RE: God & Objective Morals
April 24, 2013 at 10:30 am
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2013 at 10:32 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
This thread has shifted away from ethics and toward ontology. Because it has some tangential bearing on ethics, I will briefly mention that I have come to consider the cosmological argument a dead end. When you propose the idea of a necessary being the logical question is "necessary for what?". When the believer responds with "the physical universe" he sets that universe within a larger reality that acknowledges modes of existence with none physical properties. And since the relationship between non-physical properties is a widely contested subject, the cosmological argument must refer to more complicated metaphysics and cannot stand on its own.
Now the reason I mention this is for the following reason. Adding the preposition for to "God is necessary for..." seems to actually imply "Belief in God is necessary for...". From there you do not make claims not about the truth of the God's existence. Instead, the focus shifts to other beliefs, like ethical ones, that depend on God. This approach highlights the faith-based nature of belief as an existential choice, following Kierkegaard. It also highlights the intellectual costs of non-belief. The logical conclusions of denying divinity, in part or in whole, can be shown to undermine presuppositions necessary for rational inquiry. The unavoidable contradiction is that the initial choice, between faith and denial, cannot itself be made rationally.
With respect to ethics, I mentioned above that IMNSHO, that ethics were subjective but not arbitrary. In Joshua 24:15 presents an example of this subjective ethical choice, "...choose this day whom ye shall serve...". Earlier I seem to have poorly presented my thesis which is this. You can avoid arbitrary moral decisions by weighing them against a consistent standard. I use the example of standardized weights and measures. At one time nations prepared a set of standard weights and measures used to compare copies made for everyday use throughout the country. With time the everyday sets diverged from the king's standard. In the event of a dispute about the accuracy of one person's set of standards and another's, the worn sets could be compared for accuracy with the official standard. Of course this approach relies on the contesting parties' agreement to accept the king's standard as the means of resolution. That mutual choice make's it subjective. At the same time the standard itself is not arbitrary, it serves as a true guide for the accuracy of divergent standards.
Now the question is what can be used as a consistent standard for moral decisions. But what exactly is it that you are comparing. It seems to me that for moral decisions, each person must rely upon their own judgment. And of course, judgments vary from one person to another. What is needed is a fair judge. Now in the case of disputes, even the opinions of judges vary also. So if there is to be any way of determining between judges, you must be able to appeal to a higher standard to which even judges are compared. It seems to me that religion provides such a higher standard in the form of an Ultimate Judge to which every one is held accountable.
No one is compelled to believe such an Ultimate Judge exists. However, if one is to rule out arbitrary moral judgment, then such a belief is required. In other words, belief in God is necessary for assuring a non-arbitrary standard for moral decisions. The key issue in this is not that we can fully know how we compare to such a standard, but rather knowledge that we must justify our actions in comparison to such a standard and be held accountable for the soundness of our judgement.
Now the reason I mention this is for the following reason. Adding the preposition for to "God is necessary for..." seems to actually imply "Belief in God is necessary for...". From there you do not make claims not about the truth of the God's existence. Instead, the focus shifts to other beliefs, like ethical ones, that depend on God. This approach highlights the faith-based nature of belief as an existential choice, following Kierkegaard. It also highlights the intellectual costs of non-belief. The logical conclusions of denying divinity, in part or in whole, can be shown to undermine presuppositions necessary for rational inquiry. The unavoidable contradiction is that the initial choice, between faith and denial, cannot itself be made rationally.
With respect to ethics, I mentioned above that IMNSHO, that ethics were subjective but not arbitrary. In Joshua 24:15 presents an example of this subjective ethical choice, "...choose this day whom ye shall serve...". Earlier I seem to have poorly presented my thesis which is this. You can avoid arbitrary moral decisions by weighing them against a consistent standard. I use the example of standardized weights and measures. At one time nations prepared a set of standard weights and measures used to compare copies made for everyday use throughout the country. With time the everyday sets diverged from the king's standard. In the event of a dispute about the accuracy of one person's set of standards and another's, the worn sets could be compared for accuracy with the official standard. Of course this approach relies on the contesting parties' agreement to accept the king's standard as the means of resolution. That mutual choice make's it subjective. At the same time the standard itself is not arbitrary, it serves as a true guide for the accuracy of divergent standards.
Now the question is what can be used as a consistent standard for moral decisions. But what exactly is it that you are comparing. It seems to me that for moral decisions, each person must rely upon their own judgment. And of course, judgments vary from one person to another. What is needed is a fair judge. Now in the case of disputes, even the opinions of judges vary also. So if there is to be any way of determining between judges, you must be able to appeal to a higher standard to which even judges are compared. It seems to me that religion provides such a higher standard in the form of an Ultimate Judge to which every one is held accountable.
No one is compelled to believe such an Ultimate Judge exists. However, if one is to rule out arbitrary moral judgment, then such a belief is required. In other words, belief in God is necessary for assuring a non-arbitrary standard for moral decisions. The key issue in this is not that we can fully know how we compare to such a standard, but rather knowledge that we must justify our actions in comparison to such a standard and be held accountable for the soundness of our judgement.
