Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[SteveII]

Are God's eternal unchanging moral properties arbitrary?

If they're "moral" properties simply by being the nature of god..yeah...that;s the definition of arbitrary.  Whatever those properties happened to be..they;d have been the "unchanging moral properties". Gut a child or not gut a child...whichever one god did would be "moral".  [1]

Could they have been any other way? Perhaps, perhaps not--I don't think that is clear. I don't think it matters however, because you need God's nature to be arbitrary not in the sense that if could have been different, but that it still can be different.

.............................

The first horn "is something good because the gods will it" or
The second horn "do the gods will it because it is good?” but now 
The third option (that has no unwanted conclusion): it is not God's will that defines the good but his unchanging nature that governs his will and his commands to us. 

With a third option, there is no dilemma. 

Regarding moral significance, that is relative judgment.  I think the eternal moral properties of an unchanging God is a good place to anchor your morality. Certainly more objective than any other system.

Well, I mean except for the parts about god being an ever changing thing if you guys are to be believeed...and not being able to objectively comment upon that god in any way, or being able to cogently answer a moral dilemma...sure.  [2]

Meanwhile.....what's wrong with harm? Since you're so big on suspicion of others moral foundations...I suspect that you are using harm..and not gods nature, as the foundation for your own morality.  Could a god order the rape of a child and still be moral?  If so, how so, if not, why not?  [3] 

1. You're not going back far enough. Your example is on an action God might take that defines morality. I am referring to the nature that governs God's actions. Part of the definition of God is that he exhibits the greatest possible version of that trait within the constraints of his other traits (for example, justice constrains other traits like mercy). 

2. God does not change except in relation to created things. Having a relationship with something changes even God. God's nature surely cannot change--it's not even logically possible.

3. Regarding your hypothetical, you would have to ask whether God nature could allow him to issue such a command. So perfect love and compassion always apply, in this case there are no other additional constraint like preserving holiness or justice. So, no, God could not issue the command.

[The Grand Nudger]

1. You're not going back far enough. Your example is on an action God might take that defines morality. I am referring to the nature that governs God's actions. Part of the definition of God is that he exhibits the greatest possible version of that trait within the constraints of his other traits (for example, justice constrains other traits like mercy). 

Back far enough?  If there's any further back to go than what god does..then it isn't gods nature or what god does that defines morality..but whatever standard that gods nature or action conforms and adheres to..... and isn;t this what so many people have been trying to explain to you?

2. God does not change except in relation to created things. Having a relationship with something changes even God. God's nature surely cannot change--it's not even logically possible.

Okay, I guess, but that's entirely irrelevant to gods status as a moral thing, or any objective morality, so?

3. Regarding your hypothetical, you would have to ask whether God nature could allow him to issue such a command. So perfect love and compassion always apply, in this case there are no other additional constraint like preserving holiness or justice. So, no, God could not issue the command.

Why not?  Why do perfect love and compassion constrain god?  This brings up another interesting point..if god is simply -unable- to do evil..is he really moral, or just limited?  Plants aren;t capable of evil either.....but we don't generally consider them to be moral creatures.  It's pretty much a requirement that some being has moral agency - the ability to do and comprehend good -and- evil...for that creature to be called good..rather than simply amoral, like a tree.


Honestly....what are you doing....?

Still wondering what's wrong with harm...still wondering why your every example of a good action seems related to harm.......not wondering -at all- why you babbled about anything else. I'm just mystified as to why you chose what you chose to deflect with.

[SteveII]

All cool if one can evidence an unchanging god. God's morals seem to have changed even within the available testaments.

No, I don't think there is any evidence that God's moral qualities have changed even between the testaments. God has traits such as holiness and justice in addition to love and compassion that must be satisfied. Also, ensuring the necessary conditions for Jesus' first coming (the greater good) has to be factored in.

[Crossless2.0]

KhemikalIf they're "moral" properties simply by being the nature of god..yeah...that;s the definition of arbitrary.  Whatever those properties happened to be..they;d have been the "unchanging moral properties". Gut a child or not gut a child...whichever one god did would be "moral".  [1]

.............................


Well, I mean except for the parts about god being an ever changing thing if you guys are to be believeed...and not being able to objectively comment upon that god in any way, or being able to cogently answer a moral dilemma...sure.  [2]

Meanwhile.....what's wrong with harm? Since you're so big on suspicion of others moral foundations...I suspect that you are using harm..and not gods nature, as the foundation for your own morality.  Could a god order the rape of a child and still be moral?  If so, how so, if not, why not?  [3] 

1. You're not going back far enough. Your example is on an action God might take that defines morality. I am referring to the nature that governs God's actions. Part of the definition of God is that he exhibits the greatest possible version of that trait within the constraints of his other traits (for example, justice constrains other traits like mercy). 

2. God does not change except in relation to created things. Having a relationship with something changes even God. God's nature surely cannot change--it's not even logically possible.

3. Regarding your hypothetical, you would have to ask whether God nature could allow him to issue such a command. So perfect love and compassion always apply, in this case there are no other additional constraint like preserving holiness or justice. So, no, God could not issue the command.

With regard to (3), I assume that your god could have ordered the rape of the Amalekite children without violating the nature you believers have dreamed up for him. After all, the little sons-of-bitches were to be butchered anyway -- you know, 'cause "holiness and justice". So what's a little child rape before smashing in their skulls?

[TheBeardedDude]

If a god exists, its mere existence can't logically define morality. Might doesn't make right. No one being defines the morality of every single living thing because rules and laws aren't morals. Morality doesn't have an "opt-out" option either. So either the god that supposedly exists is subject to the same moral principles, or it is doesn't behave morally considering the stories attributed to it.

What then is more likely? 1) humans assigned the morals/rules/laws that they wanted to govern their society to a god so as to try and assign their morals/rules/laws to some sort of unquestionable authority? or 2) a god exists but created a set of objective moral standards that aren't actually able to be objective in practice and that change through time in such a way so as to conform to the evolution of moral values through time?

[JackRussell]

All cool if one can evidence an unchanging god. God's morals seem to have changed even within the available testaments.

No, I don't think there is any evidence that God's moral qualities have changed even between the testaments. God has traits such as holiness and justice in addition to love and compassion that must be satisfied. Also, ensuring the necessary conditions for Jesus' first coming (the greater good) has to be factored in.

Ok, god gave us free-will, yet he hardened pharaoh's heart.

God does not murder, but then the poor fool who stumbled and fell against the Ark was obliterated.

OT gods and the OT message are different. And they both contain things any modern western human, at least, would say is immoral.

[SteveII]

1. You're not going back far enough. Your example is on an action God might take that defines morality. I am referring to the nature that governs God's actions. Part of the definition of God is that he exhibits the greatest possible version of that trait within the constraints of his other traits (for example, justice constrains other traits like mercy). 

Back far enough?  If there's any further back to go than what god does..then it isn't gods nature or what god does that defines morality..but whatever standard that gods nature or action conforms and adheres to..... and isn;t this what so many people have been trying to explain to you?

2. God does not change except in relation to created things. Having a relationship with something changes even God. God's nature surely cannot change--it's not even logically possible.

Okay, I guess, but that's entirely irrelevant to gods status as a moral thing, or any objective morality, so?

3. Regarding your hypothetical, you would have to ask whether God nature could allow him to issue such a command. So perfect love and compassion always apply, in this case there are no other additional constraint like preserving holiness or justice. So, no, God could not issue the command.

Why not?  Why do perfect love and compassion constrain god?  This brings up another interesting point..if god is simply -unable- to do evil..is he really moral, or just limited?  Plants aren;t capable of evil either.....but we don't generally consider them to be moral creatures.  It's pretty much a requirement that some being has moral agency - the ability to do and comprehend good -and- evil...for that creature to be called good..rather than simply amoral, like a tree.


Honestly....what are you doing....?

Still wondering what's wrong with harm...still wondering why your every example of a good action seems related to harm [4].......not wondering -at all- why you babbled about anything else.  I'm just mystified as to why you chose what you chose to deflect with.

1. If God's actions are constrained by his infinite nature, then that is the explanatory stopping place for morality.  Just as the meter stick in Paris confers the property of meter-hood on all other meters in the world but itself does not rely on the property of meter-hood to explain or ground the fact that it is one meter long, God's nature does not rely on the property of good to explain itself, but all other morality is judged by it. It makes no sense to keep asking "why" about the meter stick so likewise it make no sense to keep asking "why" about morality. 

3. Everything is constrained by its intrinsic nature--especially a being that possesses superlative traits. 

4. Define in a few sentences how, in your opinion, the basis or morality can be tied to harm. Otherwise I am going to waste time answering points I am not sure you are making.

[TheBeardedDude]

Back far enough?  If there's any further back to go than what god does..then it isn't gods nature or what god does that defines morality..but whatever standard that gods nature or action conforms and adheres to..... and isn;t this what so many people have been trying to explain to you?

Okay, I guess, but that's entirely irrelevant to gods status as a moral thing, or any objective morality, so?

Why not?  Why do perfect love and compassion constrain god?  This brings up another interesting point..if god is simply -unable- to do evil..is he really moral, or just limited?  Plants aren;t capable of evil either.....but we don't generally consider them to be moral creatures.  It's pretty much a requirement that some being has moral agency - the ability to do and comprehend good -and- evil...for that creature to be called good..rather than simply amoral, like a tree.


Honestly....what are you doing....?

Still wondering what's wrong with harm...still wondering why your every example of a good action seems related to harm [4].......not wondering -at all- why you babbled about anything else.  I'm just mystified as to why you chose what you chose to deflect with.

1. If God's actions are constrained by his infinite nature, then that is the explanatory stopping place for morality.  Just as the meter stick in Paris confers the property of meter-hood on all other meters in the world but itself does not rely on the property of meter-hood to explain or ground the fact that it is one meter long, God's nature does not rely on the property of good to explain itself, but all other morality is judged by it. It makes no sense to keep asking "why" about the meter stick so likewise it make no sense to keep asking "why" about morality. 

3. Everything is constrained by its intrinsic nature--especially a being that possesses superlative traits. 

4. Define in a few sentences how, in your opinion, the basis or morality can be tied to harm. Otherwise I am going to waste time answering points I am not sure you are making.

"If God's actions are constrained by his infinite nature..."

By definition, something that is infinite is unconstrained. Your god has paradoxical qualities

[The Grand Nudger]

1. If God's actions are constrained by his infinite nature, then that is the explanatory stopping place for morality.

That's just the stopping place for him..but I don't think that you're describing morality at all.  God-as-tree.  Sure, it gives us shade, but not out of the goodness of it;s heart....that's just what it does and it can't do anything else.

 Just as the meter stick in Paris confers the property of meter-hood on all other meters in the world but itself does not rely on the property of meter-hood to explain or ground the fact that it is one meter long, God's nature does not rely on the property of good to explain itself, but all other morality is judged by it.

What morality?  If I judge -my- morality against the nature of your god...then your god is objectively deficient....or, you know, just made up. Take your pick.

It makes no sense to keep asking "why" about the meter stick so likewise it make no sense to keep asking "why" about morality. 

I think it's more accurate to say that you either can;t or rather wouldn;t answer that question.  I have no trouble asking or answering it, objectively. 

3. Everything is constrained by its intrinsic nature--especially a being that possesses superlative traits. 

Careful......that's shaky ground for other peices of your religious dogma and does nothing to explain or describe morality.

4. Define in a few sentences how, in your opinion, the basis or morality can be tied to harm. Otherwise I am going to waste time answering points I am not sure you are making.

You mean...again?  Because I've done so multiple times in this thread.  Harm appears to be the -subject- of morality, not some ridiculous automaton of god that you refuse to answer any questions about.  That's how. ;m willing to be that you won;t be able to describe gods goodness in any way or example that doesn't directly refer to harm...meanwhile, I'll have no shortage of examples wherein that same god directly contradicts what makes any of it's actions purportedly good in the first place.

[JackRussell]

Morality is tied to wellbeing, a VERY strong component of that is harm. Secular morality, well done, seeks to reduce harm and increase wellbeing. It ain't easy, but morality by divine fiat, that includes immorality by modern standards, fails ever time.

Good luck with your bible, I prefer an honest discussion about difficult stuff.