Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

I'm an agnostic, largely because I have not taken the time to study religion or read religious texts. I found it premature to make a determination one way or the other without an informed opinion. Now I attend a fairly conservative graduate school, and one of my classes concerns the Western moral tradition. For the first time I'm devoting significant attention to issues of moral philosophy from Greek philosophy all the way up to Deconstructionism/Post-modernism.

The central contention of the Western (Judeo-Christian) tradition is that law (in a moral sense, i.e. "natural law") derives its authority from a higher power. Thus the 10 Commandments serve as the objective basis for right and wrong in Western civilization. A transcendental divine presence (God), in this conception, issues the 10 Commandments and serves as the bedrock upon which this moral foundation lies. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, natural law offers a guidance towards the good (in an Aristotilian sense i.e. Nicomachean Ethics), which will aid people towards a path of salvation.

If one does not believe in this objective natural law, however, one must look for an alternate source of moral clarity. For thinkers of the Enlightenment, Reason became the center of the moral universe. Many Enlightenment thinkers believed in Deism, where a transcendental presence created the universe but does not have any influence on material events thereafter. With Reason as God, moral philosophy became a subjective matter, something determined in the minds of men.

Here lies a significant problem, though. If the moral basis for law is to be determined by men, which men shall determine it? In this subjective world, how does one decide which men how others shall live. The eventual outcome of the concept of divine Reason is the eventual moral relativism and Deconstructionist thought of modern times.

Subjective morality and blind faith in flawed reason have led to the worst excesses of human history. Both Nazism and Soviet Communism speak to failures of human-based moral systems. Moral relativism and deconstructionism have both eroded the foundations of morality without providing an alternative source of authority.

Thus I now understand the necessity of having an objective right and wrong. And this is not a uniquely Western concept. While the Judeo-Christian tradition calls its values the 10 Commandments, all major world religions believe that it is wrong to kill, steal, etc., and right to honor family. Since many of these basic precepts are common to all religions, it seems reasonable to me that they assume a certain transcendental value of truth.

But the next leap is one I'm not able to make. If there is a transcendental set of truths, there must be a divine presence responsible for these truths. In order for this natural law to have any real meaning, one must have faith. And as rationalistic as I am, I can't really come to terms with this concept of faith.

So there's the conundrum. Am I right to assume that moral/natural law necessitates a divine presense? If so, how does one make the connection to understanding the nature of that presense? If not, where does one obtain the authority to craft laws, as well as right and wrong?

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

Can we please move this stuff away from this forum to the "Other Topics Forum".
Its common sense this stuff does not belong here.
This topic has absolutely nothing to do with poker psychology.
Absolutely dick all.

jim grass

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

Sklansky and others has found this section appropriate to talk about various philosophical issues. Since I respect those opinions a great deal more than I respect yours, you should go f*** off.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

[ QUOTE ]

The central contention of the Western (Judeo-Christian) tradition is that law (in a moral sense, i.e. "natural law") derives its authority from a higher power.

...

Am I right to assume that moral/natural law necessitates a divine presence?


[/ QUOTE ]

In short, yes. There needs to be a higher presence which validates that that natural law is the correct one to follow. Without it, that natural law is no different than any other.

<tangent correlation: think about the Fundamental Theorem of Poker. We follow it, the FToP aka "Natural Law", because we believe that Mathematics and Logic, as the higher powers, are correct (...not exactly the right word...) >

[ QUOTE ]

If so, how does one make the connection to understanding the nature of that presence?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that you can. Understanding requires judgment and judgment limits the nature of that presence into something that you can understand. If you consider the presence to be a "higher power", you have just limited it to that, "a higher power". No longer can it be a lower power, or not a power at all, etc. because it has been labeled. And it doesn't matter that you can change your mind about what something is, it will still be limited to the new idea.

[ QUOTE ]

If not, where does one obtain the authority to craft laws, as well as right and wrong?


[/ QUOTE ]

The authority is given to you by people who are dependant on you to tell them what to do.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

If a moral law is adopted by the species and it leads to furtherance in the evolution of the species, then it is divinely inspired because such adoption requires collaboration of all the minds in the species or the overmind of the species ... If y'all catch my drift.
/M

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Subjective morality and blind faith in flawed reason have led to the worst excesses of human history. Both Nazism and Soviet Communism speak to failures of human-based moral systems. Moral relativism and deconstructionism have both eroded the foundations of morality without providing an alternative source of authority.

Thus I now understand the necessity of having an objective right and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

You confuse the recognition of moral relativism with false morality. And then you conclude that the failure of moral relativism to lead to desirable results therefore "necessitates" the existence of an objective morality. I think your logic is seriously flawed.

I do believe in objective morality, but I don't see why that necessitates a belief in a divine presence. Would this divine presence be subject to morality? If so, why? Did the divine presence create morality? If so, could he/she/it uncreate it? Would it still be objective morality? Was that divine presence's creation of morality an amoral act? And if the divine presence is *not* subject to morality, then why are we?

Just because our human brains are flawed doesn't mean pure reason is any less of an authority as a source of morality.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

I would suggest that the poster you're replying to isn't far off, and that the 'other other topics' forum might be more appropriate.

