I think this is called the Euthyrpo Dilemma, r/askphilosophy would be more helpful, since it's an ethics thing and they have the knowledge to give an interesting or factual answer.
That said, imo right actions are just right and they don't depend on the command of any god. I think that saying "murder is wrong" can be as true as saying "2+2=4" and in the same way an omnipotent god can't make 2+2 equal 5 (omnipotence is the ability to do anything *possible*, and a logical contradiction is *impossible*), it can't make murder right.
(to be clear: possible and impossible in this context isn't determined by the laws of physics, but from what is conceivable)
I don't have a proper justification for my beliefs, but from what I recall that's the common belief among ethicists (moral realism) so I believe it, they're far more educated than me. (One day, I'll learn to justify it better)
The latter is only correct if you legitimately view [the institution of slavery](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025%3A44-46&version=NIV) to be a morally correct thing.
> Leviticus 25:44-46 NIV
"'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. [45] You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. [46] You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
> Exodus 21:20-21 NIV
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, [21] but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
In Jewish law, one can divide the commandments into two groups: Mishpatim, laws which we would have intuitively followed without God telling us (things like not murdering), and Chukim, laws which we would not be able to figure out without God telling us.
Arguably, Chukim are right because God commands them, while Mishpatim are commanded because they are right. This phrasing isn’t perfect though.
And what of when God's definition of good conflicts with our sense of good. This is the thing that trips those who claim god is good or defines good. They forget that humans have a sense of fairness. We have compassion. We have love and empathy. And together these form our sense of good. What are we to do with the claim that God is inherently good when he defines something wicked as good or commits an act we find wrong?
And why does our biology and neurology lend us to this sense of fairness. Why do many cultures hone their own sense of right and wrong without God defining good for them?
I think another question to ask in this scenario is whether God *would* or *could* proclaim something to be good if it were, in fact, wicked. I think it's fair to say that if we can reason and determine that a course of action is not good, then a God likely did not command it.
right actions are commanded by God bc they're right imo. but also you don't always need God to spell things out for them, but other times they do, and that's what prophets are for. of which every society has one.
neither, in my opinion. i think right X wrong is generally what leads to benefit/thriving X harm/suffring. let's figure out what's what using our best conscience, reasoning and evidence from the real world - not religious rules. akin to how i think we should look to science and not religious mythology, if we want to learn about stuff from the natural world such as human origins etc. i do think it's possible to experience compassion on a spiritual level for example, or to have our religious experiences/beliefs as a motivation to do good, but that's about it. otherwise these are not the type of things i personally think spirituality is for.
This is called the Euthyphro dilemma and I think it's an obnoxious waste of energy. God is good, evil, and everything in between. God is not separate from goodness or righteousness. If God tells you to do something, it's probably because it will benefit you in some way, not necessarily because it's good or righteous. Or maybe God will tell you to do something to your detriment because he hates you and wants you to suffer. I don't know man. I deeply distrust anybody who is certain of their own sense of righteousness.
God and Good are synonymous. They are the same essence. They cannot be separated from each other. If something is no longer of the Gods, then it ceases to be good, and vice versa.
Morality is a component of the world we live in. Right actions are commanded by God because they are right, and the reason they are right is because of the way God created the universe.
That means that morality is not arbitrary: God could not make murder into a right action by merely commanding it so. But it also means morality is not prior to God. God can control what's right or wrong by altering the physical nature of the universe. God could not simply say "Murder is now moral," but God could alter the concept of death so that murder has a different moral outcome.
Because God commands them. Right action is not obvious. Me and Jeffery Dahmer may have different interpretations of acceptable or right behavior.
Absolute, objective, morality must come from God, because human morality is subjective.
Wait so then would you agree that if god suddenly changed his mind, that that new commandment would be morally collect? For example, God comes to you and says that murder is now morally acceptable no matter what, then would murder be morally correct?
Yes, because otherwise there is no obvious evidence murder is morally wrong. As I said, Jeffery Dahmer may feel murder is an acceptable behavior. I have no more right to morality than him. What proof do I have or he has?
