God & Objective Morals

[FallentoReason]

Not exactly. Morality is not objective, but there is a consistent standard. Before it became a cliché, the WWJD idea had a lot of merit.

What's the "WWJD"?

For whatever you do in whatever role you serve, you will stand before the White Throne and be judged, which is actually a self-evaluation in comparison to the perfected love personified by Jesus Christ. So if you are a spy, were you a spy in the service of a cause you believed just or for the protection of the innocent, etc.? Your own judgment may be flawed if tainted by self-serving motives. But if your assessment is honest though misguided, I expect God to be merciful.

Interesting, but such a mechanism seems somewhat shaky. What if someone sincerely believes they are acting in a good way but it doesn't match up to Jesus' perfected love e.g. fighting for your life in self defence? I feel like there would be a plethora of contradictory situations if we say "objective morality" is such that:

I) P is acting morally right if P sincerely believes acting out x is good.
II) P's action must be reflective of Jesus' nature such that x reflects the perfected love of Jesus.

This is in fact a hybrid mechanism for morality where (I) is a general statement reflecting [secular] subjective morality and (II) is the objective standard that anchors (I) to a particular religion. The only problem is that we have an all too perfect (and cliché) example of someone who fitted this mould and exposed the flaws while still acting "morally good" according to the mechanism. This person is none other than *drum roll* Adolf Hitler; he sincerely believed he was doing something good because he was doing the work of the Lord.

It seems like a hybrid mechanism of morality is (and has been) the most lethal weapon against the interests of man in his endeavour to live with himself.

---

Does this external thing set the conditions that make it necessary for God to be the way he is?

The external does not set the necessary, no. It simply displays what is already internal.

So the external shows what is now once again the arbitrary attributes in the internal? Is God the definition of "illogical" by any chance, because I can't keep up with the intellectual dissonance!

And I haven't thought of anything that addresses the question between the relationship of Being and Good. I may have to... google it... =(

It's hard being the god of "God". My apologist days taught me that pretty early on...

[Tex]

The external does not set the necessary, no. It simply displays what is already internal.

So the external shows what is now once again the arbitrary attributes in the internal? Is God the definition of "illogical" by any chance, because I can't keep up with the intellectual dissonance!

I conceded that I cannot yet show "Good" with the Necessary Being necessarily, but I am not saying "Good" is not with the Necessary Being necessarily. I'm saying there is an external that we receive (specifically the "Good" in this argument), so we know there is God.

And I haven't thought of anything that addresses the question between the relationship of Being and Good. I may have to... google it... =(

No need to google! I think I thought something decent that I'd like you to cross examine (Thanks to Chad for inspiration).

Good is rational (thus objective) by means of "perfect relation". Bear with my strange terminology for a moment since I thought it at about 3:00 in the morning.

The "Good" is the same term I've been using. "Aim of moral action" is about as good of a definition as I can give it.

Reason is objective because, regardless of the individual, including God, the individual cannot change what is reasonable and unreasonable.

And finally "perfect relation" is to be something like "proper action" and the relationships I'm concerned with include the self, others, and God.

So, when acting morally, actions are reasonable. If a guy under you is slacking at work, it might be more reasonable to just bring the guy into your office and scold him for a bit than to fire him right out. Then again, if this isn't the first time, firing might be reasonable as well.

If your kids are being good, its reasonable to praise them. However, it's no longer so reasonable after they colored the entire wall with marker while you were cooking them dinner.

To self, health and safety. Eating too much, drinking too much, or dependency on anything unnecessary/harmful is against what is proper to one's self.

To God would be much like a friend in one sense and much like a King in another. Friends you are considerate towards, listen to advice, trust, etc. Kings you obey, revere, and contemplate. All these apply.

[Statler Waldorf]

Interesting thread.

[FallentoReason]

I conceded that I cannot yet show "Good" with the Necessary Being necessarily, but I am not saying "Good" is not with the Necessary Being necessarily. I'm saying there is an external that we receive (specifically the "Good" in this argument), so we know there is God.

So there is something external to God? Game over. God isn't the only eternal thing.

No need to google! I think I thought something decent that I'd like you to cross examine (Thanks to Chad for inspiration).

I appreciate the effort, but I can't quite understand what it is you're trying to establish here... all I can really respond to is the definitions you're using and my problems with them. Perhaps through clarifying these definitions, together we can better establish what you're trying to say.

The "Good" is the same term I've been using. "Aim of moral action" is about as good of a definition as I can give it.

By "aim" do you mean the end that the action is trying to achieve through the means?

Reason is objective because, regardless of the individual, including God, the individual cannot change what is reasonable and unreasonable.

Reason is subject to the individual i.e. subjective. Someone could think that buying a private island at a given price is reasonable but to me it would most likely be unreasonable. Therefore, contrary to what you said, I can change what is reasonable and unreasonable; in this case if I won one of those crazy lotteries that are in the couple of hundreds of millions of dollars, I might then think buying an island at a given price is reasonable.

So, when acting morally, actions are reasonable. If a guy under you is slacking at work, it might be more reasonable to just bring the guy into your office and scold him for a bit than to fire him right out. Then again, if this isn't the first time, firing might be reasonable as well.

If your kids are being good, its reasonable to praise them. However, it's no longer so reasonable after they colored the entire wall with marker while you were cooking them dinner.

To self, health and safety. Eating too much, drinking too much, or dependency on anything unnecessary/harmful is against what is proper to one's self.

To God would be much like a friend in one sense and much like a King in another. Friends you are considerate towards, listen to advice, trust, etc. Kings you obey, revere, and contemplate. All these apply.

So we have:

An action x is morally good if, and only if, it is reasonable given circumstance y.

A few objections I have:

1. Like I pointed out, something "reasonable" is very much subject to the person. Therefore, this isn't a model of objective morality (i.e. from God) but instead another secular philosophy on subjective morality.

2. This model is dependent on past events in order to determine what is a "morally good action". If we were all to spontaneously start basing our lives on this model, we actually wouldn't be justified in doing any action against someone else, because we wouldn't be able to say it was good/bad since there is no previous history to justify our action as being "reasonable".

3. A variation of (2): we wouldn't be able to say a criminal who robbed a bank did something morally bad. The robbing of the bank is simply the thing that now allows us to apply our model: given the circumstance that they robbed a bank, what is a reasonable action? Can you see how this model lags behind the present reality and requires an input based on the past? It doesn't allow for a decision to be made in the future -- not as a response to a past event -- but rather as an independent action.

4. A solution to (3) (i.e. being able to act morally good independent of the past) requires some sort of context, something external, much like the whole "necessity problem" that God seems to have. Such a solution would still make this model a subjective model of morality. An example of a possible solution to the criminal robbing a bank could be a modern day Robin Hood: the circumstance is that he lives in the slums and he doesn't want his neighbourhood to suffer from poverty, therefore it would be morally good (reasonable) to provide for them by robbing "the rich".

[Neo-Scholastic]

What's the "WWJD"?

It stands for "What Would Jesus Do". A few years back WWJD was a fad within Christian circles. You would see WWJD engraved on pendants and molded into plastic bracelets, etc. The idea was this. When confronted with tough situation (like a person in need or opportunities) you take a moment to reflect on how Jesus would have responded to your circumstances. It came from some recently rediscovered book.

I feel like there would be a plethora of contradictory situations if we say "objective morality" is such that:

I) P is acting morally right if P sincerely believes acting out x is good.
II) P's action must be reflective of Jesus' nature such that x reflects the perfected love of Jesus.

This is in fact a hybrid mechanism for morality where (I) is a general statement reflecting [secular] subjective morality and (II) is the objective standard that anchors (I) to a particular religion.

I get your concern about evaluating an action according to two sets of norms, which could conceivably be at odds with one another. One possible way to reconcile the two norms would involve a kind of verbal algebra that defines one word in terms of another. Also you must account for errors of human judgement resulting from ignorance, self-deception, and out-right denial. Perhaps something like this:

I) P [believes he] is acting morally right if P sincerely believes acting out x is [reflective of Jesus's love].
II) [For] P's action [to actually be moral it] must be reflective of Jesus' nature such that x reflects the perfected love of Jesus.

The biblical text doesn't say anything about 'Goodness Itself' or use any of the abstract philosophical language that normally seduces pseudo-intellectuals like me. Scripture describes Jesus as the Righteous Judge. So while we may attempt to justify our actions with human reasoning, all our errors will be exposed in the final analysis, i.e. Judgement Day. So the so-called 'good' that supremely evil people like AH, JS, and PP pursued will ultimately be revealed to them as the evil (or rather complete lack of humanity) that it is.

(BTW one of the interesting wrinkles of Swedenborg is the idea that only Jesus Christ is the one truly and fully human being, kinda like a Platonic idea. All the rest of us are finite in the sense that we lack some essential quality of humanity that prevents even the saved from full union with the Godhead)

[FallentoReason]

What's the "WWJD"?

It stands for "What Would Jesus Do". A few years back WWJD was a fad within Christian circles. You would see WWJD engraved on pendants and molded into plastic bracelets, etc. The idea was this. When confronted with tough situation (like a person in need or opportunities) you take a moment to reflect on how Jesus would have responded to your circumstances. It came from some recently rediscovered book.

Ah I see. Thanks for clarifying.

I feel like there would be a plethora of contradictory situations if we say "objective morality" is such that:

I) P is acting morally right if P sincerely believes acting out x is good.
II) P's action must be reflective of Jesus' nature such that x reflects the perfected love of Jesus.

This is in fact a hybrid mechanism for morality where (I) is a general statement reflecting [secular] subjective morality and (II) is the objective standard that anchors (I) to a particular religion.

I get your concern about evaluating an action according to two sets of norms, which could conceivably be at odds with one another. One possible way to reconcile the two norms would involve a kind of verbal algebra that defines one word in terms of another. Also you must account for errors of human judgement resulting from ignorance, self-deception, and out-right denial. Perhaps something like this:

I) P [believes he] is acting morally right if P sincerely believes acting out x is [reflective of Jesus's love].
II) [For] P's action [to actually be moral it] must be reflective of Jesus' nature such that x reflects the perfected love of Jesus.

The biblical text doesn't say anything about 'Goodness Itself' or use any of the abstract philosophical language that normally seduces pseudo-intellectuals like me. Scripture describes Jesus as the Righteous Judge. So while we may attempt to justify our actions with human reasoning, all our errors will be exposed in the final analysis, i.e. Judgement Day. So the so-called 'good' that supremely evil people like AH, JS, and PP pursued will ultimately be revealed to them as the evil (or rather complete lack of humanity) that it is.

I still think AH would be considered a morally good person even after the revision of (I) & (II):

Objections to (I) revised:

1. It's still intrinsically subjective. Therefore, AH thinking he was reflecting the work of Jesus means he believed he was acting morally right. --Tick.

Objections to (II) revised:

1. It seems like the addition of "...to actually be moral..." makes (II) override any meaning (I) carried i.e. we can almost dismiss (I) entirely.

2. Continuing from (1), I still find myself unable to wrap my head around (I) & (II) when put together, because I still see contradiction between them. Something I didn't mention before is that (II) is actually fundamentally subjective as the objective standard in (II) comes from a text that needs to be interpreted. Therefore, while our revised (II) might now be altogether dismissing (I), it still requires (I) in order to make (II) practical in reality. To illustrate this more precisely, AH had to identify what the objective standard was in (II) so that he was able to believe he was acting morally good according to (I). Therefore, according to (I) & (II), AH was morally good. --Tick.

I think what is happening here is something kind of like what happens to +ve and -ve numbers, where a +ve number represents objectivity and a -ve subjectivity. We are "multiplying" something objective and something subjective to get something subjective (+ve x -ve = -ve). It seems like as soon as we chuck something subjective into the mix of objectivity, the outcome is something subjective.

EDIT: I think the contradiction is that in (I), "Jesus' love" is being subject to a subjective context whereas in (II) it is being subject to an objective context, meaning that one is not equal to the other i.e. "Jesus' love" in (I) is different to "Jesus' love" in (II) and hence the conflict between (I) & (II) as you want me to understand them.

(BTW one of the interesting wrinkles of Swedenborg is the idea that only Jesus Christ is the one truly and fully human being, kinda like a Platonic idea. All the rest of us are finite in the sense that we lack some essential quality of humanity that prevents even the saved from full union with the Godhead)

An interesting side note. Some good food for thought there.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Fallen,
I'd like to address your specific comments, but in the meantime I thought to share this video. It seems old, but it is new to me. And I thought it generally reflected my opinion about that the logical conclusion of atheism is moral nihilism (in addition to other forms of nihilism). At the same time, I anticipate finding a defense of some objective morality, with which I disagree. As stated above, my current opinion is that it is subjective, but not arbitrary.

---

I still think AH would be considered a morally good person even after the revision of (I) & (II):… I think what is happening here is something kind of like what happens to +ve and -ve numbers…as soon as we chuck something subjective into the mix of objectivity, the outcome is something subjective…EDIT: I think the contradiction is that in (I), "Jesus' love" is being subject to a subjective context whereas in (II) it is being subject to an objective context, meaning that one is not equal to the other i.e. "Jesus' love" in (I) is different to "Jesus' love" in (II) and hence the conflict between (I) & (II) as you want me to understand them.

I think you are still stuck on the idea that I am defending a basis for an objective morality. I am not. Indeed, my revision of Premise I is subjective. It refers to the moral agent’s judgment about what they believe they should do.

