In other posts this month I dealt with the concept of Love as the background of the moral universe,. [1], [2] Below I pull out several statements from comment sections to construct a dialogue with hopes of spurring on more discussion.
7th Stooge:
Why does God love? Aren't you just substituting "love" for "the good"? At some point, all metaethical questions ultimately must "reduce to pragmatism or mystification." You say that love and being are bound up closely together. Either you are subsuming being under the rubric of love or you must say that there is some greater value that unites love and being together.
JLH:
Why does God love? I don't think that's the kind of question we can answer. I resist the idea of being put in a position of having to explain God who is beyond our understanding. I think we have ample reason given the assumptions of the Christian tradition,to assume that God loves I'm willing to accept that without understanding why. But this leads Seven to assert that I am confusing love with the good, I think love is bound up with the good unless by "love" one understands only sexual or primitive or childish notions of "love." She's 'purdy' I want to sleep with her. I love movies about Batman, I love ice cream, But I'm talking about agape, often translates as "charity." The will to the Good of the other (Tillich).
Is there a greater value that embodies both love and being? First , from an ontological perspective being must proceed love, since to love one must first be. Bit the two are bound up in other senses, Namely, both are giving out and positive as in constructive to name a few. We might connected them "the good" in this sense. The relationship between love and the good is dialectical. That is we can;t say the good is the basis of love or that love is the basis of the good. That love is good would give good priority but Good is based upon love. Perhaps this is typical of the human need to dissect and label everything;and not everything can be so treated.
7S:
Why on earth would you think that the good has to be 'passionless'? We ought to be passionately committed to what's good.
JLH:
I don't, you said you make it so by expecting everything to be understood.
7S:
God's character is already set according to what is good, so in that sense the good is metaphysically prior to God's actions. You could say the good isn't prior to God's nature since the good is "baked into" his character, but the reason it is baked in is because it IS good, so it is logically prior, if that makes any sense. It's not that these character traits are arbitrarily part of God and then because of that fact they become good, but the other way around.
JLH:
That is a pseudo problem. If we devise good as a form of love then the problem is eliminated. Above I try to resolve it by appeal to a dialectical relationship.I think love is the motivation for the good and the good may be a more general application of love; I suspect it's really a language problem. We are trying to describe and clarify relationships that are based upon aspects of being that are beyond our comprehension.
Now in term of the statement you made about God's character and the good I think in that sense the notion of good as in good character does go back to love. We think in terms of higher value to which we must conform or to which we value but in terms of God we don't have that, since God is the highest appoint. Good is a catch all term that covers both pragmatism and morality; love designates God's specific attitude in his will to the 'good' of the other,
I do understand that this statement assumes good is prior to love but because we don't have a term to designate good as in the conditions for flourishing of someone with good as in individual values, likes or dislikes. We could say the will to the best conditions for the other.
7S:
We value what we do independent of what God or anyone or anything else values. I know you're not saying we value love because God does. That's DCT. You're saying: "To love is the background of the moral law, or deeply implicated in the moral law, to love is God's character, therefore God is the background of the moral law." Even if any of that were true, which it isn't, it would have nothing to do with why we value what we value.
JLH:
First I want to know how you are so certain that it isn't true? How can you know that we don't value things because Gd put it into us to value said thing? You are assuming aren't you that moral laws are all man made? How do you know there is not a basic moral law written on the heart? (Roams 2:7-14). That can still be the case and the moral law be derivative of love.
One of the hardest things for people to do is accept that God loves us,especially when that is dis confirmed by everything in our lives. Yet clear implication of all that I said thus far is that God does love us,God loves me and each of us. We have to be able to say that to affirm faith,I think that inability due to self loathing is responsible for a lot of atheism.
[1] Joseph Hinman, "Love the basis of everything (expansion)," Metacrock's blog (APRIL 10, 2019)
(access 4/24/19)
[2] ____________. "Jason Thibodeau's Euthyphro dilemma," Metacrock;s blog (4/8/19)
(access 4/24/19)
Joe, Per your own definition, the good must precede love, since love, in the agape sense, is "willing the good of the other." The good is already presupposed within the agape sense of love.
