Premise 1: Either God has reasons for his commands or else his commands are arbitrary.
Premise 2: If God’s commands are arbitrary, then they do not ground moral obligations (since arbitrary commands cannot ground moral obligations).
Premise 3: If God has reasons for his commands, then those reasons would be reasons for us independently of God’s commands.
Premise 4: If there are reasons for us that are independent of God’s commands, then those reasons, rather than God’s commands, ground our moral obligations.
Therefore, 5: Whether God has reasons for his commands or not, his commands do not ground moral obligations.[1]
I have previously outlined a position that says that love is the basis of ethics, or the moral, and that is based upon God's character. Thus it is not the case that those reasons, being the motivation and ground are of moral motions, are not independent independent of God.[2]
The position that I outlined answers this argument;
Premise 1: Either God has reasons for his commands or else his commands are arbitrary.
Premise 2: If God’s commands are arbitrary, then they do not ground moral obligations (since arbitrary commands cannot ground moral obligations).
Meta: God's commands are not arbitrary so we can strike those two.God has reasons.
Premise 3: If God has reasons for his commands, then those reasons would be reasons for us independently of God’s commands.
Meta:The reasons are not independent of God they are based upon his character,
Premise 4: If there are reasons for us that are independent of God’s commands, then those reasons, rather than God’s commands, ground our moral obligations.
Meta:But the reasons refer back to God as their grounding
Therefore, 5: Whether God has reasons for his commands or not, his commands do not ground moral obligations.
Meta:
Meta:
If His commands don't ground moral obligation his character to which they refer does. Thus morality is not separate from God. Moral motions are not predicated upon grounding independent of God. The fact that God is creator of all thing has to be a stronger basis for grounding than any innocuous "reasons" which may or may not be independent of God's commands. If for no other reason because God's omniscient nature furnishes a basis for grounding that succeeds all other human derived reasoning.
Meta:
I don't think it's at all obscure; I have referenced St. Agustin and the more relatively recent work of Joseph Fletcher famed in late 60s for his Situation ethics. Saying love is the background of the moral universe means moral axioms are derived from love, agape. That explains how reasons are based upon character. Since God loves, he values love thus prescribes love as the basis of moral action. The motivation of love is God's reason for mandates various moral axioms. We we can also love we understand that.[4]
Moreover, it seems quite obvious that if God is not only creator of all things but all knowing then God would have to be superior to any other source of grounding for all moral axioms,
To which I responded:
Meta:Yes I think love has a necessary connection to God if one understands the Christian concept of God. Most Christians take 1st John as more than metaphor when it says "God is love," we consider that an essential attribute of the Divine.
Jason counters:
"I did not say that love has no necessary connection to God. I said that the value of love has no necessary connection to God."[6] I think what he's getting sat is the idea that we can value love independently of God even though love may be synonymous with God in reality in our minds it can be understood as separate and we are still motivated to love. The same may be said of moral axioms. I think i see this position staking up in his statements:
As I pointed out, Premises 3 and 4 are the controversial ones. In the previous post, I made a case for Premise 3. In this post, I will make a case for Premise 4. There are two aspects of Premise 4, which are important to treat separately as much as possible. They are: (A) the reasons for our actions (which, importantly, are independent of and prior to God’s commands) ground our moral obligations; and (B) God’s commands (which are grounded in these reasons) do not ground our moral obligations. I will make a separate case for each of these aspects.[7]Of course premise four says:
- Premise 4: If there are reasons for us that are independent of God’s commands, then those reasons, rather than God’s commands, ground our moral obligations.
The problem here is that this seems to be begging the question.Just because we don't recognize the necessary connection between God, morality, and love, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So P4 has to demonstrate a true independent nature for those moral reasons or else it;s merely arguing from a mistaken impression.
Jason's goal seems to be disproof of divine command theory (DCT). I say this because his reasons for upholding 4 basically amount to indictments of divine command theory. He says: "I will therefore make a case that, once we grant that there are reasons that exist prior to and independent of God’s commands, there is no obstacle to granting that some such reasons are strong enough and of the right sort to constitute moral obligation." That is problematic There are may different versions of DCT zn my my understanding I am not a DCT guy. To me the ED is only a problem in so far as it stipulates the possibility of a rival source for God's authority in moral grounding. To me that can only be pulled off if the atheist can truly separate moral grounding from God. I don't see that being accomplished here, since the moral values that are supposedly independent of God are only independent of his explicit commands but not from God per se via God's love.
Notes
[1] JASON THIBODEAU, "The Euthyphro Dilemma, Part 3: Reasons and Moral Obligation," The Secular Outpost. (March 6, 2019)
[2] J.L.Hinman, "Love: The Basis of Everything," Metacrock's Blog (Dec 17,2005)
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2005/12/love-basis-of-everything.html
The first time I can remember making this composition explicit was in about 2002 in my virtual office on the CADRE website that is long gone. This article on my blog will do as the official representative of my enunciation of that position. But the virtual office version was specifically about the Euthyphro dilemma.I have made many of versions of this claim that Love is the basis of morality.
[3] THIBODEAU, "The Euthyphro Dilemma, Part 3: ..." comments.
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] Ibid
[7]THIBODEAU, "The Euthyphro Dilemma, Part 3: ..." comments. Original article
