Any quotes in italics are from C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
“Some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how every like they are to each other and to our own…. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five…. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.”
I would disagree only with his statement “selfishness has never been admired.” Interestingly, our current economic climate has supported Gordon Gecko’s statement “Greed is good.”
Selfishness is seen as a benefit to society, the building up of economic stability. We could just see this as an experiment gone array, as our current recession seems to make this claim a lie. However, amidst a sub-culture of economic power, this remains a principle of truth. Probably because they aren’t the ones who have been ousted from their homes.
But I would argue that even this principle of selfishness is not complete. Even if it benefits a stock broker to kill, there is not a cultural standard to murder for profit. Nor does one see a positive connotation of rape, even if it gives one an economic benefit.
But in certain sub-cultures do we not see murder or rape as a benefit? In Rwanda, the troops were encouraged to rape their enemies’ women publically, for then those women would be taken out of the gene pool, thus preventing that race from continuing. Is there not war for economic benefit, like, say, for lower oil prices, which could easily be understood as murder for profit? When economic gain is in one’s sights, there always seems to be a justification. One always finds a “moral” reason for stealing. I know of people who steal from large store chains, telling themselves, “They aren’t really hurt by my petty theft; they have insurance.”
But although selfishness is justified, it is justified by weak, but still moral reasoning. War for oil prices is justified by claiming that the security of a whole nation is at stake. Genocide is justified by claiming that the well being of another people requires it. Theft is justified by claiming that no one is really hurt. These are all moral reasons, they just aren’t looking at the whole picture. To look at the security of one nation neglects the other nation that one is warring against. To steal because “no one is hurt” is not to see the results of those who are fired because a company must pay insurance premiums instead of employees’ salaries. But the morality is still there. I think that Lewis’ argument of a universal morality remains, even when exceptions can be found.
Perhaps, it is simply a way or moral reasoning that is universal. A language of morality. Certainly moral action doesn’t seem so universal.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
What Ethics Is Not, Part 2
Italicized quotes are by Peter Kreeft
3. Ethics is not psychology
Ethics is not about how we feel, but about real, substantial truths. We cannot establish truth by how we feel about something. If that were true, then every scientific hypothesis would be correct.
Instead, the scientist tests the hypothesis to determine the truth of her assumption. Ethics is different than science, in that to “test” an ethical hypothesis, such as “Jews are naturally evil and thus must be eliminated” can lead to monstrous actions. This is why it is best to allow the testing happen in one’s head, fully in the theory before it is tested in real life. This is one of the functions that fiction writers provide us—they take an ethical idea (or many of them) and test the idea in a separated universe where no one can get hurt. Philosophers do much the same thing by telling stories. We can also look at real life incidents and speak of the ethical implications of the incident, but real life often has complications that provide us with “red herrings” to erode a clear ethical idea.
4. Ethics is not ideology
Ethics cannot be labeled “conservative” or “liberal” or be connected with any political party or ideological fad. Ethics is truth, without regard to time or place. “Ideologies can be judged as moral or immoral… Ethics argues about and judges ideology.”
“Some philosophers today disagree with this, the Deconstructionists. They argue that ethics is just ideology. In fact, camouflaged ideology. Power putting on the mask of justice. In other words, ‘might makes right.’ Machiavelli teaches this. It is a claim as old as the Greek Sophists.”
Certainly some ethics is just an excuse to obtain more power, to control the masses. But there is an ethics that accomplishes truth. There are right and wrong actions that can be determined by reason.
3. Ethics is not psychology
Ethics is not about how we feel, but about real, substantial truths. We cannot establish truth by how we feel about something. If that were true, then every scientific hypothesis would be correct.
Instead, the scientist tests the hypothesis to determine the truth of her assumption. Ethics is different than science, in that to “test” an ethical hypothesis, such as “Jews are naturally evil and thus must be eliminated” can lead to monstrous actions. This is why it is best to allow the testing happen in one’s head, fully in the theory before it is tested in real life. This is one of the functions that fiction writers provide us—they take an ethical idea (or many of them) and test the idea in a separated universe where no one can get hurt. Philosophers do much the same thing by telling stories. We can also look at real life incidents and speak of the ethical implications of the incident, but real life often has complications that provide us with “red herrings” to erode a clear ethical idea.
