morality!

[What Is Truth?]

'Good' being God's nature appears to negate morality down to some kind of 'essence'. If good is just God's nature, then what does that even mean? It is an incoherent response and does not address the origin of morality as per a theist would understand it.

Identifying goodness with God's nature is only a "negation" if we have a poor conception of God's nature. Coming from a Christian perspective, I find the Trinitarian conception of God provides a rich and profoundly meaningful conception of goodness. If you think grounding morality in this way is incoherent, you're going to have to be more specific as to why that is.

A more prudent question that I think you ought to ask yourself (and theists, in general) on this issue would be whether or not you would always, under all circumstances obey what God commanded you to do. Your answer to that question would inform others of where your priorities lie.

Again, it depends on what kind of God we're talking about. If God's nature is goodness, then his commands will be good. If goodness is independent of God's nature then we cannot infer that all of his commands will be good (though they might be). For me, I believe that God has revealed his nature to be love through the way he has acted in the world through history and in my own experience, and on that basis trust in him and try to obey his Law and follow his guidance.

 

[aadil77]

Well, sure. BUt just as there are many different religions competing there are many different ethical systems competing (for instance, consequentialism and deontological ethics) so the theist isn't any better off than the non-theist since the theist just picks their religion based on what makes sense to them and the atheist picks their ethical theory that they feel is most logical.

Ultimately were do you think morals came from? People from abrahamic faiths know that adam and eve were the first people on earth and were taught morals, thats the only way they would have spread and become known to others, theres no way to just discover or create morals

 

[Lynx]

Your analysis assumes that God chooses moral laws - but there is also the possibility that they flow from God's essence (goodness).

I think the main problem for an atheistic meta-ethic that wants to affirm objective moral laws has to do with not having an objective standard of goodness. I find it helpful to think of the analogy of someone recording a piece of orchestral music. The sound quality of recording is judged on the basis of what the orchestra actually sounds like. Similarly, the moral quality of an action is said to be good if it measures up to some predefined standard of what it means to be good. An atheistic meta-ethic must come up with some arbitrary standard of goodness, as there is nothing actual to ontologically ground that standard. The theistic meta-ethic has no problems in this regard, however, as God's essence is goodness. Of course both the atheist and the theist still have to do ethics - finding out what exactly goodness is and how to deduce moral laws from it - but only the theist can affirm that an objective standard actually exists.

This is Aquinas's view right? In any case I am not sure what it means to say Goodness flows from God. Is it then the case that there are objects in existence that we can say is good? I think I agree with Skavu that statements like "it flows from God" don't really shed any light. Do they exist like a Platonic form? Also, how do you account for changes in what we define as goodness or even changes in God's moral law?

Dagless: I don't think there is a system on Earth that gives us a set of rules that will work in all systems in all situations. The four wife thing for instance is a law that has conferred much unhappiness rather than happiness.

 

[Lynx]

Ultimately were do you think morals came from? People from abrahamic faiths know that adam and eve were the first people on earth and were taught morals, thats the only way they would have spread and become known to others, theres no way to just discover or create morals

Emotions and social agreements to regulate emotions. I don't buy Adam and Eve were taught morals since morals have changed over time.

 

[aadil77]

Emotions and social agreements to regulate emotions. I don't buy Adam and Eve were taught morals since morals have changed over time.

yes they are changing over time, as people stray away from morals brought about from religion, murder, adultery, sodomy, stealing, drugs, promiscuity etc become more frequent

 

[Dagless]

Dagless: I don't think there is a system on Earth that gives us a set of rules that will work in all systems in all situations. The four wife thing for instance is a law that has conferred much unhappiness rather than happiness.

I'd like to see some kind of study on this. Were the laws followed to the letter? Like all wives being treated equally? Or was it only an excuse for man's desire.

 

[Alpha Dude]

Morality and goodness have no objective basis in the absence of God. It's just what one person thinks is good or evil against what someone else thinks.

There is no case for moral obligation. Nobody can say rationally that the nazi's were evil for example, without reference to God.