The main reason I suggest this is that, while you can certainly make the case you describe, this is a forum for psychology (and philosophy) as it relates to 'general gambling'.

Even the 'red text' (David Sklansky et al) posts are part of an on topic thread relating to how reason and religion relate to the poker mindset (which benefits from pure reason). The original thread has been long buried and since the other religious topics have tended to get a little off topic or go far afield but they are all part of the same discussion, just broken up into multiple pieces.

So if I were to post a religion thread I would probably go to the 'other other topics' forum, but I doubt anyone will close it here.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

Yes and no. Moral law needs to have a reason for its existence. If there is an absolute right and wrong, then you need to be able to answer the question 'why?'

However, that answer doesn't necessitate a deity per se. In fact, a natural moral law (to use a term from another post) would have good as its own entity.

Unfortunately things get even hazier from this point forward. You need to answer what 'Good' is and why that is so. A utilitarian defines Good in terms of what will provide the most benefit for the largest number of people (and usually 'benefit' is defined in terms of happiness). Under his morality, there is a right thing to do in every circumstance and it is absolute, but there is no deity.

You are correct in one of your observations, though, that because morality must at some level be defined, the ones who define it open themselves up to question. A deity eliminates the need to question things (though questioning His translators becomes an option, obviously).

In my own little world, my morality is based on reason given some assumptions that are unreasonable on the surface but which hold up surprisingly well under close scrutiny. That said, my 'morality' is only there to govern my actions and interactions and I don't expect anyone else to follow it just because I say so, I would need to convince them (or they would need to find it on their own).

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

Let me say how much I appreciate your thoughfulness on this critical issue for there is much more than just the subject of morality at stake. If there is, in fact, a divine presence from which morality comes into being, then all mankind needs to understand this presence, what is demanded from it, and the cost of rebellion against it. If the cost is merely returning to the dust from which we came, then morality may not be a big deal. But if the cost has eternal consequences, I want to be absolutely certain what I believe and why.

[ QUOTE ]
Am I right to assume that moral/natural law necessitates a divine presense?

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe yes.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, how does one make the connection to understanding the nature of that presense?

[/ QUOTE ]

As a Christian, I believe that God has solved that problem for us. More than 600 years prior to the event, the prophet Isaiah foretold of the coming of Immanuel which means "God with Us". Specific aspects of the life of Immanuel were also predicted in great detail by Isaiah. Many other prophecies foretold the same but I point to Isaiah because the copies of this writing found in the Dead Sea Scrolls preceded Christ's birth by several hundred years, i.e. they weren't made up after the fact. Jesus Christ is, in fact, God in human flesh who came so that we could see and know who God was and what He was like.

Therefore, you can easily begin to make this connection by reading what the Bible has to say about Jesus. While any of the four gospels would suffice, a great place would be the Gospel of John which was written by one of Jesus' closest disciples for the purpose of explaining that this man was indeed God in human flesh.
For someone who is a self-described "rationalist" (I have been so described), I would recommend reading The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

Hi JPolin,

I would suggest that you read the essays of Thomas Aquinas (on natural law), as well as the Hart-Fuller Debates (on the legal justification for the Nuremburg trials), and the works of John Rawls (on the philosophical basis of law). You are walking a very well-worn path, and there are lots of resources out there for a serious inquiry. Why reinvent the wheel?

Cris

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

I think your reply glosses over some of the difficulties of this issue. Even if one accepts the Christian god as the source of natural law, there exist significant differences within Christianity itself over how this law is manifested and what the consequences are of misapplication, misunderstanding or disobedience. In fact, I think one could interpret your post (and not to say you intended it this way) as allowing man to renounce the duty to seek out or understand natural law simply by submitting to the Christian god. Again, not to say you believe this, but I think there is a problem within some Christian sects of absolving oneself from responsibility for some earthly actions via the supposed relationship with God.

We have indeed, as the OP said, seen the destructive and confusing moral void left by postmodern thought and deconstruction. However, elements of this philosophical tradition have been present within other philosophical movements and individual writers for centuries - what the deconstructionists have done is make an entire discipline out of the acknowledgements over the years that philosophy is an imperfect art, and that it is most certainly not a science. The choice to leap, headfirst, into the gaping maw of human error was, in hindsight, somewhat rash and destructive, but almost unavoidable given the course of history at that time and the apparent meaninglessness of post-industrial life in some places. In other words, it's easy to see the ill of it, but hard to imagine any other tradition growing out of a post-world-war West. So, I kind of have a spilled milk attitude about postmodernism, and there are certain logical/linguistic/philosophical tools it has provided that I find very useful.

Anyway, I think it's important to note that accepting a Christian god does not eliminate the lack of clarity in moral law - biblical literalism, pentecostalism, and most other methods of interpreting the law have made grievous errors at one point or another. So the factor of human error - and the necessity of human autonomy, introspection and responsibility - is still very much a concern.

I basically am a philosophical descendant of Kant via the excellent anarchist writer Robert Paul Wolff, if you're wondering where I'm coming from on this one.

NT

\"Moral Law\"?
 

