The myth of absolute morality

[Willum]

Judeo-Christians like to argue over the subject of mans' relative morality, vs God's absolute morality.

But there can only be two schools of thought, dictated by whether you are a Judeo-Christian or not. (Excluding other beliefs, for purposes of this discussion, and for simplicity.)

One school is obvious enough, non-absolute morality.
If that is what you believe, QED.

However, if you believe in absolute morality, that of God's, you have a standard to uphold to, even if it is a "do as I say, not as I do," morality.

There is good, and it is what God says is good, I think all will agree, allowing for that belief.

So here is the challenge, lending itself to no simple QED:

When we ate from the apple, all of mankind was cursed with the knowledge of good and evil.
We were given the power to judge, each and everyone of us who requires redemption, has the knowledge of good and evil.

So, let's break it open.
I see many acts of God as evil. I am not alone in this. In terms of absolute morality, I have been given that power to be an absolute judge, by right of the apple.

How can I, or anyone else, be wrong in judging God evil, since we have been cursed with this divinely promulgated knowledge, and its consequence - by 'Holy Covenant'?

[bjs]

[Replying to Willum]

According to traditional Christianity, the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil had nothing to do with power. It was about knowledge – specifically the experiential knowledge of sin.

Knowledge of good and evil does not mean that a person always makes correct moral judgements, any more than knowledge of math means that any answer a person gives to an arithmetic question is automatically correct.

You (specifically or generally) can be wrong in judging God or anyone else because people generally speaking can be wrong about anything. We can base our response on incomplete information, personal bias, or simply making a mistake.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 2 by bjs]

According to traditional Christianity, the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil had nothing to do with power. It was about knowledge – specifically the experiential knowledge of sin.

Knowledge IS power! Diligent pursuit of knowledge enables us to differentiate what is true and what is false. We build our confidence and psyche winnowing the absolute from the chafe. We may be right or we may be wrong but obviously we are stronger (more powerful) for that effort.

[Willum]

[Replying to Willum]

Knowledge of good and evil does not mean that a person always makes correct moral judgments, any more than knowledge of math means that any answer a person gives to an arithmetic question is automatically correct.

You (specifically or generally) can be wrong in judging God or anyone else because people generally speaking can be wrong about anything. We can base our response on incomplete information, personal bias, or simply making a mistake.

Yes, but spontaneous judgments are not eternal judgments. We are not God, and if we zig when we should have zagged, that really doesn't affect our morality. Now a God making correct moral judgments, and me having plenty of time to evaluate them, leads me to able to judge the Lord of the Universe with that knowledge he allowed.

So, I could be wrong, then mull over it, and discover that terracide remains the action of a petulant child, not of a real god.

But let's get back to topic.

Did the apple give us knowledge of good and evil, and therefore a non-objective morality?

[JP Cusick]

... all of mankind was cursed with the knowledge ...
We were given the power to judge, each and everyone of us who requires redemption, has the knowledge of good and evil.

The correct interpretation is the knowledge of good and bad - using the word "evil" is not accurate and it is misleading.

And as you say it was a curse of poisoned knowledge, and it still is poison and it still is a curse.

The way to end any such curse is by repenting, and stop using the curse.

We humans are not to judge anyone or anything as "good or bad" because that is the poisoned knowledge.

Humans do have the power to judge right from wrong, because that is not the poisoned knowledge.

Since we can see this same cursed knowledge ongoing throughout humanity then that is factual evidence and proof that the Bible story was true and accurate because the evidence and the proof is actively ongoing for all to see.

[Realworldjack]

Judeo-Christians like to argue over the subject of mans' relative morality, vs God's absolute morality.

But there can only be two schools of thought, dictated by whether you are a Judeo-Christian or not. (Excluding other beliefs, for purposes of this discussion, and for simplicity.)

One school is obvious enough, non-absolute morality.
If that is what you believe, QED.

However, if you believe in absolute morality, that of God's, you have a standard to uphold to, even if it is a "do as I say, not as I do," morality.

There is good, and it is what God says is good, I think all will agree, allowing for that belief.

So here is the challenge, lending itself to no simple QED:

When we ate from the apple, all of mankind was cursed with the knowledge of good and evil.
We were given the power to judge, each and everyone of us who requires redemption, has the knowledge of good and evil.

So, let's break it open.
I see many acts of God as evil. I am not alone in this. In terms of absolute morality, I have been given that power to be an absolute judge, by right of the apple.

How can I, or anyone else, be wrong in judging God evil, since we have been cursed with this divinely promulgated knowledge, and its consequence - by 'Holy Covenant'?

I think we have a misunderstanding here. The Bible does not say that we gained the Knowledge of "the difference between good and evil." Rather it says that we gained the knowledge "OF good and evil." So lets think about this!

