My views on objective morality

[robvalue]

CL, let me talk about the morality of free will.  A rapist has the free will to rape a child.  You console yourself, perhaps, with the knowledge that he will eventually be held account by God for his actions.  But what of the child?  The child, you may say, will be rewarded with an eternity in heaven-- though he/she hasn't done anything particularly worth of reward.

It seems to me that God's version of free will shows a willingness on his part to let innocents suffer in order to give sinners enough rope to hang themselves.  And they do so by their own nature, which was anyway established by God.  It seems to me that if such a God is real, only a bad person would do anything but openly rebel against him.

You shouldn't be preaching the gospel.  You should be burning it.  Because YOU seem to me like a good person.

I've never heard an answer to this. Time and again, "free will" is brought up as a get-out-of-jail-free card for God's negligence. Examples like this are brought up to show the gaping holes in the idea, and then it just drifts off into the sunset after getting no reply, waiting for the process to repeat.

Any christian like to have a stab at this? (Anyone who is interested in defending God to some higher standard than "everything he does is great".)

Having the free will to choose to "follow" God, or not, is one thing. Why do you additionally need the option of raping children? Isn't just ignoring God enough for him? I mean, I ignore God, but I don't need to rape kids or bang nails into kittens in order to make the choice clear. So what is the point of allowing such actions to be possible? If he's so set on objective morality, he could make these things into an actual law, so that we literally can't do them (and wouldn't even think about wanting to do them). Why include this "feature"?

Cue "mysterious ways", which basically means I should ignore anything else the person has said on the subject up to this point, as they admit they have no understanding of God.

[Jackalope]

I've never heard an answer to this. Time and again, "free will" is brought up as a get-out-of-jail-free card for God's negligence. Examples like this are brought up to show the gaping holes in the idea, and then it just drifts off into the sunset after getting no reply, waiting for the process to repeat.

Any christian like to have a stab at this? (Anyone who is interested in defending God to some higher standard than "everything he does is great".)

I don't see how it can be done without being skewered on the horns of the Euthypro dilemma or running afoul of Epicurus' paradox. All I've seen from the Jesus camp is smoke and mirrors on the subject. Good luck with that.

[robvalue]

CD: Yup. I think Christians displace certain questions, when they realize any answer will reveal inconsistencies in their belief system. I can understand this. Cognitive dissidence, right? Easier to blank the question than to really think about it, which must feel uncomfortable.

Interesting aside though:

I met a kid yesterday I actually liked when visiting a friend. That in itself is something of a miracle. They usually make my blood boil just by being near me. But this one was well behaved, which I'm not used to. Really, I'm mad at the parents who let their kids run riot and scream all the time.

He was very sweet, and I felt a primal urge to protect him. I don't normally have any paternal instincts specifically for human kids, further to my general concern for every living thing. But I felt like "Rob protect kid! Anyone try to hurt kid, rob bash them!" It was pleasant and disconcerting at the same time.

He had an innate sense of fairness and wanting to share. He is 2, I think. He can walk about a bit, and is beginning to get some words right. He had just met me, but he seemed to take a shine to me right away! I was amazed. He wanted to have a sweet, but he also wanted me to have one. He kept pointing at me, and he wasn't satisfied until I had been given one! He dubbed me "man", which is actually more respectful than I've been used to from random people on the street. "Man play with bus".

I found it very sweet, and interesting from an evolutionary perspective.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Look Mommy, a gorilla, give it candy and make it play with me!"  

[LadyForCamus]

CD: Yup. I think Christians displace certain questions, when they realize any answer will reveal inconsistencies in their belief system. I can understand this. Cognitive dissidence, right? Easier to blank the question than to really think about it, which must feel uncomfortable.

Interesting aside though:

I met a kid yesterday I actually liked when visiting a friend. That in itself is something of a miracle. They usually make my blood boil just by being near me. But this one was well behaved, which I'm not used to. Really, I'm mad at the parents who let their kids run riot and scream all the time.

He was very sweet, and I felt a primal urge to protect him. I don't normally have any paternal instincts specifically for human kids, further to my general concern for every living thing. But I felt like "Rob protect kid! Anyone try to hurt kid, rob bash them!" It was pleasant and disconcerting at the same time.

He had an innate sense of fairness and wanting to share. He is 2, I think. He can walk about a bit, and is beginning to get some words right. He had just met me, but he seemed to take a shine to me right away! I was amazed. He wanted to have a sweet, but he also wanted me to have one. He kept pointing at me, and he wasn't satisfied until I had been given one! He dubbed me "man", which is actually more respectful than I've been used to from random people on the street. "Man play with bus".

I found it very sweet, and interesting from an evolutionary perspective.

That's sweet Rob. [emoji4] There actually are some nice kids out there, just don't expect to find any at Walmart. Are you and your wife interested in having a child of your own someday? Or are neither of you "kid people"?

[LadyForCamus]

The objective truth about objective morality: It is a term people apply to their own morals in order to create the illusion that their own morals are superior to anyone else's. Otherwise, it is a term without meaning or value.

Yeah, exactly this. I think the closest we can get to the idea of "objective morality" is to say that some acts are objectively harmful to an individual, as in causing bodily harm, but that doesn't quite get us far enough, does it?

[robvalue]

Camus: Thank you I'm very much not a kid person. My wife wasn't either, but she is now kind of fantasising about the idea. I don't think she really wants one, but is just cherry picking the nice parts and displacing the rest.

