I like to torture babies for fun.
Very few people deny the existence of any ethical truth. Were the statement above true, you’d be rightly outraged. We know that there exists good and bad.
Have you ever considered the question ‘what makes something good?”. If you accept the existence of ethical truth, you must account for its existence. How do you explain it?
Traditionally, there are three possibilities:
1. morality is objective, absolute, and independent of anyone’s opinion – a moral law distinguishing good and evil is just ‘there’ in the universe;
2. morality is subjective – the moral law exists because of the say-so of a moral lawgiver. This might be you as an individual, a certain culture, or an authority such as God.
3. there is no morality.
What do you think? One of the above? Another one? Why?
Over the next few days I’ll unpack some of these, including the difficult question of ‘is it good because God says so, or does God say so because it’s good?’
« From Physics to MetaPhysics Slavery: get your facts straight. »
Ooh, good question – the last one. But I won’t think about that until you post on it
No, I can’t help myself. Are they mutually exclusive conditions? Is it one or the other, or is it most likely both?
That question was originally all I was going to post on. But I felt it needed more context.
But the context is just context – we’re doing ethics in Philosophy at uni, and the question that has me riveted is that one. I know ethics has something to do with God, but what is the relationship? How can we know?
I think they are mutually exclusive, but I’m prepared to be convinced otherwise
Say ‘a’ is good. Is ‘a’ good because God says ‘do/be a’? Or is ‘a’ good because it reflects the character of God?
Can you define something as intrinsically good without reference to the character of God? Does God just choose arbitrary characteristics and actions to be good? Or are those things good because the reflect, however dimly, the character of God?
I don’t think you can think of goodness outside of God. So the question ‘does God say so because it’s good?’ implies some kind of standard of goodness that exists beyond God, which I don’t think works; you end up with the problem of who then sets that standard?
Actually saying ‘is it good because God says so’ also implies some standard that exists beyond God – as though He could actually decree something to be good that is not.
So maybe ‘a’ is good, because God is ‘a’.
On a slightly different note, isn’t it interesting to note the differing response of Nietzche and the Lord Jesus to your baby torturing. Nietzche would say “more power to you, torture those babies, exert your power over the weak”, while the Lord Jesus instructs us to care for the weak, the powerless, the oppressed, the orphaned.
Perhaps an illuminating example of the consequences of believing in no absolute morality, as opposed to an understanding of an absolute morality defined by the character of a good God.
Yes, I’m more convinced that both of your original propositions are flawed, and rather ‘good is good because it reflects the character of God’. Although, as I have no one arguing with me – Anastasia hasn’t really progressed to being able to debate ethics with me yet – I haven’t refined that thought yet. Actually, I don’t do her justice. If I say “Please stop that now, it’s very naughty”, she will often respond with “Why?”. Ah, morality discussions for the not-quite-three-year-old …
P.S. Are you sure TCA is still tired? You’ve been posting like a mad-man lately
“So maybe ‘a’ is good, because God is ‘a’.”
Michelle, I think you’ve hit on it. I was talking about this with Heardy, and that’s what he thought. It solves a lot of problems.
I think Nietzsche shows uncommon integrity in following through his atheism to its logical conclusion – though HH disagrees that it is the necessary conclusion. (Come to think of it, I was rather hoping HH would show up…)
Anastacia asking ‘why’ all the time caused a mass sanl (smirk and nose laugh).
And if that tired label wasn’t appropriate, it soon will be. I’m wearing out. And TCA is becoming too much of an idol for my liking. I’m going on a computer diet.
I think Nietzsche shows uncommon integrity in following through his atheism to its logical conclusion – though HH disagrees that it is the necessary conclusion.
I agree. I also agree that Nihilism is the necessary and consistent conclusion.
I see how blogging can be an unhelpful idol. I also am wary of that danger, but I also find it an incredibly useful tool in causing myself to think, as I can easily, with two small kids at home, fail to actually find any time to stop and think deeply.
It’s also an instrument of hypocrisy: a tool that allows one to give the impression of thinking deeply… without actually requiring you to do that.
Ehh? You having a dig at me??
Not at all!
It was actually a confession, not an attack. But also a reflection on the nature of blogging.
Add in the option of morality being an evolved psychological mechanism.