Here is my point. You cannot escape your freedom. Now based on this existential choice, how can you select a moral standard that provides a useful reference? To what can you point as a consistent measure with which you can evaluate your actions and which if applied as a common standard would be universally just? Personally, I believe the Love of Christ, whether real or imagined, satisfies this criterion.

[FallentoReason]

I'd like to address your specific comments, but in the meantime I thought to share this video. It seems old, but it is new to me. And I thought it generally reflected my opinion about that the logical conclusion of atheism is moral nihilism (in addition to other forms of nihilism).

That was a thought-provoking video. Thanks for sharing.

I suppose that it is my duty to raise objections to the video if you think that video shows secular morality to be nihilistic. I'll make that my next project in the next few days.

At the same time, I anticipate finding a defense of some objective morality, with which I disagree. As stated above, my current opinion is that it is subjective, but not arbitrary.

Ah, ok. I wrongly thought that since you believe in a theistic god, it then follows that you believe such a being has established an *objective* standard for morality. In terms of what you actually believe (non-arbitrary subjective morality) I would say I agree. People can just about always justify why they think something is right or wrong, and out duty is to work together in order to discern what the best way of acting is. There is nothing arbitrary about our actions.

I think you are still stuck on the idea that I am defending a basis for an objective morality. I am not. Indeed, my revision of Premise I is subjective. It refers to the moral agent’s judgment about what they believe they should do.

*crumples strawman and throws it over his shoulder*

Gotcha!

Here is my point. You cannot escape your freedom. Now based on this existential choice, how can you select a moral standard that provides a useful reference? To what can you point as a consistent measure with which you can evaluate your actions and which if applied as a common standard would be universally just? Personally, I believe the Love of Christ, whether real or imagined, satisfies this criterion.

I tend to go with Kantian philosophy when I need a reference. The two main methods Kant devised use 1) the individual whose going to be affected by your action as a reference and 2) a universal outlook on the action in question as a reference:

1. An action x is morally right if, and only if, the agent(s) being affected by x are an end in themselves and not the means to an end.

2. An action x is morally right if, and only if, x can be willed to be a universal principle.

(1) seems pretty intuitive: you can tell a joke and make everyone laugh except for the person that was the means to making the joke funny (i.e. the joke depended on e.g. painting that individual in a bad light) which usually makes us feel bad for that individual. The reference is the individual and that determines whether the action is moral or not.

(2) is saying that we can act a certain way only if we allow others act just like that. I could start knocking my shoulder against everyone I walk past but that would mean they wouldn't be doing anything morally wrong if they did it to me or anyone else. The reference here is viewing the action on a global scale and seeing if it's reasonable at all to allow such an action to be universally applied by everyone.

In terms of Jesus' love being a reference... sure, why not. I mean, if the theist gets their moral code off the pedestal (not saying you personally or that you ever came across that way) and places it beneath the pedestal in the atmosphere of subjectivity, then their moral code is just as valid as anyone else's. In other words, I respect your philosophy, but it's nothing more than that. There's no real weight to it if it's not an objective standard we're talking about, which means that for the greater purposes of our discussion (usually leading back to "does God exist?") morality is a moot subject, as it seems Mankind governs that realm as opposed to God.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You could do worse than Kant. I'd go with Kant too if....

[smax]

The Objective Moral Values argument is one of the weakest ones Theists present. If there is one thing that human history has proven, it is that human morals are just like humans, they are evolving. There was a time when men just raped women they wanted to have sex with. It was a primal instinct. But, as men evolved, they started to realize that these women were fellow human beings, the mothers of their children, and that their relationships with them were far less satisfying and beneficial under these violent conditions. They became protective of women and the families they were producing with them. That didn't stop rape, it just made rape wrong to human beings.

And most moral values have developed along these lines.

In short, human beings are instinctively selfish, but that trait has led to the development of many moral values that produce selfless acts.

There is nothing "godly" about human morals. In fact, the very invention of god by men is evidence of man's selfishness:

1. Man doesn't want to simply die.
2. Man wants to be rewarded for living, regardless of merit.
3. Man wants to control other men.
4. Man wants an excuse for behavior that is perceived to be immoral: multiple wives, genocide, slavery, etc.

These are all reasons why man invented and deluded himself into believing in god and an afterlife.

The reason I believe this is one of the Theists weakests and most counter-productive arguments is because "god's moral values" are always changing as men change and become more civilized and knowledgable. It's obvious that men always have and still are determining and controlling god's moral values.

The very subject of moral values invites some of the biggest question marks there are regarding the existence of a personal god. If I were a Theist, I'd treat this subject like a plague and stay the hell away from it.