Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[SteveII]

1. You're not going back far enough. Your example is on an action God might take that defines morality. I am referring to the nature that governs God's actions. Part of the definition of God is that he exhibits the greatest possible version of that trait within the constraints of his other traits (for example, justice constrains other traits like mercy). 

Back far enough?  If there's any further back to go than what god does..then it isn't gods nature or what god does that defines morality..but whatever standard that gods nature or action conforms and adheres to..... and isn;t this what so many people have been trying to explain to you?

2. God does not change except in relation to created things. Having a relationship with something changes even God. God's nature surely cannot change--it's not even logically possible.

Okay, I guess, but that's entirely irrelevant to gods status as a moral thing, or any objective morality, so?

3. Regarding your hypothetical, you would have to ask whether God nature could allow him to issue such a command. So perfect love and compassion always apply, in this case there are no other additional constraint like preserving holiness or justice. So, no, God could not issue the command.

Why not?  Why do perfect love and compassion constrain god?  This brings up another interesting point..if god is simply -unable- to do evil..is he really moral, or just limited?  Plants aren;t capable of evil either.....but we don't generally consider them to be moral creatures.  It's pretty much a requirement that some being has moral agency - the ability to do and comprehend good -and- evil...for that creature to be called good..rather than simply amoral, like a tree.


Honestly....what are you doing....?

Still wondering what's wrong with harm...still wondering why your every example of a good action seems related to harm [4].......not wondering -at all- why you babbled about anything else.  I'm just mystified as to why you chose what you chose to deflect with.

1. If God's actions are constrained by his infinite nature, then that is the explanatory stopping place for morality.  Just as the meter stick in Paris confers the property of meter-hood on all other meters in the world but itself does not rely on the property of meter-hood to explain or ground the fact that it is one meter long, God's nature does not rely on the property of good to explain itself, but all other morality is judged by it. It makes no sense to keep asking "why" about the meter stick so likewise it make no sense to keep asking "why" about morality. 

3. Everything is constrained by its intrinsic nature--especially a being that possesses superlative traits. 

4. Define in a few sentences how, in your opinion, the basis or morality can be tied to harm. Otherwise I am going to waste time answering points I am not sure you are making.