Does God define "right and wrong" or is there an intrinsic 'good' ?

by Simon 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Abaddon

  Is there an intrinsic "right and wrong" or moral code that would exist whether or not there was a God?

  No. Moral codes are cultural artifacts, except for incest taboos, which are pretty universal as regards incest in the first or second degree. Incest seems to be rooted in biological disinclination as much as socialisation to a certain culture's morals. Kids raised together between certain ages are very unlikely to find each other sexually attractive, even if unrelated.

  Apart from that, it would appear there is not an absolute or universal moral code.

  There are high degrees of agreement between cultures on certain wrongs; murder and theft (where property exists), for example. These commonalities are largely understandable as implicit reciprocal agreements between people in the same society; you no kill me no steal my spear I no kill you no steal your spear. Not so much morals, as enlightened self-interest.

  But the differences in moral codes between cultures are greater than the similarities, although, to be fair, the similarities are often those with the greatest impact on day-to-day life.

  For example, with something as Universal as sexuality (between non-related partners) morals vary wildly. In many parts of the world at various points a 14 year-old bride would not be considered odd or wrong even. Now it would be considered illegal and wrong - in most parts of the world. Most, if not all cultures have something corresponding to marriage, but they vary from codified forms of passing property on to decendants to exclusive contracts of sexual faithfullness and breeding exlusivity.

  To put it another way, is what we believe is "right or wrong" based on whatever God decides is right or wrong (ie. he set's the standard) or is it an intrinisc thing that he also must adhere to in order to be thought of as 'good'.

  Moral codes are set up by socialisation. Witch burners and Khymer Rouge re-educators both think of themselves as doing right. If any god applied seperate rules to themselves and their creation, most people would regard it as immoral, as most cultures I have had contact with dislike double standards.

  If God has to adhere and go along with some intrinsic value system then does this effect any claims to be omnipotent and always good? ie. can he do certain things or go against this set of values.

  The values an individual would use in assessing the morality of a god would vary according to their society. Most Christians would think Quezlecotal (sp?) an immoral god, but Aztecs wouldn't. This would mean that a lot of a god's actions would be viewed as moral by some humans and immoral by others. If one postulates ONE god, then the cultural differences still exist, thus the differences in opinion about god's morality. This causes some logical problems is you allow the number of gods in the equation to equal 1.

  If it's the opposite and whatever he decides is good or bad actually becomes 'good and bad' for us then where does this leave our free will? If 'fight and maime' for instance became the right thing to do, would our objecting to do it make us bad and evil?

  In such a scenario, freewill would not be freewill, and Satan is very probably a freedom fighter, slandered by the propoganda of a totalitarian despot. As for morals varying under certain circumstances, that's just human nature. I'm non-violent but would happily wade through other peoples' blood to keep me and mine safe, and see this view as very moral.
• 

  starScream

  In such a scenario, freewill would not be freewill, and Satan is very probably a freedom fighter, slandered by the propoganda of a totalitarian despot.

  God did not rise to power. God is God. Only a proud fool thinks he knows better than the almighty. The one that slanders the only one who CAN know what is right is a criminal. Robbing a bank and killing the tellers is not the actions of a freedom fighter and it is not totallitarian despotism that enforces that law. Satan is an Anarchist who took for granted the gift that was his. To him love was weakness and since thats all he knew from God he grew bold.
• 

  Simon

  I think a lot of the difficulty and confusion has to do with our inability to accept that we are 'animals'. Do we suppose that Lions are right or wrong to kill a Zebra? No ... it's just what they do.

  We try and define "goodness" to suit our own superstitions and notion of what we believe good is and this is largely based on what has become established as being beneficial for our species survival (which is very social).

  The fact that other cultures have at times had harsh ways of life shows that it's an invention of society - what people did may seem wrong to us now but to them it may have been 'right'.

  For us now, loyalty to partners is 'right' and infidelity is 'wrong'. Thousands of years ago it was possibly completely different.

  It reminds me of a motivational speaker I heard once (Wilson I think his name was) which was something along the lines of "the ABC's of feeling the way you want to feel" (a very interesting tape). The gist of it was that people thought that the events in their life caused the feelings they had and the lack of control over a lot of the events led to stress and unhappiness. However, it is not the events per se but rather our belief about the events that caused our feelings.

