(July 13, 2017 at 10:01 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Objective does not mean universal or immune to circumstance. An objective morality can lead to different actions in different circumstances or different actions by different people. If I vaccinate your child, and it is the objectively right thing to do, it does not follow that your child would be right to run around sticking people with syringes. When your child has the training to administer vaccinations, then they can do the same. [1]
I think the main problem with Steve's depiction of God's morality as a brute fact is that it removes God's moral agency. God does not discern morality and act accordingly, God just happens to be moral and cannot be otherwise. God is incapable of moral decision-making, and is no more responsible for the morality of his behavior than a rock. [2]
All that to avoid morality being subjective to God, because God created it, and also avoid morality being objective to God, because God follows it. Which is why someone originated the thought: 'Hey, what if God and morality are one and the same? Guys, I've solved morality!' [3]
1. Thanks for helping me with that point.
2. I don't disagree with the logic, but I would with the characterization. They way you put it seems like God is amoral. He is responsible for his commands and revelation about his nature.
3. Yes, it answers the dilemma but it also moves morality from the subjective column to the objective column, defends it against claims of being arbitrary or changing.