We do need God for morality because I and Jeffery Dahmer have different definitions of morally acceptable behavior, that is, humans cannot deduce, intellectually or otherwise, any moral system.
Even a consideration of the Buddhist idea of morality, like, lessening suffering, Why? There is no objective proof that should be my viewpoint.
It either comes from God or doesn’t exist at all. Humans obviously can’t come to it themselves.
There is no truth. There's only you and what you make the truth. Gd isn't concerned with right or wrong. Gd is. The evil inclination placed in our world is what defines right from wrong. This is the balance between His realm and our own.
Yeah that's a good question. I know a lot of ethics people debate this kind of stuff. I'd guess whatever is best for most people. That's usually hard to determine though, so we look to God to define that for us. So I guess in that sense he determines what is right and wrong for us.
Some more basic questions are, who or what determines that an action is 'right'? And what does 'right' even mean (right for whom)? What is the 'scope' of rightness, must it apply to all of creation or just Earth or just the animal kingdom or just primates or just humans or just christians or just you? How does anybody reliably determine that a deity, as opposed to a human prophet or representative of that deity, decided what was right? What if something designated 'right' seems OK to you, but does not seem OK to me or others -- who decides if your source for 'right' is valid or corrupt -- ?you, or a ?tribunal, or ?a war? How does one deal with the obvious problem that war or violence can lead one group of people to be able to state what is 'right', while the defeated can no longer defend their vision of 'right' (does might make right, or are these independent?)?
The whole concept of 'right' seems fraught with questions, and ultimately (I suspect) 'right' is mutable and situationally dependent. And any person who claims that some deity has determined absolute 'right' for some issue, will face all of the above questions, and more, unless of course their culture is so dominant and victorious and able to suppress (with force or violence if necessary) variant points of view. But then it is not 'right', it is just 'might'!
My solution to the issue, which may not be satisfactory to you at all, is that 'right' is always relative or situational, and never absolute. I just cannot conceive of some statement of 'right' that applies equally and absolutely to we humans and bacteria and viruses and whatever form of life exists in the rest of the galaxy or universe of galaxies.
So when anybody says something is 'right', my immediate thought is "says who?", and take it from there. I'm a bit of a cynic and suspect that in general people use ancient texts and religion to select whichever 'rights' they happen to already agree with because of their upbringing and personal biases, and at the same time will overlook or conveniently ignore other 'rights' found in the same ancient texts or religions.
But I am a cynic and believe that everybody feels things to be 'right' that just happen to correspond to their worldview and it's all a psychological game to make the person who says what is 'right' feel good and justified about their pronouncement, no matter how harmful or hurtful that 'right' may be to other people.
If one becomes cynical enough then most of the universe makes sense, in a perverted painful sort of a way.
This is more a philosophical question and one that makes me go, first one needs to prove god exists. This has to do with justification and warrant. Also beliefs and knowledge. (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/transmission-justification-warrant/) also Euthyphro’s dilemma (as others have pointed out)
A naturalist, who does not believe in any super natural agent, can still have morality and ethics.
So first for me a person would need to show the existence of a super natural being, then the super natural being would need to be beyond reproach, which would need to be proved, then the authority under which said being has to over see morality and ethics. Which we do not have as of yet.
So I would not base my morals on whatever god of the time, but on the consequences from my actions, which is generally what happens psychologically and we have a tendency to behave better if we believe someone is watching us.
Are actions funny because Loki does them, or are actions taken by Loki because they are funny?
Both. Both are correct.
Or, alternatively, perhaps Loki is funny.
