Theistic morality is arbitrary, or it doesn't need God

Theists: (especially those of you who are charmed by the idea of an absolute moral standard) Don't underestimate the Euthyphro dilemma!

The points made in this vid echo the observations in this article: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/rape.html
(thanks to FJBonito for the link)
---

Euthyphro's dilemma can be expressed with the following question:

"Is what is moral commanded by God because it's moral, or is it moral because it's commanded by God?"

It's a dilemma for the theist because which ever option turns out to be correct, the result seems unsatisfactory. If what is moral is commanded by God because it's moral, then it means that there is an absolute standard of morality that exists independently of God. And that god is not necessary as a source of morality.

On the other hand if things are moral simply because they are commanded by god, then theistic morality has a completely arbitrary foundation. If he had happened to command that killing your mother was good, it would be good in an absolute sense to kill your mother.

The theist often tries to avoid the dilemma by claiming that God doesn't simply make random commandments, but that morality and goodness are a part of God's nature and his commandments are a reflection of that nature.

But the theist is mistaken in thinking that he's avoided the dilemma by locating 'goodness' in gods nature instead of in his commandments. Euthyphro's question, with a slight modification can be applied again:

"Is what is moral part of God's nature because it's moral, or is it moral because it's part of God's nature?"

Is it true that God's nature is good by definition? in other words, whatever God's nature had been, it would have been good--and the commandments he gave would reflect that. If this was the case then if gods nature had been different, a different set of actions would be morally good. Rape could be good for instance, or killing your mother. In other words , if God's nature is good by definition, and this is where the absolute standard of morality comes from, then morality is totally arbitrary, it's an accident.

It seems to me that most Christians would be uncomfortable to accept that the distinction between good and bad is ultimately arbitrary.

The alternative is that God's nature _could never have been such_ that the moral principles following from it would include a sanction of things like rape and killing your mother. But if this is the case we are saying that God's character is limited by an external standard of right and wrong; a standard that we apparently already have access to, and one that would exist whether or not God existed.

I don't think most theists would accept that either of these cases is true, but one of them must be if it is true that God exists and that there is an absolute moral standard.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• god
• atheist
• morality
• good
• evil
• right
• wrong
• euthyphro
• dilemma

[Blogrich55]

@ReligionIsACrutch "Yes, I came to this same conclusion. Isn't logic grand?"

Sorry but you did NOT arrive at that conclusion by logic. What do atheists or agnostics base their concept of morality on? Subjective personal dislikes and opinions is ALL they have. You may find a God who is in control and calls all of the shots to be repulsive. Big deal. There is NO law out side of God He must submit to and NO ONE who will make Him submit. He has total proprietorial rights over His creation.

[Blogrich55]

God by definition is the Supreme Being. It is therefore logically impossible for Him to have ANY standard of ethics or morality to which He is accountable. Who would He be accountable to?

It is right because God commands it.Arbitrary has different meanings.One is capricious in which case theists deny God is arbitrary. Another definition is despotic. Still another is "depending upon will or discretion." GOD RULES AS HE SEES FIT as the title of our video says. Many find a sovereign God repulsive.

[sirian501]

If you don't get why this is the case it's because we're arguing over who has a car. Your saying God has a car and I drive it, therefor I have a car. I say I have a car and I can choose to drive it if I want. The truth of the matter is only I and god have a car. You just drive one.

[sirian501]

@VoyageIslam well simply because darwins theory ins't about murder. At all. It's about sustainable characteristics within enviromental limits. Where in this theory is killing? As for what cohesive edict forbids killing for an atheist. Well, I didn't want to have to make this point but, making an action because it is the law and not because of it's moral value is amoral. Sadly this means religeous people following gods code of morals because it's gods don't actually have any moral values.

[VoyageIslam]

@sirian501 Read Qu'ran 5:35. What cohesive edict forbids atheist from killing? How is it Darwin's survival of the fittest philosophy isn't a thinly veiled approval of murder?

[sirian501]

@VoyageIslam I don't know where you conjured up that idea from but let me just go right ahead and say it isn't. What is optional is your view on morality. If you perform an action it has a moral value. This cannot be changed no matter what you think. However the fact that this value is good or bad is entirely dependant on what you think as an individual. Example killing has a set moral value. Some people think it's ok, some it's ok sometimes and others it's never ok. What is your opinion on it?

[sirian501]

Morality is a label for a phenomena. Good and bad are labels that we attribute to describe the phenomena based upon our perspective. For anyone who can't get this I shall use the example of temperature. Temperature exists. Temprature is a scalar measure of thermal intensity. Hot and cold however do not exist. They have no actual value. They are totally made up labels to set one level of temperature apart from another. Where this line is drawn, like good or bad, is totally arbitrary.

[sirian501]

the alternative being that god chose to teach us a certain stance on morality ( a certain stance on what is good or bad because from god or not it would still have to be subjective based upon his views of what is good or bad) then it can only be the case that morality has a basis outside of god and so god is not needed for morality to exist. Tbh this point should be totally obvious. Anyone can create a moral code by simply deciding that they think one action is better than another. Cntd

[VoyageIslam]

@sirian501 Why is it morality is optional in atheism?

[sirian501]

I'd like to post a comment on Epydemics point of essential properties. God having morality being key to his being changes absolutely nothing. Everyone who performs actions has morality key to their being. Wether or not their morals are good or bad is a different matter. That's because good and bad are purely subjective. If the source of Morals is from god because it's part of him who he is or what he says, whatever. That still means it's moral simply cos he's god. Thus morals are abitrary. Cntd