If God is good...Why do good?

[Ionian_Tradition]

I've often heard it posited by theists, in response to the all too popular modification of Plato's "Euthyphro dilemma", that it is God's intrinsic nature which forms the objective foundation for human morality. It is said that moral virtues such as honesty, kindness, self-sacrifice, and fairness are "good" because they are attributes of God's essential nature. In other words: God, being defined as omni-benevolent, is "good" by nature, thus any actions conducive with his/her/its nature are also by definition "good". From this notion emerges a standard, or rule of measurement, which allows us to juxtapose our actions with the character of God to determine if in fact our actions are a reflection of God's nature (and thus "good") or a privation of that nature (and thus evil). Hence an objective standard of "good" and "evil" is derived from God's nature....but I would argue that this standard is established at the expense of any objective requirement to do what is morally "good".

Granting the central premise of the argument, the assertion "God is good" provides us with, at most, a moral fact...but do moral facts beget moral duties? Can an "ought" be derived from an "is". If God IS "good" by nature, why is it objectively true that one OUGHT to do good by acting in accordance with that nature? Establishing God's nature as the objective source of good in no way demonstrates that human beings possess an objective obligation to perform actions which reflect that nature. So why do "good" at all? If one is by nature "evil", what objective moral duty requires one to abandon one's own nature in order to conform to the nature of another (God)?

The theist may retort that the threat of divine retribution provides proper intensive to do "good" and not "evil", but this "might makes right" mentality only serves to underscore the subjective nature of any moral duties which may be derived from such a notion. The threat of punishment for failing to acquiesce to the subjective desire of a God to conform to his/her/its own nature is hardly grounds upon which to establish an objective moral duty to do so. Though it may be objectively true that God subjectively desires for man to do "good", it is not objectively true that man ought to do as God desires.

The implications of this, I believe, render the terms "good" and "evil" devoid of moral substance, in that "good" and "evil" become merely descriptive terms, referring to actions which do or do not conform to God's intrinsic nature. They carry with them no objective moral obligation to prefer one over the other, and as such, they cannot instruct moral behavior. If God's nature is by definition "good"...Objective moral duties have yet to be accounted for as a result of that fact.

Question for debate: If God's intrinsic nature is the objective standard of "good", why is it OBJECTIVELY true that a man ought to conform to God's nature and do "good"?

[cnorman18]

Question for debate: If God's intrinsic nature is the objective standard of "good", why is it OBJECTIVELY true that a man ought to conform to God's nature and do "good"?

That's a pretty big "if." Your argument MAY apply to fundamentalist Christians -- though I'm not sure it even applies to all of THOSE -- but certainly not to all "theists."

It certainly does NOT apply to Jews. First, in Jewish tradition, the Covenant allows us to hold God Himself to standards of morality that are higher than He; witness Abraham's chastising God in their bargaining over the fate of Sodom: 'Shall the Judge of all the earth act unjustly?"

Second, there is NO explicit, formal Jewish teaching about the Afterlife, nor about God's judgment on anyone in particular. The carrot-and-stick/Heaven-and-Hell argument just doesn't apply.

You'll have to find some other way to redefine "good" and "evil" out of existence. This one only works for whatever minority of "theists" accept your idea that they only refer to God's attributes -- and, sorry to break it to you, but THAT bunch isn't likely to give up their beliefs because of your "reasoning."

[Ionian_Tradition]

That's a pretty big "if." Your argument MAY apply to fundamentalist Christians -- though I'm not sure it even applies to all of THOSE -- but certainly not to all "theists."

I am not aware that I stated this argument applied to all theist. Naturally it would apply only to those who hold the position that an objective standard of morality is rooted in God's intrinsic nature. Was this not evident?

It certainly does NOT apply to Jews. First, in Jewish tradition, the Covenant allows us to hold God Himself to standards of morality that are higher than He; witness Abraham's chastising God in their bargaining over the fate of Sodom: 'Shall the Judge of all the earth act unjustly?"

