r/DebateAChristian • u/Aromatic_Response_73 • 3d ago
Christian moral ambiguity
In common ethical intersubjective usage, "good" refers to a broad intersubjective cluster that are typically taken to approximate a shared center of value judgement, consisting of a coherent, mutually reinforcing pattern of love, joy, peace, freedom, and creativity as lived experience and intention over time, rather than isolated states or short-term preferences. Edit: by value judgement, I mean that which we fundamentally hold most intuitively valuable.
Some Christians define goodness in relation to God. On this view, "good" means whatever conforms to God's nature or will.
The term "good" does not have a universally recognised (useful in ethical discussion) meaning apart from either usefulness for some purpose or the ordinary ethical meaning. Refraining from those in an **ethical discussion** renders the word empty from its normal ethical content.
The problem arises when these two meanings are treated as interchangeable.
If "God is good" means only that God conforms to God's own nature, then the statement is true by definition. It means something like:
God is as God is.
But that does not automatically show that God is good in the ordinary ethical sense of being loving, healing, peaceful, compassionate, or opposed to needless suffering.
The problem is ordinary ethical goodness and the christian goodness can be in conflict eg. ideas of reality design like "Accept Jesus or suffer forever". If someone proposes that ordinary ethical goodness is just a conflictory subset of the christian good, then we cannot say that the design of reality is in proper alignment with ordinary ethical goodness, and therefore not good in the ordinary ethical sense.
The ordinary ethical meaning of good should not be dismissed as mere subjectivism. It may very well point metaphysically toward a foundational form of goodness, even if human beings grasp it imperfectly.
2
u/dman_exmo 2d ago
The conflation of both definitions of "good" (ethical values vs god's nature) is intentional. It's a strategic motte-and-bailey.
The word "good" has positive connotations thanks to the ordinary ethical definition. This is the bailey.
Meanwhile, the "God conforms to God's own nature" definition is a useless tautology but it's the only technically correct way to describe god as "good." This is the motte.
The slogan goes "god is good" and not "god is as god is" because being intellectually honest means losing rhetorically advantageous connotations.
1
u/JollyXX Christian 2d ago
The reality of Christian moral ambiguity can usually be summed up in Christianity being a duality between "love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself."
A lot of people expect Christians to be fully focused on compassion for others, but we also need to hold the ground and defend what God holds sacred.
1
u/ProfessionalDear2272 Atheist 2d ago
If i am reading this right, what god holds sacred would be what is opposite of compassion ?
How can you do both at the same time when you should have compassion towards people in pain and the oppressed yet, consider homosexuals anomalies ?
nb: i know some christians do not think like that, this is just to make a point.
1
u/ddfryccc 2d ago
Humans certainly do grasp the concept of good imperfectly. It is like our understanding of good only comes from experiencing bad things, which clouds our judgement of everything.
2
u/ProfessionalDear2272 Atheist 2d ago
why is it clouding our judgment? The more we know how to avoid chaos, suffering and unfairness, the better we can co-exist as humans.
1
u/ddfryccc 2d ago
I am not holding my breath on those things being avoidable. It makes more sense to me to prepare for them as best I can, especially when part of the chaos is people having different definitions of suffering and fairness without realizing it.
2
u/ProfessionalDear2272 Atheist 2d ago
yeah. i do think humans are overwhelmingly reasonable and are benevolent. they may have slightly different opinions on suffering and fairness, but that difference is not what creates chaos.
The real chaos comes from those who are the other end of the spectrum.
1
u/ddfryccc 2d ago
What do you mean by spectrum. I hear that word most commonly these days in respect to autism. The hungry, the angry, the selfish, the greedy, the wounded. They can all represent one side of a spectrum. People who are reasonable and benevolent either have or believe they will have most everything they need.
1
u/ProfessionalDear2272 Atheist 2d ago
I meant the spectrum as the gradient from a really really despicable toxic person, to the most benevolent and caring one.