4. Ethics is not ideology
Ethics cannot be labeled “conservative” or “liberal” or be connected with any political party or ideological fad. Ethics is truth, without regard to time or place. “Ideologies can be judged as moral or immoral… Ethics argues about and judges ideology.”
“Some philosophers today disagree with this, the Deconstructionists. They argue that ethics is just ideology. In fact, camouflaged ideology. Power putting on the mask of justice. In other words, ‘might makes right.’ Machiavelli teaches this. It is a claim as old as the Greek Sophists.”
Certainly some ethics is just an excuse to obtain more power, to control the masses. But there is an ethics that accomplishes truth. There are right and wrong actions that can be determined by reason.
Friday, October 15, 2010
A Universal Moral Code, Part 1
This is my first post on an occasional series reflecting on C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. Quotes in italics is from C.S. Lewis. The rest is me.
Lewis’ basis of his first argument is that there is a law of morality that all people agree upon. He calls this the Law of Nature.
“ Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.”
“The law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are color-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behavior was obvious to every one.”
Lewis then argues this by saying that what people said “about the war” would be wrong otherwise. We need to understand the historical context for this. Lewis is lecturing on the radio, and his audience is the British people of the early 1940s. “What was said about the war” has to do with arguments about how evil the Nazis are. But the fact is, the evil of the Nazis are seen by their bombing of London, and not about any intellectual arguments. Everyone in London would agree about the evil of the Nazis, no matter what they had thought about them previous to the war. This is an emotional argument, but not one that stands up historically. I think Lewis makes more solid reasons for his idea of a universal morality at other places.
Lewis’ basis of his first argument is that there is a law of morality that all people agree upon. He calls this the Law of Nature.
“ Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.”
“The law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are color-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behavior was obvious to every one.”
Lewis then argues this by saying that what people said “about the war” would be wrong otherwise. We need to understand the historical context for this. Lewis is lecturing on the radio, and his audience is the British people of the early 1940s. “What was said about the war” has to do with arguments about how evil the Nazis are. But the fact is, the evil of the Nazis are seen by their bombing of London, and not about any intellectual arguments. Everyone in London would agree about the evil of the Nazis, no matter what they had thought about them previous to the war. This is an emotional argument, but not one that stands up historically. I think Lewis makes more solid reasons for his idea of a universal morality at other places.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
What Ethics Is Not, Part 1
The outline is from Peter Kreeft's What Would Socrates Do? Comments are my own, unless quoted with italics, in which they are Dr. Kreeft's.
1. Ethics is not a checkup
Ethics is not something you use “just in case” something immoral comes up. This assumes that ethics is only negative. Rather, ethics is about the best way of living, oneself in connection with others.
The reason that many people think of ethics as a checkup is because they see it as a set of abstract “rules”. Most philosophers see it as something real and solid and substantial. What is a good person and what is a good life. Those are more fundamental than a set of rules.
2. Morals are not mores
Ethics is not just a collection of behaviors. You cannot take a poll and find out the right thing to do.
“The difference between morals and mores correspond to the difference between shame and guilt. Shame is the frustration of the desire to be accepted by others, the desire to save face. Guilt is the frustration of the desire to be morally good. Shame is social, guilt is individual. Shame comes from others, guilt comes from yourself. When the dog pees on the carpet, it feels shame, not guilt. If you weren’t there to see it, it wouldn’t feel anything at all.… In guilt, the self is divided in two in a way no animal can do. One of the two is the observing and judging self that says, ‘You are guilty,’ or ‘You are not guilty.’ ‘You are evil,’ or ‘You are good.’ The other self is the observed, judged self that hears this judgment. It is this self consciousness, this ability to split ourselves in to two—the judging and the judged self—that separates us from the beasts. It is not consciousness but self-consciousness that separates us. All animals have consciousness, and many of them are superior to us in their consciousness of the world. They often have better senses than we do. But only man has self-consciousness. That’s why only man has ethics.”
1. Ethics is not a checkup
Ethics is not something you use “just in case” something immoral comes up. This assumes that ethics is only negative. Rather, ethics is about the best way of living, oneself in connection with others.
The reason that many people think of ethics as a checkup is because they see it as a set of abstract “rules”. Most philosophers see it as something real and solid and substantial. What is a good person and what is a good life. Those are more fundamental than a set of rules.
2. Morals are not mores
Ethics is not just a collection of behaviors. You cannot take a poll and find out the right thing to do.
“The difference between morals and mores correspond to the difference between shame and guilt. Shame is the frustration of the desire to be accepted by others, the desire to save face. Guilt is the frustration of the desire to be morally good. Shame is social, guilt is individual. Shame comes from others, guilt comes from yourself. When the dog pees on the carpet, it feels shame, not guilt. If you weren’t there to see it, it wouldn’t feel anything at all.… In guilt, the self is divided in two in a way no animal can do. One of the two is the observing and judging self that says, ‘You are guilty,’ or ‘You are not guilty.’ ‘You are evil,’ or ‘You are good.’ The other self is the observed, judged self that hears this judgment. It is this self consciousness, this ability to split ourselves in to two—the judging and the judged self—that separates us from the beasts. It is not consciousness but self-consciousness that separates us. All animals have consciousness, and many of them are superior to us in their consciousness of the world. They often have better senses than we do. But only man has self-consciousness. That’s why only man has ethics.”
Peter Kreeft Quotes
Some quotes from Peter Kreeft,Catholic Philosopher, writer and professor, in What Would Socrates Do?
“You always find something new (in a great book) each time if you read both with your ears and with your tongue. That is, if you both listen and talk back.”
“Any great book is like the ghost of its author. It is not as alive as the embodied person was, but nevertheless it is alive. For minds are immortal.”
“Sex is something you do with someone else, if only in your fantasies. And thus it always has to do with justice, with fairness to others.”
“You always find something new (in a great book) each time if you read both with your ears and with your tongue. That is, if you both listen and talk back.”
“Any great book is like the ghost of its author. It is not as alive as the embodied person was, but nevertheless it is alive. For minds are immortal.”
“Sex is something you do with someone else, if only in your fantasies. And thus it always has to do with justice, with fairness to others.”
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
A Response to Conservative Ethics
A Conservative Christian Summary of Ethics
I don't actually know who developed this video, but it seems to summarize briefly most Christian's viewpoint of ethics. The four points below summarize the points of the video, and after each I give my response.
1. Secular ethics are situational
This video seems to want it both ways. First, they say that secular ethics change according to the circumstance, that they have no basis for their morality. Second, they say that everyone, without exception, has God’s morality in their heart, and so morality is based on God’s ethics. I agree with the second principle, but not the first. Secular moral reasoning is based on an a priori ethic, the same as Christian ethics. The only difference between Christian ethics is that they, supposedly, have a foundation for their ethic that they can point to. Secular ethics do ethics without an actual known foundation for their ethics. However, as Paul says in Romans 2, often those without the law can do the things contained in the law even though they don’t have the law as a standard. It is funny how secular ethicists often live out a better ethical life than Christians based on their gut rather than having a standard that they can point to and make excuses about.
2. Christian ethics are authoritative
Usually, when Christians talk about ethics, they are actually speaking about commands. And commands, they think, are cut and dry, absolute moral standards, which clearly and simply create morality. However, as Jesus points out in Matthew 5, this is not the case. Jesus points out case after case that one can be strictly obeying the ten commandments and yet still acting in an immoral fashion. Thus, Jesus’ principle was that love must always interpret law and sometimes supersede it. Christian morality, then, must be principle based, not law based. In other words, Jesus gives us general principles to follow, such as “love your enemies” or “let your yes be yes”. We must determine, first of all, what the principles actually mean and then we need to apply those principles to our life. In one circumstance, “love your enemy” means to not cut your enemy with a knife. However, if you are a surgeon and use cutting to save life, then “love your enemy” may mean to cut your enemy with a knife. Law is an inadequate basis for Christians to determine morality, rather we must train Jesus followers to look at principles and how to interpret those principles in circumstance.
