No. of Recommendations: 0
What if I said my answer to your question above would be: "Well, I didn't see THAT coming!" ?

I would say OK, now we're making progress. The important question is whether or not you would continue to try and do good, with good being defined as acting in accordance with God's unchanging moral nature.

But there's a huge problem with your scenario . . . what circumstances would lead me to make a radical reanalysis of God's nature?

God appearing to every sentient being in the universe and communicating this convincingly - whatever it would take to convince you. I've used the hypothetical several times. ( or , for example.)

One thing I've lost is the whole point of this conversation. Weren't you making the Euthyphro objection to grounding morality in God's nature?

If you answer 'yes, I would use my new knowledge of good and try and do good and exterminate humanity', then you have a consistent theistic morality. To me, it has nothing to do with morality and is just an arbitrary (subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion, with the one individual being God) rule-set.

If you answer 'no, I would reject God's morality and use my own to guide my conduct', then your supposed grounding is not your real grounding for your morality. It's really your own subjective values, just like my grounding.

Your pick.
Print the post  


When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.