The philosophical sources you cite are significant, but also, IMHO, out-of-date. The theory of logical types posits that there is a logical difference between statements of fact ("what is") and statements of value ("what ought to be") - and that it is threfroe impossible to reason logically from one to the other. I think that all ethics and moral disputation must take this concept into account....

All humans have values, and make clear judgements in particualr situations in everyday life. Philosophically, as we attempt to reason about values, we are limited to reasoning from these firmly held values (within the logical type of values statements) to other consistent or inconsistent values.

Why does one need a moral "law" in the first place? It's a metaphor, at best. I think that attempts to define a "moral law" are searches for "certainty" in the realm of values, and that goal in unattainable. If certainty were an achievable goal, don't you think we would have attained it during thousands of years of human history? We live in a world of moral ambiguity and must learn to deal with that fundamental fact.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Many Enlightenment thinkers believed in Deism, where a transcendental presence created the universe but does not have any influence on material events thereafter.

[/ QUOTE ]
This belief is, in many ways, a strong affirmation of the existence of a set of natural physical laws, which govern the events in the world in a way which does not require divine intervention. In the same way, this belief is entirely consistent with the existence of a set of natural moral laws. This belief does not preclude the possibility that something akin to "karma" is at work in the world and operates according to certain immutable "laws".

[ QUOTE ]
If there is a transcendental set of truths, there must be a divine presence responsible for these truths.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Natural moral law" and the "laws of physics" are both transcendental sets of truths. Should one necessitate a divine presence while the other does not?

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You confuse the recognition of moral relativism with false morality. And then you conclude that the failure of moral relativism to lead to desirable results therefore "necessitates" the existence of an objective morality. I think your logic is seriously flawed.

I do believe in objective morality, but I don't see why that necessitates a belief in a divine presence. Would this divine presence be subject to morality? If so, why? Did the divine presence create morality? If so, could he/she/it uncreate it? Would it still be objective morality? Was that divine presence's creation of morality an amoral act? And if the divine presence is *not* subject to morality, then why are we?

Just because our human brains are flawed doesn't mean pure reason is any less of an authority as a source of morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I was saying was that moral relativism does not accept the concepts of objective right or wrong. In light of universally-held values however (such as the condemnation of killing), moral relativism not only does not reflect the reality of human existence but also does not provide any authority to justify behaving in a manner that human tradition would charatcterize as "good."

One must remember that "reason" is a product of the human mind. So when one elevates reason to a position of moral authority, humanity is the de facto authority in matters of morality.

The reason I say that objective morality demands a divine presense is because there is no satisfactory answer to the question of who in particular determines moral authority when it is the hands of reason (humanity).

As for your questions, I have no idea how to answer them. My reading and study has only gotten me to the point where I can ask the questions that I've posed, not answer more difficult ones like yours. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let me say how much I appreciate your thoughfulness on this critical issue for there is much more than just the subject of morality at stake. If there is, in fact, a divine presence from which morality comes into being, then all mankind needs to understand this presence, what is demanded from it, and the cost of rebellion against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, and I feel very strongly the same way.

[ QUOTE ]
As a Christian, I believe that God has solved that problem for us. More than 600 years prior to the event, the prophet Isaiah foretold of the coming of Immanuel which means "God with Us". Specific aspects of the life of Immanuel were also predicted in great detail by Isaiah. Many other prophecies foretold the same but I point to Isaiah because the copies of this writing found in the Dead Sea Scrolls preceded Christ's birth by several hundred years, i.e. they weren't made up after the fact. Jesus Christ is, in fact, God in human flesh who came so that we could see and know who God was and what He was like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is where I have a problem. I can't understand how one reconcile prophecy with reason, and as such I am quite skeptical of claims of prophecy.

Re: \"Moral Law\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why does one need a moral "law" in the first place? It's a metaphor, at best. I think that attempts to define a "moral law" are searches for "certainty" in the realm of values, and that goal in unattainable. If certainty were an achievable goal, don't you think we would have attained it during thousands of years of human history? We live in a world of moral ambiguity and must learn to deal with that fundamental fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is no objective moral law, what compulsion is there for people to behave in a way conducive to a good society? On what basis can murder, theft, and various other crims be classified as wrong? If one places these matters in human hands, how does one prevent law from degenerating into a justification of, "because I said so?"

I think these questions suggest the necessity of a transcendental basis for moral law.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

Better leave this one to the Wachowski brothers.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think your reply glosses over some of the difficulties of this issue. Even if one accepts the Christian god as the source of natural law, there exist significant differences within Christianity itself over how this law is manifested and what the consequences are of misapplication, misunderstanding or disobedience. In fact, I think one could interpret your post (and not to say you intended it this way) as allowing man to renounce the duty to seek out or understand natural law simply by submitting to the Christian god.

[/ QUOTE ]

While MBTIGuy focuses on Christianity, the set of behaviors (such as killing) that are considered objectively wrong crosses the borders of relgion and is common to Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism et al. The fact that there is a set of truths like this seems like evidence of some sort of transcendental presence that does supercede relgious division.

The political and developmental implications of this statement are enormous, but perhaps that is not a discussion to have at the present time. This discussion is vast and difficult enough on its own merits.