ReplyDeleteYou're right that we can't know the answers to ultimate questions about God such as 'Why does God love?' My point was that since the good is already contained within the idea of agape, that it makes more sense to think that God loves because love is a kind of good thing. It makes more sense to assume that the good is the broader category under which love falls, given the definition of love, and that there are many other kinds of good thing that don't involve willing of any kind.
So what are the justificatory grounds under which we act and under which our characters are formed or, in God's case, under which his character is the way it is?
If we think of morality in this sense, it's hard to see how God would be relevant as an answer to any of these questions.
You say that God is the 'background' of morality or the moral law, but 'background' is an ambiguous term. YOu forst have to define what sense of the word you're using.
I think love is the will to the good of the other, yes. But isn't love also seeinge value of the other, and the wish to connect with the other? I think all of these are included in"God is love." Love thus becomes the foundation of God's creative nature as well, for love wants an other to love.
ReplyDeleteGod, then, is the source of all positive, creative, growth-tending aspects of reality. They all arise out of God's nature. To ask which came first, love or the good, is to miss the whole idea.
ReplyDeleteJoe, Per your own definition, the good must precede love, since love, in the agape sense, is "willing the good of the other." The good is already presupposed within the agape sense of love.
ReplyDeleteBut my real point was that chopping up reality like that into bite size chunks to discuss ideas about it is not the way reality works. Love and it;s motivator might be nested sanctimoniously in the heart,
You're right that we can't know the answers to ultimate questions about God such as 'Why does God love?' My point was that since the good is already contained within the idea of agape, that it makes more sense to think that God loves because love is a kind of good thing. It makes more sense to assume that the good is the broader category under which love falls, given the definition of love, and that there are many other kinds of good thing that don't involve willing of any kind.
I agree at least for the purposes of exposition
So what are the justificatory grounds under which we act and under which our characters are formed or, in God's case, under which his character is the way it is?
If we think of morality in this sense, it's hard to see how God would be relevant as an answer to any of these questions.
God is perfect and eternal does he evolve? how could environmental factors affect or effect God's being?
You say that God is the 'background' of morality or the moral law, but 'background' is an ambiguous term. You forst have to define what sense of the word you're using.
I said love is the Background of the moral universe. Background means the formation of factors creating moral universe.
2:27 PM
But my real point was that chopping up reality like that into bite size chunks to discuss ideas about it is not the way reality works. Love and it;s motivator might be nested sanctimoniously in the heart,
ReplyDeleteYeah, I agree that's wrong. Who's doing that? I'm doing the opposite of that.
I said love is the Background of the moral universe. Background means the formation of factors creating moral universe.
Yes, that's exactly what I've been arguing is not very persuasive for all the reasons I've cited and for which you've offered no rebuttal.
Kristen, Those are good points. My only point is that to say "I will X" suggests to me that I first have to know what X is and to recognize X. That isn't to undermine the foundational creative nature of love. I also think that love and the good are probably in a reciprocal and dynamic relationship. But I think that there are many good things, love being one of them, maybe the most valuable one.
ReplyDelete7th Stooge said...
ReplyDeleteKristen, Those are good points. My only point is that to say "I will X" suggests to me that I first have to know what X is and to recognize X. That isn't to undermine the foundational creative nature of love. I also think that love and the good are probably in a reciprocal and dynamic relationship. But I think that there are many good things, love being one of them, maybe the most valuable one.
6:56 PM
God could understand the positive upshot to love without saying "Ok that;s the good the good must proceed love,"
7th Stooge said...
ReplyDeleteJLH:But my real point was that chopping up reality like that into bite size chunks to discuss ideas about it is not the way reality works. Love and it;s motivator might be nested sanctimoniously in the heart,
7: Yeah, I agree that's wrong. Who's doing that? I'm doing the opposite of that.
Meta: I said love is the Background of the moral universe. Background means the formation of factors creating moral universe.
7:Yes, that's exactly what I've been arguing is not very persuasive for all the reasons I've cited and for which you've offered no rebuttal.
so if saying good must proceed love is not segmenting what segmenting look like?
6:50 PM
God could understand the positive upshot to love without saying "Ok that;s the good the good must proceed love,"
ReplyDeleteEven if God doesn't explicitly say such a thing to himself, he still must tacitly recognize the value of love in order to give it the priority he does. My whole point is that when we humans or God or angels or aliens do something, we do it because we acknowledge a pre-existing value (goodness) in that thing.