I have far too many reasons not to have my own children, so it would be through adoption if we did do it. (I've had the operation, I decided many years ago I didn't want my own children.) Adoption's not out of the question for the future, although right now I'm nowhere near healthy enough to be a dad. My wife is partially my carer as it is. I am improving, though.

My instincts are far more for animals, and our lives revolve around our four "hairy kids"! At the moment it's a dog, two rabbits and a hamster. Our shared love of animals is one of our closest bonds.

[Kiekeben]

From what I understand it's not that goodness exists independent of God neither does it exist on the whims of God, but rather God himself is that morality, that standard, and God is not arbitrary nor does he will on whim but rather wills according to ultimate greatness which is not abitrary.

Yes, (in spite of the rest of your message, which didn't really make sense) the above is the best way to interpret the claim that Catholic Lady made, since she is saying not merely that morality depends on God, but that it depends on a loving God. Or as you put it, God "is that morality, that standard." So now let me see if I can make the problem clear:

If one says that God (whatever his characteristics) is necessary for morality - that what is good is whatever this God says it is no matter what - then one has to admit that if God were to say "torture babies," we should torture babies.

If, OTOH, as you and CL are saying, morality depends on a God who has a certain moral character - on a God who is good - then you have to admit that there are moral principles that you judge as good independently of God. It is because God is already good that his commands are good.

To put it another way, what you are saying is not merely "morality depends on a creator being", but "morality depends on a loving, caring creator being". And it is because you regard being loving and caring as good that you judge what this being supposedly commands to be good.

---

CL, let me talk about the morality of free will.  A rapist has the free will to rape a child.  You console yourself, perhaps, with the knowledge that he will eventually be held account by God for his actions.  But what of the child?  The child, you may say, will be rewarded with an eternity in heaven-- though he/she hasn't done anything particularly worth of reward.

It seems to me that God's version of free will shows a willingness on his part to let innocents suffer in order to give sinners enough rope to hang themselves.  And they do so by their own nature, which was anyway established by God.  It seems to me that if such a God is real, only a bad person would do anything but openly rebel against him.

You shouldn't be preaching the gospel.  You should be burning it.  Because YOU seem to me like a good person.

I've never heard an answer to this. Time and again, "free will" is brought up as a get-out-of-jail-free card for God's negligence. Examples like this are brought up to show the gaping holes in the idea, and then it just drifts off into the sunset after getting no reply, waiting for the process to repeat.

Any christian like to have a stab at this? (Anyone who is interested in defending God to some higher standard than "everything he does is great".)

Having the free will to choose to "follow" God, or not, is one thing. Why do you additionally need the option of raping children? Isn't just ignoring God enough for him? I mean, I ignore God, but I don't need to rape kids or bang nails into kittens in order to make the choice clear. So what is the point of allowing such actions to be possible? If he's so set on objective morality, he could make these things into an actual law, so that we literally can't do them (and wouldn't even think about wanting to do them). Why include this "feature"?

Cue "mysterious ways", which basically means I should ignore anything else the person has said on the subject up to this point, as they admit they have no understanding of God.

Exactly. Human free will is supposed to account for the existence of evil, or at least a lot of the evil in the world. God doesn't want there to be evil, but he gave us free will, and it is because we are free that some of us commit evil acts. But now suppose you could see that someone was about to rape and murder a child, and you could easily stop them without even putting yourself at risk. If you didn't do so, wouldn't that itself be evil? Obviously. Why, then, is it okay for God to allow the murderer-rapist to carry out his action?

[Rhondazvous]

Do you read what you type?

Is it not a fact that some babies die which do not die by the fault of any living person?  This either means that God is not good, God is not powerful enough to save babies, or God does not in fact share your definition of goodness.  Are you going to tell us that little dead babies are going to live out eternity as angels?  If so, with what personality?  What will replace the egoes which they never had the chance to develop?

Clothing the naked?  The Bible specifically tells Jesus followers not to worry about clothes, because they will be clothed by God.  So look at the freezing poor.  Where are the clothes that God promised?

I don't care much that you don't believe in the Bible.  But if you think God is both powerful and good, then there is a world full of evidence which contradicts you.  Or, to be blunt, you are more interested in maintaining your happy beliefs than in embracing reality.  Nothing but your imagination supports your Pollyanna world view.

Too bad Catholics don't follow their bibles

I remember for the last few years of my Christian walk, I thought I could maintain my "relationship with Jesus" while at the same time ignoring the horrid things the god of the bible did to people. God is greater than the bible, I told myself. This worked for a while, but I soon realized that without the bible, I had no foundation on which to believe in Jesus.

To believe in the god of the beatitudes and reject the god of the Pentateuch is to make up a god. How then does this personal god provide anything that could be called objective?

Let's look at this on a chart.

It's objective morality when I'm good because the god I choose to believe in tells me to do the things I choose to do.

It's not objective if I only do good because reason tells me that being god is better for me and everyone.

If your belief in god enjoins you to be good. wonderful. As long as you're good . fine. But if your belief does not allow you to accept the fact that other people do not need to believe in god in order to be good, then you will always be at logger heads with reality.

[The Grand Nudger]

- and if your belief demands that you -insist- the good of others is due to your god, you are not only deluded, but bigoted and offensively deluded.

@Rob Make no mistake, human children are both animals, and very, very hairy.
(my son Ronan was so bursting for love with his hampster that he crushed it with his paws - I'll always remember the look on his face before and after.)