Agnostic Theist

Of course, our positions also seem to derive from whether morality relates to the action or the being. You assert that, as God, He is not bound to any moral obligation. I assert that, since He has committed actions relative to ethics, He is bound to a moral obligation, for our sake if nothing else.

Actually, before we make any conclusions about this portion of the argument, it may be an idea to consider whether and why we have any moral obligations. We've already tried the agape love thing, but that seems more of a relative social consequence than something that necessitates morality (assumably, this thing may be intrinsic in us, or at least an unconditioned part of us)

I don't think any being, including God, can remain under or separate from a moral obligation. We are deemed moral or immoral according to our actions. What would set God above such obligations would be if He was able to (and indeed did) justify His acts. Of course there is the problem of 'what acts are immoral' and 'why are they immoral'. We could plagerise previously formulated systems (deontology, relativism, emotivism, agape love, etc). If we do that though, we might have to tackle their flaws as well.

If you look at various theistical doctrines, it seems we do have a moral obligation to Him, just has He has a moral obligation to us, based on the notion that He does, in fact, exist. Hopefully I'll have time to cover this later.

Valmont

I think this is the root of it. We need to work out what we are talking about when we talk about morality.

I have already tried - to some extent - to explain what I think is the basis of morality. To summarise, morality is not about what we ought to do, which, it seems to me, can only ever be defined in an arbitrary way, ultimately. Morality is about what we want to do as social and selectively sympathetic creatures. Morality is underpinned by a desire.

I am curious, however, to hear your account of morality.

Agnostic Theist

I don't believe there is any objective morality, or universal moral obligations for us to follow. Since this is your thread, we might be better using your definition.

Valmont

Then we're going to have to look a bit harder for some clear blue water otherwise we'll spend our time nodding in agreement with each other.

I just want to check: are you contending that God is immoral or simply that we can make moral judgements about Him?

If the former then are we talking within your understanding of morality or mine. My system of morality recognises morality as an element of human nature. Therefore God, not being human, is separate from moral distinctions. To ask whether or not God is moral is like asking whether or not a particular word sounds purple. God can no more be moral than a tiger, an earthquake or the stars.

If you are saying that we can make moral judgements about God then, I suppose, yes we can. How is it different to making moral judgments about tigers or earthquakes. To what end do we make these judgements?

Looking back, I can see that you addressed the point of the tiger. And I have to say I agree. Morality is not in God's nature. But I don't think you were quite saying that. You seemed to imply that the lack of morality was a constraint. Is this right? To me the opposite seems true? Morality is a particular condition of humanity and everything else is unconstrained by it.

I suppose I am a little unclear on exactly what the points of disagreement are.

Agnostic Theist

Brain no function well today. Metaphor bad. Formal Logic bad.

I am contending that we can make moral judgements about Him, and I judge Him to be immoral.

Mine Whilst I do not hold to the notion of an ethical system, I believe there are individual maxims which are ethically relevant, even if only a consequence of (human) society.

Initially I maintained that morality operated on 2 levels, and that the first level was an element of human nature. However, having looked at social norms, development of ethics and the value of 'right and wrong' and how it has changed through time, I do not think morality is an element of human nature.

Those three are inclined to obey their nature, being without free will. If you contend that God has no free will (due to His omniscience) that you must accept that we have no free will. In this case, free will and morality will bear no resemblance to each other, and we may as well say that earthquakes are immoral. If, however, you accept that we have free will, and that God has free will, then you must accept He is not necessarily bound to His nature. Accordingly, He is free to not commit His 'less moral' acts, if you will, but chooses not to. Based on this, He is immoral.

That may depend on the whole free will issue.

Short answer = No free will at all, therefore concepts of morality are falsehoods derived from the 'free will illusiion'. As such, God is amoral, but so is everything else.

You have, however, made it clear that you believe humans to be immoral, or at least capable of being immoral. Consequently, then, the 'short answer' won't play here.

Answer 2 = The tiger et al do not have any choice in what they do, being bound to their nature

Answer 3 (for the tiger, specifically) even if animals do have free will, we have yet to see them commit an act of immorality that cannot be justified. Here the Burden of Proof rests on the one claiming animals are immoral. You may, for example, provide evidence of a tiger killing a person, but that tiger may have wanted food, or been defending itself, territory or family. If one can call that immoral, then why not call human omnivorism or carnivorism immoral?

Good, good.

Morality, as the term applies to us, is a condition of humanity. It is, however, derived from ethical maxims that hold true even outside human society (perhaps as a consequence of evolution or natural selection). It is these such maxims that affect whether or not God is immoral or amoral.

That God is separate from morality.

I'm goint to take a stab in the dark and ask, will we be mentioning the Euthyphro Dilemma in this thread?

Valmont

Okay. Perhaps not of human nature itself. I am not suggested we have some hardwired sense of morality in us. Perhaps it would be better to say morality is an element of the human condition. The way humans live requires them to adopt certain norms of behaviour towards each other. These norms are then extended to other creatures by common practice.

