Is X right because God commands it or does God command X because it is right?

[Tuor]

The thread title's question is directed more-so at the Abrahamic religions, if that wasn't obvious. I'd be interested to hear your opinions on which you think is true and the implications that come along with either belief.

[Squiggle]

x is part of Gods nature, and what we call "the good" is merely what corresponds with Gods nature.

[Scipio Africanus Maximus]

Is it not also possible that God commands x because it is right?

[PointOfViewGun]

It doesn't have to be good or right. It's just what God commends.

[Time Commander Bob]

This question is essentially a form of the Euthyphro Dilemma.
The implications from the first belief is that God can arbitrarily decide what is good and potentially could change his mind. That moral laws are based upon the arbitrary choices of an omnipotent being seems problematic because anything could potentially be good. There seems to be no basis or underlying reason for morality in this case.

The second belief indicates that good is external to God and he merely points the way. However, because of this God can no longer be said to be omnipotent since morality exists without his required input. Furthermore, there can be said to be no need of God as a moral guide since morality exists independently of him.

Of course, some would say it is a false dilemma since it relies on a very abstract concept of good/right/moral (whatever word you choose to use), that would seem very platonic in nature (eg the form of the good). Furthermore, it could be argued that since God can never will anything other than what is good (though it could be argued this causes its own problems).

x is part of Gods nature, and what we call "the good" is merely what corresponds with Gods nature.

Surely then this is a form of the first option, though it does remind me of Aquinas' response to the dilemma.

Is it not also possible that God commands x because it is right?

That is the latter of the two options in the thread title.

It doesn't have to be good or right. It's just what God commends.

Well that would seem to contradict the benevolence of God held by some.

[Playfishpaste]

God commands the morally correct stuff. He knew it for eternity and is not allowed to do the morally incorrect stuff. Just like he is not allowed to violate the rules of logic. (this isn't problematic since omnipotence does not entail being allowed to violate the rules of logic, or contradict your perfectly good nature).

[Tuor]

God commands the morally correct stuff. He knew it for eternity and is not allowed to do the morally incorrect stuff. Just like he is not allowed to violate the rules of logic. (this isn't problematic since omnipotence does not entail being allowed to violate the rules of logic, or contradict your perfectly good nature).

If he's not allowed to do the morally incorrect stuff, does that make genocide and mass murder moral?

[Lord Romanus III]

If he's not allowed to do the morally incorrect stuff, does that make genocide and mass murder moral?

Certainly, in Leviderpicus 1:178, it shows this: 'and theneth godeth demandeth thateth youeth killeth theeth themeth ineth theeth landeth ofeth whateth Ieth sayeth iseth yourseth. And so, the children of God slaughtered everyone, as they were just following orders'.

[Playfishpaste]

If he's not allowed to do the morally incorrect stuff, does that make genocide and mass murder moral?

Genocide and mass murder can be immoral depending on their purpose. God cannot commit genocide or mass murder if the consequences are morally reprehensible or unjustifying for the killings.

[Scipio Africanus Maximus]

That is the latter of the two options in the thread title.

Misread it. Sorry.

[boofhead]

Yeah, God created everything, so whatever he wills/commands is right, whether people think it is or not.

[Himster]

It is morally "right" because according to most modern theistic mythologies god is eternal, his will (and actions) come from the eternal, the ultimate source. So what he wills was moral, is moral and will be moral.

[Ancient Aliens]

If there isn't a moral divide between the Old Testament, wrathful version of Yahweh, and the present moral status quo, then why do you theists get so angry when I compare your god to your own standards?

[Playfishpaste]

Yes. For example, suppose it is a moral rule that:

"It is wrong to kill 20,000 black babies unless it results in the feeding of at least 1287 indian children."

It would follow that God is only allowed to kill 20,000 black babies if that provides enough food for > or =1287 indian children. Any less than this and it's immoral.

Also, even if we didn't know this was the true moral rule about black baby killing, we could know that God had some rule he was acting in accordance with if he killed 20,000 black babies, as this is logically necessary given his omni-benevolence (otherwise we're just not talking about a God, or christianity is false, etc).

Mind you, God kills a LOT more than 20,000 people of any race a day, but that's just out of convenience for us (it would be quite lame if he allowed no one to die due to malthusian issues).

[XIII]

The thread title's question is directed more-so at the Abrahamic religions, if that wasn't obvious. I'd be interested to hear your opinions on which you think is true and the implications that come along with either belief.

What is good is what is corespondent with God's nature, i.e. God's nature is the standard of the good and what is most similar to God's nature is what is good. This doesn't mean that God can give morally evil commands because it's only possible for God to do that if it's possible for a fully informed rational, loving and just person to endorse an evil act in the relevant circumstances, i.e. impossible.

[Manco]

Funny thing is that all this depends on what God's nature is. The sad and ugly truth is no one knows that nature, they only know what other people, sometimes millennia long dead people, told them is this god's nature.

[XIII]

Funny thing is that all this depends on what God's nature is. The sad and ugly truth is no one knows that nature, they only know what other people, sometimes millennia long dead people, told them is this god's nature.

This is why it is very important to define just what one means when one says, "God". The Catholic (maybe Christian) conception of God is "that of which no greater to be conceived" (Anselm). Or you could go with Sobel (or Swineburne?) and understand God to be "that which is worthy of worship". No problem, both of these definitions entail that God is omnibenevolent as that is a great-making property, obviously.

God, then, according to the Christian conception is a God whose nature is perfectly good and that solves the dilemma quite nicely, it seems to me.

[Himster]

This is why it is very important to define just what one means when one says, "God". The Catholic (maybe Christian) conception of God is "that of which no greater to be conceived" (Anselm). Or you could go with Sobel (or Swineburne?) and understand God to be "that which is worthy of worship". No problem, both of these definitions entail that God is omnibenevolent as that is a great-making property, obviously.

God, then, according to the Christian conception is a God whose nature is perfectly good and that solves the dilemma quite nicely, it seems to me.

So god is good because he's omnibenevolent, we know he's omnibenevolent because "we" define him as such?

Do you not have a sense of irony?

[XIII]

No, actually, it goes more like this: this conception of God seems to evade both horns of Euthypro's Dilemma, namely a God whose nature is necessarily 'good'. What we find though, by happy happenstance or deliberation, is that the Christian conception of God is exactly this. Basically, two steps:

1. What conception of God evades the horns of Euthypro's Dilemma? Answer: A God who is 'necessarily' good.
2. Is this the Christian conception of God? Answer: Yes.

[Himster]

No, actually, it goes more like this: this conception of God seems to evade both horns of Euthypro's Dilemma, namely a God whose nature is necessarily 'good'. What we find though, by happy happenstance or deliberation, is that the Christian conception of God is exactly this. Basically, two steps:

1. What conception of God evades the horns of Euthypro's Dilemma? Answer: A God who is 'necessarily' good.
2. Is this the Christian conception of God? Answer: Yes.

Nice cop-out.
If you want to degrade to word "good" to a meaningless (non-descriptive) attribute of a psychopathic god, by all means continue.

Might=/=Right.