The Morality Dilemma
Offline Deriving the Morality Dilemma from the Euthyphro Dilemma
Consider the following: Is what is commanded by God good because it is good, or because it is commanded by God?
The Morality Dilemma
From here, we can infer that either: 1. God is not omnipotent, and must adhere to morals or 2. that for God and morals to be compatible, God must be an inferior being or 3. God has no basis for his actions and thus cannot act rationally and objective morality does not exist. This is the heart of the Morality Dilemma. How we reach these two conclusions can be seen in the following parts of this thread.
Implication #1
If the former, then God must be, in some aspects, subservient to morality. This means that God's sovereignty is compromised--morals are superior, at least in some regard, to his Will and power, and God's goodness depends on some independent standards, something that is unalterable. Clearly, this is a problem for those who consider God to be the most superior being, as even He is subject to something outside himself. If this is true, God cannot be omnipotent and all-sovereign.
Implication #2
If, on the other hand, morals are something created by God, morals must necessarily be inferior to him (lest he create morals only to have them rule over him, which takes us back to Implication #1). That means that if God chooses to follow such morals, he is following something lesser than what he is; this is a problem since that doesn't make God the greatest being as he is bogged down and controlled by something inferior than he is. Still, it doesn't seem like such a big deal, does it? A theist can merely answer that God exists outside of morals and be done with it, although some rather nasty questions must be answered about the nature of morality, but that is something that we will not discuss here.
Complications of Implication #2
When we combine Implication #2 with the Problem of Evil, serious complications arise for the Theist. The most popular response is that God allows free will to exist because it allows for some greater good to occur. To act with the purpose of achieving some greater good, however, implies following a moral system. If Implication #2 is to be followed, then that means that for God to determine that giving us free will and allowing evil to exist (two independent actions, mind you) will result in a greater good, he must have acted from morals. The complication here is that this means that at least for some time, God was not the most potent being, and was subservient to some lesser concept. That is, our world would be the creation of an inferior being than what God normally is. To complicate matters more, a Christian theist, who believes in an unchanging, omnipotent God would either have to admit that God changed into an inferior form of himself, contradicting his own theology OR admit that Free-Will Theodicy is not applicable to the Christian conception of God.
Implication #3
A. If the way God acts defines morality, then God has no basis for any of his actions. This is because God does not need to think about the consequences of his actions, as whatever they are, they must be inherently good. That is, it doesn't matter if killing someone infringes upon their free will, so long as God acts that way, it would be moral. This means there is no rational basis for morality, or any of God's actions. God could create a world were people can only make others suffer, and it would be moral. There would be no reason in the world why God would favor a perfect world over one full of suffering. Furthermore, the word "good" becomes a mere tautology (because God's Will=good) and there would be no difference between God and an all-powerful demon. In other words, God's rationality, goodness, and very identity is compromised.
B. Alternatively, if the Theist assumes that God was perfect and complete before creating or acting, then God was perfect without morals. That means that although we call God's actions "moral", to God they are merely his actions and he is not subject to them (if God decides not to kill, that would be called moral. If later he decides to kill, that would also be called moral, but God is not affected by any action, since morality is still dependent on him), and we are back to Implication #2.
Conclusion
This dilemma is by no means the be-all end-all question to Theism, let alone the question of "Does God exist". However, it seriously compromises the belief that God is omnipotent. Furthermore, it makes Free Will Theodicy tricky, as it is either the conception of an inferior God or a God that is not omnipotent, and for the Christian, it is not even an option.
Too lazy, didn't want to read it
Basically: If morals exist outside of God, at least in some regards, Morals must be greater than God. On the other hand, if morals are created by God, they are both arbitrary (a nasty little problem in and out of itself) and inferior to God, meaning that if God acts based on morals, he is an inferior being than what he was prior to subjecting himself to morality. This is a huge problem because Free Will Theodicy relies on God acting out of some moral system. It also implies that for Free Will theodicy to work, God's character and qualities must change, which directly contradicts Christian theology.
"The Chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. Just no Character."
"He...had gone down in flames...on the seventh day, while God was resting"
"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You should be taken outside and shot!"