I do not see how saying "we have no free will" leads to "earthquakes are immoral. For the record, my own contention is that free will is a non-issue. I have yet to see an adequate definition even of what it means to have free will. Yet most modern ethical theories do perfectly well without free will.

In other words, I don't think my definition of morality depends on the idea of free will at all.

What you are arguing, if I may paraphrase, is that the tiger has different motives. You would agree, I think, that killing a human being to feed a tiger is immoral by human standards. But these standards cannot be applied to the tiger. In other words, there is a different amoral justification of the tiger's acts. This is exactly what I am arguing about God.

Or have I misrepresented your point.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. What might an example of such an ethical maxim be? Why do we have one set of ethical maxims rather than another. You seem to be saying that some things are simply right and other simply wrong. But this is just an arbitrary definition. It turns the idea of morality into a label that is applied without any underlying reason. It again begs the question, why should we or anyone be moral?

Apparently!

It is not a dilemma for me because I am not contending that God is the source of morality. I am contending that humanity is the source of morality. Things are not moral because God has decreed that they are but because it is better (in the sense of advantageous) for humans to behave that way.

Agnostic Theist

I'm only going to make a quick post cos I'm coming down with something and have to do some logic exercises, but

You are arguing about the christian God, correct? At the same time, though, you acknowledge disbelief, or lack of belief, in the Bible. Are we arguing over your God, or the Christian God? If it is the former, please define Him (or this argument will end up becoming moot) if the latter, then I can say He has provided us with laws (Exodus) that may be called 'ethical maxims', ergo morality is in fact a God given concept.

Now if you'll excuse me, the room is spinning, I have a headache and I feel like shit...and I haven't had a drink for a week!

Valmont

A good summary of my beliefs about God can be found here.

My sympathies and wishes of a speedy recovery are with you. Get to bed. I can wait.

Yahzi

First, an apology for the lateness of my reply... I was quite busy with the crushing of the Senate and the establishing myself as Emperor of Rome business. (Rome:Total War just came out... a great game, despite its numerous flaws and poor quality control ).


Exactly.

But, given the laws of physics, these norms are more than just arbitrary to the human species. Like the laws of information, some of them will be applicable to all species capable of social interaction; in particular, any specie than can recognize suffering in others will be bound by the same rules of right and wrong regarding suffering.

The essence of morality is fairness: and while it might be fair for God to have more stuff than the rest of us (since he is a different kind of being), he is nonetheless bound to be fair to us, on our terms, as we understand it.

The famous Biblical quote wherein man is compared to clay, with no right to question the potter, is a cheat: because clay cannot question, but man can. The mere fact that man can question grants him the moral right to do so, inevitably; and nothing about God's status can change that (save that God cannot understand suffering or self-consciousness).

God is not like a tiger, because tigers cannot understand the suffering of others. Once you have reached that ability to understand suffering, you don't lose it, no matter how developed you become; you merely add more abilties, but you do not lose them.

Well, by this definition, it is immoral for you to do what is not advantageous to humans, and worshipping God is clearly not advantageous to humans. Kicking his ass and taking that second apple (remember the second Tree in the garden?) would be advantageous to humans, and God is actively preventing us from doing that, which makes him our enemy.

Worshipping God so he doesn't whack you is no more moral than giving your child to the tiger so the tiger won't eat you. It might be necessary, for a time and a place, under certain circumstances; but it can never be confused with "moral."

Valmont

Not at all. I'm glad you've been having fun.

I am not sure that we interact socially with God. We do not exist in a society with Him. Morality is a set of behaviours which help resolve mutual dependency and mutual threat. God is not dependent upon us nor can we threaten Him.

You assert that recognition of suffering in itself entails a moral obligation. This is the weak link of your argument. It requires more demonstration than simple assertion. It does not seem to be in any way necessary to the construction of a moral system. You need to explain this obligation. Even if we assume that it does exist, why would one observe it. Simply answering "to be moral" reduces morality to a game of definitions. We could define morality as anything.

Of course we can question God. I do not dispute that. The Book of Job deals with precisely that situation. But when God answers His answer is that He is beyond our society, beyond our power to pass sentence upon Him, beyond any human recourse. Thus He exists beyond the moral sphere.

Look at every proud man and humble him, crush the wicked where they stand.
Bury them all in the dust together; shroud their faces in the grave.
Then I myself will admit to you that your own right hand can save you.

How can we ask God to honour His 'moral obligations'? And if He has no reason to meet them, how can we call them obligations at all?

Well even if I subscribed to a literal translation of that passage, how could I oppose God? What would you have me do? We can only say that an action is advantageous if it has a chance of producing advantage.

I have never argued that worshipping God absolves us of our own moral obligations. I differ with Kierkegaard on this. Faith does not transcend morality. If my faith demanded child sacrifice your example here might have a point. As it is, it is a false analogy.

So long as worshipping God produces an advantage (which I believe it does) without disadvantaging others (which I also believe) then it must, by any sensible definition of morality, be moral.