  As an example, bringing a snake on stage would make someone from the city run screaming, someone from the everglades indifferent and a keen snake lover jump up and down with delight - the same event but different feelings, all based on the belief system of the individual involved.

  What is good or bad is I believe based on our personal belief system which is probably heavily based on the accepted norms laid down and learnt from society. It doesn't make them intrinsically good or bad though and neither does making up stories of a God supporting them.

  My 2c
• 

  freeman

  What is good or bad is I believe based on our personal belief system which is probably heavily based on the accepted norms laid down and learnt from society. It doesn't make them intrinsically good or bad though and neither does making up stories of a God supporting them.

  Excellent analysis Simon, I agree 100%.

  Freeman
• 

  MegaDude

  Simon says: What is good or bad is I believe based on our personal belief system which is probably heavily based on the accepted norms laid down and learnt from society. It doesn't make them intrinsically good or bad though and neither does making up stories of a God supporting them.

  --------------

  No doubt about society's rules on what is right and wrong changing. What is considered bad in one generation is likely to be just fine in the next. But some things will never change. Having worked in a criminal court and seeing certain things like murder scenes, rape victims, child molestation victims, I have come to believe these criminal acts are intrinsically evil. I don't need an organized religion or myriads of governmental laws to tell me these things. Watching a grave-faced little girl testify on the stand about how her father raped her is all it has to take.
• 

  wednesday

  Farkel. i read some of what u siad on your link. i don't want to go into brain overload, but i wanted to make one remark.

  to the idea that how could God be all knowing and good b/c he has ordered killing of babies and small children etc. Like it or not, the children raised in the trerrorist countries will grow up to be terriorists. probably little can be done to help mold or change them. my son said that he feared when he was in our last conflict)kosovo) that he would be told to kill children and women.

  I know it is an old line, but hiltler was a baby once. Children generally become what their parents are.so by letting them live, u are only postponing having to kill them as adults.
• 

  hornetsnest

  LOL! I feel like a kid in a candy store! Let me nibble on a few more goodies here:

  [QUOTE]Is there an intrinsic "right and wrong" or moral code that would exist whether or not there was a God?[/QUOTE]

  As I suggested before, yes. I believe that it was abaddon that suggested that most of that which we would classify as a moral code is brought about by enlightened self interest, however, what difference does it make as to what the impetus was for its formulation? It still ends up as a code that any particular society uses to keep its people in line. I feel that sometimes we get too wrapped up in semantics.

  The only other place that I would have reservations about his comments would be that I have little patience with that "enlightened" school of "science" that insists on explaining all things in terms of selfish interest. Altruism does exist.

  However, back to your question. That there is a wild varience in the moral codes is only to be expected. The similarities would only be in the most basic elements, even as others suggested. Inasmuch as our knowledge and understanding is extremely limited, there are many things about that "Cadillac" that we know nothing about, and due to that lack of knowledge, we will have trouble with it. Joe Blow down the street may understand that one point and avoid the trouble involved, but then again he will probably not know something that we do, and fall into a problem that we would avoid. Ergo: differences in the moral codes.

  [QUOTE]To put it another way, is what we believe is "right or wrong" based on whatever God decides is right or wrong (ie. he set's the standard) or is it an intrinisc thing that he also must adhere to in order to be thought of as 'good'.[/QUOTE]

  I see some problems here, primarily in the logic of the question itself. (I'm not calling you illogical, Simon. Ugly, maybe, but not illogical. Hehehehe!) Let me explain:

  First of all, again I would question the underlying assumption that his decisions are arbitrary. There are usually good reasons behind them, and it is not at all unusual for us to not understand them due to our limited knowledge. However, let's let that go for now. Just for the sake of argument, let's say that Jehovah is arbitrary and self-centered.

  Back at the beginning of creation, what would cause him to go to all the effort to create something that he has no respect or appreciation for? Wouldn't that be a waste of time and effort? He wouldn't have been as we are now, constantly being forced to do things that we would rather not do. Rather, he would create those things that interested him and that he took pleasure in.

