case

I haven't seen anything like this recently, though I'm sure its lurking in the archives somewhere. I brought this up as a response to one of Samhain's posts, but never recieved a reply. I thought I would start a new thread and see what everyone has to say.

Let us assume a creator of the universe, the monotheistic deity of Judeo-Christian belief, though I think this could work with anyone religion, including polytheistic varities. The creator made us, and endowed us with morality, telling us what is right and wrong.

Here is my question: where did the creator get his morality? How would he know what was right or wrong? Why would the creator endow us with morality if he didn't have one in the first place?

If we assume that morality comes from the creator, then this makes morality arbitrary. He could easily say that killing small children and raping women were virtues, and, because morality comes from him, this would make these actions moral.

This leaves us with the other option: morality did not come from the creator. How could it have? Why would the creator make anything "right or wrong" if he didn't already possess these ideas? If he didn't already have a morality, why would he care how we lived our lives? Salvation, love, hate, retribution-all of these would cease to have meaning if the creator didn't have a morality. But where did it come from? Doesn't this imply that morality came before the creator?

We could try to wiggle out of this problem by redefining the creator to be morality, but this would still leave the problem of why morality was this way. Where did it come from? We still have to explain why the creator made certain things right, and others wrong. He couldn't do that unless he already knew about right and wrong, or he just decided them arbitrarily, which makes morality nothing more than a roll of the dice.

I think I might be guilty of an either/or fallacy here, but I'm having trouble pin-pointing it. Anyone have any ideas?

Someone7

Actually, <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html" target="_blank">Plato</a> beat all of us to it by about, oh, 2400 years.

Someone7

Two Divine Command Theory threads:

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000371" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000371</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000674" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000674</a>

case

Damn Plato beats me to everything...

hinduwoman

The theist's argument is that a thing is good merely because God says it is good. since God is the creator, he doesnot need any justification.

Someone7

Needless to say, the theist's argument sucks.

free12thinker

Not only does it suck, but it belittles our sensibilities, which, in effect, define our moralities.

We have been able to come up with laws and everyday immoralities, because we have senses that pick up pain and suffering.

Our Morality:
Caveman hit me, it hurts, I feel it, caveman feels it, everyone around sees pain, feels pain, and wala, hitting is wrong. Let's make law that says its wrong. Yeah!!!!
Benefit:Everyone, for allowing for the progression of life by passing laws that make it safe for everyone.

Og see Helga take new cinder block wheel. Og worked hard for cinder block wheel. Cinder block wheel was going to feed family for weeks on weeks. Helga is bad. Let's punish Helga.
Benefit:Everyone, for allowing for the progression of life, by passing laws that taketh not away from anyone unfairly.

God's morality :
Jacob sees John and Paul getting it on. Jacob thinks that this violates pro-creation, according to God. Jacob beheads John and Paul. Jacob goes to local market for fish and hears Peter tell Mary that she doesn't want kids. This violates pro-creation, but it's not a sin, so.....
Benefit:Jacob and every other man, for not having to watch what they deem a disgusting affair.

Josh and Helen sit and eat. Helen has prepared the dinner, after cleaning the bathroom, after putting the baby to sleep, after making Josh his lunch for work. Helen is tired and asks Josh if he can make his lunch tomorrow morning. Josh strikes upon her with great verbatim surrounding her 'big mouth' and how it should remain shut for she has nothing intelligent to offer the far superior man. Helen remains quiet and submit's to her husbands demands to keep it simple.
Benefit:The man. Keeping it simple means he doesn't have to speak to her and he doesn't have to do what he considers demeaning work. It's great when he needs to be aroused to, for she has no say in the physical relationship.

BOTTOM LINE : GOD'S MORALITY COMES FROM MAN, WHO WROTE SUCH MORALS BECAUSE IT BENEFITS THEM. THANK GOD IT'S ALL CHANGING.

case

Yes, but this makes morality arbitrary. At the very least, it would call for a redefinition of morality, which is what theists seem to do in this situation. But I think this might be the problem with arguing with theists: I assume that morality has some intrisic value of its own, where as theists (at least the fundamentalist types) would define morality only in terms of God. Fundamentalists wouldn't have a problem with defining it this way, which, quite frankly, scares the hell out of me.

MortalWombat

He already has:

1 Samuel
15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Hosea
13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Isaiah
13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
13:17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.
13:18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.

Numbers
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

luvluv

Not only does it suck, and belittle our sensibilities, which, in effect, define our moralities, but it is an opinion that many Christians disbelieve.

I personally do not believe that morality is arbitrary or is true "because God said so", and many other prominent Christians like C.S. Lewis believe so too. I believe most morality is a function of the co-existence of two intelligent beings who have the freedom to chose. Once it is decided that they both would like to continue to exist, and would like for the other to continue to exist, most of the resultant morality is fairly predictable and reasonable. Insumuch as God desired to create free willed beings, and that He wished them to co-exist, traditional morality was basically a forgone conclusion.

I think the question seems a little more profound than it perhaps is, because I don't think God is a moralist. I don't think his primary concern is necessarily behavior. I personally believe God is more interested in character (internalized restraints) and relationships. All morality is swallowed into these things as a person grows in love. As Jesus (and Nietschze) said: when one loves one's neighbor as ones self, all need for a defined morality disappears. I think God concerns himself more with producing the love than with hammering home the morality, which is where he differs from many modern Christians.