You might come back and say that God has had an essentially loving character eternally. But you wouldn't say that because of his character, God never decides to love or never acknowledges the value of love. I think you'd agree that God's character is the way it is because of the value of his character traits. To say toherwise is to veer towards DCT.
so if saying good must proceed love is not segmenting what segmenting look like?
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't want to make this personal but An example of segmenting would be having everything already arranged and figured out (God is being itself, God is love itself, Love is the background of the moral universe, etc,) and then anything that might destabilize this arrangement to the slightest degree must be squashed without even an honest attempt at understanding it. Also selective agnosticism: e.g. "We can't possibly know why God loves," even though we can freely speculate about everything else about God if it suits our position.
7th Stooge said: "Kristen, Those are good points. My only point is that to say "I will X" suggests to me that I first have to know what X is and to recognize X. That isn't to undermine the foundational creative nature of love. I also think that love and the good are probably in a reciprocal and dynamic relationship. But I think that there are many good things, love being one of them, maybe the most valuable one."
ReplyDeleteThat makes sense-- but if God says "I will X," and that means God first knows and recognizes X, then what that's saying is that God is aware and intelligent. Being aware and intelligent are good things that are not usually contained under the definition of love-- but that awareness and intelligence could easily precede the creation of any other good thing. I'm working from the Christian belief that "God is love." This is different from saying "God is good," in that "love" is a noun, and "good" is an adjective. That is, "good" describes God, but "love" defines God.
If, then, I say that the nature of God is aware, intelligent love, and that this is the motivation behind all other good things that are then created by God, then "the good" is something that God imagines as God creates these things. Imagining "the good," and understanding it as good, are part of God's awareness and intelligence. Is "the good" then a predecessor of love?
Kristen, The question though, in "God is love" is how the "is" is to be understood. Even Joe concedes that it's meant as a metaphor. Is the "is" meant in the sense of identity or predication? Or in some other yet to be defined way?
ReplyDeleteIt could just as easily be the case that "love" is an action, as in "willing the good of the other," and/or an adjective, as in "the state or condition of willing the good of the other." It makes more sense to me that God is basically about loving, he's the exemplary act of loving, rather than that he is identical to some Platonic essence of love or that God is "love itself."
Anyway, maybe we're getting lost in the weeds a little bit, and I take responsibility for that. The underlying issue for me is whether or not there's a moral standard that's independent of God. First we'd have to agree on how we mean the word "independent." For me, it comes down to the fact that God is loving (and just, etc ) because those things are good, and those facts are independent of God.
I believe Augustine;s position that love is the background of the moral universe. So all of morality traces back to God's love. Thus no moral standard that is truly moral is independent of God.
ReplyDelete"For me, it comes down to the fact that God is loving (and just, etc ) because those things are good, and those facts are independent of God."
I don;t think that is a reason to see them as independent. I think that makes them dependent.
I believe Augustine;s position that love is the background of the moral universe. So all of morality traces back to God's love. Thus no moral standard that is truly moral is independent of God.
ReplyDeleteI think that's argument from authority.
"For me, it comes down to the fact that God is loving (and just, etc ) because those things are good, and those facts are independent of God."
I don;t think that is a reason to see them as independent. I think that makes them dependent.
My point was that facts about God's nature are dependent upon prior facts about moral goodness. So ergo, uh uh.
I believe Augustine;s position that love is the background of the moral universe. So all of morality traces back to God's love. Thus no moral standard that is truly moral is independent of God.
ReplyDeleteI think that's argument from authority.
I didn't say its true because Augie said it
"For me, it comes down to the fact that God is loving (and just, etc ) because those things are good, and those facts are independent of God."
I don;t think that is a reason to see them as independent. I think that makes them dependent.
Of course they are not independent of God in the ontological sense but one can have a theory of justice without appeal to God.
My point was that facts about God's nature are dependent upon prior facts about moral goodness. So ergo, uh uh.
I don't understand that, God exists before moral goodness,
11:20 AM
I didn't say its true because Augie said it
ReplyDeleteHere's what you wrote:
I believe Augustine;s position that love is the background of the moral universe. So all of morality traces back to God's love. Thus no moral standard that is truly moral is independent of God.
You're arguing that Augustine's position is that love is the background of the moral universe. SO (therefore) all of morality traces back to God's love. THUS there is no moral standard that is truly moral that is independent of God.