 

[Lynx]

I'd like to see some kind of study on this. Were the laws followed to the letter? Like all wives being treated equally? Or was it only an excuse for man's desire.

Do you think if your wife had 4 husbands including you as one of them and gave all of you equal time that you would not feel unhappy? Let's say she's just doing it because she has a strong sexual appetite. This is an entirely pointless allowance in Islam and I don't see any benefit that could incur. If there was a stipulation that the husband should ask the first wife's permission to get married then you'd have something. But to say that the rules make sense in the long run is far from accurate.

There is no case for moral obligation. Nobody can say rationally that the nazi's were evil for example, without reference to God.

The whole point of my OP, if you read it, was that even if you had God you wouldn't be able to justify an absolute morality. You would still be in the dark.

 

[Dagless]

Do you think if your wife had 4 husbands including you as one of them and gave all of you equal time that you would not feel unhappy? Let's say she's just doing it because she has a strong sexual appetite. This is an entirely pointless allowance in Islam and I don't see any benefit that could incur. If there was a stipulation that the husband should ask the first wife's permission to get married then you'd have something. But to say that the rules make sense in the long run is far from accurate.

Since my wife wouldn't be allowed to have 4 husbands it would be worrying
Just because you see it as pointless and without benefit does not mean it is pointless and without benefit. Isn't this just you using your own (possibly broken) moral compass?

 

[Lynx]

Since my wife wouldn't be allowed to have 4 husbands it would be worrying
Just because you see it as pointless and without benefit does not mean it is pointless and without benefit. Isn't this just you using your own (possibly broken) moral compass?

Yeah, who said Islam was sexist. I see no sexism there.

But anyway, yeah you are right. It could be my broken compass telling me that it's wrong. The only problem is you brought up the issue of happiness so if you would, I would like to see you backup your statement: show the long term happiness involved. Clearly on a personal level it does not produce happiness for the wife in the same you wouldn't be too happy about her sleeping with a bunch of other men. Unless your position is there might be useful benefit and happiness that we just don't know about.

 

[Dagless]

Yeah, who said Islam was sexist. I see no sexism there.

But anyway, yeah you are right. It could be my broken compass telling me that it's wrong. The only problem is you brought up the issue of happiness so if you would, I would like to see you backup your statement: show the long term happiness involved. Clearly on a personal level it does not produce happiness for the wife in the same you wouldn't be too happy about her sleeping with a bunch of other men. Unless your position is there might be useful benefit and happiness that we just don't know about.

The sexes are different, and recognised as different in Islam. Its not sexism, its just difference.

"It may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you" (2:216)
How do you know it doesn't give the initial wife happiness? Maybe it stops him having lots of affairs or leaving her? Maybe it gives him the children she cannot?
What you're saying is 'I think this' and 'Imagine this', when neither of us have been in the situation, and so we should not construct our own version of how life would be. There are already people out there who have more than one wife. They are the people to ask and study. I am sure you will find some of them happy and some unhappy; my point is the ones who are happy should be the ones who've followed the rules completely and not only the parts which appeal to them.

 

[Lynx]

The sexes are different, and recognised as different in Islam. Its not sexism, its just difference.

"It may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you" (2:216)
How do you know it doesn't give the initial wife happiness? Maybe it stops him having lots of affairs or leaving her? Maybe it gives him the children she cannot?
What you're saying is 'I think this' and 'Imagine this', when neither of us have been in the situation, and so we should not construct our own version of how life would be. There are already people out there who have more than one wife. They are the people to ask and study. I am sure you will find some of them happy and some unhappy; my point is the ones who are happy should be the ones who've followed the rules completely and not only the parts which appeal to them.