[ QUOTE ]
We have indeed, as the OP said, seen the destructive and confusing moral void left by postmodern thought and deconstruction. However, elements of this philosophical tradition have been present within other philosophical movements and individual writers for centuries - what the deconstructionists have done is make an entire discipline out of the acknowledgements over the years that philosophy is an imperfect art, and that it is most certainly not a science. The choice to leap, headfirst, into the gaping maw of human error was, in hindsight, somewhat rash and destructive, but almost unavoidable given the course of history at that time and the apparent meaninglessness of post-industrial life in some places. In other words, it's easy to see the ill of it, but hard to imagine any other tradition growing out of a post-world-war West. So, I kind of have a spilled milk attitude about postmodernism, and there are certain logical/linguistic/philosophical tools it has provided that I find very useful.

Anyway, I think it's important to note that accepting a Christian god does not eliminate the lack of clarity in moral law - biblical literalism, pentecostalism, and most other methods of interpreting the law have made grievous errors at one point or another. So the factor of human error - and the necessity of human autonomy, introspection and responsibility - is still very much a concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

If one believes in the malaise and decadence of Western civilization (as my professor does), then moral relativists and deconstructionists are some of the prime villains. By disintegrating and delegitimizing traditional rubrics of moral authority, they have caused people to lose a sense of objective right and wrong and thus to live in a hedonistic and irresponsible way that will lead to the decay of Western civilization.

While I personally am not so alarmist, I find this argument intriguing.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi JPolin,

I would suggest that you read the essays of Thomas Aquinas (on natural law), as well as the Hart-Fuller Debates (on the legal justification for the Nuremburg trials), and the works of John Rawls (on the philosophical basis of law). You are walking a very well-worn path, and there are lots of resources out there for a serious inquiry. Why reinvent the wheel?

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read Aquinas and Rawls, but not the Hart-Fuller debates. I'll have to check that out.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here lies a significant problem, though. If the moral basis for law is to be determined by men, which men shall determine it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so if a religious text is, instead, to determine "objective morality", then who decides which religious text is to be followed?

Same problem.

All these "objective morality" claims reduce, in the end, to human judgments about which "objective morality" is the "real and true" moral code. Thus, ALL such "objective" moral codes are every bit as "subjective" as any others, because they rest on human decisions about which "objective" code is to be subjectively believed, and which is to be subjectively disbelieved.

Basically, whether we like it or not, the responsibility for our actions ultimately rests with each of us.


q/q

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

Hey guys,

What you all are not considering in the progression of this conversation is the self-manifestation of said Presence. Yes, the universal moral law (treat others as you want to be treated, et al) screams of a God. Once you get to that plateau, to say that since this is so, that must mean that this Greater Being transcends any religion is fallacious. Consider this--if there were one Being from whom all false religions derived, would they not all bear a semblence of the true "religion"?

There is something unique among religions in the world. There is something that stands out, a belief system that is far different than any other. There is one moral code that differs from the others in crucial points where it seems similar to the others from a distance (which is as close as any of you have gotten), but from an intimate examination, it is amazingly lucent that it is unique, and the truth. I speak of the writings that come together to form what is known as the Bible. No, not Catholicism. Not Protestantism. If you are a scholar of the Bible, you know that you can scarcely find a church in the world that is teaching the Bible rightly from the pulpit. And so men such as yourselves continue to be deceived by what is Christianity because what is presented to you is a "religion" like others, and what composes the Bible is something entirely different.

It is the Bible that conveys that God has set the idea of eternity in man's heart, yet not so that man will find out the works of God (Ecclesiastes). It is the Bible which states that the moral code which is embedded in man is from ONE God (Romans 2). It is the stories of Genesis which confirm this.

In my search for the Creator (I always saw the need for a Creator when I considered nature), I considered all known religions, and was baffled by the possibilities. Was God above all these religions? Part of them all? Was one right and the rest wrong? I was led astray, to nowhere (to everywhere), and puzzled. But upon reading the Bible in its entirety, I discovered the source from which all other religions originate. I saw a God that Christianity hardly knew, a God more divisive to the world and powerful than I had ever heard of, and a God that no man would make up. This God of the Bible was living for his own glory, and created man to glorify himself. Man is pictured as an evil sinner in the Bible, desperately needing to be saved from himself. Man cannot save himself, nor can he come to God himself or through his reason. Who wants to believe this? Who was this Jesus Christ, Son of God, central to His Being? But alas, the Bible documents the start of all other religions including evolution (2 Peter), secular humanism (Romans 1), atheism (Psalm 14), and agnosticism (I Corinthians 1-2). It describes in detail the reason for moral absolutes being universal, how man seeks to be moral to work his way to whatever higher place he sees fit in his mind, though there be only one which cannot be earned. It also describes why all men seek to worship something greater than themselves (just watch how people talk about David S. on this forum, or how we elevate actors and athletes in America and around the world). All the answers to all philosophical questions, I have found in the Bible, though the God of the Bible is foreign to nearly all religious men.

The Apostle Paul is a surprisingly philosophical man who explains many of these things in the 14 books of the Bible which document him. I would encourage you to read his writings and the book of Acts.