- Login to post comments
As a mature moral person I experience within me the voice of conscience as an absolute, unconditioned moral imperative: "You ought to do this good. You ought to avoid this evil." It is not a conditional statement or suggestion: "If you want to be happy, or avoid punishment, or receive a reward, or if this appeals to you, do it." It is categorical. The key point of this imperative is not the particular content, this or that, of the act ordered or forbidden. This may vary with a certain limited relativity according to the particular intelligence, sensitivity, upbringing, culture of the individual in a given society. But what remains as an absolute, unconditioned in all cases is the core: "You ought to do good and avoid evil." Though I can dull the voice of conscience by continual deliberate violation of its commands, I cannot totally extinguish the basic imperative-- Do good, avoid evil-- without ceasing to be truly human. The voice of conscience is both antecedent, warning me ahead of time what I ought to do, and consequent, judging my action afterwards as praiseworthy or blameworthy.
The only adequate sufficient reason, or source, of this absolute or unconditioned moral imperative within me, commanding me to do this or avoid that and judging my response afterwards, can only be an absolute Law-Giver and Judge who is the ultimate Source of moral obligation, dependent on nothing further, with absolute authority over my rational nature, and hence must be the very constituting source of this nature. None of the other alternatives are adequate to generate authentic, unconditional moral obligation. I cannot be the source imposing the command on myself because what I freely impose on myself I can also freely revoke. Nor can my parents or society be the ultimate originating source. They can tell me: "Do this or you will get punished, be disapproved by us, be ostracized by us, become unhappy." This may be, and must be, the beginning of moral conscience in the child, but this cannot supply the unconditional ought for the mature, responsible, critically reflective adult. Such persons now obey their conscience, the call of the moral good, not because someone else taught them or told them (or tells them) to do so, but because they themselves now see that this is the good and they ought to do it.
Either moral obligation, speaking through the voice of each person's conscience, is an illusion, foisted on me by the sheer power or persuasion of human society; or, if I take it seriously, as I must to be authentically and maturely human, then its only ultimate source must be an absolute unconditioned Law-Giver, Source of my human nature.
Now to your “dilemma”: It is based upon a false dichotomy, namely, that it is either the case the morality is arbitrarily decided by God or greater than God.
Morality is a reflection of God’s character. God did not choose His own character anymore than He chose to be God. His character is an extension of what it means to be God. It is wrong to lie, for example, because God cannot tell a lie. Hence, God does not choose to not lie, but He cannot tell a lie. If it was possible for God to tell a lie, then He would not be God.
To your objection in Implication #3, God needs no basis for any of His actions. If He did, then God would be ancillary to a set of rules accounted for by something other than Him, but God serves nobody. We only serve Him. God is goodness. The very fact that we have a notion of the good is contingent upon the existence of God, the divine exemplar of absolute goodness. God cannot turn good into evil (per your example) because the nature of the good is fixed into His essence. God could not be perfect without His character because His character is concomitant with His ontological plenitude or perfection.
Conclusion: Your "dilemma" is not at all daring or clever. If you presented it to a group of seasoned theologians, they would laugh you out of the classroom.
Very thorough. My thoughts exactly.
...or your assumptions about my assumptions are faulty.
Before responding to my posts, I'd like it if you would read what I previously wrote. That way you could realize that your post is completely irrelevant, and you wouldn't bother writing it in the first place.
If there did exist an entity of the scale and power imagined for God, its nature and motivation would be totally inaccessible to us in any certainty.
Observation of the Universe and the many deep imperfections in our structure and 'design' suggest that such a creature, if it exists, and was involved in our origins, it does indeed have a degree of malevolence or cruelty or incompetence.
Morality can only exist by the necessities of living in a social structure, requiring a degree of cooperation, encouraged by such emotions/drives as empathy, and the emotional rewards of friendship and other positive interactions.
Theologians deserve to be laughed out of any group of serious thinkers.
For a God to exist, reality must have some basic coherent structure, which is all that is required for complex organisms, including possible Gods, to emerge.
