On theism, why do humans have moral duties even if there are objective moral values?

[Angrboda]

The primary answers given were a) doing good is rewarding in itself (both natively...

Theism isn't necessary for that. That's why I don't find that a useful reply.  

... and because God has made it so [Angrboda, Mister Agenda])

Do you mean God has made the rules that doing good would result in reward in the afterlife? The last part of my question was "other than for a selfish interest in going to heaven or avoiding hell". "God has made it so" (if it means doing good would result in divine reward) seems to be about god's reward and punishment as a motivation for theists to do good, which is something my question wasn't/isn't looking for in an answer.

Secular science does not acknowledge God's law being intrinsic to human nature. If God has made his law intrinsic to human nature, He has made doing good intrinsically rewarding. So, no, you simply didn't understand the answer. It has nothing to do with self-interest. God has made it so by making us as we are; similar to Natural law, but with explicit biblical support. And I have to ask, what part of "rewarding in itself" did you not understand? Speaking of destroying your logical faculties, separating a compound clause and treating them as independent clauses doesn't speak highly of your faculties. This is nothing but a reading comprehension fail. I might excuse it except for the fact that I'm sure your native tongue has the same rules for compound clauses as English.

[Pnerd]

And I have to ask, what part of "rewarding in itself" did you not understand?

The "rewarding in itself" part. Does it mean rewarding as a secular humanist would understand it, that is, it simply feels good to help someone and it feels good because god makes us feel good? Previously I did not consider the "god making us feel good" part.

Speaking of destroying your logical faculties, separating a compound clause and treating them as independent clauses doesn't (sic) speak highly of your faculties.  This is nothing but a reading comprehension fail.

Ignoring the tu quoque nature of the first sentence, I admit that it might very well be a reading comprehension fail on my part. But I can't be sure unless I know which sentence or clauses (and by whom) you're referring to. Can you quote the sentence and let me know which clauses I butchered just so I can improve my English grammar (and I'm not being sarcastic here)?

I might excuse it except...

Fortunately, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that.  

I'm sure your native tongue has the same rules for compound clauses as English.

I don't really know the rules of compound clauses in English. But I'm curious as to how much you know about my native tongue for that level of certainty (on your part) to be justified.

[The Grand Nudger]

Okay. Is it more that you wonder, assuming that there are objective moral duties, and assuming that seeking heavenly reward opposes those duties, why people would choose to satisfy their moral duties over seeking a heavenly reward?

It's a good question as far as it goes. The answer from history is that they wouldn't. People will do horrendous shit, either unaware that it's horrendous shit, convincing themselves it's not horrendous shit, or knowing full well it's horrendous shit...and doing it all the same.....in search of heavenly reward. Earthly too.

[Pnerd]

Okay.  Is it more that you wonder, assuming that there are objective moral duties, and assuming that seeking heavenly reward opposes those duties, why people would choose to satisfy their moral duties over seeking a heavenly reward?  

I was wondering if there is any other reason or rationale (from a theistic point of view) to be good to others other than hoping to receive a reward or avoid punishment in the afterlife. I want to know why a theist might think that they have moral duties and obligations. One obvious reason is the hope of receiving a reward or avoiding punishment. I wonder if there are any other reasons and what they might be.

[Angrboda]

And I have to ask, what part of "rewarding in itself" did you not understand?

The "rewarding in itself" part. Does it mean rewarding as a secular humanist would understand it, that is, it simply feels good to help someone and it feels good because god makes us feel good? Previously I did not consider the "god making us feel good" part.

Speaking of destroying your logical faculties, separating a compound clause and treating them as independent clauses doesn't (sic) speak highly of your faculties.  This is nothing but a reading comprehension fail.

Ignoring the tu quoque nature of the first sentence, I admit that it might very well be a reading comprehension fail on my part. But I can't be sure unless I know which sentence or clauses (and by whom) you're referring to. Can you quote the sentence and let me know which clauses I butchered just so I can improve my English grammar (and I'm not being sarcastic here)?

I might excuse it except...

Fortunately, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that.  

I'm sure your native tongue has the same rules for compound clauses as English.

I don't really know the rules of compound clauses in English. But I'm curious as to how much you know about my native tongue for that level of certainty to be justified.

What the actual fuck? They don't have parentheses and conjunctives in your language? I know quite a bit about your native language because I know a good bit about languages in general.

The sentence in question is "good is rewarding in itself (both natively and because God has made it so...)" -- the very one to which you were responding. In the first part of your response you chose to ignore that it says that it was rewarding because God made it so. In the second part of your response you chose to ignore that it was rewarding "in itself." Neither are likely to be justified by any language difficulties but rather instead point to general incompetence on your part.

I see your chosen method of engagement is to be a smartass. Good choice. I'm sure that will serve you well.

[Pnerd]

What the actual fuck?  They don't have parentheses and conjunctives in your language?

What the actual fuck? Where have I written anything about what my language does or does not have?

The sentence in question is "good is rewarding in itself (both natively and because God has made it so...)" -- the very one to which you were responding. In the first part of your response you chose to ignore that it says that it was rewarding because God made it so. In the second part of your response you chose to ignore that it was rewarding "in itself." Neither are (sic) likely to be justified by any language difficulties but rather instead point to general incompetence on your part.

When I first read that sentence, I thought the two parts of it were stating two different and independent reasons. So, I was responding to two different parts of the sentence separately. I admit that was a misreading on my part. Not sure about "general" incompetence, though. 

I see your chosen method of engagement is to be a smartass.  Good choice.  I'm sure that will serve you well.

Thank you.

[brewer]

I think I answered your question very accurately. Worship god = good, don't worship god = bad, don't worship god but then take it back = good.

When it comes to gods,......... humans make funny rules.

(I noticed that you have not rep'ed me, look out, you might get smited)

I'm not asking about worshipping; I'm asking why theists believe they have a moral duty towards other humans (I agree that was not made clear in my question). And secondly, the last part of my question was "other than for a selfish interest in going to heaven or avoiding hell". Your answer seems to be about god's reward and punishment as a motivation for theists to do good. By the way, why is worshipping god = good according to a theist (other than divine reward/punishment)?

You need to realize that man (humans) made god(s), therefore any requirement for worship (which is group manipulation) and corresponding following of commands (control) were also requirements conceived by man (humans). At one time in history (even current history) this was used as a way to control and manipulates groups/societies. The man made concept of heaven was the carrot, hell the stick, repentance a loop hole that let a person get back the carrot.

So it's actually the humans that conceived of the 'morals' that they wanted implemented in their society, again, for control and manipulation. One could argue that it, for the most part, was for the societies benefit (but not always, especially on an individual level). As an inducement to follow the morals they invented/created a god(s) that would provide/enforce the ultimate reward and/or punishment.

Also, don't you think most humans are self serving? It is the same for most living creatures. Their 'moral duty' typically stops when the 'self' is threatened.

[The Grand Nudger]

I was wondering if there is any other reason or rationale (from a theistic point of view) to be good to others other than hoping to receive a reward or avoid punishment in the afterlife. I want to know why a theist might think that they have moral duties and obligations. One obvious reason is the hope of receiving a reward or avoiding punishment. I wonder if there are any other reasons and what they might be.

Consider this.  A society may decide it wants to rid the world of everyone with blue eyes.  A society may place a bounty on people with blue eyes.  A society may even levy fines or imprison you if you fail to report people with blue eyes.  You could seek the reward, and avoid the punishment, by collaborating.  

Objective moral values, and whatever duty we're compelled to by them (assuming they exist) are those things we would be compelled to do even if there were no reward, and even when it would lead to punishment.  Divine reward and punishment is not an obvious reason to assert that we have objective moral duties.  It's not a reason that we would have objective moral duties at all.

If there are objective moral values.  If our actions can have consequences of a moral import.  If we are competent moral agents.  Then, and only then, could there be a such a set of things we must do, and we must not do.  It's a narrow lane.  I used the example of feeding my kids earlier.  I'll refer to it again with these conditions fresh in mind.  

We've assumed that there are objective moral values.  It's clear that if I don't feed my children they will starve.  I understand this relationship and I'm capable of effecting the outcome.  Because all of these conditions are true, it follows that I have a moral duty to feed them.  Even if they have blue eyes.

[Angrboda]

Additionally, supposedly good is baked into the universe because of God's nature and perfection. The world around you is good and nobody likes to be the square wheel.

[The Grand Nudger]

The lucky universe. Where the god we got just so happened to be a god with a good nature and perfect agency. More an argument for gods moral duties than our own, imo.