To assume that God has not manifested Himself to us in a way that we can know is, at this current time for you, willful ignorance--you cannot say that you have searched. One famous quote that people like to say is, "Seek and you will find". Have you sought? Be careful of what makes sense to you and the conclusions you see fit considering that you haven't even read the Bible that after thousands o f years, no one has been able to refute. Be careful that your own reasoning doesn't preclude what you desire to find. "Sometimes the very thing you're looking for is the one thing you can't see" [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

When you've finally conceded (in this post modern society!) that there are absolute morals, will you stop there and conclude that they end in man, or that the God in whom they end is not desiring of our obedience of them to worship Him in ONE particular way? If you are going to seek, by all means, seek! But seek all the way, and with the realization that what makes sense to you may not be the way that the truth is.

M

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

Hi JPolin,

[ QUOTE ]
If one believes in the malaise and decadence of Western civilization (as my professor does), then moral relativists and deconstructionists are some of the prime villains. By disintegrating and delegitimizing traditional rubrics of moral authority, they have caused people to lose a sense of objective right and wrong and thus to live in a hedonistic and irresponsible way that will lead to the decay of Western civilization.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhhh ... to the heart of the matter. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Okay, first, your professor's argument is self-supporting. He asserts the existence of a problem: Western society is suffering from malaise and decadence. He then tells you how dire the consequences are: the decay of Western civilization. He's even considerate enough to tell you who to blame: those moral relativists and deconstructionists and other "modern" thinkers. If you asked him, I bet he could even supply the solution: that all should return to the arms of mother church, renounce modern-relativist-decadent thought, and once again submit to the will of God.

Next time you see him, ask him for his opinions on Christian Reconstructionism or Dominionism. I'm willing to bet they'll be positive.

Then ask him to prove his diagnosis of decadence and malaise in contemporary Western society (he can't), and his alleged consequences (he can't except by failed analogy), and his case against the blameworthy (again, he can't).

After he's done making an idiot of himself, make a note that the primary purpose of higher education is to teach you to think critically, and that professors don't are just as subject to faulty opinions as anyone else.

Cris

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ahhhh ... to the heart of the matter. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Okay, first, your professor's argument is self-supporting. He asserts the existence of a problem: Western society is suffering from malaise and decadence. He then tells you how dire the consequences are: the decay of Western civilization. He's even considerate enough to tell you who to blame: those moral relativists and deconstructionists and other "modern" thinkers. If you asked him, I bet he could even supply the solution: that all should return to the arms of mother church, renounce modern-relativist-decadent thought, and once again submit to the will of God.

Next time you see him, ask him for his opinions on Christian Reconstructionism or Dominionism. I'm willing to bet they'll be positive.

Then ask him to prove his diagnosis of decadence and malaise in contemporary Western society (he can't), and his alleged consequences (he can't except by failed analogy), and his case against the blameworthy (again, he can't).

After he's done making an idiot of himself, make a note that the primary purpose of higher education is to teach you to think critically, and that professors don't are just as subject to faulty opinions as anyone else.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, you are correct in your assumptions about my professor. Like you, I am skeptical of his solutions to the problems he identifies. I find an intriguing historical parallel within St. Augustine's City of God, where he expends considerable effort successfully defending Christianity from the Pagan allegation that it caused Rome's decay. The cry of today's Christian Reconstructionists seems very similar to the cry of the Pagans in the 4th and 5th century A.D.

I was a little taken aback by your somewhat patronizing tone [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] I didn't need the help of any professor to see the havoc that moral relativism has wreaked. While I am not particularly knowledgable about morality and religion, I am much more expert with matters of foreign policy and domestic politics.

I didn't really want to go here, but if you examine the positions of relativsts/post-modernists concerning international affairs, you will see that they occupy the most extreme position on the radical left. Unfortunately, I spent four years up close and personal with these so-called "academics" when I was at Columbia. Their dogmatism, arrogance, and intellectual authoritarianism strongly contradicts their liberal rhetoric of tolerance, peace and what not.

In practical terms, the pontificating of these relativists and post-modernists has led to anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and a paucity of honest debate within the intelligentsia. There are many serious problems in the world, and to see many of our brightest minds engaged in an intellectual fantasy world instead of real, concrete problems is a tremendous tragedy.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

Hi J.Polin,

The problem with Christian Reconstructionism/Dominionism is that it seeks a return to a pre-Enlightenment mindset where knowledge had to be vetted by ecclesiastical authority. One need only look to the atrocities of the Crusades, or those of contemporary radical Islam, for examples the dangers of subordinating fact and reason to faith. Theocracy is the most dangerous form of government ever devised.

While moral absolutes are comforting, alas, it seems we humans do best when we muddle along as best we can, relying on reason tempered by kindness.

Cris

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Am I right to assume that moral/natural law necessitates a divine presense?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

An objective morality cannot come from any kind of god.

Morality is objective if a given moral claim is true or false without regard to whether anybody agrees with it. Morality is subjective if it's a matter of mere personal preference.

Math, for example, is objective because "2 + 2 = 4" is true whether or not you agree. But taste is subjective because "tomatoes are yummier than carrots" is merely a statement of preference.

If we say that morality is whatever God wants it to be, that's every bit as subjective as if we say that morality is whatever you want, or whatever Comrade Stalin wants, or whatever the majority wants -- subjective because, in that case, morality is merely a matter of God's personal preference.