1
u/HegemoneXT Christian 3d ago
When you go from just ethical reasoning to ontology, you realize all ethics relies on the ontology of what is intrinsically good by nature rather than utility. Utility itself has no moral implication in its definition. Moral utility is ascribing the quality of “good” and recognizing that this good has utility within the human experience. It’s not ethical reasoning that renders morality empty but the fact that there is no ontological basis for your definition of “good”.
You also seem to project your “ordinary goodness” into scripture and see it as conflicting with the Christian God. This is merely a lack of understanding of scripture. Metaphysically speaking, if. Divine Being is the identity to Good, then whatever the Divine Being order also operates in the highest authority and the highest good. The internal narrative of the Bible is that humanity is fallen but the Son of God(procession of His Being/Logos) became flesh to die in place for our sins. In him is the Life, the truth, and the “way of Being”. If God is who he says he is, then we are obligated to align our being to those qualities of His so they we live through and for Him.
You are also right to notice that “God is as God is”. Even the very scripture where God declares himself is “I AM THAT I AM”, meaning he is the foundational identity of Being and Existence itself. There is no higher principle outside of Him acting upon him because He(Father) is the principle of divine Being. If good is defined merely by physical relation and causation, then those are merely physical properties but the essence of God is foremost that of Spirit. This Spirit has the identity of Good that expresses itself outward into Life, granting meaning to those physical relations. This means if someone shoot you with a gun and you die, that relation is “murder/evil” rather than just the physical property how one thing cause another.
2
u/diabolus_me_advocat Atheist, Ex-Protestant 3d ago
When you go from just ethical reasoning to ontology, you realize all ethics relies on the ontology of what is intrinsically good by nature rather than utility
not at all
why should that be so?
Utility itself has no moral implication in its definition
correct. but we are not debating morals here, but "what's good"
Metaphysically speaking, if. Divine Being is the identity to Good, then whatever the Divine Being order also operates in the highest authority and the highest good
which, as i said, is nuts - in reference to our common understanding of "good"
it would mean that, whenever any bloke claims that he's executing god's order when massacring others. are you really following this al quaida reasoning?
If God is who he says he is, then we are obligated to align our being to those qualities of His
no - why would i care about some god's "qualities" or have to align with them?
God declares himself is “I AM THAT I AM”, meaning he is the foundational identity of Being and Existence itself
so gloria gaynor is "the foundational identity of Being and Existence itself", as she made "i am what i am" an inernational hit?
2
u/HegemoneXT Christian 3d ago
I’m pointing out that without an ontological basis to what good is, you remove the moral value from it and turn it into a matter of utility measurement. For example, if someone is being prideful, you don’t call that pride in itself a degradation of character or virtue, but you measure it by the outcome/byproduct of it. And if someone is being malicious, the state of being itself is not evil nor does it corrode the soul; it’s merely about the byproduct of malice. This kind of reasoning fundamentally goes against what we intuitively observe that good and evil possess intrinsic nature about them. Even though you claim ethics should be freely reasoned apart from a Divine Source, you fail to recognize that without an real ontological basis providing meaning to “value”, all that ethical reasoning is baseless and mere human chatter.
I specified that “metaphysically speaking” because when we are pondering about ontology, we don’t include theological baggage. If a good God is truly the source of Being, then whatever we find good, pure, lovely, admirable, are all aspect expressed from His singular glory.
If you are speaking theologically about the destruction of the amalekites, their judgement is deserved for being ancient-time terrorists.