How is that not argument from authority? It sounds like you're justifying the position at least in part by the fact that it was Augustine's position. The fact that it was his or anyone else's position should be irrelevant to the justification.
I don't understand that, God exists before moral goodness,
"Before" in what sense? I thought facts about his nature would be co=eternal with him; one wouldn't come "before" the other. God can't be 'prior' to himself.
In any event, I think there's more to morality than love. There's also justice, which isn;t always willing the good of the other. It may be willing the good of myself! Or no one in particular....
Identifying a position as to who else said it is not the same as saying it;' true because they said it. nothing in that statement you quoted says that.
ReplyDelete"You're arguing that Augustine's position is that love is the background of the moral universe. SO (therefore) all of morality traces back to God's love. THUS there is no moral standard that is truly moral that is independent of God.
How is that not argument from authority? It sounds like you're justifying the position at least in part by the fact that it was Augustine's position."
You are asserting to name someone is to use them as an authority. that's not even implied. In your mind you are doing this:
to name someone is to use him as an authority
Joe names Aguie
therefore,Joe uses Augie SA an authirty.
that rests upon the perimeter "to name someone is to use him as an authority" where do you get that idea?
7 "In any event, I think there's more to morality than love. There's also justice, which isn;t always willing the good of the other. It may be willing the good of myself! Or no one in particular.... "
ReplyDeletesome ethesists think Justice is the distributive mechanism of love.
Joseph Fletcher is one such ethesist. Situation Ethcis
ReplyDeleteAs far as Augustine is concerned, I think you're misreading what he said, 7th. He said "I believe Augustine's position...." He's not saying "I believe Augustine's position is [and then naming the position and claiming it's true]."
ReplyDelete"I believe Augustine's position" is just another way to say "I agree with Augustine's position." That's not an argument from authority, it's simply an acknowledgment that someone else has asserted this position before Joe did; that it wasn't Joe who came up with the concept.
For the rest, I don't understand how any fact about anything at all can be independent of God, since God is the root and source of everything that is. Any fact about anything exists because God caused the thing to be a fact. How can there be "prior facts about moral goodness" that existed before God? If such a thing were the case, then God wouldn't be God, but something else, some contingent force or entity, not the source of everything.
You said:
ReplyDeleteX is Augustine's position.
THUS, Y follows (presumably from the fact that it's Augustine's position).
Without any further justification, this is argument from authority. With further argument, it's an interesting historical aside. Without further argument, you're assuming that it's true because it's Augustine's position, or at least that's what the reader has to conclude. What else can they conclude?
You do the same thing when you write:
some ethesists think Justice is the distributive mechanism of love.
and
Joseph Fletcher is one such ethesist. Situation Ethcis
Who cares what some atheists think? All that matters is the merit of their arguments, which you don't refer to.
As far as Augustine is concerned, I think you're misreading what he said, 7th. He said "I believe Augustine's position...." He's not saying "I believe Augustine's position is [and then naming the position and claiming it's true]."
ReplyDeleteExcept that he wrote it in the form of an argument.
Augustine said X
Thus, Y is true.
He writes sloppily, and usually it doesn't matter, but sometimes it actually does.
For the rest, I don't understand how any fact about anything at all can be independent of God, since God is the root and source of everything that is. Any fact about anything exists because God caused the thing to be a fact. How can there be "prior facts about moral goodness" that existed before God? If such a thing were the case, then God wouldn't be God, but something else, some contingent force or entity, not the source of everything.
I believe that God is the source of everything that exists contingently. I don't think that God is the source of all the aspects of his nature. With what would he create those aspects? I guess Joe would say that even though he isn't the source of those aspects, they still are not independent of him since they are intrinsic to his nature, but I think there are different meanings of the word 'independent.'
ReplyDeleteJim: "Without any further justification, this is argument from authority. With further argument, it's an interesting historical aside. Without further argument, you're assuming that it's true because it's Augustine's position, or at least that's what the reader has to conclude. What else can they conclude?"
