RE: My views on objective morality
April 1, 2016 at 2:03 am
(This post was last modified: April 1, 2016 at 3:53 am by Mudhammam.)
(March 27, 2016 at 10:55 am)ChadWooters Wrote:Right, the trouble arises, as Plato pointed out, when one attempts to base the highest possible form of goodness, whatever that may be, in something other than the abstract object represented simply and absolutely by an idea of "the Good," and then substitute our sole means of discovering the nature of the Good with divine dictates which are not grounded in reason. To merely assert that God is the Good gains you nothing and obfuscates any possible rational ethical theory for one is then able to suggest (unjustly) that if God commands it - stoning adulterers, owning human beings, or condemning heathens to eternal suffering - then by His nature these suddenly become good things and perversely of which the Good sometimes expects, permits, and ignores in both Himself and others.(March 27, 2016 at 1:40 am)Mudhammam Wrote: ...in which case reason continues to serve as the sole means for differentiating the good and bad natures of so-called revealed deities. (You have rendered God to be a completely redundant term that is indistinguishable from the highest possible Good).People use reason to know about moral objects the same way they about any other type of object. This requirement to use reason would also apply to the highest good or The Good. That does not make reason itself the desired good; but rather the means by which people conceive the good.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza