What Is Morality, and is it Absolute?

[Derf]

I think that most people would have a better general definition of God in their minds than life. That's obviously just my opinion. That's why I prefer to refer to God as the standard for morality rather than life is the standard for morality.

But one of the main points of argument around here is the definition of God, whether He is omnipresent or not, or omniscient or not. Whether He decrees all things or not. Whether He is impassible and immutable.

No argument with that.

Physical life, indeed, is temporary. We Christians believe that when God creates us, that He gives us more then just physical life.

Sure. He gives us much more than life. He gives us rationality, as @Clete has pointed out, not to mention things like language, clothing, family, etc.

But if we put the word "physical" before life, then we change the definition of "life" to something that never ends, in which case people do have difficulty understanding morality. The things that end what you call physical life are not the same things that end spiritual life, and therefore morals can become arbitrary.

 

[Right Divider]

But one of the main points of argument around here is the definition of God, whether He is omnipresent or not, or omniscient or not. Whether He decrees all things or not. Whether He is impassible and immutable.

Thanks Mr. Insightful

Sure. He gives us much more than life. He gives us rationality, as @Clete has pointed out, not to mention things like language, clothing, family, etc.

Again, your insights are just amazing.

But if we put the word "physical" before life, then we change the definition of "life" to something that never ends, in which case people do have difficulty understanding morality.

I cannot follow your "logic". Perhaps you have none.

The things that end what you call physical life are not the same things that end spiritual life, and therefore morals can become arbitrary.

 

[Nick M]

Why is your answer yes?

Because rape is always wrong. Their hypothetical question is "Is it wrong if there is no God?" Burning your children alive is wrong. We might not know it without him telling us it is wrong. It is still wrong even if he didn't tell us it is wrong.

The same problem arises with Unconditional Election. If God is necessarily righteous and rational life is the objective standard of morality, on what basis does God unconditionally select certain individuals for eternal life while passing over everyone else? If the answer is simply that God sovereignly chose to do so, we've returned to the very problem we began with! God's sovereign choice cannot itself be the explanation for why that choice is righteous. There must be an objective moral reason for the distinction.

Here they just ignore the scriptures. Hilston came up with a Mormon/JW/Cathlic/Muslim answer. The Bible is wrong. I probably have a Word document saved on the exchange.

 

[Clete]

Because rape is always wrong. Their hypothetical question is "Is it wrong if there is no God?" Burning your children alive is wrong. We might not know it without him telling us it is wrong. It is still wrong even if he didn't tell us it is wrong.

I agree that murder and rape and other such things are wrong. I, however, when asked, can explain to people WHY it is wrong.

I'm trying to understand whether you are merely asserting that it is wrong or whether there is a why behind that assertion.

Why is murder wrong if there is no God?

Here they just ignore the scriptures. Hilston came up with a Mormon/JW/Cathlic/Muslim answer. The Bible is wrong. I probably have a Word document saved on the exchange.

So, this is closer to an answer. Are you saying here that murder is wrong if there is no God because the bible says so?

How does that work? If there is no God then the bible is vastly wrong on a great many things, not the least of which is that there is a God, right? Why then would anyone want to trust it to define right and wrong?

 

[Idolater]

Anybody here familiar with either Huemer or Budziszewski? Huemer defends "ethical intuitionism" and is a moral realist, while Budziszewski is a natural law moral theorist, and a Christian. Budziszewski's particularly main point is that moral skeptics are usually not really morally skeptical, but believe that the typical examples given of moral repugnance are really morally repugnant. I find both these thinkers interesting.

 

[Nick M]

I, however, when asked, can explain to people WHY it is wrong.

You are hurting other people. As a related tangent, consent is not a factor like the left claims. Homo relationships that are consenting are evil as people in them are hurt.

 

[Derf]

You are hurting other people. As a related tangent, consent is not a factor like the left claims. Homo relationships that are consenting are evil as people in them are hurt.

Not to mention the children adopted or surrogated into them are hurt.

 

[Clete]

You are hurting other people.

Wouldn't that be so without the bible? That is, we don't need the bible to tell us that much, right? It was so before the bible, it's so now and will be so long after anything of this world remains.

As a related tangent, consent is not a factor like the left claims. Homo relationships that are consenting are evil as people in them are hurt.

It goes far beyond the people in those relationships. It undermines the entire society. It is a direct attack on the basic building block of civil society.

Take adultery as perhaps the clearest example...

Adultery causes divorce. Divorce causes fatherlessness. Fatherlessness causes...

• poverty
• increased gang membership/activity
• alcohol abuse and drug use
• criminality in general
• teen pregnancy
• abortion
• teen suicide

And that doesn't even mention the fact that adultery is among the most common motives for murder. Indeed, if you watch any amount of "true crime" television programming, you'll notice that there are three things that you can do to make almost certain that you will never be murdered nor will you ever be a murderer...

1. Do not get drunk or high.
2. Do not hang out with people who get drunk or high.
3. Do not have sex with anyone that you aren't married to.

Just follow those three rules and unless you just happen to be the victim of a mass murder or the random victim of a serial killer, then the likelihood of you killing someone or being killed by someone drops to very nearly zero.

Homosexuality has many of the same consequences for the same reasons, but it has various particular effects such as greater exposure to disease, particularly HIV/AIDS which results in premature deaths. And there is associated depression, substance abuse, domestic violence, suicide and homicide, all of which also and obviously result in premature deaths. It is simply astounding the number of serial killers who are homosexual, both of which mental disorders are caused by prolonged severe, almost always sexual, child abuse. Indeed, Bob Enyart used to say, and rightly so, that homosexuals reproduce by molesting children. If people convicted of child molestation were executed, in two generations (or less), there would be virtually no homosexuality in the society. You'd barely need a law against homosexuality because homosexuals would be as rare as hen's teeth.

 

[Nick M]

Wouldn't that be so without the bible?

That is what I mean by an absolute. If there was no God rape is still wrong. All know, some reject it because they reject him. Dig up on youtube one of Enyart's video. He is in a classroom and sure enough there are people who won't say rape is absolutely wrong in all cases.