Brothers and sisters, today I was reading an article whose author suggested that morality is confronted by the "Euthyphro dilemma". That is, whether what is called "good" is good because God loves it, or God calls it "good" because it is inherently good.
If a moral standard is inherently good, then it is objective morality.
If a moral standard is good because God says so, then it is a subjective and relativistic morality.
Subjective, that is, to God.
The particular author insists that morality cannot be objective, because if it were, all religions would promote the same morals.
What do you think? Is morality:
If a moral standard is inherently good, then it is objective morality.
If a moral standard is good because God says so, then it is a subjective and relativistic morality.
Subjective, that is, to God.
The particular author insists that morality cannot be objective, because if it were, all religions would promote the same morals.
What do you think? Is morality:
Objective to God and to humans, which means an objective standard exists separate from both God and humans; it's just "good";
Objective to God and subjective to humans, which makes no sense at all because it'd mean humans can determine what's good but God cannot;
Subjective to God and objective to humans, meaning that God subjectively decides what is good, and humans have to accept that; or
Subjective to God and subjective to humans, meaning that God decides what is good, but humans can also decide what is good.
Objective to God and subjective to humans, which makes no sense at all because it'd mean humans can determine what's good but God cannot;
Subjective to God and objective to humans, meaning that God subjectively decides what is good, and humans have to accept that; or
Subjective to God and subjective to humans, meaning that God decides what is good, but humans can also decide what is good.


Comment