I started out saying this is a dialogue based upon arguments I already made,I footnoted where I made those, maybe you should read them":
[1] Joseph Hinman, "Love the basis of everything (expansion)," Metacrock's blog (APRIL 10, 2019)
https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2019/04/love-basis-of-everythingexpansion.html
(access 4/24/19)
[2] ____________. "Jason Thibodeau's Euthyphro dilemma," Metacrock;s blog (4/8/19)
https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2019/04/jason-thibodeaus-euthyphro-dilemma.html
(access 4/24/19)
You do the same thing when you write:
some ethesists think Justice is the distributive mechanism of love.
and
Joseph Fletcher is one such ethesist. Situation Ethcis
Jim:Who cares what some atheists think? All that matters is the merit of their arguments, which you don't refer to.
Fletcher was never an atheist,he does back up the arguments I made,I admit I got this position from reading him but copare my arugnets in the two sources above to his,
Except that he wrote it in the form of an argument.
Augustine said X
Thus, Y is true.
He writes sloppily, and usually it doesn't matter, but sometimes it actually does.
that's an argument? X therefore y, where do you get that idea?
Jim: I guess Joe would say that even though he isn't the source of those aspects, they still are not independent of him since they are intrinsic to his nature, but I think there are different meanings of the word 'independent.'
what versions are relevant here?
7th, I'm looking again at Joe's actual words about Augustine. He said (exact quote):
ReplyDelete"I believe Augustine;s position that love is the background of the moral universe. So all of morality traces back to God's love. Thus no moral standard that is truly moral is independent of God."
I believe you are inserting a non-existent "is," as follows:
"I believe Augustine;s position IS that love is the background of the moral universe. So all of morality traces back to God's love. Thus no moral standard that is truly moral is independent of God."
Without the "IS," (which isn't actually in Joe's words), the meaning of Joe's sentences as I read them is, "I believe [in] Augustine's position that love is the background of the moral universe. So [according to my belief, which agrees with Augustine's] all of morality traces back to God's love. Thus [again according to my belief and Augustine's] no moral standard that is truly moral is independent of God."
Joe wasn't actually making an argument that Augustine said it, so it's true. Joe was just expressing the way he looks at these things, with a reference to an earlier thinker who also thought that way (such a reference is a common academic approach, and Joe is nothing if not an academic *grin*).
I think the real issue here has to do with what we each mean by "independent" of God. Perhaps if we more clearly define that word, we'll find our positions are actually fairly closely aligned.
I started out saying this is a dialogue based upon arguments I already made,I footnoted where I made those, maybe you should read them":
ReplyDeleteI have read them. Based on the quote I was citing, however, I wrote that "It SEEMS that this is argument from authority." Maybe you could say "I wrote that inartfully. I could see how someone could get that impression." But I'm not holding my breath.
Fletcher was never an atheist,he does back up the arguments I made,I admit I got this position from reading him but copare my arugnets in the two sources above to his,
You wrote "ethesist." I thought you were trying to write "atheist." It's immaterial to what we're discussing anyway. Some, I would guess most, theist philosophers would say that justice is not the distributive aspect of love. It's irrelevant anyway.
that's an argument? X therefore y, where do you get that idea?
Imagine I say the following:
1. Bob is a smart guy whose opinions are widely respected.
2. Bob told me that love is the background of the moral universe.
3. Thus, love is the background of the moral universe.
That's basically what you wrote. Something like Premise 1. was embedded in the citation to Augustine.
what versions are relevant here?
ontological, logical independence? How does God constitute or add to the moral goodness of love or fairness, or the fact that a is a or to the number 2? A possible answer is that without God there would be nothing that would be morally good or fulfill an "a" or be 2 of anything, but God fulfilling those categories wouldn't fulfill the goodness, the "a"ness or the "twoness" of those things.
1. Bob is a smart guy whose opinions are widely respected.
ReplyDelete2. Bob told me that love is the background of the moral universe.
3. Thus, love is the background of the moral universe.
That's basically what you wrote. Something like Premise 1. was embedded in the citation to Augustine.
No I did not say no 3, that's your idealistically, suppose instead of that I said,"thus you know I didn't Just make this up but more respected thinkers than I have proposed it?" is that just appeal to authority?
where did I say this is the only way to know the truth of this idea? what about my arguments in the other threads?
You could have worded it more clearly, to sound less like a , well a "Thus," as in "therefore, based on the fact that he wrote this, it is indeed the case that..." No worries. No need for apologies, now or ever ;)
ReplyDelete