3. Christian ethics is based on God’s nature
One’s nature is what we can see. As I’ve already argued, human morality cannot always be discovered by looking at God’s nature. God can kill human beings because He is creator, but human beings must not. We must understand that God’s nature must and can be followed, but not necessarily all of God’s actions. The classic biblical statement of God’s nature is, “YHWH is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in faithful love and truth, offering forgiveness to thousands, but does not leave the wicked unpunished.” (Exodus 34). The first part of God’s nature, we must follow and imitate. However, punishing the wicked is not for humans following God, for it says “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord”. We can desire the wicked to be punished, but we are NOT slow to anger, NOT forgiving of the repentant. Thus we always screw up judgment. For this reason, judgment should be left in the hands of God who alone has the wisdom to judge correctly. God’s nature is not something we can just take on ourselves willy-nilly. God’s nature often requires God’s wisdom and power to live it out truly.
4. Christian ethics are based on God’s preference
Francis Schaefer is quoted as saying, “God can get ticked off”. Certainly God has preferences. And Christians are supposed to be interested in loving God as well as loving humanity. Part of loving God is knowing God’s preferences. Why? Because just like if we have a friend we want to spend time with, we don’t defecate in their living room. That isn’t good for our continuing relationship with them. Even so, if we want a relationship with God and want to love Him, there are things we may prefer to do, but we don’t do because we want to have a continuing relationship with God. If we act in certain ways, without regret or repentance, then we cannot relate to God in an open way. God is constantly disgusted by our actions, and so we can’t fairly have a relationship with Him.
I don't actually know who developed this video, but it seems to summarize briefly most Christian's viewpoint of ethics. The four points below summarize the points of the video, and after each I give my response.
1. Secular ethics are situational
This video seems to want it both ways. First, they say that secular ethics change according to the circumstance, that they have no basis for their morality. Second, they say that everyone, without exception, has God’s morality in their heart, and so morality is based on God’s ethics. I agree with the second principle, but not the first. Secular moral reasoning is based on an a priori ethic, the same as Christian ethics. The only difference between Christian ethics is that they, supposedly, have a foundation for their ethic that they can point to. Secular ethics do ethics without an actual known foundation for their ethics. However, as Paul says in Romans 2, often those without the law can do the things contained in the law even though they don’t have the law as a standard. It is funny how secular ethicists often live out a better ethical life than Christians based on their gut rather than having a standard that they can point to and make excuses about.
2. Christian ethics are authoritative
Usually, when Christians talk about ethics, they are actually speaking about commands. And commands, they think, are cut and dry, absolute moral standards, which clearly and simply create morality. However, as Jesus points out in Matthew 5, this is not the case. Jesus points out case after case that one can be strictly obeying the ten commandments and yet still acting in an immoral fashion. Thus, Jesus’ principle was that love must always interpret law and sometimes supersede it. Christian morality, then, must be principle based, not law based. In other words, Jesus gives us general principles to follow, such as “love your enemies” or “let your yes be yes”. We must determine, first of all, what the principles actually mean and then we need to apply those principles to our life. In one circumstance, “love your enemy” means to not cut your enemy with a knife. However, if you are a surgeon and use cutting to save life, then “love your enemy” may mean to cut your enemy with a knife. Law is an inadequate basis for Christians to determine morality, rather we must train Jesus followers to look at principles and how to interpret those principles in circumstance.
3. Christian ethics is based on God’s nature
One’s nature is what we can see. As I’ve already argued, human morality cannot always be discovered by looking at God’s nature. God can kill human beings because He is creator, but human beings must not. We must understand that God’s nature must and can be followed, but not necessarily all of God’s actions. The classic biblical statement of God’s nature is, “YHWH is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in faithful love and truth, offering forgiveness to thousands, but does not leave the wicked unpunished.” (Exodus 34). The first part of God’s nature, we must follow and imitate. However, punishing the wicked is not for humans following God, for it says “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord”. We can desire the wicked to be punished, but we are NOT slow to anger, NOT forgiving of the repentant. Thus we always screw up judgment. For this reason, judgment should be left in the hands of God who alone has the wisdom to judge correctly. God’s nature is not something we can just take on ourselves willy-nilly. God’s nature often requires God’s wisdom and power to live it out truly.