The problem of evil disappears with the dismissal of the nonsensical idea of a God.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I drew from your words - are you taking a new position?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Flaming, but yours is an honest position. Do you wonder at the anthropomorphic nature of god's morality or are you comfortable with the idea god and humans are so tied together they in a sense, mirror one another?
I wrestle with your interpretations of the bible that undo the underlying fallacy from force. Do you handle this through the logical process you outlined here? And could you explain point 2 in your logical sequence?
Ummm - yeah I think we are all agnostic atheists here. You'd have to know everything to be an atheist in the purist sense and by default we have to leave the door open for future proofs. I use the term interchangeably, sorry.
I know what the bible says about heaven in a fair bit of detail tho' I'm sure we'd agree there are a lot of assertions not just with the golden pavements and the mansions and the city of light but with the living presence of god.
I'm not sure what a kick that might be - perhaps like a hug from dad or something. Personally, heaven for me would be chilling with friends. A motorcycle ride on a road never travelled. A beam reach. Just keep me away the singing.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
William says his character has moved beyond the conventional morality of reward and punishment to sunny uplands of universal altruism but some of his posts here suggest another truth. And all those assertions about god! You boys must be real close. As for false dichotomy, why don't we consider this one. That in the absence of completely understanding the hitherto physical nature of the known universe, you posit as the only possible cause, a deity whose key quality is unknowability, yet whose personal qualities you seem utterly sure of.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Why don't you go away and read some Piaget or Kohlberg and come back to us with something that makes sense, William. The fact is, when you were born, you were the most important creature in your ego tunnel but through a process of socialisation you learned interesting things like empathy. Morality is a human journey. It's not a set of school rules handed down by a cosmic headmaster on some barren mountaintop in the Sinai. It's obviously going to be a challenge for you to comprehend but humanity and human values form the underpinnings of religion, not the other way around.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Right - an 'authentic, unconditional moral obligation' is a purely subjective conception, clearly generated by certain modes of thought.
Meaningful morality can only come from our own interactions as a group of social creatures.
The religious conception amounts to 'might makes right', what God commands is 'right' because God says so.
We have no way to verify that a God has ultimately benevolent motives toward us, if he exists. He would be infinitely capable of totally f**king with us, making us behave and think whatever he felt like.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Agreed. I think the godly get themselves tangled up with the mirror of 'ideal self' and confuse it with an external judging power. All along it is our own awareness of self that stands in judgment.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Remember I said I was comfortable making the assumption that God's inspiration was himself for the purpose of doing philosophy on God. If God is only affected by his inherent traits, then all of his decisions will stem from the same set of rules (his character), and therefore it is natural that God's inspiration when creating man was himself. If man was created from Godly inspiration, then postulating ideals from man's traits will give you the traits of God. Now if God's inspiration wasn't himself but rather his buddy in the sky, George, then what we would really be philosophizing on would be George. So there is room for error since we are assuming self-inspiration.
I'm not quite sure what you meant in your second paragraph. Perhaps you could elaborate.
From what I understand, heaven ends up not even being physical, so physical theories don't make much sense to me. Besides that, I'd suggest that the point of heaven probably isn't to enjoy yourself forever, but rather that is just a byproduct (much like learning produces pleasure even though pleasure is not the main desire one has when attempting to learn).
There is no reason why a God would necessarily create us based on his own self-conception. Any such assumptions about such a being are pure speculation, you can have no KNOWLEDGE of a God.
The theories that would be applicable to Heaven would not necessarily be physical, rather psychological. If our awareness was transformed so much as to make it 'work' for us, it would be meaningless for us to identify with such a transformed personality. What is the 'purpose' of heaven??
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Not at all, you just don't seem to be able to make a relevant argument or an argument without a logical fallacy. I don't really feel like correcting all the mistakes you made, so you should take another look at what you wrote, but make sure you use your brain this time.