Half of that is appeal to ignorance. the point is you claimed that the rules lead to happiness so i am asking you to provide reasons for that claim. or maybe you should admit you made a hasty generalization. Either way, natural intuition tells us if your spouse goes and sleeps with 3 other women you are going to get really angry and unhappy about it. If you don't have any actual reasons to claim that the rules lead to happiness then go for it. contrary to the fact hypotheses don't work . you can't say well if he didn't get married it would lead to many affairs or whatever because you don't know what would be the case if he hadn't married another couple of wives to satisfy his sexual needs. By the way, all the reasons you mentioned could very well be used for a woman to argue that she should have four husbands. This is a failed rule for a society of patriarchs. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who is benefiting from this particular law. But anyway I know there aren't studies done to prove what you claim I take it you made a hasty comment but I understand your point . In general the rules of religion lead to happiness in a society. which is respectable and i agree for the most part..but we can do without them too.

 

[What Is Truth?]

This is Aquinas's view right? In any case I am not sure what it means to say Goodness flows from God. Is it then the case that there are objects in existence that we can say is good? I think I agree with Skavu that statements like "it flows from God" don't really shed any light. Do they exist like a Platonic form? Also, how do you account for changes in what we define as goodness or even changes in God's moral law?

I'm no Thomist, so I'm really not sure. Aquinas identified God's essence with his existence which complicates things, and I don't know if he brought that idea into his virtue ethics (given the colossal amount he wrote, it's pretty likely he did).

I'm not saying that goodness flows from God, but that moral laws flow from God's essence (which is goodness itself). You seem to be mixing up the two in your post - for me, goodness is the moral standard, whereas moral laws are "commands" that tell us how to attain that standard (in a particular context).

 

[Dagless]

Half of that is appeal to ignorance. the point is you claimed that the rules lead to happiness so i am asking you to provide reasons for that claim. or maybe you should admit you made a hasty generalization.

I have provided reasons; if the woman cannot have children it would make her happy to see her husband be given children by another woman, since it is one task she could not fulfil. It is not a generalisation because I am not saying this is the only reason or even a common reason but it could be a reason.

Either way, natural intuition tells us if your spouse goes and sleeps with 3 other women you are going to get really angry and unhappy about it.

Natural intuition says that radiation is bad for you yet you're more likely to live with radiation therapy if you have cancer than without it.

If you don't have any actual reasons to claim that the rules lead to happiness then go for it. contrary to the fact hypotheses don't work . you can't say well if he didn't get married it would lead to many affairs or whatever because you don't know what would be the case if he hadn't married another couple of wives to satisfy his sexual needs.

I said in my initial post that it could not be measured exhaustively in a lifetime but you can see it as you live your life, that following the religion and doing good is good for you. Why is it all about sexual needs? People marry for other reasons too, you make it sound so perverted

By the way, all the reasons you mentioned could very well be used for a woman to argue that she should have four husbands. This is a failed rule for a society of patriarchs. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who is benefiting from this particular law. But anyway I know there aren't studies done to prove what you claim I take it you made a hasty comment but I understand your point . In general the rules of religion lead to happiness in a society. which is respectable and i agree for the most part..but we can do without them too.

The reasons for 4 wives and not husbands have been mentioned many times. Its not a debate for this thread.
I agree that studies should be done. I have seen long (10-20 year) "happiness" studies in other fields (such as marriage) but I think religion is neglected. It might make a nice project for a psych student.

 

[aamirsaab]

.....which is respectable and i agree for the most part..but we can do without them too.

One question: why?

You pretty much just said that those rules were awesome. So why would you want to do without them?

p.s; on the subject of multiple wives and husbands: Male's psychological make up is different to female's (just like their biology and chemistry) - a system that recognises that is a clever system indeed!

 

[Skavau]

Identifying goodness with God's nature is only a "negation" if we have a poor conception of God's nature. Coming from a Christian perspective, I find the Trinitarian conception of God provides a rich and profoundly meaningful conception of goodness. If you think grounding morality in this way is incoherent, you're going to have to be more specific as to why that is.

Because it appears to outright ignore or forgo defining any practical objectives or utilities for morality. I mean, it is purely white noise to me to declare that morality is part of God's nature. It all comes across as rather vague and meaningless to me. I can't change that.

Again, it depends on what kind of God we're talking about. If God's nature is goodness, then his commands will be good.