4. Christian ethics are based on God’s preference
Francis Schaefer is quoted as saying, “God can get ticked off”. Certainly God has preferences. And Christians are supposed to be interested in loving God as well as loving humanity. Part of loving God is knowing God’s preferences. Why? Because just like if we have a friend we want to spend time with, we don’t defecate in their living room. That isn’t good for our continuing relationship with them. Even so, if we want a relationship with God and want to love Him, there are things we may prefer to do, but we don’t do because we want to have a continuing relationship with God. If we act in certain ways, without regret or repentance, then we cannot relate to God in an open way. God is constantly disgusted by our actions, and so we can’t fairly have a relationship with Him.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
The Euthyphro Dilemma: Where Does Morality Come From?
A few videos to tide us over until the final decision is made.
A Quick Defense From Plato
Euthyphro is a Socratic dialogue by Plato and an entertaining read. In this book, Socrates is about to head off to defend his life against those who want to claim that his teaching is “impious.” Before this, Socrates has a discussion with Euthyphro about what “piety” means. What does it mean to be a good religious person. Euthyphro basically says that a good religious person does what God commands. Socrates, however, shows that “goodness” or morality is something that even the gods obey, and this means that to be “good” isn’t just about obeying God, but is about finding that standard that even God obeys. This means that morality isn’t tied to religion at all.
Epydemic2020 summarizes this dilemma and then says that it isn’t really a dilemma because there is another option. He is doing this in order to defend his position that the common morality all humans hold—do not murder, do not rape—is proof of God’s existence. So he says that because there is a third option—that God’s nature holds the seed of morality—means that the Euthyphro dilemma is no dilemma at all. There are other options.
Okay, that’s true. But it doesn’t really answer the basic question that the Euthyphro dilemma poses—is God the source of morality or is morality the source of God’s justice? The fact that God has a nature of morality doesn’t mean that there isn’t a source that pre-exists God, unless we take the existence of God as being apriori—a basic unquestioned assumption (which I hate). But let’s just talk about morality and God.
There are two kinds of morality. One is circumstantial ethics, and the other intrinsic ethics. Intrinsic ethics are foundational principles of ethics that cannot be changed. Some hold to the value of life—all life—as an intrinsic ethic—that would be a foundational principle on which they base their ethical actions. Circumstantial ethics, however, is the action that one does based on two things—one’s intrinsic ethic and the context that one finds oneself in. For instance, since there are small bugs one may swallow, one who holds to the intrinsic value of all life would put a mask over their face in order to prevent this from happening. However, one who lived in a “clean room”, where no outside life existed, then the mask would not be necessary. The mask is only a correct moral act given the circumstances and the intrinsic morality—it is not a good in and of itself.
In Christian theology, we must acknowledge that God’s nature would only determine intrinsic morality, not circumstantial morality. First of all, God’s creation has changed radically from the beginning. First of all, sin has infected human life significantly, changing the circumstance. We respond to a sinful humanity, not an innocent one. Thus, since creation has changed, circumstantial morality has changed.
But what about intrinsic ethics? Is that based in God’s nature? It is possible that, say, “love” is the most base intrinsic ethic. If that is the bass of God’s nature, then why is God not always “loving”? Why does He kill innocent women and children? Why does he allow Job to suffer the death of his children? The difficulty of morality as the nature of God is that morality is clearly not the same for God as for humanity. Humans are not supposed to kill other innocent humans—that is God’s command. But God can do this, because the circumstances for being God is different than being human. God is Creator and humans are creation, as special as they are.
Why is obeying God’s will so important? Not because the nature of God requires a certain morality to be done, but because God is wiser than we are. He can see how certain moral decisions can either help us or hurt us. He has an objective perspective outside of our hormones and emotions and so can communicate to us what is right and wrong given the broader circumstance, not according to our own limited perspective.
