic assumptions, whatever they might be, rely to some extent on faith. It is really impossible to know anything, without accepting, on faith, your most basic presuppositions.


(2) Experience. For many people who have had a personal experience with God, the God of the Bible is the most like the God that they have experienced. Therefore, they accept that the God of the Bible must be the real God.

I am sure there are many more extra-biblical reasons that people accept the authority of Scripture, but for the puposes of illustration, here are two. But, I think you should get the point: for most of us who accept the moral authority of the Bible, the reason that we accept that authority is not simply because it says so. Therefore, I am still looking for a circular argument in this whole equation.

 

[dies-l]

What makes the Bible true?

You seem to be making a distinction between "why do you think X is true?" and "why is X true?" But, where we substitute "the Bible" for X, I think have already answered your second question and shown that the answer does not rely on circular reasoning. If not, here it is: The Bible is true because, God, who is Truth, inspried it.

Now, it seems that you find your circular reasoning in an obvious follow up question, which is "Why do you believe that God is Truth?" And, here it is that we come to the point of presupposition, i.e., faith. The fact that God is Truth is a starting point, which as far as I can tell, must be taken on faith, in much the same way that scientists must accept on faith, certain notions of how nature works in order to even begin a scientific analysis.

Another way the discussion could go is to enter into the rather cynical and dangerous Enlightenment notion that no one can really know anything. Because one response to your question is to ask "what makes anything true?" According to this notion, since, with any discussion, we inevitably come to a point of presupposition, and in order to know something, we must be able to prove every fact that is necessary to prove the thing we are starting to prove, including our presuppostions, we can never know anything for which there is an underlying presupposition. But, since presuppostitions are a necessary element of knowledge, it seems we can never really know anything.

But, I have no problem accepting the fact that there are some things that we can only know, by accepting them on faith. Therefore, there is no dilemma in accepting God as the basis of absolute morality and no dilemma in accepting the Bible as God's revelation of who he is.

 

[Chie]

What makes the Bible true?

Trust, a person will not live what they do not believe.

 

[Simonline]

Hi brothers, I was just wondering as to the nature of ethics and thought of this.

All ligitimate morality and ethics are based on absolute Truth. God Himself (His Absolute and Immutable Nature and Character) is the sole and exclusive basis of all morality.

See: Right From Wrong by Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler http://www.amazon.com/Right-Wrong-Josh-McDowell/dp/0849936047

See also: The New Tolerance by Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler http://www.amazon.com/New-Tolerance...0842370889/ref=pd_sim_b_4/102-3832033-4558528

Simonline.

 

[*Starlight*]

I think that the morality of an action is based on the way this action affects people and the world... if it brings happiness or suffering, creation or destruction, love or hate...

I think that morality is very hard to define, and I don't think that my definition is perfect.... but it's one that makes the most sense to me.

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

Aye, I suggest you study the Euthyphro problem.

You seem to be making a distinction between "why do you think X is true?" and "why is X true?" But, where we substitute "the Bible" for X, I think have already answered your second question and shown that the answer does not rely on circular reasoning. If not, here it is: The Bible is true because, God, who is Truth, inspried it.

Now, it seems that you find your circular reasoning in an obvious follow up question, which is "Why do you believe that God is Truth?" And, here it is that we come to the point of presupposition, i.e., faith. The fact that God is Truth is a starting point, which as far as I can tell, must be taken on faith, in much the same way that scientists must accept on faith, certain notions of how nature works in order to even begin a scientific analysis.

Another way the discussion could go is to enter into the rather cynical and dangerous Enlightenment notion that no one can really know anything. Because one response to your question is to ask "what makes anything true?" According to this notion, since, with any discussion, we inevitably come to a point of presupposition, and in order to know something, we must be able to prove every fact that is necessary to prove the thing we are starting to prove, including our presuppostions, we can never know anything for which there is an underlying presupposition. But, since presuppostitions are a necessary element of knowledge, it seems we can never really know anything.

But, I have no problem accepting the fact that there are some things that we can only know, by accepting them on faith. Therefore, there is no dilemma in accepting God as the basis of absolute morality and no dilemma in accepting the Bible as God's revelation of who he is.