On what criteria would God's goodness be based on?

If goodness is independent of God's nature then we cannot infer that all of his commands will be good (though they might be). For me, I believe that God has revealed his nature to be love through the way he has acted in the world through history and in my own experience, and on that basis trust in him and try to obey his Law and follow his guidance.

If goodness was to be independent of God's nature then it would be possible for God to order or confirm evil.

 

[Skavau]

Ultimately were do you think morals came from? People from abrahamic faiths know that adam and eve were the first people on earth and were taught morals, thats the only way they would have spread and become known to others, theres no way to just discover or create morals

Morals are an emergent property in our species on what we ought to or ought not do within the context of a community.

yes they are changing over time, as people stray away from morals brought about from religion, murder, adultery, sodomy, stealing, drugs, promiscuity etc become more frequent

How do you know that religion bought about, or was the only effective source for condemnation of these things? Historically, murder has always existed and been far more prevalent or taken forms so extreme it has been genocidal (religious or ethnic in nature).

I ask this of many, but can you name me a better time to live historically than living in a first-world secular nation now? Are you really going to claim that you would rather live in some historical religious nation over a first-world secular nation?

 

[Skavau]

Morality and goodness have no objective basis in the absence of God. It's just what one person thinks is good or evil against what someone else thinks.

There is no case for moral obligation. Nobody can say rationally that the nazi's were evil for example, without reference to God.

Sorry, I don't buy this claim.

With or without a concerned deity there is no 'objective' cause to say anything concerning morality is evil or not. I do not see how you simply believing there to be an interested third-party somehow makes your perspective absolute.

 

[What Is Truth?]

Because it appears to outright ignore or forgo defining any practical objectives or utilities for morality. I mean, it is purely white noise to me to declare that morality is part of God's nature. It all comes across as rather vague and meaningless to me. I can't change that.

It is certainly a bit vague so far, but this is only the scaffolding of a theistic meta-ethic. Again, you are mixing terms - goodness and morality are not the same thing. I recognize (not "declare") that God's nature is good. How one can come to recognize that is an epistemological question, rather than ontological, which is why this all seems like empty theorizing thus far. But since this thread opened with the claim that necessarily God's existence has no bearing on meta-ethics, I have only sought to show that this claim is not true. Any appearance that my meta-ethic ignores practicality or utility is simply due to the fact that it has not been necessary to go into any more depth than I have done so far. Your claim was general, and so I've outlined a general framework for a theistic meta-ethic.

On what criteria would God's goodness be based on?

Why is this problem any different from judging between the definitions of goodness given by two meta-ethical theories? If you are happy judging between a utilitarian definition and a deontological definition, say, why can't we apply the same method and criteria to assess God's nature?

If goodness was to be independent of God's nature then it would be possible for God to order or confirm evil.

Exactly what I was saying. :thumbs_up

 

[aadil77]

Morals are an emergent property in our species on what we ought to or ought not do within the context of a community.

Not really look at the 'morals' emerging in the community now, some how its moral to commit sodomy, its moral to have sex with as many partners as you want. Morals have been set and perfected by Islam since time of prophet Adam

How do you know that religion bought about, or was the only effective source for condemnation of these things?

Islam didn't just condemn them it, it prevented them with effective punishments unlike the punishments that have been chosen by the 'community' now a days.

Historically, murder has always existed and been far more prevalent or taken forms so extreme it has been genocidal (religious or ethnic in nature).

Ofourse murder has always existed, its never been genocidal under islam

I ask this of many, but can you name me a better time to live historically than living in a first-world secular nation now?

Yes, during the khalifate period at the time of the prophet

Are you really going to claim that you would rather live in some historical religious nation over a first-world secular nation?

Ofcourse, its part of our beliefs that we should want to live under Allah's law - shariah, if you look how society was run during that period it was the best place to live, free of corruption and evils that are now present in most of the world

Have a look at how a shariah state was run in the past, read up on the laws that would control the justice, economic and social systems, it was all based on divine law from Allah - no man made laws present - so it is best for everyone