(February 6, 2011 at 1:37 am)Ryft Wrote: Insofar as meta-ethics is grounded in the very nature and will of God, morality is objective by definition (such that 'objective' means independent of any human mind).
Objective means independent of any mind, human or otherwise. This is why morality can't be objective if God makes decisions as to what is and is not moral.
Here's an analogy that might shed some light on this debate. A ruler measures length. Length is an objective measurement. The ruler doesn't decide how long a foot is. The measurement of the length of a foot is grounded in the very nature of the ruler.
Is this what you mean when you say "grounded in the very nature of God"? Just as the ruler doesn't make decisions about how long something is, God doesn't make decisions about what is or is not moral. They simply measure what they measure and the determination is not a matter of subjective judgment but objective reality.
So how do we make rulers, then? How is it that all manufactured rulers, assuming they're made correctly, have the same measurement of inches, feet and yards? Or centimeters, for those on the other system? The nature of the ruler is determined by its manufacture in accordance with accepted measurements. It reflects established rules that our society has agreed to with regard to the measurements of objective lengths.
The ruler has no control over how it is made. Dimensional length exists outside the ruler. It is objective and does not change. A foot will still be a foot and a centimeter will still be a centimeter even if the ruler didn't exist.
So how is the nature of God determined, then? Is God, like the ruler, unable to control Its nature and measures objective morality according to principles that would remain the same even if God were to cease to exist? Or is God, unlike the ruler, able to determine Its nature? If the former, morality exists outside of and independent to God. If the latter, God determines Its nature and therefore the nature of what morality is and so morality is subjective to God's wishes.
As we can see, the third option becomes a choice between the first two.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