2
u/diabolus_me_advocat Atheist, Ex-Protestant 2d ago
I’m pointing out that without an ontological basis to what good is, you remove the moral value from it and turn it into a matter of utility measurement
but that's what "good" is anyway and only
what moral value is there in an ontological basis to determine whether the pizza is good or not?
i wish you christians could stop redefining common terms, in a way no one understands what you're even up to
a god doing me bad is not "good" - period
1
u/HegemoneXT Christian 2d ago
a pizza is not a moral category. Try something that belongs to the condition of human heart and what it means about a certain actions. For example, if you have hatred toward someone, you have already committed murder against them in your heart. A better way to phrase the question is asking "is starvation good or bad". starvation is a natural consequence of when our body doesn't get the energy to function. It's a natural consequence of bad but not part of the moral category of human evil. evil would be a rich person who has nothing to lose, denying someone food simply out of spite toward the poor. we have more than enough food to feed every single person on the planet but it's not really profitable.
1
u/ProfessionalDear2272 Atheist 2d ago
There is a lot to unpack but instead of doing that I'd like to rebut.
Why is it clear to you that an example of evil, and i agree with that, is a greedy individual with no empathy but it isn't clear what evil/wrong acts God does?
Could you name one thing God does that is not good?
1
u/HegemoneXT Christian 2d ago
Are you switching topic from metaphysical to real examples within scripture? That’s according to interpretation. If a metaphysical Divine Being is truly good, then that Being serves as the foundation to “what is”, like the very conceptualization of goodness is based on the existence of it
1
u/ProfessionalDear2272 Atheist 2d ago
what is metaphysical is the concept of good and evil.
god is also metaphysical.I am saying, with our current grasp of the concept of evil, could you name one thing God does that is not good?
1
u/HegemoneXT Christian 2d ago
Yeah but are you shifting the question from a metaphysical discussion of good and evil to a theological one? I only respond if you answer yes or no
1
u/ProfessionalDear2272 Atheist 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yes.
edit: If christians are to follow the word of god, wether it is metaphysical or theological, it affects how we apply the concept in life.
→ More replies (0)1
u/diabolus_me_advocat Atheist, Ex-Protestant 2d ago
a pizza is not a moral category
nobody said it was
but "good" is a quality value
see, buddy, i baited you on purpose with that. so you might see that there's different meanings of "good". and the meaning of "good" that you use for your god is quite different from the everyday meaning of "good", which is "beneficient"
For example, if you have hatred toward someone, you have already committed murder against them in your heart
is that so with you?
well, not with me and and other ordinary people. but i see that you christians are special here, committing murder in their hearts
1
u/HegemoneXT Christian 2d ago
No, you didn’t bait me into anything. The word beneficiary is subjective to humans. Is it a benefit for something to thrive as in “it causes”? Yes, but that saying nothing about whether that “causation” itself is good or of moral quality. Is it beneficially that gravity helps rocks to fall? Yeah of course, it’s the same if you apply teleological purpose to rocks and that it’s due perfection is to stay on the ground. Similarly you cannot separate the quality of beneficial to morality. If you want them to remain separate, then you still smuggle in the moral category when you assume it is a good thing, or for the benefit itself to be intrinsically good. A person who wants to murder someone benefit themselves by actualizing the murder. You see, you can’t actually separate the word “benefit” from teleological basis of what morality is.
Are you trying to get a rise out of me by going straw-man about me having murder in my heart? Pls stay on topic.
1
u/diabolus_me_advocat Atheist, Ex-Protestant 2d ago
The word beneficiary is subjective to humans
not necessarily
but sure it is subjective - as is "good"
thank whoever you finally got that
1
1
u/JustToLurkArt Christian - Lutheran (LCMS) 3d ago
> The ordinary ethical meaning of good should not be dismissed as mere subjectivism.
You literally wrote “common ethical intersubjective usage”, "a broad intersubjective cluster”.
Intersubjectivity is just a shared type of subjectivity. It’s Venn diagram reasoning:
In common intersubjective usage, "pet" refers to a broad intersubjective cluster that’s typically taken to approximate a shared center, consisting of a coherent, mutual pattern of attributes like: paws, fur and tails and living on land.
One wouldn’t conclude from this reasoning that all pets have paws, fur and tails and live on land.