Is there any objective reason why God's preference should matter more than mine? If we say that God's preference matters more than mine because of X, well, that means that moral claims are ultimately determined by X rather than by by God's whim.

(And note that X must be independent of God. If X is simply "because God wants it that way," then we're left with the claim that God's preferences matter most because that's what God prefers. Not only is that circular, but it doesn't uniquely apply to God. Stalin would prefer his preferences to matter most as well.)

So whatever the independent justification is for saying that God's preferences matter more than mine do, it's that justifying principle -- not God's whim -- that ultmately determines the truth or falsity of moral claims. In an objective moral theory, a moral dictator is at best a middleman and at worst a fraud.

The overall conclusion is that objective moral theory is equally reasonable for theists and atheists.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

Hi maurile,

[ QUOTE ]
So whatever the independent justification is for saying that God's preferences matter more than mine do, it's that justifying principle -- not God's whim -- that ultmately determines the truth or falsity of moral claims. In an objective moral theory, a moral dictator is at best a middleman and at worst a fraud.

The overall conclusion is that objective moral theory is equally reasonable for theists and atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very true, and it's ironic that it took a trained theologian, Immanuel Kant, to divorce moral imperatives from religious teaching.

Kant's Categorical Imperative (in every situation, let each man act as he would if his action were the rule for all other men in that situation) expresses a fundamental principle that appears in nearly all of the world's major religions. But Kant did not ground the C.I. in the Bible. Rather, he chose to ground it in pure reason.

The C.I. is also one of the core principles of all advanced legal systems. John Rawls and other jurispdudential theorists express it in the phrase "like cases should be treated alike," an idea that goes all the way back to the Code of Hammurabi.

So yes, it is possible to assert an objective moral code which is not rooted in religion. But such a code is not likely to conform to the desires of Dominionists, precisely because it does derive from religious belief. It asserts a primary of reason which is antithetical to Dominionism.

Cris

Re: \"Moral Law\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If there is no objective moral law, what compulsion is there for people to behave in a way conducive to a good society? On what basis can murder, theft, and various other crims be classified as wrong? If one places these matters in human hands, how does one prevent law from degenerating into a justification of, "because I said so?"

I think these questions suggest the necessity of a transcendental basis for moral law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because it would be a nicer or simpler or what-have-you world if something were the case in no way demonstrates, or even "suggests", "necessity". You're merely addressing preference.

And, quite frankly, history amply demonstrates that much law has in fact been based upon no more than "because I said so".

One of the primary methods of resolving legal disputes is by appeal to "precedent". What I am maintaining is that such a methodology is what's primarily available to us in moral reasoning - that is, to start from mutual agreement on a moral postion, and to reason to related, "consistent", or analagous positions. I really think that most humans, in relevantly similar circumstances, share many values in common. But none of us have any grounds to claim "certainty" in the realm of morality, especially at the systemic level. And, BTW, that's also why moral reasoning is so often insufficient, and we resort to force, be it police, military, or what-have-you. And, in fact, whan one cites "moral law" to justify imposition of ANY value onto another, that is really just a special case of "because I (or, we) said so"....

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

Nice thoughts. Your analysis would be accurate if God were just any other guy, like you or me. However, the orthodox belief is that God is the creator/inventor of all things and so he assigns to them an order of his choosing. If this is the case then thou shalt not murder is just as objectively true as 2 + 2 = 4. If God exists as christians portray him, then he defines all relations -- logical and otherwise.

In answer to the actual question, the answer most certainly has to be yes. Kant proved nothing, since his catagorical imperative was still based on notions which could ultimately be viewed as subjective. In order to have an objective moral system, there has to be an objective standard by which to judge rules.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nice thoughts. Your analysis would be accurate if God were just any other guy, like you or me.

[/ QUOTE ]
So who says that the creator's preferences matter more than mine? If the creator made that rule, it's circular and empty. It's no different from my own pronouncement that my preferences are the ones that matter. "What I say goes because I say so." If, on the other hand, the rule favoring the creator's preferences over mine didn't come from the creator, then evidently creators don't get to make the rules.

Either way, objective moral rules cannot come from a moral dictator.

(For you fans of Greek philosphy, this is known as the Euthyphro Dilemma. Socrates asked: "Is something good because God says so, or does God say a thing is good because it is?" If the former -- if God's preference for something is what makes it good -- then morality is empty and the claim that "God is good" is a vacuous tautology that says nothing more than "God wants what God wants." It's content-free. If the latter -- if God prefers something because it is good -- then it was already good before God stated his preference, and the standard for what is good exists independent of God.)

Christians who believe that moral rules come from God therefore believe in a subjective morality.

An example of an objective morality would be John Stuart Mill's "greatest good for the greatest number" -- which, not coincidentally, is non-theistic.

So to say that morality can't be objective unless it is divinely inspired is patenty absurd.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

[ QUOTE ]
An example of an objective morality would be John Stuart Mill's "greatest good for the greatest number"

[/ QUOTE ]
In what sense would Mills be more objective? Because HE determines what is good, as opposed to God?
That would seem to me to be the ULTIMATE subjectivity.

