This is a question aimed at all but in particular for believers.

Sometimes our loyal inclination may clash with our moral obligation and even loyalty may sometimes pose as a morality.

Morality too may be subjective as some people's moral framework is attuned to their religious, societal or cultural laws or may just differ from person to person.

However no matter what our personal beliefs may be, in certain situations we may lend support to even those whose moral code may contrast with our own.

But sometimes we put our loyalties first and at times we may even have good reasons to or perhaps particular circumstances may call for it.

But in the case where morality is ascribed a governor - a deity - if one's god was said to order his/her subject to commit an act that in the process will undermine a particular moral code.....does that particular command at that requested time become a temporary virtue or is such a believer compelled to place loyalty over morality....

Just for the record this at all is not meant to be an entrapping question so I hope believers don't mind my asking because even in the secular world many are still faced with such a scenario of bending the rules. And so the question can still be interpreted and answered by unbelievers but certainly tailored to their own reality.

If you're loyal in what is least, you'll be loyal in what is much.
No more no less.

i cannot stop admiring your intellectual competence. the other time i saw a topic on the front page, i knew immediately it was you who posted that topic. and when i clicked on it, i wasnt disappointed! your intellectual competence is rear among women. all women care about is the next fashion in town, the latest pop song and the latest boyfriend in town. no wonder men are the ones at the helm of affairs in much of the world. but back to your post. its a difficult one. this is becos morality is seen in different light in different parts of the world.

Firestar I always admire your quiet literary style....
But this is more of a to be or not to be style question
To be loyal at certain times or to be moral at all times...
Albeit morality is subjective and sometimes loyalty may pose as a morality
I guess it’s similar to utilitarianism in some respects...

Thank you solbil but I’m just an inquisitive person.

As a believer, morality has to do with what is good, and what is good is what God says is good. I should not necessarily pick morality over loyalty or vice-versa because, to me, morality demands that i should be loyal...to God. I should be loyal to man as long as it does not lead me to be disloyal to God.

I hope i understood your question well.

I agree with Italo here. Morality is not subjective. God defines what is moral and what is immoral hence there is really no conflict between morality and loyalty to God. I am speaking as a christian here.

^^^

There is this intuitive feel about an action having an intrinsic moral value on its own, that its occurence triggers a subconscious moral judgement.

IF God's whims dictates the good and bad, then it goes against our moral antenna. For example, God instructs a genocide or murder, the individual receiving the order will be hesitant and feel that alarm in his head.

Loyalty is seen as a moral obligation, at least in one's philosophy, but within the moral scale is loyalty the highest priority? Sometimes. In some "moralities" self preservation is.

emöfine2:
But in the case where morality is ascribed a governor - a deity - if one's god was said to order his/her adherent to commit an act that in the process will undermine a particular moral code.....does that particular commandment at that requested time become a temporary virtue or is such a believer compelled to place loyalty over morality....

This is one of the things that has always bothered me about the story where Abraham was about to sacrifice his son Isaac. This is the first time I've seen the issue that was bothering me expressed so clearly though.

I know it was just a test of loyalty, but at the same time you have to wonder why Abraham was loyal when what he was being ordered to do was no less evil than what other "gods" made their followers do. What happened to his morality in that period of time when he resolved to go through with the sacrifice?

This story is just one of the multiple screwed up stories in the Bible, with the story of Job being another.

italo: As a believer, morality has to do with what is good, and what is good is what God says is good. I should not necessarily pick morality over loyalty or vice-versa because, to me, morality demands that i should be loyal...to God. I should be loyal to man as long as it does not lead me to be disloyal to God.

I hope i understood your question well.

So whatever “God” says is good?

But “God” (I believe you are Christian but correct me if I’m wrong) has already given a moral template for “his” subjects to follow and never break. So if whatever “he” says is good (which may possibly contradict with “his” own written laws as we have seen in the bible) why then have a standard moral code? Or is it not fixed? Or could they perhaps be broken at "God's" discretion?

In the Bible we have read instances where “God” ordered the Israelites to wipe out whole nations...in any other context this is genocide...but because “God” allowed for it...it is thus believed by “his” followers to be an act of “good” in that current situation because what "he" says is “good”...

So I’m left wondering should morality be attached to an altering agent?

And believers of a different faith/deity and even non-believers (who are not loyal to your "God") will certainly have their own moral framework...so that in which you or similar believers of your own faith may perceive as moral because of that in which ordained such act...may very well be regarded as immoral by people not in your faith...

Mr_Anony: I agree with Italo here. Morality is not subjective. God defines what is moral and what is immoral hence there is really no conflict between morality and loyalty to God. I am speaking as a christian here.

Since “God” defines what is moral or immoral then couldn’t god tomorrow present a once considered immoral act as moral?

And when I said morality is subjective I meant that a collective/individual’s ethical laws may not be mirrored in another collective/individual’s society i.e. certain laws when it comes to marriageable age or s[i]e[/i]xu[i]a[/i]l orientation.

Kay 17: ^^^

There is this intuitive feel about an action having an intrinsic moral value on its own, that its occurence triggers a subconscious moral judgement.

IF God's whims dictates the good and bad, then it goes against our moral antenna. For example, God instructs a genocide or murder, the individual receiving the order will be hesitant and feel that alarm in his head.

Loyalty is seen as a moral obligation, at least in one's philosophy, but within the moral scale is loyalty the highest priority? Sometimes. In some "moralities" self preservation is.

Precisely.

PhysicsQED:

This is one of the things that has always bothered me about the story where Abraham was about to sacrifice his son Isaac. This is the first time I've seen the issue that was bothering me expressed so clearly though.

I know it was just a test of loyalty, but at the same time you have to wonder why Abraham was loyal when what he was being ordered to do was no less evil than what other "gods" made their followers do. What happened to his morality in that period of time when he resolved to go through with the sacrifice?

This story is just one of the multiple screwed up stories in the Bible, with the story of Job being another.

The issue with this is that in some cases it can be very dangerous...the example of Abraham highlights a deity who governs a moral framework but in order to test Abrahams faithfulness (loyalty) "he" orders him to kill – undermining a particular moral code "he" provided – and for that instant, attempting to sacrifice Issac is “good”. But after Abraham showed his willingness to oblige to the will of his “God” he is stopped...thus at that moment killing Isaac after being told not to would be deemed wrong. So within that sequence of events of “God” ordering Abraham to sacrifice his son and ordering him again not to...murder shifts from a bad act to a good act then to a bad act yet again...and what seems to separate an immoral behaviour from a seemingly moral one is loyalty...thus loyalty to “God” is placed above even “his” moral laws.

In this story I wasn’t gripped by Abraham’s loyalty so much as I was by “God”’s manipulation.

@topic To murder for example is not considered good and is a breach of the law of all religious bodies and also in secular societies.
However (and this is in the most extreme cases) to perhaps murder a person (maybe such an individual is a national threat) may be seen to serve the greater society. Thus even though usually it is not seen to be good to murder, sometimes the goal post may shift and priorities may change. But we can still do wrong in the hope of making a situation right. So even though killing may be the right answer in certain scenarios does it make killing right? But even though such act of killing is immoral it still satisfies a moral obligation – i.e. police protecting the society...or I suppose it may even be attached to loyalty to one’s own nation etc.

emöfine2:
Since “God” defines what is moral or immoral then couldn’t god tomorrow present a once considered immoral act as moral?

And when I said morality is subjective I meant that a collective/individual’s ethical laws may not be mirrored in another collective/individual’s society i.e. certain laws when it comes to marriageable age or s[i]e[/i]xu[i]a[/i]l orientation.

Well, my God never changes, He is the same forever so there is no way He can possibly present an immoral act as moral.

About subjective morality and a society's ethical laws, I believe that here you are confusing morality with some sort of legal system. They are not the same. What we believe as right or wrong are universal.
Considering the examples you brought up, for instance we don't judge age of marriage by an actual age rather by perceived maturity. A government fixes a number so that it can make it a law.
As for sexual orientation, the same applies: we were made for heterosexual sex within marriage. any other form of sex is immoral and a weird kind of lust.

The law and morality are two different things.

Emofine raised a great point with Abraham and Isaac story. God instructed Abraham to kill/sacrifice Isaac to him. At that moment, that was a universal good as the standard is God's wishes. Also at the altar, God's intervening instruction to stop the sacrifice was another good.

So the content of morality changes. Same as seen in the religious orders in the Old and New Testament.

Mr_Anony:

Well, my God never changes, He is the same forever so there is no way He can possibly present an immoral act as moral.