Then it would seem your God is not the standard of objective morality given that he is, as you say, subject to a moral standard higher than himself....The covenant I presume. Shall we then say that the covenant is greater than your God?

Second, there is NO explicit, formal Jewish teaching about the Afterlife, nor about God's judgment on anyone in particular. The carrot-and-stick/Heaven-and-Hell argument just doesn't apply.

Interesting, however punishment need not be limited to eternal torment. The God of Jewish tradition is well known for administering rather severe forms of punishment to those walk in unrighteousness (Isaiah 13:11) . He likewise has been shown to reward those who walk in righteousness (2 Samuel 22:21). This alone might prove sufficient incentive to coerce men into adhering to the subjective desires of the Jewish God....No after life required.

You'll have to find some other way to redefine "good" and "evil" out of existence. This one only works for whatever minority of "theists" accept your idea that they only refer to God's attributes -- and, sorry to break it to you, but THAT bunch isn't likely to give up their beliefs because of your "reasoning."

How fortunate for me then that my intention was never to cause the faithful to abandon their beliefs, but rather to promote discussion. With that said, given that you seem to find this particular theistic defense of objective morality lacking, I would be curious to see if your own world view is capable of accounting for objective moral duties, if indeed you claim such exist. What say you?

[cnorman18]

That's a pretty big "if." Your argument MAY apply to fundamentalist Christians -- though I'm not sure it even applies to all of THOSE -- but certainly not to all "theists."

I am not aware that I stated this argument applied to all theist. Naturally it would apply only to those who hold the position that an objective standard of morality is rooted in God's intrinsic nature. Was this not evident?

Appeared to be a blanket assumption to me, but perhaps I misunderstood. I would note that I didn't see you mention any alternate views, or even that there are any among theists.

It certainly does NOT apply to Jews. First, in Jewish tradition, the Covenant allows us to hold God Himself to standards of morality that are higher than He; witness Abraham's chastising God in their bargaining over the fate of Sodom: 'Shall the Judge of all the earth act unjustly?"

Then it would seem your God is not the standard of objective morality given that he is, as you say, subject to a moral standard higher than himself....The covenant I presume. Shall we then say that the covenant is greater than your God?

I didn't say that. The covenant is not higher than either man or God -- it's a covenant, a contract, and does not speak of moral standards. It's the covenant that gives us the right to ARGUE with God. Parties to a contract have responsibilities -- that is, both sides do. We get to hold God to his.

In Jewish tradition, the view of God as adversary and arbitrary ruler who must be struggled AGAINST and from whom human freedom and responsibility must be TAKEN is as strong as the view of God as Master and King. Not much is known about that tradition outside the community. Most Gentiles seem to think that Judaism is just Christianity without Jesus. It isn't.

Second, there is NO explicit, formal Jewish teaching about the Afterlife, nor about God's judgment on anyone in particular. The carrot-and-stick/Heaven-and-Hell argument just doesn't apply.

Interesting, however punishment need not be limited to eternal torment. The God of Jewish tradition is well known for administering rather severe forms of punishment to those walk in unrighteousness (Isaiah 13:11) . He likewise has been shown to reward those who walk in righteousness (2 Samuel 22:21). This alone might prove sufficient incentive to coerce men into adhering to the subjective desires of the Jewish God....No after life required.

As I have said many times; It is rather risky to assume that one can discern the teachings of the Jewish religion from the Hebrew Bible. They cannot be found there. One must look to the tradition, e.g. the centuries of commentary on the Bible, as well as the Oral Torah, which is now in the form of the Talmud -- MOST of which is a compilation of discussions and arguments among the rabbis and sages of old about ethics, as opposed to theology. It runs to fifty volumes in English.

There are any number of introductory books about Judaism that are much more accessible; Milton Steinberg's Basic Judaism is the one I recommend most often, though Judaism for Dummies is also quite good. I'm not proselytizing; Jews don't do that. But if one wants to speak to the subject of Jewish teachings, it behooves one to learn something about them first.

