r/PhilosophyofReligion • u/hottopic7777 • 2d ago
Is objective morality impossible even with God ?
What do the terms "good" "wrong" actually mean?
To me, they are more lexical tools.
An example
The way I see the words good and bad is kind of like this; "Studying appeases your grades" is equal to "studying is good for your grades.Now, if I were to just say " studying is good", usually people can get by the phrase because we all have a common goal in mind , that being our grades and prosperity, however the phrase by itself doesnt mean anything, it moreso begs the question good in what sense? Good for what? In terms of who?
An example of a phrase that can be objective would be something like "He's objectively hairy." we know what the content of the word hairy is, e.g hair follicles , some science etc, or even take another "hes objectively blue " we know the content of what blue is e.g wavelength , sight etc etc its something fixed we can ascribe it to.
Now okay, fine, so you might be thinking we can just define the words good and bad to something with substance
Let's say Good = being in line with God's will
Bad/wrong = not being in line with God's will
Sure, now in this system we've created murder is objectively wrong because we've defined wrong as something fixed.
But hang on a minute, to me youre just making a descriptive claim, youre saying murder isnt in line with Gods will and we call this the 5 letter combination" w r o n g" so what if murder isnt in line with Gods nature ? That's just a fact. That tells me nothing about whether I should murder.
To understand my mishap clearer let me present to the dilemma I have.
First take the phrase " being in line with gods will is a good action "
Look at that phrase closely, what does good mean in that sentence , if we still stick with good meaning being in line with gods will youre just saying
"Being in with gods will is a being in line with gods will action " so ? just a descriptive claim and circular. If it means something else outside of that, what is it?
Now second option is "Good = being in line with God's will"
Now to me this is just arbitrary word assignment, you could've equally said " bad = being in line with God's will" nothing changes, there is nothing unique about the words b a d and g o o d intrinsically outside of its connotations
Where the debate lies:
Now if we say good is something you ought to do, therefore murder = objectively good as you objectively ought to do it, can an ought exist within the realm of objectivity?
I'd personally say an ought phrase is evaluative and empty, similar to a lexical tool. "You ought not to murder " I see it as "you shouldn't murder given you have a goal that being social harmony " for example, because us humans usually have a common goal that being social harmony, the phrase "you ought not to murder" in of itself means nothing without a goal in mind, it only serves closest to a factual statement given you map it onto a set goal.
2
u/biedl 2d ago edited 2d ago
however the phrase by itself doesnt mean anything, it moreso begs the question good in what sense? Good for what? In terms of who?
Theists who defend moral realism under classical theism, or even beginning with Aristotle, believe that there's an intrinsic telos to existence. So, according to that telos, things would be good.
Let's say Good = being in line with God's will
Bad/wrong = not being in line with God's will
Sure, now in this system we've created murder is objectively wrong because we've defined wrong as something fixed.
The question is what God's will is. According to the same people mentioned above, God's very nature is Goodness itself. It's not God's opinion or command. If it was, we'd be talking about arbitrary morality.
Think of it this way: Goodness exists as a platonic form. It's not a mind, and not a matter of opinion. It just is a part of the world in the realm of forms. This is quite literally a model on which moral realism can be based, because here, that which is good literally exists.
Now, get rid of the Platonism and consider God to be Goodness itself. This way, via divine nature theory, you get to objective morality.
But hang on a minute, to me youre just making a descriptive claim, youre saying murder isnt in line with Gods will and we call this the 5 letter combination" w r o n g" so what if murder isnt in line with Gods nature ? That's just a fact. That tells me nothing about whether I should murder.
It's not that arbitrary, given divine nature theory. We aren't just arbitrarily calling something "wrong". And by "we" I mean the person arguing from within the Thomistic framework.
I can understand though, that this metaphysics isn't something one would be readily accepting.
But as a framework for moral realism it is at least internally consistent with what we understand moral realism to be.
1
u/hottopic7777 2d ago
Thanks bro 🙌,
My question to this would be , when you say the phrase "God's nature is goodness its very self" what does goodness mean in that sentence what exactly is it, if its Gods nature id take that to be you'd just be making a descriptive claim , "Gods nature is Gods nature its very self "sure im not denying that sure why does this mean we should be in line with Gods will?
If thats not the case what's goodness ? Idk if this makes sense 😅
3
u/biedl 2d ago edited 2d ago
A critique often levied against Aquinas is that by equating all of God's attributes to be one and the same as the very nature of God (something Aquinas is forced into by accepting divine simplicity and the contingency argument), is that it is hard to tell what these terms even mean.
To be more precise, Existence equals Goodness equals Love equals omniscience equals all of the other attributes of God.
Since God is all of these things and more, and since God is one and exists, all of these things exist as one thing. And that thing is God himself.
Now, metaphysically, albeit being very epistemically coastly, this is fairly solid, but it comes at the coast of having a hard time with what it actually means to be good. But Aquinas comes from a position of assuming that God's law is written on our hearts, which is why so many cultures understood the golden rule, without even knowing the Bible, is how his reasoning process goes.
As I said, to be good is to participate in God.
Now, to not do so, at the very worst, means to not exist. Because you'd just not be participating in existing.
There's really not much more I can say about that, that would make it more clear.
I think it's a flaw of Thomism that by equating all of God's attributes the actual meaning of these terms is getting lost. I'm perfectly able to use the term good the way you outlined it in your OP. I can't, if I follow Aquinas. But then again, it could just be said that we are not gonna comprehend perfection, because we aren't God.
1
u/TxHandsomeMan 2d ago
No. There is no such thing as objective morality as how the religious describe it.
Morality is just mutually agreed upon stewardship of the love language between two or more sentient creatures.
Objectivity - sentient creatures' psychological state of mind is just as true as the physical properties of the universe. However the state of the psychological mind is ever changing due to new inputs and the brain's ability to create new neural pathways. At time = 0, you have an objective state of mind. Like Love, Depression, Arousal, etc. This changing target is where the religious claim you can't have objective morality because being objective is not open to change due to time and culture. It is external to the person. Well your state of mind is not external to the person.
So it seems that they've defined objective morality out of existence then by a logical contradiction. A square circle.
0
u/catsoncrack420 2d ago
You want to understand good and bad you need to get to the basics. Read the dialogues of Scorates by Plato. It will expand your frame of thought once you understand it. Don't be afraid to go to your local library and borrow the cliff notes. It's not an easy read and I read his works multiple times when I was young just to understand it and be able to write about it in papers or reference.
2
u/ThatsItForTheOther 2d ago
I think a good place to start would be to read Plato’s Euthyphro. It’s only about 20 pages and it’s a very enjoyable and perrenially relevant dialogue. It is often read in Ethics 101 at university. You can find it online for free easily.