  The point here is that I doubt very much that he would have cause to feel that he "must adhere" to anything, not because he is all powerful and authoritive, but because he would only create those things that are a part of his nature. Therefore, following his own decrees would not be odious to him, but a natural thing.

  Also, looked at in this manner, the question as to whether or not he would follow his own laws "in order to be thought of as good' ", is rather moot. He would do it anyway.

  [QUOTE]If God has to adhere and go along with some intrinsic value system then does this effect any claims to be omnipotent and always good? ie. can he do certain things or go against this set of values.[/QUOTE]

  I think it is irrelevant whether he is omnipotent or not. Even we humans have the power to go against this or that set of values. Wouldn't it be rather silly to assume that he gave us free moral agency, when he didn't have it himself? Of course, he would have the power to violate any set of laws, even as we do. However, he doesn't, as that would go against his own nature.

  [QUOTE]If it's the opposite and whatever he decides is good or bad actually becomes 'good and bad' for us then where does this leave our free will? If 'fight and maime' for instance became the right thing to do, would our objecting to do it make us bad and evil?[/QUOTE]

  I think your question reflects the importance of him having done what he did. He set up a code of laws that doesn't change down over the eons, regardless of the fact that we don't understand some of them. We are like the little kid that is mad because his Momma won't let him play in the middle of the street. He knows it is his Momma's "law", but he doesn't understand why.

  It actually leaves our free will untouched. We have the ability to obey that law or not obey it. We also have the freedom to accept the consequences of our conduct.

  I think it is necessary to make a clear distinction between what God's laws are, and what pompous, self-serving, religious fools say they are. There is a vast difference.

  [QUOTE]Am I making sense?![/QUOTE]

  Yes. Not only are you making sense, you are doing something that is priceless in its value. You are posing the questions that need to be answered, and that will, in the process of answering them, advance knowledge.

  LoneWolf
• 

  hornetsnest

  P. S. As you can see, I don't have the foggiest idea of how to do quotes. LOL

  LoneWolf
• 

  Abaddon

  hornetsnest;

  Altruism does exist

  Hmmm...

  So we don't get bogged down in semantics, here's Mirriam-Webster;

  ALTRUISMPronunciation: 'al-tru-"i-z&m
  Etymology: French altruisme, from autrui other people, from Old French, oblique case form of autre other, from Latin alter
  Date: 1853
  1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
  2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

  I would agree that most humans are capable of small acts of altruism... one's where there is no real effort/loss.

  However, I would argue that the greater effort/loss required to perform the altuistic act, the greater chance there is that some reinforcing factor will be in place to give the person exercising 'altruism' a benefit, even if it is internal. There is 'self' involved in the act, and it cannot therefore be fairly described as unselfish.

  Thus, doing something we feel is morally right or good, even though we are not getting a tangible exterior gain is not altruistic, as we get a gain by feeling inside we are doing something morally right or good. This is one case where, just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. Animals apparently do not have 'enough' interior to feel good about the way they act in the same way, or are incapable of telling us if they do, and are farguably free of this (from evolutionary biological terms) weakness.

  Thus human 'altruism' is normally either of such small concequence it's not worth that much, or gives the person performing the act some form of benefit that means something to them and is not altruistic.

  I would argue that true altruism only takes place accidentally; running and throwing a child to safety from in front of a car only to die in the process - that's altruistic - IF the person does it without thinking about it.
• 

  Sargon

  What a fascinating topic!! Right and Wrong are concepts that I feel every human develops independant of any thought of a God. It's right to eat your carrots, it's wrong to put your hand on the stove ring. .

  Do not commit adultery!! Why?? Not because it's socially reprehensible but Because God says it is a Sin. Do not Steal, Do not Kill, Do Not Covet your Neighbours Arse!! These are all wrongs according to most religions. However, I feel that any society would reach these same conclusions without having to be told by a 'Higher Power'.

  People living in a society have to abide by a basic code of conduct in order to survive as a society. When one steps outside this code, they are punished. If there is an intrinsic good, it is motivated by the need to survive.

  I think when God was invented, He was instilled with the knowledge gained by generations of social co-existence. They called this wisdom.