To respond to your remark; the most famous one-line definition of Judaism is from the great rabbi Hillel, a contemporary of Jesus: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Now go and study."

Reward and punishment are not issues in Judaism; one should be good because it is GOOD to be good. Punishment, in the Torah, one will note upon studying it, is collective, not individual. The whole community is held responsible -- the fate of individuals is left unspecified.

2 Samuel is a psalm of gratitude, not a doctrinal lesson. This isn't a doctrinal lesson either; as with most issues in the Jewish religion, there are many opinions, none authoritative.

You'll have to find some other way to redefine "good" and "evil" out of existence. This one only works for whatever minority of "theists" accept your idea that they only refer to God's attributes -- and, sorry to break it to you, but THAT bunch isn't likely to give up their beliefs because of your "reasoning."

How fortunate for me then that my intention was never to cause the faithful to abandon their beliefs, but rather to promote discussion. With that said, given that you seem to find this particular theistic defense of objective morality lacking, I would be curious to see if your own world view is capable of accounting for objective moral duties, if indeed you claim such exist. What say you?

Sorry, I must have misunderstood this:

The implications of this, I believe, render the terms "good" and "evil" devoid of moral substance, in that "good" and "evil" become merely descriptive terms, referring to actions which do or do not conform to God's intrinsic nature. They carry with them no objective moral obligation to prefer one over the other, and as such, they cannot instruct moral behavior.

You may not have had the intention of changing anyone's mind, but "defining good and evil out of existence" seems to be to be a fair description of your argument.

In any case, morality ISN'T objective; it evolves over time. It is, and always has been, determined by the consensus of the community, and it changes in every generation.

In the Bronze Age, for instance, it never occurred to anyone that slavery itself was immoral; it just WAS, part of the human condition. Even slaves didn't hope for an end to slavery; they just didn't want to be slaves themselves. It was the luck of the draw, like being born poor is today. Cyrus of Persia -- a very unusual man in many ways -- seems to have been the first to declare it wholly evil and unnecessary, and outlawed it in all his kingdoms circa 539 BCE. It took the rest of us 23 centuries or so to catch up, and some haven't managed it yet.

[Ionian_Tradition]

I didn't say that. The covenant is not higher than either man or God -- it's a covenant, a contract, and does not speak of moral standards. It's the covenant that gives us the right to ARGUE with God. Parties to a contract have responsibilities -- that is, both sides do. We get to hold God to his.

If this contract does not speak to moral standards it would seem irrelevant to the topic at hand. But then the following quote leaves me curious..

It certainly does NOT apply to Jews. First, in Jewish tradition, the Covenant allows us to hold God Himself to standards of morality that are higher than He..

Perhaps you are implying that the covenant itself is not the standard of morality which God is subject to but rather the covenant is that which grants men the right to hold God to a moral standard greater than himself? If so, what is this moral standard. How is it greater/higher than God? Is it objectively valid? If so, by what method might we demonstrate that such is indeed the case?

In Jewish tradition, the view of God as adversary and arbitrary ruler who must be struggled AGAINST and from whom human freedom and responsibility must be TAKEN is as strong as the view of God as Master and King. Not much is known about that tradition outside the community. Most Gentiles seem to think that Judaism is just Christianity without Jesus. It isn't.

Fascinating. Wrestling with God.

As I have said many times; It is rather risky to assume that one can discern the teachings of the Jewish religion from the Hebrew Bible. They cannot be found there. One must look to the tradition, e.g. the centuries of commentary on the Bible, as well as the Oral Torah, which is now in the form of the Talmud -- MOST of which is a compilation of discussions and arguments among the rabbis and sages of old about ethics, as opposed to theology. It runs to fifty volumes in English.

There are any number of introductory books about Judaism that are much more accessible; Milton Steinberg's Basic Judaism is the one I recommend most often, though Judaism for Dummies is also quite good. I'm not proselytizing; Jews don't do that. But if one wants to speak to the subject of Jewish teachings, it behooves one to learn something about them first.