You mean that I showed your god to be malevolent (or at least non-benevolent) and you feel you must match him with ad homs?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
In par two I simply refer to the fact that the bible bases places much weight on a fallacy from force. We must believe in the heavenly father or be cast into a lake of fire, Jesus rails in Mark. As you know, a fallacy from force is where you tell some one to agree with you or get a punch on the nose. Such arguments are morally wrong and I know from what you've said upthread that you are a moral person and would discard a fallacy from force. What I wonder is how you rationalise the threats that underpin calvary. If we do not need to be saved from god's wrath, why was jesus sacrificed? Or wasn't he?
As for heaven - look - the bible describes heaven as a place with no suffering, a place without pain, a place the saved take joy in the living presence of god. Now all these feelings can not be attributed to a soul - they are certainly connected to the suffering of the body. Given this, and the mention of things like physical beauty and mansions, you'd think there would be some form of physical pleasure or substance there - unless the bible writers were just making this stuff up as they went along, of course.
In any case Flaming, I don't mind if you sidestep a literal interpretation of the bible. My brothers and sisters all do - they have liberal christian beliefs very similar to yours. I just wonder, if the bible can't be taken literally, on whose authority do you make the moral judgments required to ignore some parts and embrace others? Is it your own authority after praying for guidance and if so, is it possible your personal executive morality - your sense of ideal self - is what allows you to make these judgments?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
It finally seems appropriate to quote what the bible has to say on certain topics. The first idea being this one:
Matt 13:13-15 - Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:
‘ Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.’
So the proposed idea is that Jesus said things in such a way that he would not be understood, namely, in parables. If what he said is considered as a parable (every term actually represents another term that is understood through spiritual interpretation), then it doesn't support the idea of 'literal burning fire as punishment.' There are many instances of this, but I don't wish to go over them all. If you want me to explain a specific instance, then just ask.
Now why would God not want people to come to understand and accept him in this life? The only answer that seems acceptable is that that is not the purpose. I've already explained what I thought the purpose was, so I'm going to move on.
Jesus being sacrificed is stated to be for a totally difference purpose from what I've read:
Col 1:19-20 - For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
This brings about another theory. If the purpose of life is to understand evil and therefore experience sin, and God cannot associate with sin by definition, then he must create a way to retrieve everything that he has created. The only way to be rid of sin, the bible says, is to die. So a man sent to die with all sin can make sense in that regard.
Those feelings aren't attributed to a soul according to the bible, they are attributed to a new spiritual body. The physical instances are at first correct, but as I said, heaven ends up not being physical. Most of what heaven is supposed to be like is gleaned from the supposed end of everything book - Revelation. But Revelation doesn't really describe the end of everything according to the bible, the passage that does is in 1 Cor 15. This can be deduced from the ending of all rule, authority, and power (in 1cor15) and the presence of all three in Revelation. The physical kingdoms purpose has to do with reconciling everyone to Christ and then having them go through a process called sanctification (which is what is meant by the bible when people go through fire). I can explain that better if you want as well.
I don't sidestep a literal interpretation, I just take the spiritual interpretation as the meaningful one since that is the intended message. Here's an example as explained by an early church writer (sorry it's so long):
Barnabas 10:2 Yea and further He saith unto them in Deuteronomy; And I will lay as a covenant upon this people My ordinances. So then it is not a commandment of God that they should not bite with their teeth, but Moses spake it in spirit.
Barnabas 10:6 Moreover thou shalt not eat the hare. Why so? Thou shalt not be found a corrupter of boys, nor shalt thou become like such persons; for the hare gaineth one passage in the body every year; for according to the number of years it lives it has just so many orifices.Barnabas 10:3 Accordingly he mentioned the swine with this intent. Thou shalt not cleave, saith he, to such men who are like unto swine; that is, when they are in luxury they forget the Lord, but when they are in want they recognize the Lord, just as the swine when it eateth knoweth not his lord, but when it is hungry it crieth out, and when it has received food again it is silent.
Barnabas 10:4 Neither shalt thou eat eagle nor falcon nor kite nor crow. Thou shalt not, He saith, cleave unto, or be likened to, such men who now not how to provide food for themselves by toil and sweat, but in their lawlessness seize what belongeth to others, and as if they were walking in guilelessness watch and search about for some one to rob in their rapacity, just as these birds alone do not provide food for themselves, but sit idle and seek how they may eat the meat that belongeth to others, being pestilent in their evil-doings.
