Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Is God's Nature good because it has good making properties or is God's Nature good because God has it.
In that formulation, there's no divergence from what the original dilemma aims to elucidate.
Morality, at its most basic, simply says, "Do not do that which contradicts the character and nature of God," and God, as the supreme lawgiver, is a competent authority, the ultimate authority, who has the power to enforce his edicts. Therefore, we are obligated to obey God.
The problem with trying to ground moral obligation in the natural world is that there is no ultimate authority.
The atheist will often appeal to consequentialism, for instance, "You are obligated to obey the laws of society because society can punish you if you don't,"
That's not consequentialism, that's "might makes right", which you just used.
We also know that what secular society considers good and proper can and does change on a whim, and that what is considered unacceptable today could be tolerated and even embraced tomorrow.
Who is to say, for instance, that pedophiles are really doing anything immoral? Perhaps they're just ahead of the curve and are simply waiting for the rest of society to catch up.
Comment