(March 12, 2016 at 8:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(March 12, 2016 at 8:24 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: I don't think so. Wouldn't he just disagree? He dissents from God's opinion/rule/call-it-what-you-will. Given free will his morality merely does not coincide with God's. He is only 'wrong' if he was in fact attempting to predict God's rule. Perhaps he wasn't?
Yes, he would disagree, but he would be incorrect. It's like if I disagreed that 2+2=4. I could disagree all day, but I'd still be wrong. What we believe is that the person who thinks rape is good is wrong because we believe rape is objectively immoral. That's what objectively immoral means.
Still that is pretty different isn't it? You can demonstrate in multiple ways why 2+2=4. But in the morality example the only thing that makes the human's appraisal of what is moral in correct is that it doesn't agree with God. Going to your parent/child parallel, what makes an action right isn't the fact that your parent says don't (or do) do it. What makes it right can only be amplified meaningful by laying out the consequences good and bad of the action. In other words, what makes the right action right isn't a matter of authority.
