Must moral law be divinely inspired?

[maurile]

[ 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.

[maurile]

[ 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.

[Joe826]

[ 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)?

[West]

[ 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

[Joe826]

[ 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.

[maurile]

[ 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.

[maurile]

[ 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.

[kalooki45]

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.

[maurile]

[ 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.

[kalooki45]

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]