Barnabas 10:5 And thou shalt not eat, saith He, lamprey nor polypus nor cuttle fish . Thou shalt not, He meaneth, become like unto such men, who are desperately wicked, and are already condemned to death, just as these fishes alone are accursed and swim in the depths, not swimming on the surface like the rest, but dwell on the ground beneath the deep sea.
Barnabas 10:7 Again, neither shalt thou eat the hyena; thou shalt not, saith He, become an adulterer or a fornicator, neither shalt thou resemble such persons. Why so? Because this animal changeth its nature year by year, and becometh at one time male and at another female.
Barnabas 10:8 Moreover He hath hated the weasel also and with good reason. Thou shalt not, saith He, become such as those men of whom we hear as working iniquity with their mouth for uncleanness, neither shalt thou cleave unto impure women who work iniquity with their mouth. For this animal conceiveth with its mouth. Barnabas 10:9 Concerning meats then Moses received three decrees to this effect and uttered them in a spiritual sense; but they accepted them according to the lust of the flesh, as though they referred to eating.
Barnabas 10:10 And David also receiveth knowledge of the same three decrees, and saith; Blessed is the man who hath not gone in the council of the ungodly--even as the fishes go in darkness into the depths; and hath not stood in the path of sinners--just as they who pretend to fear the Lord sin like swine; and hath not sat on the seat of the destroyers--as the birds that are seated for prey. Ye have now the complete lesson concerning eating.
Barnabas 10:11 Again Moses saith; Ye shall everything that divideth the hoof and cheweth the cud. What meaneth he? He that receiveth the food knoweth Him that giveth him the food, and being refreshed appeareth to rejoice in him. Well said he, having regard to the commandment. What then meaneth he? Cleave unto those that fear the Lord, with those who meditate in their heart on the distinction of the word which they have received, with those who tell of the ordinances of the Lord and keep them, with those who know that meditation is a work of gladness and who chew the cud of the word of the Lord. But why that which divideth the hoof? Because the righteous man both walketh in this world, and at the same time looketh for the holy world to come. Ye see how wise a lawgiver Moses was.
Barnabas 10:12 But whence should they perceive or understand these things? Howbeit we having justly perceived the commandments tell them as the Lord willed. To this end He circumcised our ears and hearts, that we might understand these things.
Now I would actually argue that some of the spiritual meanings behind the original laws go even further than what this early church father described, but on a whole, what I was attempting to show is that the literal interpretation is not the intended interpretation, but it is rather a way to keep people from seeing the intended interpretation according to the bible itself.
No, I mean I don't feel like repeating what I've already addressed to someone who clearly didn't read it and doesn't care for the answer anyway since he doesn't even care to examine his misuse of logic.
-The Specialist-
-The Specialist-
How can I disprove what you can't prove? More hot air coming from you.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You said he proves he's benevolent because he created us. Benevolence would have designed us well. God didn't.
You said the creation would be based off himself as he had no other inspiration. since we are designed poorly he's not benevolent and he is also designed poorly.
You said we would see God's character as the standard as we are created off of his inspiration. The Bible is filled with God's character of being a murderous bastard. Again, no benevolence.
You claim we do not consider malevolence the standard. I say that is precisely because we don't look at the character of God as portrayed in the Bible. benevolence does not kill capriciously. God does (I've lost two over the last three days).
Therefore your conclusion fails under the weight of evidence. If you've backpedaled in another post, I must have missed it. If you hold to this position consider it crushed.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hardly surprising, since it has no reference to actual reality, so can neither be proved or disproved, which simply makes it pure speculation, like every other invented deity.
We can however amass evidence which makes it extremely unlikely, and susceptible to Occam's Razor.
'God' is unnecessary, only introduces a further complicating factor in any attempt to explain existence, and if it existed would be inherently unknowable as to its ultimate motives.
But many people seem to like blowing hot air about God, which is ultimately all any discussion of God can amount to, especially since he is an expert at concealing his existence from us.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology