An interesting meta-ethical question brought up in a class I'm taking...

[73109]

So, over the summer, I'm taking a philosophy 101 class. My teacher isn't really a teacher, per se, and believes that philosophy should not be taught, rather a classroom should be an open forum with certain discussion topics. Now, we got off on some weird tangent and an interesting thing came up.

If one wanted to perscribe to the belief that it is immoral to kill because God says it is, this means one of 2 things. One, God is being completely arbitrary in which case, there's really no point in following the rules of some arbitrary omniscient deity. Plus, God does not seem to be an arbitrary figure. However, if God has a reason for telling his followers to not kill, God needs to be perscribing to some belief that is even beyond his power. If that is the case, what is this power?

Interesting stuff, huh?

This is not a crack at God, and I'm actually looking forward more to the answers from religious people rather than the nontheists on this one.

[Ħ]

I believe that morals come from God and he makes the rules, not that there are rules above him.  My views are subject to change, though.

[73109]

That's exactly the point though. Where is God coming from to make the rules? It doesn't seem like he's the type of figure to say, "Hmm...murder? Wrong. Rape? Wrong. Helping an old lady cross the street? Right." And if that's the case, where is he getting his ideas of right and wrong?

[Ħ]

Is it okay to say that I don't know?

[73109]

Perfectly acceptable answer, I guess. Granted, in a philosophical debate (which this isn't, more of a discussion) it really won't hold up.

But I agree. I have no clue. Granted, I don't believe in god, so it kind of negates this entire thing, but I am very interested in the answers of the religious folk.

[Sigz]

I assume that god's morals are self generated. It's really no different that asking why he created the universe or has done any of the things he has. If you're taking the position that there is some being out there capable of creating reality, assuming he has the ability to form moral systems out of nothing is hardly a large leap in logic IMO.

[Ħ]

Granted, in a philosophical debate (which this isn't, more of a discussion) it really won't hold up.

What honestly does?  

With or without God, I can't find a way to construct an absolutely perfect argument for objective morals either way.

[73109]

There are no objective morals?

[Ħ]

There are no objective morals?

I believe there are because I trust God, but I can't think of a way to come up with them through my own logic.

[Zook]

There are no objective morals?

I believe there are because I trust God, but I can't think of a way to come up with them through my own logic.

This makes no sense to me.

[bosk1]

To reword H's post in my own terms, I think he is saying "God is the source of what is objectively moral; something is objectively moral because God says so."  Which I would agree with. 

[Ħ]

There are no objective morals?

I believe there are because I trust God, but I can't think of a way to come up with them through my own logic.

This makes no sense to me.

How so?

[73109]

There are no objective morals?

I believe there are because I trust God, but I can't think of a way to come up with them through my own logic.

I guess that is ok.

Oh, and from a philosophical standpoint, one can argue anything, whether right or wrong, a "valid argument" consists of a certain number of "premises" that support a "conclusion."

[73109]

To reword H's post in my own terms, I think he is saying "God is the source of what is objectively moral; something is objectively moral because God says so."  Which I would agree with. 

But if God is the source of what is objectively moral, is he being arbitrary.

I understand this is pretty much socratic discussion at its best and nothing we say or do will prove to be the "better" argument. I'm just curious.

[bosk1]

To reword H's post in my own terms, I think he is saying "God is the source of what is objectively moral; something is objectively moral because God says so."  Which I would agree with.  

But if God is the source of what is objectively moral, is he being arbitrary.

Only if your philosophical paradigm does not allow for a single source of absolute, objective morality.  But, IMO, such a paradigm is useless because it requires an infinite layer of increasingly authoritative sources of absolute morality that ultimately approach, but never achieve, true objective morality, correct?  In other words, as far as we mortals are concerned, things are moral because God says so.  But then God had to have gotten that from somewhere outside himself, which we will call "God Level 2."  But then God Level 2 must have gotten it from somewhere outside itself, and so on and so on.  But then again, maybe I just inadvertently correctly described the unlimited omnipotence of God of that infinate number of layers of increasingly authoritative sources of absolute morality reside in one being, which is God.

Do I win now?  

[73109]

There is no winner, however:

In other words, as far as we mortals are concerned, things are moral because God says so.  But then God had to have gotten that from somewhere outside himself, which we will call "God Level 2."  But then God Level 2 must have gotten it from somewhere outside itself, and so on and so on.

This is what I'm getting at. I mean, you can say God is omnipotent and it negates everything, which I guess is a valid argument, but the one thing I've always dug about the subject is the ability to say "...and then...and then...and then...and then?"

[Jamesman42]

Why does the issue need to be pressed further by saying "and then?"

[bosk1]

There is no winner, however:

In other words, as far as we mortals are concerned, things are moral because God says so.  But then God had to have gotten that from somewhere outside himself, which we will call "God Level 2."  But then God Level 2 must have gotten it from somewhere outside itself, and so on and so on.

This is what I'm getting at. I mean, you can say God is omnipotent and it negates everything, which I guess is a valid argument, but the one thing I've always dug about the subject is the ability to say "...and then...and then...and then...and then?"

I get what you are getting at, which is cool.  In a sense, as I pointed out, that paradigm is inconsistent with Christianity.  But in a sense, it also sort of embodies a description of God.  Fascinating...

[73109]

Why does the issue need to be pressed further by saying "and then?"

I'm not saying this issue, but everything really.

[Zook]

There are no objective morals?

I believe there are because I trust God, but I can't think of a way to come up with them through my own logic.

This makes no sense to me.

How so?

Bosk summed it up for me. I don't agree. In fact, that way of thinking to me is redonkulous.

[Adami]

The problem with the question Cole is a few assumptions.


1. It negates the idea that if there is a god, that it based morality upon logic....which is neither above nor beneath it.
2. It holds the same creation problem of what begot what.

[yeshaberto]

I tend to believe that God's morals are rooted in his nature...for example, he is love, therefore anything contrary to love (murder, rape, etc) is immoral (or contrary to his character)

[73109]

The problem with the question Cole is a few assumptions.


1. It negates the idea that if there is a god, that it based morality upon logic....which is neither above nor beneath it.
2. It holds the same creation problem of what begot what.

I totally understand issue #2, and it will be an issue for as long as questions liked these are discussed, but regarding issue #1, what exactly is "logical" about morality? I can logically argue that killing an innocent man is the "right" thing to do. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm merely asking your opinion.

[Adami]

I tend to believe that God's morals are rooted in his nature...for example, he is love, therefore anything contrary to love (murder, rape, etc) is immoral (or contrary to his character)

To be fair, the new testament would then send the message that it's cool to knock up married chicks and kill your kids as long as it's for a good cause.

The problem with the question Cole is a few assumptions.


1. It negates the idea that if there is a god, that it based morality upon logic....which is neither above nor beneath it.
2. It holds the same creation problem of what begot what.

I totally understand issue #2, and it will be an issue for as long as questions liked these are discussed, but regarding issue #1, what exactly is "logical" about morality? I can logically argue that killing an innocent man is the "right" thing to do. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm merely asking your opinion.

Depends on what moral. For instance you need to have an ultimate goal that morality is serving, in humanities case the ultimate goal would simply be survival. Killing is then immoral because it does not allow for survival. And so forth.

Now there's plenty of "morals" in the bible that have no basis in logic.

[73109]

But I can argue that killing one, gives that life source's food to the rest of the world, promoting life, can't I?

[Adami]

But I can argue that killing one, gives that life source's food to the rest of the world, promoting life, can't I?

Nope, because survival of the species rests on multiple people living. If you kill someone for their property, then you can kill everyone for their property until you are left alone and the species goes extinct. Also, there's a reciprication factor. For instance, I do not want to be punched in the face....so I will not punch others in the face. Same here.


You could argue that there are benefits to anything, but the presence of benefits doesn't logically make it a good thing to do because the consequences are being ignored.

[j]

So, over the summer, I'm taking a philosophy 101 class. My teacher isn't really a teacher, per se, and believes that philosophy should not be taught, rather a classroom should be an open forum with certain discussion topics.

Lol, I think Philosophy 101 must be the same across the entire country.

-J

[Perpetual Change]

To be fair, the new testament would then send the message that it's cool to knock up married chicks and kill your kids as long as it's for a good cause.

There is nothing "fair" about this statement at all.

[Adami]

To be fair, the new testament would then send the message that it's cool to knock up married chicks and kill your kids as long as it's for a good cause.

There is nothing "fair" about this statement at all.

Fairness in showing another side to his statement. I'm not saying that's the message the bible is sending, but he said morality is derived from gods character, and as far as I know...god did those things in the bible.


I was just pointing out that unfortunately in the case of a god, it seems to be more "do as I say not as I do". I have no emotional and personal stake in this so don't take what I say personally, I am merely pointing out what I feel to be flaws in logic.

[Perpetual Change]

Oh, ok. I get what you mean.

[yeshaberto]

oh, i gotcha too

[El Barto]

So, over the summer, I'm taking a philosophy 101 class. My teacher isn't really a teacher, per se, and believes that philosophy should not be taught, rather a classroom should be an open forum with certain discussion topics.

Lol, I think Philosophy 101 must be the same across the entire country.

-J

Huh.  My philo-101 teacher actually taught a fairly normal class (and pretty well). 

I asked a very similar question in that class, which was,  what gives God the right?  Alas, the answer there was just as weak and arbitrary. 

[kári]

what gives God the right?

I don't think it's about right, more like do this and you get into heaven, which I created. You know, if you want to.

[ehra]

One, God is being completely arbitrary in which case, there's really no point in following the rules of some arbitrary omniscient deity.

Why not?

This question could just as easily be about humans as it could be about God, and if someone said there was no point in following the arbitrary rules of human society then people would be quick to point out how that particular line of thinking only works if you don't mind being socially shunned or worse. Why is it any different when talking about a being that's higher up the chain?

I'd also question what's so negative about God's rules being "arbitrary" to begin with. I can see why it'd be negative when talking about humans due to our limited knowledge and how difficult it'd be to have a coherent set of social rules that followed everyone's own personal views, but not when talking about an "omniscient deity" that, by definition, has more knowledge of the consequences of our actions than we do. Something being arbitrary would, realistically, only be "bad" if that something had the potential to be incorrect.

[El JoNNo]

what gives God the right?  

Nothing other than a "might makes right" scenario.