RE: God & Objective Morals
April 28, 2013 at 11:00 pm
(This post was last modified: April 28, 2013 at 11:07 pm by FallentoReason.)
ChadWooters Wrote:Not exactly. Morality is not objective, but there is a consistent standard. Before it became a cliché, the WWJD idea had a lot of merit.
What's the "WWJD"?
Quote:For whatever you do in whatever role you serve, you will stand before the White Throne and be judged, which is actually a self-evaluation in comparison to the perfected love personified by Jesus Christ. So if you are a spy, were you a spy in the service of a cause you believed just or for the protection of the innocent, etc.? Your own judgment may be flawed if tainted by self-serving motives. But if your assessment is honest though misguided, I expect God to be merciful.
Interesting, but such a mechanism seems somewhat shaky. What if someone sincerely believes they are acting in a good way but it doesn't match up to Jesus' perfected love e.g. fighting for your life in self defence? I feel like there would be a plethora of contradictory situations if we say "objective morality" is such that:
I) P is acting morally right if P sincerely believes acting out x is good.
II) P's action must be reflective of Jesus' nature such that x reflects the perfected love of Jesus.
This is in fact a hybrid mechanism for morality where (I) is a general statement reflecting [secular] subjective morality and (II) is the objective standard that anchors (I) to a particular religion. The only problem is that we have an all too perfect (and cliché) example of someone who fitted this mould and exposed the flaws while still acting "morally good" according to the mechanism. This person is none other than *drum roll* Adolf Hitler; he sincerely believed he was doing something good because he was doing the work of the Lord.
It seems like a hybrid mechanism of morality is (and has been) the most lethal weapon against the interests of man in his endeavour to live with himself.
(April 26, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Tex Wrote:(April 25, 2013 at 8:07 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Does this external thing set the conditions that make it necessary for God to be the way he is?
The external does not set the necessary, no. It simply displays what is already internal.
So the external shows what is now once again the arbitrary attributes in the internal? Is God the definition of "illogical" by any chance, because I can't keep up with the intellectual dissonance!
Quote:And I haven't thought of anything that addresses the question between the relationship of Being and Good. I may have to... google it... =(
It's hard being the god of "God". My apologist days taught me that pretty early on...
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle