Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

asaris · 10-11-2005, 06:27 PM

Well, my answer to this is almost certainly the most controversial, and likely the most complex. Because an internet forum lends itself to oversimplification, let me just note that my position is largely the same as that of John Duns Scotus, so if it seems interesting to you, but overly simple, I assure you that its oversimplification is because of the medium (not to mention my own inadequacies next to the Subtle Doctor), not because the view itself is overly simple.

The view is this: God, being free, did not have to create. But given that he chose to create, he had to create beings that had their end (telos, not eschaton) in him. So, while he was free to choose whatever system of morality he liked, he had to choose a system whose goal was union with him. To put it another way, any system of morality that met these conditions was going to be one that revealed God's own attributes. But He had the choice as to which attributes of his he chose to reveal. So while the system of morality was up to God, he had to will a just system as opposed to an unjust system.

To put it another way, there's both an ontological claim and an epistemological claim here. The ontological claim is that some commands of morality could have been otherwise. There's a pretty clear analogy here; within the system of particular morality, we have traffic laws which are binding, but obviously could have been otherwise without being unjust (speed limits, what side of the road we drive on, etc.) The epistemological claim is that we don't know that morality couldn't have been different.

But note that none of this should be taken to mean that we can in fact act in a way otherwise than what was in fact commanded. That's why He's God.

10-11-2005, 06:27 PM	#3 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	Well, my answer to this is almost certainly the most controversial, and likely the most complex. Because an internet forum lends itself to oversimplification, let me just note that my position is largely the same as that of John Duns Scotus, so if it seems interesting to you, but overly simple, I assure you that its oversimplification is because of the medium (not to mention my own inadequacies next to the Subtle Doctor), not because the view itself is overly simple. The view is this: God, being free, did not have to create. But given that he chose to create, he had to create beings that had their end (telos, not eschaton) in him. So, while he was free to choose whatever system of morality he liked, he had to choose a system whose goal was union with him. To put it another way, any system of morality that met these conditions was going to be one that revealed God's own attributes. But He had the choice as to which attributes of his he chose to reveal. So while the system of morality was up to God, he had to will a just system as opposed to an unjust system. To put it another way, there's both an ontological claim and an epistemological claim here. The ontological claim is that some commands of morality could have been otherwise. There's a pretty clear analogy here; within the system of particular morality, we have traffic laws which are binding, but obviously could have been otherwise without being unjust (speed limits, what side of the road we drive on, etc.) The epistemological claim is that we don't know that morality couldn't have been different. But note that none of this should be taken to mean that we can in fact act in a way otherwise than what was in fact commanded. That's why He's God. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche