So there are moral facts ... how do they relate to God?

[nightbringer]

Presumably all theists believe in moral facts - that is, there are actually existing "oughts" - imperatives we should follow. But in what way are they rooted in God? In his commands? His character? Can any of these positions avoid being arbitrary designations of goodness? Share your thoughts.

[themuzicman]

Morals are defined by the nature of what God created and what God's intent is for that creation.

If you think about the state of God before creation, there is really no reason for morals, per se, because there is no one to violate them. Thus, morality is defined by the nature of what was created.

[shunyadragon]

Morals are defined by the nature of what God created and what God's intent is for that creation.

If you think about the state of God before creation, there is really no reason for morals, per se, because there is no one to violate them. Thus, morality is defined by the nature of what was created.

This does not not answer the question nor explain anything but an assertion of belief.

[nightbringer]

Morals are defined by the nature of what God created and what God's intent is for that creation.

If you think about the state of God before creation, there is really no reason for morals, per se, because there is no one to violate them. Thus, morality is defined by the nature of what was created.

What then if God's nature was to inflict harm and cruelty? If that sort of God created a world, would looking after each other be immoral?

[Manwë Súlimo]

What then if God's nature was to inflict harm and cruelty? If that sort of God created a world, would looking after each other be immoral?

Yes. The only reason you object to this "possibility"* is because you live in a universe where the opposite is true.









* - For the record, I don't think this is possible. I believe God's nature as it is, is a logical necessity of a logically necessary Being. It can't be otherwise.

[nightbringer]

Without trying to be difficult (i.e. I genuinely want to know), what reasons are there to believe that God's character is necessarily what it is?

[shunyadragon]

Presumably all theists believe in moral facts - that is, there are actually existing "oughts" - imperatives we should follow. But in what way are they rooted in God? In his commands? His character? Can any of these positions avoid being arbitrary designations of goodness? Share your thoughts.

The classic problem of morality and ethics is presented in a different way by Sea in Apologetic 301 in wording the question 'natural versus non-natural?'

We actually cannot contrast two different 'worlds,' one 'good' theist where there are "oughts" - imperatives we should follow founded on an objective Divine morality, and one 'bad' world (secular?) where there is no God, and without the "oughts" founded on objective Divine morality and (arbitrary designations of goodness?). There is an interesting comparison in terms of the human perspective of a secular versus theistic moral system on earth, but from a less biased perspective both are very natural, and both have "oughts" - imperatives we should follow..

[InLightofThis]

Presumably all theists believe in moral facts - that is, there are actually existing "oughts" - imperatives we should follow. But in what way are they rooted in God? In his commands? His character? Can any of these positions avoid being arbitrary designations of goodness? Share your thoughts.

Hi,

Well, it seems that there is a serious problem with saying that moral facts are rooted in God's commands or even his character.

What makes God's commands or character good? We need a working definition of "good," and if we simply make the claim that God is "definitionally good," then we are in effect saying that God is good because he is God. It could be argued that this is an empty tautology.

If it were in God's character to lie, or if God commanded someone to lie, then lying would be morally right according to this scheme. I find this unacceptable.

But I've only recently begun to consider this problem. I could very well be mistaken.

Regards,

~ILOT

[nightbringer]

^ I feel the same.

[Bernie]

Presumably all theists believe in moral facts - that is, there are actually existing "oughts" - imperatives we should follow. But in what way are they rooted in God? In his commands? His character? Can any of these positions avoid being arbitrary designations of goodness? Share your thoughts.