[ QUOTE ]
So who says that the creator's preferences matter more than mine? If the creator made that rule, it's circular and empty.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you aren't taking into account what God says about Himself. He didn't "make" the rules---He IS the rules.

[ QUOTE ]
if God prefers something because it is good -- then it was already good before God stated his preference, and the standard for what is good exists independent of God.)


[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing, in Judeo-Christian theology, pre-dates God. He is the beginning of all things. To say that anything existed before Him or apart from Him is a non-starter.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

[ QUOTE ]
In what sense would Mills be more objective?

[/ QUOTE ]
In the sense that, under Mill's system, moral claims are true or false regardless of whether anybody agrees with them. Morality is not a matter of anybody's personal preference. See my post from a few days ago defining objective vs. subjective moral theories.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing, in Judeo-Christian theology, pre-dates God. He is the beginning of all things. To say that anything existed before Him or apart from Him is a non-starter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right; I understand that many Christians think morality can't exist apart from God. They believe in a subjective morality, since they think morality is determined by God's personal preferences.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So who says that the creator's preferences matter more than mine? If the creator made that rule, it's circular and empty.

[/ QUOTE ]

So would you contest that if we have a creator such as the christian religion portrays then all things are subjective (including 2+2=4)?

Re: \"Moral Law\"?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why does one need a moral "law" in the first place? It's a metaphor, at best. I think that attempts to define a "moral law" are searches for "certainty" in the realm of values, and that goal in unattainable. If certainty were an achievable goal, don't you think we would have attained it during thousands of years of human history?

[/ QUOTE ]

No

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So who says that the creator's preferences matter more than mine? If the creator made that rule, it's circular and empty.

[/ QUOTE ]

You totally miss the point here. If God defines everything in existence, then his concept of morality would be set down as a hard relation for humanity. It's not just another idea of morality, like yours or mine, it's part of the definition of what it is be human. This necessarily means it's objective. If you think that you get out of the argument simply by saying your opinion is as good as God's, you just misunderstand what "God" means.

Also, the argument that God could theoretically change morality in no way makes it subjective for us. You might consider it subjective for God, because he decides it, but if he's the creator then he also creates our objectivity. Again it's a matter of relations.

[ QUOTE ]

An example of an objective morality would be John Stuart Mill's "greatest good for the greatest number" -- which, not coincidentally, is non-theistic.

So to say that morality can't be objective unless it is divinely inspired is patenty absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest i'm not sure i've heard this arguments so backwardly stated. Where did you come up with it? Mill's argument is only objective if we accept his premise that happiness is most important. That issue, however, is very much open to debate. I say pain and suffering are most important. Therefore, any action that produces the most pain and suffering possible is objectively good.

If your analysis is correct, then i've just created "another" objective morality system. We know your analysis is not correct, since objectivity cannot entail contradiction.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So who says that the creator's preferences matter more than mine? If the creator made that rule, it's circular and empty.

[/ QUOTE ]

So would you contest that if we have a creator such as the christian religion portrays then all things are subjective (including 2+2=4)?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true even if God sucks at math and therefore mistakenly believes the answer to be five.

Likewise, ordering the revenge-killing of innocent babies is objectively wrong even if God sucks at morality and therefore mistakenly thinks it's okay. (1 Samuel 15:2-3)

The objective nature of math and (IMO) morality does not depend on whether or not any gods exist.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If God defines everything in existence, then his concept of morality would be set down as a hard relation for humanity. It's not just another idea of morality, like yours or mine, it's part of the definition of what it is be human. This necessarily means it's objective.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not part of the definition of what it means to be human. You obviously don't mean that literally, but I'm not sure how you do mean it. (If we come across someone whose concept of morality differs from God's, that doesn't make him non-human.)

[ QUOTE ]
If you think that you get out of the argument simply by saying your opinion is as good as God's, you just misunderstand what "God" means.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say my opinion is as good as God's. I asked if there's an objective reason (i.e., one not based on someone's mere preference) why it isn't.

I'm perfectly open to the idea that there is an objective reason why God's preferences are better than mine. But if there is, it's not based on God's mere prefence, and therefore our moral rules don't ultimately come from God. They come from whatever objective principle it is that justifies the notion that God's preferences are better than mine.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the argument that God could theoretically change morality in no way makes it subjective for us. You might consider it subjective for God, because he decides it, but if he's the creator then he also creates our objectivity. Again it's a matter of relations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Subjective for God, objective for us . . . are you a moral relativist?

[ QUOTE ]
Mill's argument is only objective if we accept his premise that happiness is most important.

[/ QUOTE ]
No; it's only true if we accept his premise. It's obective whether or not it's true.

[ QUOTE ]
I say pain and suffering are most important. Therefore, any action that produces the most pain and suffering possible is objectively good.

[/ QUOTE ]
This, like Mill's, is an objective moral theory. It is wrong, but it is objective.

[ QUOTE ]
If your analysis is correct, then i've just created "another" objective morality system.

[/ QUOTE ]
Quite so. Very nicely done.

IMO, only objective moral theories can be meaningfully correct. But a moral theory is not meaningfully correct just because it is objective.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

I don't agree. For one thing, if a so-called "objective" morality has the happiness of the greatest number of people as its definition, then it must've been OK to slaughter 6 million Jews if it made 50 million Nazis happy.

