On Moral Authorities

[theologian]

Funny how people can tell god what he is and isn't allowed to make "moral".

The common religious mantra: "I'll do what god says as long as I was going to do it anyway".

I think that is not true the people are the ones who tell God what is moral. How did you that the people are the ones telling God what is moral?

1. First, right and wrong are not made, for right and wrong are based in being with God or being against God, and God obviously is not made, instead He is the maker.

What on earth do you mean right and wrong are not made, you told me earlier, in reference to moral rules, that god created everything objective?  So what did god make, again?  

Not the moral rules, after all, apparently...objective or otherwise. [1]

Second, to change what is right and wrong is not an ability, but an imperfection, for unchanging is more perfect than what is changing.

It's an inability of god, as you describe it, regardless of whether or not changing it would be imperfection, this is an objection of convenience. [2]  

So, sexual abuse being wrong is due to being against God Whom is Love, for what His Will and Himself are just one, and He wills what is good, and willing the good is love (and so we know that God wills Himself), and sexual abuse is obviously not love, for sexual abuse is not willing the good, for sexual abuse is against freedom of the abused, and being free is the nature of man, and the nature of man is from God.

If there were no god, all of those statements above about why sexual abuse is wrong would still be equally true, to you, I assume?  [3]

2. Thank you for your explanation. Let's see. I'll show here what I have understood from your explanation and please let me know if I have understood it correctly.


What you are trying to say here is that there's already objective moral standard and God's opinion is just that, and so God's opinion is not really objective but also subjective.

That's not what -I'm- trying to say, lol, no.  [3]

However, how do we know that there's already moral standard apart from God? It seems to me that that is the starting point of your objection that I am not consistent regarding my subjective and objective labeling of terms here.

That has nothing to do with why you were inconsistent.  It's english, and not god...that I'm discussing in wondering why you would use certain words as you do, lol. [4]

On the other hand, I know that what is right is one with God, for God is the end of man whom can know and love the truth and the good respectively, and the true end is what is right, just as the end of the eye is seeing, so what is right for the eye is to see.

You believe, you don't know.  Which is fine, btw, but it helps to be accurate.  [5]

Now, God is objective, and if God and what is right are one, then moral standard is indeed objective and so apart from God, there cannot be a moral standard. Hence, the problem for atheist asking for just and moral action which is due to ending up imposing their own opinion, for again, if there is no God, then there is no objective morality, and hence only subjective morality and therefore just an opinion.

You told me, just above, that sexual abuse was an affront to freedom, and affront mans nature, that it was against love, that it was not..therefore, good.  Do these statements become any less objective than you thought they were before, just because the word god is omitted?  These are, ofc, just some of the things "the atheist" might say regarding the moral status of sexual abuse.  Are these, then, objective human opinions?  I certainly think they are, even though I may not refer to -exactly- what you've referred to.  They seem to be moral facts of the matter without any need of reference to a god.  

"That's like...just your opinion, man".....?  Ofc it isn't.  I neither made sexual abuse wrong, nor could I make it right.  It may have to do with my nature, or the nature of sexual abuse, it may have to do with the nature of freedom or of love, in short, every argument you offered for "god" above applies equally to -me- and my opinion on the matter.  That it's just my opinion is yet another contradictory objection of convenience.  [6]

Therefore, it seems to me that your objection to my arguments here stems from the proposition that what is right and what is God are separate which in turn begs the question how to we know that there is an objective moral standards apart from God.

My objection to your argument actually stemmed from your poor grasp of english and atrocious word use choices. [7]

Well, do you have an answer for that which will end the question begging which we know a kind of fallacy?

Firstly, that's not actually what question begging means...lol..secondly,if it were, you've already explained it up above for me....lol?

In summary, you're attempting to evade the problems with your previous arguments by picking some other fight.  Opining that there cannot be morality, as you conceptualize it, apart from god.  Not only is this wrong, I don;t know why -you- would believe it, since you're more than capable of offering a description of it...and did so in the very post in which you objected to it as question begging.[8]

1. Morality then is both made and not made in different sense. It is made in the sense of being a means and it is not made in the sense of being an end. That is so, because moral actions depend on nature, and nature is made by God, while the end of moral actions is God Himself, Whom is obviously not made.

2. I don't understand what you meant with objection of convenience. Care to demonstrate? Further, being unable to change morality is so compatible with relating morality to God as an end, for if God is the end of morality and God is unchanging, then it follows that nothing can change morality.

3. So, what are you trying to say then?

4. Well, that is simple. Whatever comes solely from the human person are subjective, but whatever comes from God or in God are objective.

5. Care to demonstrate why I believe what I believe regarding morality yet don't know?

6. You got it right that you may want to reference the wrongness of sexual abuse to the nature of man and nature of love etc. However, if we further ask, why do you refer the rightness or the wrongness of actions to nature? If there's no God, it will just be an arbitrary choice again. Hence, without God, there could not be an objective moral standard.

