On Moral Authorities

[Ignorant]

Erm... Sexual Abuse will always be immoral, for it is against God's will which is unchanging. So, it is based from God and not based from people.

It is not true that if well being and God's will are the same, then God is entirely irrelevant, for we can argue soundly that the source of well being is God. So, if there's no God, then there's no well being. But, there is God, per sound theistic arguments like the Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas. To deny the conclusions in Five Ways that God exists is to both deny things which are evident, (for the Five Ways starts with the things that are evident), and to deny laws of logic (for the Five Ways utilized valid logical forms).

But who is telling us what is god's will? ... 

Theologian can answer for himself, but I liked the question, so I will offer a short answer:

"God's will" is found in "what" we and other things are, as well as the relationships that exist between them. God's will is not an external list of rules floating somewhere out in the aether or contained only in a specific collection of texts.

Acting according to what-you-are, who-you-are, what-and-who-other-things-are, and how-other-things-relate-to-what-and-who-you-are = God's will. 

That requires the truth of what-you-are, who-you-are, what-and-who-other-things-are, and how-other-things-relate-to-what-and-who-you-are

AND

It requires desire and capacity (i.e. a will) of the goods that correspond to and bring about the truth which you know into reality through action.

The more your desires correspond to the truth about the goods goodness of these things, and the more your knowledge and desires are directed/translated through your actions by your will into reality, the more freely you are living God's will.

[robvalue]

Okay... where did you get that from? The problem facing plums like me is that you'll say one thing about "god's will", another religious person will say something totally different, and none of it is testable. It's the same with every aspect. People are free to just say whatever they want, as long as they make sure it can't be falsified.

[robvalue]

Also, I find it very strange whatever way you look at it. For some reasons God is interested in how closely we follow particular actions within the parameters of what is possible. So how should he set things up?

Question: How important is it to stop humans from exploring their reality?

Answer: Extremely important. Physical laws must make it so that a huge feat of engineering is needed to be able to travel above the ground even a small amount; and travelling away from their planet is made so difficult that it's almost impossible to move any significant distance. Just to be sure, make almost the entire reality toxic. They really must stay in the tiniest section of this gigantic place I've created for them.

Question: How important is it to stop humans raping and murdering each other?

Answer: Not important at all. Allow it to happen all the time.

[The Grand Nudger]

Acting according to what-you-are, who-you-are, what-and-who-other-things-are, and how-other-things-relate-to-what-and-who-you-are = God's will. 

God's just kind of plastered onto the end of this list of things that -aren't- about god.  If that's what gods will is meh, fine, but it being gods will seems to be irrelevant with respect to morality in any case.

[Tonus]

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.

It seems to me that the only law that is enumerated is "human positive law" unless the "divine positive law" is a reference to the Catechism.

I would not say that morality is based on laws.  Presumably, the laws are based on a reasoning out of moral issues.  They are a result, not a basis.

As for seeing God's will in nature, that would require some selective filtering, wouldn't it?  God's majesty is seen in a magnificent waterfall or a starry sky at night.  What does necrotizing fasciitis tell us about his will?  If those examples are incorrect or mistaken, is there a way that we can know that we are seeing God's will in nature?

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

But the laws and acts themselves were or would have been moral, wouldn't they?  God can act --or demand that others act-- in direct opposition to the standard of morality without committing --or causing to be committed-- an immoral act, yes?

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.

My point is that an action cannot be objectively immoral if there are exceptions.  If killing is wrong except when God commands it, then there are times when killing is not wrong.  Because the morality of an action is automatically right when God commits or commands that action, there is a specific state where any action can be moral or immoral.  Therefore no action can be objectively moral or immoral.

[Edwardo Piet]

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".

Either that or:

"Isn't it funny how everything I think is moral also happens to be what God Himself ™ endorses? Of course, if He Himself ™ did think murder was a good thing then that would be just swell... because He Himself ™ would say so."

[Ignorant]

Okay... where did you get that from? [1] The problem facing plums like me is that you'll say one thing about "god's will", another religious person will say something totally different, and none of it is testable. [2] It's the same with every aspect. People are free to just say whatever they want, as long as they make sure it can't be falsified. [3]

1) The acceptance of a sort of realism that includes participated being. If you are what-you-are because God wills that you be just-that-thing and not some other thing, then what-you-are tells you about what God wills for your life. It's a philosophical conclusion.

2) Well, you may not be able to test it in a lab (maybe someone smarter than me could figure a way to do so?), but you can put it to the test in your own human experience. I've tried other ways of understanding God's will, and while containing some truth, they were inadequate in explaining a lot of my experiences of life. What I hold now has been the best way of accounting for most of my experiences. It isn't perfect, but I haven't found a more adequate account yet.

3) I dunno, maybe its more about adequacy of explanation versus falsifiable hypotheses. Until we are able to quantify or identify measures of moral experience, we may just have to make due with adequacy.

[Ignorant]

Acting according to what-you-are, who-you-are, what-and-who-other-things-are, and how-other-things-relate-to-what-and-who-you-are = God's will. 

God's just kind of plastered onto the end of this list of things that -aren't- about god. [1] If that's what gods will is meh, fine, but it being gods will seems to be irrelevant with respect to morality in any case. [2]

1) Right, because it was a previously admitted short answer to the question "Who is telling us what is God's will?". Who is telling us? Everything around us. If you deny that there is a god or that his will is manifest in creation, then you still have the realities which you do accept as real to guide your life.

2) At this point, yes it is irrelevant. You don't need to know that God exists or even that there is such a thing as God's will to live a decent and rationally good life. <= Please read that again because I know  theists usually come here saying the exact opposite. Even if you deny the "= God's will", there is still all of those realities (e.g. what-you-are etc.) showing you how to lead a decent and good life.

[Ignorant]

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".

Either that or:

"Isn't it funny how everything I think is moral also happens to be what God Himself ™ endorses? Of course, if He Himself ™ did think murder was a good thing then that would be just swell... because He Himself ™ would say so."

Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?

[Edwardo Piet]

I know what dilemma you are referring to... but it's a false dichotomy.

The answer is "what gods?"