The problem comes when Man starts deciding what's Good vs. what's Evil. My opinion is that whenever we define them for ourselves, we are being subjective by definition.

Jesus summed up the 10 Commandments thusly:
"Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself".
In what way wouldn't this law, if perfectly kept, NOT bring about "the greatest good for the greatest number"?

Now about Saul and the Amalekites..lol

1. The Amalekites were a tribe of Bedouins who had harrassed, stolen from, and murdered the people of Israel repeatedly during the Exodus. We see in Samuel that they were still at it.
2. God's order to wipe them out was in the interests of defending His Covenant people, and consequentially His Word, the Law which they alone carried at this time.
3. This entire episode was ALSO a test for Saul, who failed it and was ultimately replaced as King of Israel due to disobedience.
4. As a note of interest, the Old Testament battles not only give a history of Israel, but are also to be taken as lessons in how people are to deal with Sin.

As far as 'innocent' babies....
1. they grow up, you know--and take vengeance.
2. the Bible says none of us are truly innocent, because we are born with a sinful nature.
3. God here is establishing SOVEREIGNTY. Many have questioned Him, but always get the same answer:

IS. 45:9
"Does the clay say to the potter,
'What are you making?'"

ROMANS 9:21
"Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"

JOB 38:1,2,4
"Then the Lord answered Job out of the storm. He said:

"Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?"

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand."

and good old Job finally answers:

JOB 42:5,6

"My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes."

What did Job see, I wonder. What did he see that made him completely FORGET all his suffering, and repent of even QUESTIONING God's goodness?

I'd give a lot to know.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree. For one thing, if a so-called "objective" morality has the happiness of the greatest number of people as its definition, then it must've been OK to slaughter 6 million Jews if it made 50 million Nazis happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so you don't agree with J.S. Mill. Good; neither do I.

Or did you mean that you don't agree with me? If so, what about?

[ QUOTE ]
Now about Saul and the Amalekites..lol

1. The Amalekites were a tribe of Bedouins who had harrassed, stolen from, and murdered the people of Israel repeatedly during the Exodus. We see in Samuel that they were still at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were babies. They didn't harrass, steal from, or murder anyone.

[ QUOTE ]
2. God's order to wipe them out was in the interests of defending His Covenant people, and consequentially His Word, the Law which they alone carried at this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't give defense as His reason. He specifically cited revenge. It is morally wrong to kill someone out of revenge when the person you kill is innocent of the thing you're supposedly seeking revenge for.

[ QUOTE ]
3. This entire episode was ALSO a test for Saul, who failed it and was ultimately replaced as King of Israel due to disobedience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, like those gang initiation rites? It's still murder, and it's still wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
4. As a note of interest, the Old Testament battles not only give a history of Israel, but are also to be taken as lessons in how people are to deal with Sin.

[/ QUOTE ]
They are bad lessons. They sanction killing innocent babies out of revenge.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as 'innocent' babies....
1. they grow up, you know--and take vengeance.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're going to kill an innocent person for something he might do later? That's a pretty lame justification for murder.

[ QUOTE ]
2. the Bible says none of us are truly innocent, because we are born with a sinful nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were infants. What were they guilty of? Pooping too much?

[ QUOTE ]
3. God here is establishing SOVEREIGNTY.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, Stalin had a similar method of establishing sovereignty. It's still murder, and it's still wrong.

Re: Must moral law be divinely inspired?
 

We must have different translations. In mine (NIV) it says "I will punish the Amalekites.."

Yes, He took the babies, too. Why?

Who really knows? But you might think a lot of different things.

1. If they are innocents, as you say, and they will later grow up to be unbelieving, murdering infidels, perhaps God was being merciful. Perhaps they went straight into His arms.
*In God's point of view, death mightn't be so bad, you know--because He knows what's on the other side and we don't.
--How long would unprotected babies last out in that desert?
--The Israelites couldn't take them--God was very specific about keeping those particular genetic lines free of outside cultures and influences...especially at this crucial early juncture, when most of the Israelites themselves still had superstitions and beliefs brought out of Egypt.

2. God's sovereignty is important here. Remember that Israel was a relatively new nation with a mission. That mission was PARAMOUNT--it was the first steps to the redemption of all mankind--and the Israelites were the only people on earth who had the Law and the Word. Why? Because they would give birth to the Redeemer, who would set all mankind free.

3. God shows unbelievers many times throughout the Bible His power over their 'deities', and His power to protect and defend his people. This is for THEIR sakes, as well as the Israelites'. How else would they be swayed?
Many of the Egyptians were convinced of God's supremacy by the 7 plagues, and the other wonders Moses performed.

4. This was a time in history when actions like these were commonplace. Look at the Israel/Palestine mess today! Same bunch, you know..lol
We get a sneak preview in:
GEN. 16:11,12

"The angel of the Lord also said to her:
You are now with child
and you will have a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,
for the Lord has heard of your misery.
He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers."
[His other brothers, of course would be Abraham's other sons by Sarah--i.e. the Jews, and later, I suppose {by adoption} the Christians]