My thinking is similar to musicman's. Moral "facts" or oughts are to me actually an intuited sense of pressure imposed on the intellect by falsity. Morality is tension (in descriptive reality) and resistance (in prescriptive reality) between true and false information...meaning information in an ontological sense as the base characteristic or element of all existing things. For example, in matters pertaining to inert matter, there is a tension in what is false...e.g., that 2 + 2 = 5. But in matters of prescriptive value, which attaches anywhere life is present, the human mind--which has a natural tendency, even in a falsified (fallen) state--to discern a "proper order" to life, or moral values, resistance is raised in the mind's speculation about embracing false affairs. Obviously, we all aren't on the same page in our moral perception, and I think this too can be adequately explained by the fact that every mind is falsified to different degrees. If one is hardened or falsified to accept an evil as good, it's because it has become falsified to the extent resistance is no longer felt. This is spiritual death, which causes an ignorance of proper moral direction (1Cor 2:14). Because we're falsified, we tend to favor certain goods to the rejection of others, but in a fragmentally falsified world, this is often the best we can do.

In this scenario, in a "garden state" (not in New Jersey, but in a state of perfection...which actually describes Iowa, come to think of it....) there would be no sense of "morality" becuase morality is only the pressure imposed on perfection by imperfection, or imposed by the false on what is true. Moral facts are thus rooted in God's essence...He is wholly True. I believe the phrase "made in God's image" refers to the original (and future) state of perfection. God made Adam true or perfect in every respect. To the extent we are out of union or not rooted in/with God is precisely the degree to which each of us is currently falsified in spirit, mind and body. This isn't arbitrary, but the way He designed His creation. This is how I'd answer your question.

[shunyadragon]

My thinking is similar to musicman's. Moral "facts" or oughts are to me actually an intuited sense of pressure imposed on the intellect by falsity. Morality is tension (in descriptive reality) and resistance (in prescriptive reality) between true and false information...meaning information in an ontological sense as the base characteristic or element of all existing things. For example, in matters pertaining to inert matter, there is a tension in what is false...e.g., that 2 + 2 = 5. But in matters of prescriptive value, which attaches anywhere life is present, the human mind--which has a natural tendency, even in a falsified (fallen) state--to discern a "proper order" to life, or moral values, resistance is raised in the mind's speculation about embracing false affairs. Obviously, we all aren't on the same page in our moral perception, and I think this too can be adequately explained by the fact that every mind is falsified to different degrees. If one is hardened or falsified to accept an evil as good, it's because it has become falsified to the extent resistance is no longer felt. This is spiritual death, which causes an ignorance of proper moral direction (1Cor 2:14). Because we're falsified, we tend to favor certain goods to the rejection of others, but in a fragmentally falsified world, this is often the best we can do.

In this scenario, in a "garden state" (not in New Jersey, but in a state of perfection...which actually describes Iowa, come to think of it....) there would be no sense of "morality" becuase morality is only the pressure imposed on perfection by imperfection, or imposed by the false on what is true. Moral facts are thus rooted in God's essence...He is wholly True. I believe the phrase "made in God's image" refers to the original (and future) state of perfection. God made Adam true or perfect in every respect. To the extent we are out of union or not rooted in/with God is precisely the degree to which each of us is currently falsified in spirit, mind and body. This isn't arbitrary, but the way He designed His creation. This is how I'd answer your question.

Even though I am a theist, I consider such explanations as hypothetically constructed and somewhat unecessarilly complicated. The simple natural explanation based on the natural evidence is much easier to accept.

[Bernie]

Even though I am a theist, I consider such explanations as hypothetically constructed and somewhat unecessarilly complicated. The simple natural explanation based on the natural evidence is much easier to accept.

I'm not sure what "hypothetically constructed" means or how any theology, personal or orthodox, can be otherwise. I tend to think it best to try to explore the boundaries of what is and isn't true, whether simple or not. What value is there in what is easy to accept aside from whether or not it's true? If the highest standard is "easier to accept", what's gained?

[Bernie]

addendum to last post: I've given some thought to the simple/complex issue regarding personal theology, and have come to the conclusion that in the complex, causes are virtually always the object of inquiry, while the simplistic is discussion about effects. The complex leads inexorably to and is summarized in simple effects (and their correspondingly simple explanations) while the simple, broken down into constituents, leads back to the complex of causes by which our summary explanations are acquired. I.e., the compelx is neither evil nor unnecessary, it's just part of the game.