A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[Charles]

Why one would think the difference existsThe difference only exists between extremist and non-extremists

[seer]

This does not make sense to me. Why can't we glorify God for what He is? Creator and sustained of life? Why does there have to be a moral standard independent of Him for us to praise His attributes of love, mercy, forgiveness, etc... And why wouldn't His immutable moral character be a foundation for ethics?

Leibniz goes on to say that:

Of course God's knowledge of what is good is based in His own character, it is not necessary for there to be an independent source of goodness. These things are inherent to His nature.

What we are looking for is that which cannot be different, which could not, no matter how the world was created, be different.

Ok, give us an example.

[Jin-roh]

What work by Descartes was Leibniz referring to? It's kind of hard to understand in isolation right now.

[Charles]

This does not make sense to me. Why can't we glorify God for what He is? Creator and sustained of life? Why does there have to be a moral standard independent of Him for us to praise His attributes of love, mercy, forgiveness, etc... And why wouldn't His immutable moral character be a foundation for ethics?


Of course God's knowledge of what is good is based in His own character, it is not necessary for there to be an independent source of goodness. These things are inherent to His nature.

Ok, give us an example.

I will go through the three passages below:

1) How can you glorify the creator without already holding that what is created is good due to some kind of standard? You talk about an immutable moral character as a foundation for ethics. How do you know if it is a moral character without a moral standard? And if it establishes itself as the standard, we are back to the main point that this is exactly what any extremist would also claim. They claim they cannot question God, and thus they do all kinds of absurdities in his name. If you can only point to God without further justification, you are talking to the members of the church and you are not presenting a philosophical approach based on rational reasoning.

2) How do you know? Any proof? And again if God is the standard himself, then we are back to the "anything goes" logic which is what Leibniz pointed to as an error and which is ultimately extremistic. You are not even close to anything that can be presented as a philosophical approach to the problem discussed.

3) Kant's categorical imperative could be one, the golden rule (perhaps mainly in its negative form) could be another. I will go further into this in another thread, since it is not the main point in this context which is rather a first step into some very complex matters. So I will get to it when I find it is appropriate and will do so in my very own form.

[Charles]

What work by Descartes was Leibniz referring to? It's kind of hard to understand in isolation right now.

Leibniz refers to Descartes several times in Discourse on Metaphysics from where the quotes are taken. However he never points out what work (if any) he is referring to. Leibniz wrote with any philosopher of worth back in those days, so he could have gotten it in a letter, heard it from someone or it may be from a work that he just does not make a reference to. However I think his point is absolutely clear - even if the reference is muddy at best.

[seer]

How can you glorify the creator without already holding that what is created is good due to some kind of standard? You talk about an immutable moral character as a foundation for ethics. How do you know if it is a moral character without a moral standard? And if it establishes itself as the standard, we are back to the main point that this is exactly what any extremist would also claim. They claim they cannot question God, and thus they do all kinds of absurdities in his name. If you can only point to God without further justification, you are talking to the members of the church and you are not presenting a philosophical approach based on rational reasoning.

Charles, God is not a philosophy, He is a person in the deepest sense of the word. Again God's moral nature generally (save sin and selfishness) resonates with ours, His are image bearers, so it quite natural for like to praise like or be drawn to it. We see our attributes in Him except to a greater or infinite degree - and that is praise worthy.

How do you know? Any proof? And again if God is the standard himself, then we are back to the "anything goes" logic which is what Leibniz pointed to as an error and which is ultimately extremistic. You are not even close to anything that can be presented as a philosophical approach to the problem discussed.

But it is not anything goes, since God's moral character is immutable. God couldn't lie or say that lying is good since it would violate His nature which is impossible.

Kant's categorical imperative could be one, the golden rule (perhaps mainly in its negative form) could be another. I will go further into this in another thread, since it is not the main point in this context which is rather a first step into some very complex matters. So I will get to it when I find it is appropriate and will do so in my very own form.

This is the problem, not only will you not be able to demonstrate this objective standard - how do you then demonstrate that this standard is the morally correct one? Do we have a higher standard to by which we can judge those moral principles? And on and on. So instead of giving in to infinite regression you will have to claim that moral questions must stop somewhere - at this particular objective standard. But why not just stop at God's moral nature? And as far as I know moral truths only exist in, or are formulated, in minds - they have no independent existence.

[Jin-roh]

Charles, God is not a philosophy, He is a person in the deepest sense of the word. Again God's moral nature generally (save sin and selfishness) resonates with ours, His are image bearers, so it quite natural for like to praise like or be drawn to it. We see our attributes in Him except to a greater or infinite degree - and that is praise worthy.

As an aside, Feuerbach saw this kind of reasoning, called it anthropomorphism, and argued that the idea of 'god' was only an 'idea of our best selves' and nothing beyond that.

Just throwing that out there.

[Jin-roh]

Leibniz refers to Descartes several times in Discourse on Metaphysics from where the quotes are taken. However he never points out what work (if any) he is referring to. Leibniz wrote with any philosopher of worth back in those days, so he could have gotten it in a letter, heard it from someone or it may be from a work that he just does not make a reference to. However I think his point is absolutely clear - even if the reference is muddy at best.

Alright... thanks for tossing out the source. I don't know if Descartes would advocate DCT, at least not in the crude form as it common pops up.

[seer]

As an aside, Feuerbach saw this kind of reasoning, called it anthropomorphism, and argued that the idea of 'god' was only an 'idea of our best selves' and nothing beyond that.

Just throwing that out there.

Jin are you a Christian? I get these ideas from Scripture, they are not inventions of my own.

[Charles]

Charles, God is not a philosophy, He is a person in the deepest sense of the word. Again God's moral nature generally (save sin and selfishness) resonates with ours, His are image bearers, so it quite natural for like to praise like or be drawn to it. We see our attributes in Him except to a greater or infinite degree - and that is praise worthy.



But it is not anything goes, since God's moral character is immutable. God couldn't lie or say that lying is good since it would violate His nature which is impossible.



This is the problem, not only will you not be able to demonstrate this objective standard - how do you then demonstrate that this standard is the morally correct one? Do we have a higher standard to by which we can judge those moral principles? And on and on. So instead of giving in to infinite regression you will have to claim that moral questions must stop somewhere - at this particular objective standard. But why not just stop at God's moral nature? And as far as I know moral truths only exist in, or are formulated, in minds - they have no independent existence.

1) I see you giving no reason as to why we have to believe in your particular God as some kind of moral standard. Are we just to take your word for it? You can claim as many convenient things as you like about God but i see no line of reasoning, no argument, just a lot of claims that anyone could make about anything. There is nothing there that would apply to anyone apart from those who believe it already. It may have its value in a context of faith. But in a philosophical context in which we are trying to reason our way through, you have not given us any reason to believe in those claims. You wrote "it quite natural for like to praise like or be drawn to it". Again why does this constitute a moral good?

2) That may be what you claim about your God, and other would claim something different about theirs. The point is still exactly the same: you have put yourself in a situation in which you don't reflect but just go for what you are told. Ultimately what extremists are doing.

3) You wrote: "But why not just stop at God's moral nature?" You are yet to establish why we are to regard it as a moral nature. You have given no reason at all, just claims. Believers in other Gods could make similar claims about their God's moral nature.

[Charles]

As an aside, Feuerbach saw this kind of reasoning, called it anthropomorphism, and argued that the idea of 'god' was only an 'idea of our best selves' and nothing beyond that.

Just throwing that out there.

[seer]

That may be what you claim about your God, and other would claim something different about theirs. The point is still exactly the same: you have put yourself in a situation in which you don't reflect but just go for what you are told. Ultimately what extremists are doing.

3) You wrote: "But why not just stop at God's moral nature?" You are yet to establish why we are to regard it as a moral nature. You have given no reason at all, just claims. Believers in other Gods could make similar claims about their God's moral nature.

Again Charles, why stop at this imaginary "objective standard" of yours? Where do you go to demonstrate that that standard is the correct one? One could envision the idea of a moral God (mine or any other) being the embodiment of moral truth via His moral character. It is much more difficult, if not impossible, to imagine this disembodied moral standard of yours especially in light of the facts that moral ideals are mind driven and interpersonal. No minds - no ethics.

[Jin-roh]

Jin are you a Christian?

Yes.

I'm also acutely aware of things like the via negativa tradition.

I get these ideas from Scripture, they are not inventions of my own.

And Seer misses the point.

[Charles]

Again Charles, why stop at this imaginary "objective standard" of yours? Where do you go to demonstrate that that standard is the correct one? One could envision the idea of a moral God (mine or any other) being the embodiment of moral truth via His moral character. It is much more difficult, if not impossible, to imagine this disembodied moral standard of yours especially in light of the facts that moral ideals are mind driven and interpersonal. No minds - no ethics.

First of all you are still not providing any line of reasoning, but only a bunch of claims. In a philosophical aproach this is not enough. It is not even close. You are not answering any questions at all. It just pure claims and dogmatism.

Secondly I have already pointed out that the part about objective standards will be touched upon in another thread because that makes sense in the aproach that I have. You are not going to decide in this thread.

[seer]

Yes.

I'm also acutely aware of things like the via negativa tradition.

Yes, that we can only define God in the negative, what He is not (if I remember correctly). But Christ was God incarnate and can be defined by positive attributes. "He who has seen me has seen the Father" never mind the fact that God even in the Old Testament self-defines with positive attributes.

And Seer misses the point.

It wouldn't be the first time...