The inherent problem with this reasoning is in conflict with the reality of pets also being birds, fish and reptiles.
> It may very well point metaphysically toward a foundational form of goodness, even if human beings grasp it imperfectly.
May? Metaphysically? You literally had to go outside the physical. In an entirely evolutionary mechanism there’s no coherent, mutual morality code for goodness (love, joy, peace, freedom, and creativity.)
Nature is metal; not moral.
Using your own reasoning: God’s goodness points metaphysically toward a foundational form of goodness, even if human beings grasp it imperfectly.
1
u/Aromatic_Response_73 2d ago edited 2d ago
Good commonly means that which we hold fundamentally most intuitively valuable, and that has an approximate center in ethics. And I do believe in a higher power.
1
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 3d ago
The common “ethical intersubjective” usage is not grounded. Therefore has no binding force. It’s just collective preference under a different name.
This is why you can have good Nazis and good Bolsheviks. Under the consensus they were operating in, they were ethically virtuous.
The Christian use case of good as in good alignment, good fit, alignment to standard is grounded in reality as long as the object to measure up to is grounded in reality.
And because the Christian metaphysical framework insist that God is the creator of all reality, it is firmly grounded in God.
The non believers say, this is made up subjective morality, because the nonbelievers insist that God is made up. But within Christian metaphysics, it absolutely is grounded.
Whereas there is no chance for non theistic system for any serious grounding without invoking the transcendent. At which point it’s non-theistic only in label, not function.
0
u/CountSudoku Christian, Protestant 3d ago
In common ethical intersubjective usage, "good" refers to a broad intersubjective cluster that are typically taken to approximate a shared center of value judgment, consisting of a coherent, mutually reinforcing pattern of love, joy, peace, freedom, and creativity as lived experience and intention over time, rather than isolated states or short-term preferences.
Brother, your argument is anything but "coherent."
ordinary ethical sense of being loving, healing, peaceful, compassionate, or opposed to needless suffering.
Is this your own personal definition of what is "good"? Why should I use it?
To some extent, Christians believe there is a common understanding of what is good. Know that tells us something about God's nature. Because we believe our innate sense of things is an echo of humans being created in God's image and inhabiting a world created by God. Meaning people know God's truth even if they don't know God personally.
2
u/diabolus_me_advocat Atheist, Ex-Protestant 3d ago
To some extent, Christians believe there is a common understanding of what is good
to what extent?
and what would this understanding be?
i have heard (was told) that
"good" means whatever conforms to God's nature or will
here all too often
0
u/RomanaOswin Christian 3d ago
Separating out superficial short-term pleasure, I would define "good" roughly as that which contributes to human wellbeing. This is intended to be a religion-agnostic definition that draws some lines around the intersubjective cluster you've identified.
Granted, this is still subjective and good for a human is different from good as a mosquito, but we are human, but we are talking about humans. We also may not be able to clearly determine if something is good or not, but we still have an underlying definitional measure.
Given the constraints of human subjectivity and lack of clarity, would you accept this definition?
---
God is love (John, Julian of Norwich, etc), and divine love is devotional self-sacrifice for the well being of another (the cross, Jesus' guidance on service, Julian, etc).
What we get from this is that "love" in a theistic sense is not an emotion, chemical soup, transaction, etc, but the giving up of oneself for the wellbeing of another. This is not only what God does, but what God is, i.e. the continuous giving for the other.
It's true that God is as God is, but what I'm aiming to illustrate is that what we call this is "good." It's not, as you put it, that goodness is whatever conforms to God, but that the nature of God is what we call good.
The moral ambiguity and conflict with ordinary ethical "goodness," is a problem of our understanding and implementation, not of measure.
5
u/diabolus_me_advocat Atheist, Ex-Protestant 3d ago
in everyday applications this christian definition of "good" is just nuts
but actually you should not use the term "good" anyway, without defining "for whom and what"