God and Morality (Euthryphro)

[argent_paladin]

I just wanted to distract this board a bit from the kneeling/standing saga that is going on on three separate threads. So, I am playing devil's advocate with this poll. I also think that it can potentially come up and people should be prepared to argue against it. So, I quote from someone's blog to explain:
Arbitrary or Irrelevant


[quote]
It is commonly thought that we need religion to ground our morality. Most Americans will say they would not vote for a political candidate solely on the grounds that he is an Atheist. Presumably, the objection is that he will not have the proper moral values. But consider this question asked by Socrates in The Euthyphro.

"Is what is holy holy because the gods approve it, or do they approve it because it is holy?"

If we take the first answer that what is good is good because God says so, then we have something that is arbitrary. I'll admit it may be wise to obey the whims of an arbitrary God, but suppose he is an evil being. After all, God seems to approve of slaughtering innocents, stoning children, ethnic cleansing and so forth in the Old Testament.

Suppose we take the second answer, that God approves of something because it is independently good and he must approve of the good things. Then what God says is irrelevant to what is good.

When it comes to morality, God is either arbitrary or irrelevant.[/quote]
How would you respond? Try not to use scripture but logic and philosophy alone.

[save ferris 101]

This is hard. I've thought about this before, but never came to a conclusion, and I've never heard what the church, or anyone for that matter, says on the subject. Hmmm.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote]How would you respond? Try not to use scripture but logic and philosophy alone.
[/quote]

Thats a good joke. It's when we rely on ourselves that we become wrong.

However, to feed your curisoty of what I think, and if those are the options at hand, I'd say arbitrary. AFter all, nothing is without God, and as such nothing can be without God. If God doesn't proclaim something good, then how can it be? If sanctication of our souls and salvation wasn't a goal for Christians because God proclaimed it, then would we know that it is our goal?

God bless,
Mikey

[Cam42]

argent,

Are you talking about Kantian Philosphy? Just curious.......

However, I think that there is a major flaw in this whole thing...one cannot separate God from the good.

[quote]Suppose we take the second answer, that God approves of something because it is independently good and he must approve of the good things. Then what God says is irrelevant to what is good.[/quote]

Something is not good independently of God, but rather something is good, because it contains to a greater or lesser degrees, attributes of the divine good, or God.

[quote]To be good belongs pre-eminently to God. For a thing is good according to its desirableness. Now everything seeks after its own perfection; and the perfection and form of an effect consist in a certain likeness to the agent, since every agent makes its like; and hence the agent itself is desirable and has the nature of good. For the very thing which is desirable in it is the participation of its likeness. Therefore, since God is the first effective cause of all things, it is manifest that the aspect of good and of desirableness belong to Him; and hence Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) attributes good to God as to the first efficient cause, saying that, God is called good "as by Whom all things subsist."  (Summa Theologica I-I, 6, 2)[/quote]

So, something that is good, cannot be separated from the first cause, which is God. Unless I am missing the point of your coversation.

Cam42

[MichaelFilo]

Well, thats definatly a better way to look at it.

God bless,
Cam Jr.

[Jaime]

[quote]So, something that is good, cannot be separated from the first cause, which is God. [/quote]

Cam is right. God is good. God is also great

Thank you for this food amen.

[Cam42]

So does this mean that I get my burger at Ike's now? Since you've said Grace and all.......

[God Conquers]

I'd say you're getting into an issue here that the scholastics spent many years mulling over.

William of Ockham proposed the view that the highest moral act, or virtuous act was to follow God's will because it is God's will as revealed in scripture and the Church, and for no other reason.

This nearly inverts the previous conception of the moral order and gave rise to Protestant sola scriptura... something is only good or worth doing if God explicitly states it in scripture.

I think that there is some third option.... things are wrong because they are wrong as God made them. From His point of view, your point of view and an objective natural point of view.

Right and wrong do not exist independently of God but they can be discerned from logic and nature as well as from revealed sources.

[Jaime]

[quote]I think that there is some third option.... things are wrong because they are wrong as God made them[/quote]

If it was really an option... wouldn't it be a dinner prayer?



I rest my case

[track2004]

Going off the statement that "God is good", taken most literaly then God is goodness at its most pure. God is a fun name we gave to something that is highest truth, power and wisdom. So going off of this relationship God telling people what is good is His self revelation to us. This does not make Him irrelevant or arbitrary but rather an entity we only see part of. The world could not function without the truth, power and wisdom He has granted us. Some of this was given to us by His words and some we figured out with His help (in an indrect way). But the small amount of truth, power and wisdom that we do have allows us to conceive of an ultimate incarnation of these. Because we have a hard time thinking of these alone as such so we give Him human characteristics (and/or He takes on human characteristics to communicate with us).

Just some change... two cents to be exact... from me.

[argent_paladin]

I have my own thoughts which I will reserve for a bit. But I think Cam is on the right track. The key is a revival of the idea of natural law, that is, God's law written in the very structure of existence.

[Myles Domini]

[quote]I have my own thoughts which I will reserve for a bit. But I think Cam is on the right track. The key is a revival of the idea of natural law, that is, God's law written in the very structure of existence. [/quote]

Agreed, the mediaeval masters like the Jewish Philosopher, Maiomonides, and St Thomas Aquinas might well have considered the statement 'God is arbitrary' to be blasphemous since it presumes to be make a positive statement about God from philosophical reason alone. Man has moral obligations because of the beauty of God's design: that is, all things are good and become evil only in the privation of some good those things should have. Things are only good because God has made them that way but this does not make God arbitrary. All things are good and when there is a privation of some good that God has designed them to achieve then and only then do they become evil. God is good and we can know this from philosophy because of his attractiveness. Nonetheless, we cannot presume to know what this goodness means. God revealed it to us through Christ Jesus but even that is simply the goodness of God that can presented to us through human perfection. Jesus Himself says 'why do you call me good?' it is true that Jesus is true God and true man but the natures are distinct in spite of being united hypostatically. We can never know the fullness of God's goodness even when fully united to Him in Heaven because to know what it means to make a positive statement about God is to be God. You would have to have the infinate capacity of God to comprehend such statements. We can never make positive statements about God such as 'God is arbitrary' it is tantamount to saying YHWH in vain. Man is obliged to what God wills and what God wills is a product of God's goodness, which makes all things good. What it means for God to be good is a question that nobody can answer. Indeed to condescend to our level of understanding Jesus had to die to give us a living example of God's love because man could not grasp it from words alone. However, we can know indirectly that God is good and that his creation is good. The implications of that arent really in our ability to grasp. The question of whether God is arbitrary is really one of Wittgensteinian logic.
Even if things are only good because God made them that that way, and they are, and even if we only have moral obligations because of God's natural design, which is also true. Can we ever make the statement that God is arbitrary? Philosophically the answer, of course, is no.

[vianney]

This is simple. We went over this a lil bit in metaphysics/faith and doubt. God is by his nature good. One could say God is bound by his nature. Therefore, when something is good it is good because God is the reflection of that good in the thing but at the same time that thing could not be anything other than good because it was made by supreme goodness. In other words God is good among other things so to seperate good and God is impossible.

[burnsspivey]

Just to throw a little monism out there:

Good and evil are constructs of the mind. We assign those values to thing that happen. Things that happen just are; they have no inherent value.

[vianney]

If good and evil are constructs of the mind why do all people universally have some concept of good and evil? Furthermore where do these concepts of good and evil come from? Why do not animals have these? How and where are they introduced?