If this is true, then Adam, and Eve, would have been free to do whatever they pleased, (outside of eating from this tree) without ever concerning themselves with good and evil. Lets call, "good and evil" morality. With this being the case, Adam, and Eve, were free to do as they wished, not concerning themselves with, morality. In other words, they were free from the chase after morality.

However, when they gained this knowledge, it is not as though they were now free, but they rather became enslaved to this knowledge. Before, they were free, but now they are enslaved.

As the Bible unfolds, in the end the Christian is instructed to give up on the chase after morality, and grab a hold of what God has done for them.

Therefore, the Christian understands that no amount of good works would ever cause them to become a moral person, so then this would not be the motivation for these good works. On the other hand, the Christian is not tied to some sort of moral law, and is able to help others, without being concerned with morality.

In other words, the Christian may see those in need, and may struggle over the best thing to do in certain situations, and may even struggle over, right verses wrong in their own mind, but in the end, they are able to help others even if what they would do in order to help, may go against what they may otherwise consider to be immoral.

As an example, there has been an on going discussion concerning the subject of, "the right to die" here on this very site. While I certainly struggle over the issue myself, and what would be the best thing, in the end, it really does not matter at all as to what the law may be. If it is illegal, then those who do such things can be convicted. If it is not, then all is fine, but it has nothing to do with morality, if morality is subjective.

So then, as a Christian, I may struggle over the issue, and may even tend to believe that it is not a moral action. However, if I see a friend or a loved one in this sort of situation, I may be overcome with compassion, and I could go with compassion not concerning myself with morality, since I am not enslaved to morality.

If it is against the law, then all I could do is to throw myself on the mercy of the court, and face the consequences. But I do not see what this would have to do with, morality, since we all seem to agree that morality is subjective.

So again, as a Christian I am free from the chase after morality, and am able to have compassion on others, not concerning myself with morality, because I am not tied to any sort of moral code, and I am not attempting to demonstrate my morality, by helping others, and I do not, and would not appeal to any sort of morality to defend my actions.

So, what about you? Are you chasing morality? Are you convinced that your good works demonstrate your morality? Do these good works cause you to be a moral person? Do you, or would you appeal to some sort of morality to defend yourself?

If so, you are confined to morality, and I will leave this chase after morality to you, and others!

[marco]

If so, you are confined to morality, and I will leave this chase after morality to you, and others!

Your treatise is interesting but you labour under the misapprehension that subjective morality means anything goes. We can label actions moral or immoral because many, if not most, deeds can be agreed to be bad or good. There are dubious areas, of course, such as the one you mentioned: the right to die.

If we take another abstract concept: beauty, I would once have thought that we can all agree that X is beautiful but Y is ugly. However, when modern art lumbered along we lost the ability to make such distinctions. You seem to believe we are in the same boat with morality, but I think not. We don't build laws and principles on beauty but we do frame laws on goodness and badness of actions. We have reached this point over time and I think that people all over the globe could reach a conclusion about some actions being always morally wrong. But we needn't claim some absolute standard - just an agreed one. I don't see your difficulty.

[1213]

...
I see many acts of God as evil. I am not alone in this. In terms of absolute morality, I have been given that power to be an absolute judge, by right of the apple.

How can I, or anyone else, be wrong in judging God evil, since we have been cursed with this divinely promulgated knowledge, and its consequence - by 'Holy Covenant'?

Firstly, Bible don’t say it was an apple.

Secondly, if you and me have different idea of what is good, how would we determine who is right, if all has absolute morality? If all people would have absolute morality, wouldn’t that mean we all agree?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 5 by JP Cusick]

So you are saying, even though God does despicable deeds, we are not to use the curse of the apple to say so?
But even if we don't say it, how can we not know it?

[Replying to post 8 by 1213]

Absolutely right, so the knowledge granted in the story is a myth, just as the story is a myth.
I am glad we agree.

[marco]

Firstly, Bible don’t say it was an apple.

This triviality generates gargantuan discussion. In Latin malum means evil and it also means apple, so there's an interesting connection. Pomum can mean fruit or it can mean apple. So maybe the Vulgate gave us the apple idea. But in the original the interest is in a fruit-bearing tree, eating the fruit of which incurred penalties. When Persephone was carried off by Hades to the Underworld she ate a pomegranate seed and suffered the penalty. Same idea. Making the story grandiose by suggesting it's the tree of knowledge of good and evil moves us into useful metaphor. But there's no harm in taking it that the first man munched a bad apple. The sense, or lack of it, remains.

Secondly, if you and me have different idea of what is good, how would we determine who is right, if all has absolute morality? If all people would have absolute morality, wouldn’t that mean we all agree?

People frequently have different ideas on what is good: Was Muhammad right in marrying a little girl of six?