7. I think I'm clear here to prove that even if one relates the goodness or the wrongness of an action to the nature, which is objective, the question why it has to be referred to nature, without appealing to God, will make again morality subjective. Hence, if there is no God, then there will be no objective moral standard.

8. The question begging I was referring doesn't matter anymore, if I am wrong to assume that what you are pointing out is my inconsistency regarding the separation of objective moral standard and God, as what you are really pointing at is that what's the difference regarding explaining morality with or without God. Simple. If there's no God, even appealing to nature will make morality subjective, because one may ask that why appeal to nature and how about not appealing to it. But if there's God, it will be easy to know that what is moral is what makes us keep going to Him Whom is our true end, and so we can appeal to nature objectively, for nature obviously comes from God.

On the contrary: Morality is based on laws, which are Divine Positive Law, Natural Law and Human Positive Law. But, Natural Law is based from human reason seeing God's will in nature. Therefore, morality is based on human reason too.

Where is each of these laws described and enumerated?  What do you mean by "seeing God's will in nature"? [1]

I answer that: The case with Abraham and the Mosaic Law regarding Sabbath are not basis of morality. For, the purpose of those instances are to proclaim the truth to be revealed.

I'm not sure I get this.  Those actions were not moral or immoral because they were being used to preview some future event or lesson?  I don't see how that affects how right or wrong they are.  If the ends justify the means, then morality can be bent to serve those ends.  I do not disagree with the concept-- a man who steals food to feed his starving children may be committing an immoral act with a moral goal.  But it's one way in which theft cannot be objectively immoral. [2]

Further, the complete meaning of the Old Testament passage are in Christ. But, the two cases you have mentioned are from the Old Testament and was not interpreted in Christ. Thus, what you have shown are not the complete meaning. But, every incomplete meaning from a non-authority breeds many error.

I don't see where this is relevant.  If morality is objective then good and bad are absolutes.  If they are not absolutes and actions require a consideration of what makes them good or bad that includes such things as context, you can reason them out without relying on God.  Again, it is his power which grants him the authority to state absolutes, not a reasoned examination of any particular action. [3]

1. Divine Positive Law are described and enumerated in Divine Revelation which is revealed through the Catholic Church. Natural Law can be found in Nature which is created by God. And, Human Positive Law, as long as it doesn't contradict law, can be followed and can be seen enumerated and describe in the Government Law of the land.

Seeing God's will in nature is obvious by seeing that nature is created by God. God can't contradict Himself.

2. What I meant there is that the two cases were not to be used as a standard of morality.

Theft can only be theft if the thing gotten is against the reasonable will of the owner. But, with the principle of universal destination of goods, no one must be starved. So the case of getting food for the starving are not theft. This does not affirm then that the end justifies the mean.

3. Well, our difference is here is whether what God has ordained and what can be known by human reason are exclusive or inclusive in terms of morality. You hold that is must be exclusive, and I hold that it can be both/and. Well, the fact that human reason can know what God has ordained by nature and by His revelation, it follows that it cannot be exclusive.

I think that most objections to an objective morality are more disagreement as to the sense in which a person means the term.  You'll find plenty of people willing to state -both- that sexual abuse is objectively morally wrong...while also acknowledging that morality -is- subjective.  For me, it hardly matters whether it's subjective or objective.  I certainly think that sexual abuse is wrong everywhere for everyone and at all times....but if a person insists that this is "just, like, your opinion...man" then yeah, sure...why not...I'll let em have it regardless of whether or not I agree on it being just my opinion - because, after all...it -is- my opinion.   OFC, after having said such a thing, I would doubt their moral agency, lol.

Too many words are wasted on subtle shifts in frames of reference.

The problem here is that once something has been categorised as sexual abuse, the judgement has already been made. Yet two people may not agree on what is and isn't abuse. I would be pretty sure you, I and most people on the forum would happily agree on what counts. But for our rape apologists and such, they have different ideas.

Does that disgust me? Absolutely. But if any progress is to be made, discussions must be had where this difference of opinion is challenged rather than dismissed. It may be there's just not enough common ground of course.

The case here is that atheist may feel the wrongness of sexual of abuse. But, feelings are subjective and are just there as indicated by nature. But, nature comes from God. So, without God, there can't be objective moral standard.

If someone needs to have that explained to them....-that- rape is bad...they do not possess moral agency and no amount of discussion will ever yield understanding.  You're trying to explain algebra to a rock.

No. It's just about whether you hold rape is bad a priori either because it's just an opinion which is subjective by denying God's existence, or by considering that God truly exist and therefore one can easily show how moral standards are objective too.