Agreed.

To respond to your remark; the most famous one-line definition of Judaism is from the great rabbi Hillel, a contemporary of Jesus: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Now go and study."

Why is it objectively true that I should not do to my neighbor what is hateful to myself? Surely not because rabbi Hillel tells me so...

Reward and punishment are not issues in Judaism; one should be good because it is GOOD to be good. Punishment, in the Torah, one will note upon studying it, is collective, not individual. The whole community is held responsible -- the fate of individuals is left unspecified.

You say "one should do good because it is good to be good" but why is it objectively true that one ought to prefer what is good over the converse? You've not accounted for this.

You may not have had the intention of changing anyone's mind, but "defining good and evil out of existence" seems to be to be a fair description of your argument.

If one posits that God's nature forms the objective standard of "good", it is done so at the expense of any objective moral significance which might otherwise be applied to the term. That is my argument.

In any case, morality ISN'T objective; it evolves over time. It is, and always has been, determined by the consensus of the community, and it changes in every generation.

How refreshing. A theist who rejects the existence of objective moral values and duties. If such is truly your stance then I believe we have little to debate regarding this particular topic. Though this would seem to remove any objective obligation to pursue "righteousness" from your world view. More over, "good" and "evil" become relative terms in the absence of an objective standard to define them.

[bluethread]

As you have pointed out, you based your question on the premise that one hold Adonai as the standard of good for man. If someone with that view chimes in, I will step aside. Until then, let me point out that I believe that Adonai is the standard of unltimate or absolute good. However, it is not Adonai Himself, but Adonai's ways (for man) that are the standard of good for man. The temptation of the serpent was based on that false premise. It is not the purpose of man to become like Adonai, but to respect Adonai and keep Him commandments.

[Ionian_Tradition]

As you have pointed out, you based your question on the premise that one hold Adonai as the standard of good for man. If someone with that view chimes in, I will step aside. Until then, let me point out that I believe that Adonai is the standard of unltimate or absolute good. However, it is not Adonai Himself, but Adonai's ways (for man) that are the standard of good for man. The temptation of the serpent was based on that false premise. It is not the purpose of man to become like Adonai, but to respect Adonai and keep Him commandments.

Would you be willing to say that it is Adonai's volition which determines what is good for a man and what is not?

[cnorman18]

I didn't say that. The covenant is not higher than either man or God -- it's a covenant, a contract, and does not speak of moral standards. It's the covenant that gives us the right to ARGUE with God. Parties to a contract have responsibilities -- that is, both sides do. We get to hold God to his.

If this contract does not speak to moral standards it would seem irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You probably have a contract with your mortgage holder or your insurance agent, possibly your employer or employees. Do those contracts specify general standards for Good and Evil outside the contractual relationship?

But then the following quote leaves me curious..

It certainly does NOT apply to Jews. First, in Jewish tradition, the Covenant allows us to hold God Himself to standards of morality that are higher than He..

Perhaps you are implying that the covenant itself is not the standard of morality which God is subject to but rather the covenant is that which grants men the right to hold God to a moral standard greater than himself? If so, what is this moral standard. How is it greater/higher than God? Is it objectively valid? If so, by what method might we demonstrate that such is indeed the case?

I don't know that Abraham was addressing God, in the teaching tale that contains this scene, in terms that were designed to fit your standards for debate. He told God, in so many words, that it was unjust to kill the innocent along with the guilty. God didn't ask why that was so; he seemed to accept it as stated. Perhaps He thought it was as self-evident as Abraham did, and as I do.

Is that not self-evident to you as well? If not, why not?

In Jewish tradition, the view of God as adversary and arbitrary ruler who must be struggled AGAINST and from whom human freedom and responsibility must be TAKEN is as strong as the view of God as Master and King. Not much is known about that tradition outside the community. Most Gentiles seem to think that Judaism is just Christianity without Jesus. It isn't.

Fascinating. Wrestling with God.

Yes. The meaning of the name "Israel," as it happens; "He who struggles with God."

As I have said many times; It is rather risky to assume that one can discern the teachings of the Jewish religion from the Hebrew Bible. They cannot be found there. One must look to the tradition, e.g. the centuries of commentary on the Bible, as well as the Oral Torah, which is now in the form of the Talmud -- MOST of which is a compilation of discussions and arguments among the rabbis and sages of old about ethics, as opposed to theology. It runs to fifty volumes in English.

There are any number of introductory books about Judaism that are much more accessible; Milton Steinberg's Basic Judaism is the one I recommend most often, though Judaism for Dummies is also quite good. I'm not proselytizing; Jews don't do that. But if one wants to speak to the subject of Jewish teachings, it behooves one to learn something about them first.

Agreed.

To respond to your remark; the most famous one-line definition of Judaism is from the great rabbi Hillel, a contemporary of Jesus: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Now go and study."

Why is it objectively true that I should not do to my neighbor what is hateful to myself? Surely not because rabbi Hillel tells me so...

Perhaps Hillel assumed that his listener possessed enough common sense to understand that his "neighbor" was a person like himself, and enough human compassion to understand that he ought not inflict pain upon him that he himself did not want to endure. Perhaps it was the rather obvious inference that "what goes around comes around," and that if one went about doing unpleasant things to one's neighbors, they might eventually do the same to me.

And then again, it might be the ancient Jewish assumption that people are expected to have a capacity for intelligent moral judgment themselves, and aren't to be dependent on Eternal Rules imposed by an Authority, whether from someone's idea of Logic or from God.

Before you pounce; Yes, the Ten Words were given, in the tradition; general principles of right and wrong. The specific application of those rules, and indeed their very meaning in themselves, was the collective responsibility of humans, and not of God, from a very early time. It's explained in my post "What Judaism Is: One Jew's View" in the Judaism forum.

Reward and punishment are not issues in Judaism; one should be good because it is GOOD to be good. Punishment, in the Torah, one will note upon studying it, is collective, not individual. The whole community is held responsible -- the fate of individuals is left unspecified.

You say "one should do good because it is good to be good" but why is it objectively true that one ought to prefer what is good over the converse? You've not accounted for this.

I'll leave that question to the ivory-tower philosophers. Most five-year-olds seem to grasp it without a detailed justification. It's better to be the good guy than the bad guy, whether you're watching Spongebob Squarepants or Criminal Minds.

You may not have had the intention of changing anyone's mind, but "defining good and evil out of existence" seems to be to be a fair description of your argument.

If one posits that God's nature forms the objective standard of "good", it is done so at the expense of any objective moral significance which might otherwise be applied to the term. That is my argument.

Don't think I've ever met anyone (who was not a remarkably obstinate fundamentalist, anyway) who actually holds that view. Most Christians seem to hold that "good" and "God" are congruent, like "circle" and "round." God could no more be evil than a circle could have corners. Which one determines the other? It's a nonsense question.

Speaking for many Jews -- that God is absolutely good is one of the things about Him that we cannot claim to know, anyway. Isaiah 45:7 has always been a bit of a conundrum in that respect.

In any case, morality ISN'T objective; it evolves over time. It is, and always has been, determined by the consensus of the community, and it changes in every generation.

How refreshing. A theist who rejects the existence of objective moral values and duties.

Have you never met one before? You must not get out much.

If such is truly your stance then I believe we have little to debate regarding this particular topic. Though this would seem to remove any objective obligation to pursue "righteousness" from your world view. More over, "good" and "evil" become relative terms in the absence of an objective standard to define them.

Only if you're willing to use that specious bit of rationalization, that if something cannot be proven beyond doubt in rigid logic and made into unquestionable dogma, then it is meaningless and not worth consideration.

Like I said; Jewish tradition assumes a human obligation to use one's common sense and capacity for moral judgment. Not doing so is being less than human. Humans are not machines, that need unambiguous programming. If you choose to live so -- well, that's no one else's responsibility.

[bluethread]

As you have pointed out, you based your question on the premise that one hold Adonai as the standard of good for man. If someone with that view chimes in, I will step aside. Until then, let me point out that I believe that Adonai is the standard of unltimate or absolute good. However, it is not Adonai Himself, but Adonai's ways (for man) that are the standard of good for man. The temptation of the serpent was based on that false premise. It is not the purpose of man to become like Adonai, but to respect Adonai and keep Him commandments.

Would you be willing to say that it is Adonai's volition which determines what is good for a man and what is not?

Volition is an interesting choice in refering to a qualitative standard. That term primarily refers to the motivating force behind an action, not the qualitative definition of that action. Framing the discussion in this way presumes the principle of good intentions. We see the difficulty in this approach when we look at the sacrifice of Saul that cost him the throne. He claimed it was his intent to honor Adonai by making sacrifice, because Samuel was delayed in coming. This was a violation of HaTorah, because Saul was not a priest. When one overrides HaTorah on the basis of good intentions, such intentions then undermine the credibility of one's actions. This is because only Adonai and the person making the claim can conclusively validate the intentions of the individual. Therefore, the claimed "volition" of Adonai is not the determinator of what is generally considered good for man. It is the commandments of Adonai that determine that, because they were by defintion established by the volition of Adonai.

[Ionian_Tradition]

You probably have a contract with your mortgage holder or your insurance agent, possibly your employer or employees. Do those contracts specify general standards for Good and Evil outside the contractual relationship?

Standards? No. Practices which might be employed outside the bounds of the contract? Yes. But the moral quality of these principles stand undefined apart from an objective moral standard which actually distinguishes "good" from "evil".

But then the following quote leaves me curious..

It certainly does NOT apply to Jews. First, in Jewish tradition, the Covenant allows us to hold God Himself to standards of morality that are higher than He..

Perhaps you are implying that the covenant itself is not the standard of morality which God is subject to but rather the covenant is that which grants men the right to hold God to a moral standard greater than himself? If so, what is this moral standard. How is it greater/higher than God? Is it objectively valid? If so, by what method might we demonstrate that such is indeed the case?

I don't know that Abraham was addressing God, in the teaching tale that contains this scene, in terms that were designed to fit your standards for debate. He told God, in so many words, that it was unjust to kill the innocent along with the guilty. God didn't ask why that was so; he seemed to accept it as stated. Perhaps He thought it was as self-evident as Abraham did, and as I do.


Is that not self-evident to you as well? If not, why not?

While it is evident to me that killing the innocent along side the guilty would be considered by many to be unjust, it is not evident to me that this is objectively true or that there exists an objective obligation for both God and men to be just. And given that you claim to reject the existence of objective moral duties and obligations, the same ought apply for you....Unless of course you're being inconsistent. Which is it? Is God objectively obligated to adhere to this self evident "higher moral standard" you posit (and have yet to define) or do you stand by your initial assertion:

In any case, morality ISN'T objective;

Well?

Why is it objectively true that I should not do to my neighbor what is hateful to myself? Surely not because rabbi Hillel tells me so...

Perhaps Hillel assumed that his listener possessed enough common sense to understand that his "neighbor" was a person like himself, and enough human compassion to understand that he ought not inflict pain upon him that he himself did not want to endure. Perhaps it was the rather obvious inference that "what goes around comes around," and that if one went about doing unpleasant things to one's neighbors, they might eventually do the same to me.

And this "common sense" reasoning, predicated upon a subjective desire to be treated well by others, is Hillel's OBJECTIVE justification for a moral obligation which requires that all men, everywhere, love their neighbor as themselves? Was this to be a legitimate answer to my question? How can an OBJECTIVE moral obligation (which applies to all men) be predicated upon a SUBJECTIVE desire (by some men) for reciprocal altruism to be practiced among neighbors? You do understand that "subjective desire" and "objective obligation" are not one in the same do you not?