I would not say that there is no intrinsic morality. And I would even go so far as to say that “love” is an intrinsic moral standard. However, how “love” looks when God is acting it out could be very different from how humans live it out. When we talk about morality and when we look at God’s commands about morality, we must realize that the commands and the morality is for the human context only. We cannot ask animals to engage in our morality—they have their own morality according to their circumstance. We cannot ask God to follow our morality, because His circumstance differs greatly. God and we may have similar goals, but the actual actions may differ.
A Quick Defense From Plato
Euthyphro is a Socratic dialogue by Plato and an entertaining read. In this book, Socrates is about to head off to defend his life against those who want to claim that his teaching is “impious.” Before this, Socrates has a discussion with Euthyphro about what “piety” means. What does it mean to be a good religious person. Euthyphro basically says that a good religious person does what God commands. Socrates, however, shows that “goodness” or morality is something that even the gods obey, and this means that to be “good” isn’t just about obeying God, but is about finding that standard that even God obeys. This means that morality isn’t tied to religion at all.
Epydemic2020 summarizes this dilemma and then says that it isn’t really a dilemma because there is another option. He is doing this in order to defend his position that the common morality all humans hold—do not murder, do not rape—is proof of God’s existence. So he says that because there is a third option—that God’s nature holds the seed of morality—means that the Euthyphro dilemma is no dilemma at all. There are other options.
Okay, that’s true. But it doesn’t really answer the basic question that the Euthyphro dilemma poses—is God the source of morality or is morality the source of God’s justice? The fact that God has a nature of morality doesn’t mean that there isn’t a source that pre-exists God, unless we take the existence of God as being apriori—a basic unquestioned assumption (which I hate). But let’s just talk about morality and God.
There are two kinds of morality. One is circumstantial ethics, and the other intrinsic ethics. Intrinsic ethics are foundational principles of ethics that cannot be changed. Some hold to the value of life—all life—as an intrinsic ethic—that would be a foundational principle on which they base their ethical actions. Circumstantial ethics, however, is the action that one does based on two things—one’s intrinsic ethic and the context that one finds oneself in. For instance, since there are small bugs one may swallow, one who holds to the intrinsic value of all life would put a mask over their face in order to prevent this from happening. However, one who lived in a “clean room”, where no outside life existed, then the mask would not be necessary. The mask is only a correct moral act given the circumstances and the intrinsic morality—it is not a good in and of itself.
In Christian theology, we must acknowledge that God’s nature would only determine intrinsic morality, not circumstantial morality. First of all, God’s creation has changed radically from the beginning. First of all, sin has infected human life significantly, changing the circumstance. We respond to a sinful humanity, not an innocent one. Thus, since creation has changed, circumstantial morality has changed.
But what about intrinsic ethics? Is that based in God’s nature? It is possible that, say, “love” is the most base intrinsic ethic. If that is the bass of God’s nature, then why is God not always “loving”? Why does He kill innocent women and children? Why does he allow Job to suffer the death of his children? The difficulty of morality as the nature of God is that morality is clearly not the same for God as for humanity. Humans are not supposed to kill other innocent humans—that is God’s command. But God can do this, because the circumstances for being God is different than being human. God is Creator and humans are creation, as special as they are.
Why is obeying God’s will so important? Not because the nature of God requires a certain morality to be done, but because God is wiser than we are. He can see how certain moral decisions can either help us or hurt us. He has an objective perspective outside of our hormones and emotions and so can communicate to us what is right and wrong given the broader circumstance, not according to our own limited perspective.
I would not say that there is no intrinsic morality. And I would even go so far as to say that “love” is an intrinsic moral standard. However, how “love” looks when God is acting it out could be very different from how humans live it out. When we talk about morality and when we look at God’s commands about morality, we must realize that the commands and the morality is for the human context only. We cannot ask animals to engage in our morality—they have their own morality according to their circumstance. We cannot ask God to follow our morality, because His circumstance differs greatly. God and we may have similar goals, but the actual actions may differ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)