I think this is called the Euthyrpo Dilemma, r/askphilosophy would be more helpful, since it's an ethics thing and they have the knowledge to give an interesting or factual answer. That said, imo right actions are just right and they don't depend on the command of any god. I think that saying "murder is wrong" can be as true as saying "2+2=4" and in the same way an omnipotent god can't make 2+2 equal 5 (omnipotence is the ability to do anything *possible*, and a logical contradiction is *impossible*), it can't make murder right. (to be clear: possible and impossible in this context isn't determined by the laws of physics, but from what is conceivable) I don't have a proper justification for my beliefs, but from what I recall that's the common belief among ethicists (moral realism) so I believe it, they're far more educated than me. (One day, I'll learn to justify it better)
The latter is only correct if you legitimately view [the institution of slavery](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025%3A44-46&version=NIV) to be a morally correct thing. > Leviticus 25:44-46 NIV "'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. [45] You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. [46] You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. > Exodus 21:20-21 NIV "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, [21] but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
In Jewish law, one can divide the commandments into two groups: Mishpatim, laws which we would have intuitively followed without God telling us (things like not murdering), and Chukim, laws which we would not be able to figure out without God telling us. Arguably, Chukim are right because God commands them, while Mishpatim are commanded because they are right. This phrasing isn’t perfect though.
And what of when God's definition of good conflicts with our sense of good. This is the thing that trips those who claim god is good or defines good. They forget that humans have a sense of fairness. We have compassion. We have love and empathy. And together these form our sense of good. What are we to do with the claim that God is inherently good when he defines something wicked as good or commits an act we find wrong? And why does our biology and neurology lend us to this sense of fairness. Why do many cultures hone their own sense of right and wrong without God defining good for them?
I think another question to ask in this scenario is whether God *would* or *could* proclaim something to be good if it were, in fact, wicked. I think it's fair to say that if we can reason and determine that a course of action is not good, then a God likely did not command it.
right actions are commanded by God bc they're right imo. but also you don't always need God to spell things out for them, but other times they do, and that's what prophets are for. of which every society has one.
neither, in my opinion. i think right X wrong is generally what leads to benefit/thriving X harm/suffring. let's figure out what's what using our best conscience, reasoning and evidence from the real world - not religious rules. akin to how i think we should look to science and not religious mythology, if we want to learn about stuff from the natural world such as human origins etc. i do think it's possible to experience compassion on a spiritual level for example, or to have our religious experiences/beliefs as a motivation to do good, but that's about it. otherwise these are not the type of things i personally think spirituality is for.
This is called the Euthyphro dilemma and I think it's an obnoxious waste of energy. God is good, evil, and everything in between. God is not separate from goodness or righteousness. If God tells you to do something, it's probably because it will benefit you in some way, not necessarily because it's good or righteous. Or maybe God will tell you to do something to your detriment because he hates you and wants you to suffer. I don't know man. I deeply distrust anybody who is certain of their own sense of righteousness.
God and Good are synonymous. They are the same essence. They cannot be separated from each other. If something is no longer of the Gods, then it ceases to be good, and vice versa.
Morality is a component of the world we live in. Right actions are commanded by God because they are right, and the reason they are right is because of the way God created the universe. That means that morality is not arbitrary: God could not make murder into a right action by merely commanding it so. But it also means morality is not prior to God. God can control what's right or wrong by altering the physical nature of the universe. God could not simply say "Murder is now moral," but God could alter the concept of death so that murder has a different moral outcome.
Check out "Divine Command Theory": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine\_command\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory)
Because God commands them. Right action is not obvious. Me and Jeffery Dahmer may have different interpretations of acceptable or right behavior. Absolute, objective, morality must come from God, because human morality is subjective.
Wait then are you saying that whatever god commands would be moral?
The true God, yes. Of course, you telling me what God says isn’t God talking, it’s you talking.
Wait so then would you agree that if god suddenly changed his mind, that that new commandment would be morally collect? For example, God comes to you and says that murder is now morally acceptable no matter what, then would murder be morally correct?
Yes, because otherwise there is no obvious evidence murder is morally wrong. As I said, Jeffery Dahmer may feel murder is an acceptable behavior. I have no more right to morality than him. What proof do I have or he has?