And then again, it might be the ancient Jewish assumption that people are expected to have a capacity for intelligent moral judgment themselves, and aren't to be dependent on Eternal Rules imposed by an Authority, whether from someone's idea of Logic or from God.

Define "intelligent moral judgment". Is there a standard by which we can measure the moral judgment of another to determine if their judgment is indeed intelligent? Can you make a case for intelligent moral judgments without appealing to a subjective, and fundamentally arbitrary, definition of "moral intelligence"?

You say "one should do good because it is good to be good" but why is it objectively true that one ought to prefer what is good over the converse? You've not accounted for this.

I'll leave that question to the ivory-tower philosophers. Most five-year-olds seem to grasp it without a detailed justification. It's better to be the good guy than the bad guy, whether you're watching Spongebob Squarepants or Criminal Minds.

Am I to take your answer as such? "Well, it works for 5 year olds"....Its a wonder that, with such depth of philosophical insight, my young nephew hasn't been invited to lecture at Cambridge....Come now, I'm sure that even your 5 year old moral philosophers can see that even the nice guy sometimes finishes last. Can we truly say it is objectively "better" to ALWAYS to be the good guy if one can benefit from occasionally being the bad guy? Amusing as it is, your moral philosophy is not as robust as you seem to assume.

Don't think I've ever met anyone (who was not a remarkably obstinate fundamentalist, anyway) who actually holds that view. Most Christians seem to hold that "good" and "God" are congruent, like "circle" and "round." God could no more be evil than a circle could have corners. Which one determines the other? It's a nonsense question.

Christian apologists Dr. William lane Craig, John Lennox and Alvin Plantinga come to mind...Far from obstinate fundamentalists. My argument is a response to an attempt, made by a number of christian apologists, to reconcile the Euthypro dilemma with the assertion that God is the objective standard of human morality. With all due respect, I believe your unfamiliarity with this topics stems more from an ignorance of modern Christian apologetics then from your assertion that only a minority of obstinate fundamentalists hold this view.

Speaking for many Jews -- that God is absolutely good is one of the things about Him that we cannot claim to know, anyway. Isaiah 45:7 has always been a bit of a conundrum in that respect.

So its possible that God is a little good and a little evil then? God is sounding more human all the time. But given that your moral philosophy has yet to establish "good" and "evil" as anything more than a set of relative, and fundamentally meaningless, terms, I suppose a morally ambiguous God is the least of your problems.

If such is truly your stance then I believe we have little to debate regarding this particular topic. Though this would seem to remove any objective obligation to pursue "righteousness" from your world view. More over, "good" and "evil" become relative terms in the absence of an objective standard to define them.

Only if you're willing to use that specious bit of rationalization, that if something cannot be proven beyond doubt in rigid logic and made into unquestionable dogma, then it is meaningless and not worth consideration.

Like I said; Jewish tradition assumes a human obligation to use one's common sense and capacity for moral judgment. Not doing so is being less than human. Humans are not machines, that need unambiguous programming. If you choose to live so -- well, that's no one else's responsibility.

Though appealing to "common sense" in this matter may provide you with a bit of solace, moral philosophy is not as accommodating as you would wish it to be. If one cannot clearly define "right" from "wrong" in objective terms the terms themselves become meaningless. If a powerful man's common sense intuitions lead him to conclude that exploiting and abusing the weak for personal gain is "right", what standard of "right" and "wrong" can you refer him to in order to demonstrate that his intuitions are truly flawed? The conclusions you've drawn from your own common sense intuitions? Can you demonstrate that the conclusions drawn from your own moral intuitions are more accurate than his own? Without appealing to an objective standard of "right" and "wrong" you surely cannot. How then can you say that anything is truly "right" or "wrong"? How can you claim this man is less "morally intelligent" than you and those who share your moral proclivities? Forgive me, but your moral philosophy seems a junkyard of confused rhetoric, comprised of meaningless terms that are bereft of the capacity to instruct moral behavior.