I always appreciate the thoughtfulness of your responses, general_re.
Yes and no. God is self-defining. And it is true that there are drawbacks to attaching labels to God. Yet if God is truly there and is not silent; that is, if He has spoken and revealed Himself in verbal proposition form, then we can at least confidently say;
1 Corinthians 13
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
What is the alternative? That our moral impulses are nothing more than electro/chemical reactions in our brains that are nothing but the result of an impersonal, random concatenations of molecules in motion over time? Of what significance are such concatenations? If such were actually the case, why should I feel any obligation to obey such inclinations? Conversely, why does my heart alternately praise of condemn me for either obedience or disobedience to the moral law? (Interestingly, what should I make of my inveterate inclination to DISOBEY the moral law?) In either case, though, what significance would either obedience or disobedience to the moral law ultimately have in a random, impersonal universe?
Cordially,
Indeedey and there is the big relief.
I think in that case "morality" boils down to how each individual answers the question, "what can I get away with?"
Otherwise we have to assume -- either explicitly or tacitly -- the existence of some transcendent moral order that makes it "wrong" do do certain things even if we can get away with them.
If you look back through this thread, you'll notice that by and large people are assuming that such a transcendent moral order does, indeed, exist.
Some folks, such as the good general offer a middle ground, corresponding to a general assent among people as to what they will or will not tolerate. This falls short in a couple of ways, though.
First off, there's not a whole lot to separate "general assent" from mob rule, and in a moral system based on "general assent," it's difficult to say that mob rule is actually wrong, as opposed to merely distasteful. For example, if we abide by general assent, it's difficult to find legitimate grounds for complaint when the Third Reich undertakes to gas the Jews.
But of course, we just know that it's wrong to gas the Jews, regardless of the fact that it enjoyed general assent. In that vein, general_re has also referred to "an innate sense of morality" which could potentially moderate the urge to mob rule.
But again, this is an appeal to some transcendant moral order. It could be an evolved trait -- "Moral DNA", if you will. But as Diamond points out, it appears that "morality" will have lost its meaning in the context of this conversation. If it's an evolutionary thing, morality becomes a matter of random mutation! At any rate, this idea of "moral DNA" is really just the biochemical equivalent of "what can I get away with?"
Which apparently leaves us to pin this "innate sense of morality" on some non-physical phenomenon. This leads us directly to a consideration of moral authority. Must I bow to a purported moral authority if I "don't believe in" the non-physical phenomenon from which it allegedly springs?
Obviously not: if this non-physical phenomenon is merely a made-up concept, then the "innate sense of morality" reduces to a matter of personal belief and moral relativism.
If the "innate sense of morality" is to have authority, it has to be valid even if we do not believe in it. Appeals to general assent don't really work here (they lead to a circular argument); nor does the idea of "moral DNA (who's to say this isn't just a potentially successful "moral mutation?").
Instead, it seems that moral authority comes only if the source of this innate sense is truly transcendent -- some entity or property of nature that can somehow differentiate between right and wrong and, more importantly, enforce the difference in some manner. The "property of nature" approach seems weak, in that it does not easily explain how a Pharaoh can "get away with it" until he dies at a ripe old age.
Which leaves an entity, coupled with some different concept of what "life" is.
Why should you obey the impulse to eat when you are hungry, or to drink when you are thirsty? Certainly you are capable of ignoring those impulses, although I also think you understand the consequences of so doing ;)
In either case, though, what significance would either obedience or disobedience to the moral law ultimately have in a random, impersonal universe?
If you don't happen to accept Aquinas's thinking that suicide is a mortal and unforgivable sin, then there may not be any overarching consequence to ignoring those hunger pangs either. On the other hand, that doesn't mean there are no consequences in the here and now.