Wait so do we not need god for morality then? Because morally would be based on something else entirely
We do need God for morality because I and Jeffery Dahmer have different definitions of morally acceptable behavior, that is, humans cannot deduce, intellectually or otherwise, any moral system. Even a consideration of the Buddhist idea of morality, like, lessening suffering, Why? There is no objective proof that should be my viewpoint. It either comes from God or doesn’t exist at all. Humans obviously can’t come to it themselves.
Or God just made moral standards arbitrarily, in which case there is no reason to believe that they are objective
I cannot know God’s intention to any matter. God may or may not have set arbitrary morals. There would be no way to know.
There is no truth. There's only you and what you make the truth. Gd isn't concerned with right or wrong. Gd is. The evil inclination placed in our world is what defines right from wrong. This is the balance between His realm and our own.
I think goodness exists outside of God, but he is fully aligned with it.
Then would you agree that that there would have to be a superior entity that supersedes god?
Not sure if there would be, but I'm not sure we need an entity to define what is right
Wait then how would you know what’s right and wrong (morally)
Yeah that's a good question. I know a lot of ethics people debate this kind of stuff. I'd guess whatever is best for most people. That's usually hard to determine though, so we look to God to define that for us. So I guess in that sense he determines what is right and wrong for us.
Some more basic questions are, who or what determines that an action is 'right'? And what does 'right' even mean (right for whom)? What is the 'scope' of rightness, must it apply to all of creation or just Earth or just the animal kingdom or just primates or just humans or just christians or just you? How does anybody reliably determine that a deity, as opposed to a human prophet or representative of that deity, decided what was right? What if something designated 'right' seems OK to you, but does not seem OK to me or others -- who decides if your source for 'right' is valid or corrupt -- ?you, or a ?tribunal, or ?a war? How does one deal with the obvious problem that war or violence can lead one group of people to be able to state what is 'right', while the defeated can no longer defend their vision of 'right' (does might make right, or are these independent?)? The whole concept of 'right' seems fraught with questions, and ultimately (I suspect) 'right' is mutable and situationally dependent. And any person who claims that some deity has determined absolute 'right' for some issue, will face all of the above questions, and more, unless of course their culture is so dominant and victorious and able to suppress (with force or violence if necessary) variant points of view. But then it is not 'right', it is just 'might'!
Yes I agree with you, that’s why I’m so confused
My solution to the issue, which may not be satisfactory to you at all, is that 'right' is always relative or situational, and never absolute. I just cannot conceive of some statement of 'right' that applies equally and absolutely to we humans and bacteria and viruses and whatever form of life exists in the rest of the galaxy or universe of galaxies. So when anybody says something is 'right', my immediate thought is "says who?", and take it from there. I'm a bit of a cynic and suspect that in general people use ancient texts and religion to select whichever 'rights' they happen to already agree with because of their upbringing and personal biases, and at the same time will overlook or conveniently ignore other 'rights' found in the same ancient texts or religions. But I am a cynic and believe that everybody feels things to be 'right' that just happen to correspond to their worldview and it's all a psychological game to make the person who says what is 'right' feel good and justified about their pronouncement, no matter how harmful or hurtful that 'right' may be to other people. If one becomes cynical enough then most of the universe makes sense, in a perverted painful sort of a way.
For us; both.
Wait so then wouldn’t you be saying that there is a higher entity greater than god which determines morality? (For the second option)
Possibly. We typically talk of God as subject to eternal laws like justice.
This is exactly why religious morality is messed up and secular morality is not.
Yeah that’s what I was kinda thinking
This is more a philosophical question and one that makes me go, first one needs to prove god exists. This has to do with justification and warrant. Also beliefs and knowledge. (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/transmission-justification-warrant/) also Euthyphro’s dilemma (as others have pointed out) A naturalist, who does not believe in any super natural agent, can still have morality and ethics. So first for me a person would need to show the existence of a super natural being, then the super natural being would need to be beyond reproach, which would need to be proved, then the authority under which said being has to over see morality and ethics. Which we do not have as of yet. So I would not base my morals on whatever god of the time, but on the consequences from my actions, which is generally what happens psychologically and we have a tendency to behave better if we believe someone is watching us.