About subjective morality and a society's ethical laws, I believe that here you are confusing morality with some sort of legal system. They are not the same. What we believe as right or wrong are universal.
Considering the examples you brought up, for instance we don't judge age of marriage by an actual age rather by perceived maturity. A government fixes a number so that it can make it a law.
As for sexual orientation, the same applies: we were made for heterosexual sex within marriage. any other form of sex is immoral and a weird kind of lust.

The law and morality are two different things.

Point taken about morality and societal laws. Sometimes the law of a society may even clash with certain morals although societal laws may influence an individual's moral compass.

Mr Anony but not everybody acknowledges your “God” and others may have their own god.

And don't you think there is a difference between saying...whatever god say's is "good"....against...it is "good" to do whatever god says?

emöfine2:

Point taken about morality and societal laws. Sometimes the law of a society may even clash with certain morals although societal laws may influence an individual's moral compass.

Mr Anony but not everybody acknowledges your “God” and others may have their own god.

For anything to be a true standard for morality
1. It must be all-powerful or at least more powerful than man i.e. must be powerful enough to punish evil and reward good.
2. It must be omniscient i.e. must be able to properly know and understand everything and every motive
3. It must be all-seeing i.e. must be able to see a case from every possible angle. No evidence should escape it.
4. It must agree with man's conscience but must be able to determine when man deviates from the dictates of his conscience.
5. It must be impartial and must deliver justice irrespective of persons.
6. It must not waver and must not change with the wind i.e. what was once evil will not suddenly become good and vice versa(note this is different from it's permissiveness)
7. It must essentially be singular i.e. it must be of one mind and purpose and must not be self-contradicting.

It is to the extent of which a legal system satisfies these criteria that we can say it is a just law. Do you agree?

The criteria I have laid out are the characteristics of my God. Any other god must have these same characteristics to be an objective standard for morality.

And don't you think there is a difference between saying...whatever god say's is "good"....against...it is "good" to do whatever god says?

I don't see any major difference; either way you would be good by doing whatever God says

yes it does

Onion.

tpia@:
Onion.

rings ? yummy

Mr_Anony:

For anything to be a true standard for morality
1. It must be all-powerful or at least more powerful than man i.e. must be powerful enough to punish evil and reward good.
2. It must be omniscient i.e. must be able to properly know and understand everything and every motive
3. It must be all-seeing i.e. must be able to see a case from every possible angle. No evidence should escape it.
4. It must agree with man's conscience but must be able to determine when man deviates from the dictates of his conscience.
5. It must be impartial and must deliver justice irrespective of persons.
6. It must not waver and must not change with the wind i.e. what was once evil will not suddenly become good and vice versa(note this is different from it's permissiveness)
7. It must essentially be singular i.e. it must be of one mind and purpose and must not be self-contradicting.

It is to the extent of which a legal system satisfies these criteria that we can say it is a just law. Do you agree?

The criteria I have laid out are the characteristics of my God. Any other god must have these same characteristics to be an objective standard for morality.



I don't see any major difference; either way you would be good by doing whatever God says

Should our morals be attached to an agent that is not impersonal?

And what if other gods satisfied those characteristics that to you qualifies one to be an objective standard morality?

buzugee: rings ? yummy

Lol.

emöfine2:

Should our morals be attached to an agent that is not impersonal?

And what if other gods satisfied those characteristics that to you qualifies one to be an objective standard morality?

If by impersonal, you mean impartial then no our morals must be attached to an agent that doesn't waver if not there won't be any true basis upon which we can judge good and evil.
It is not the personality of the agent that is in question but it's impartiality.

If any other gods satisfy these characteristics, then they would essentially be the same and hence there would be no contradiction. My argument will still stand.

Even though my convictions and my own understanding may not necessarily be in harmony with what your saying I really appreciate your comments.

As regards to the topic as an irreligious person I can perhaps also bend the rules if I believed my action may benefit the majority or even those who I have a loyal inclination to but I don't adhere to a moral agent only my conscious and common sense.
But if a god (regardless if the god is legitimate) ordered me to take the life of another (or commit something that would ordinarily be unpleasant or cause me to break the law) even if it was a "test" my conscious would be pricked so I would naturally decline. But if I perhaps understood the reasons why I was asked to carry out such action and how that may affect the majority and the future I would be really conflicted and whatever may inspire my next action would not be because of any "loyalty" to god but more so a sense of duty to my neighbours on earth.

emöfine2: Even though my convictions and my own understanding may not necessarily be in harmony with what your saying I really appreciate your comments.

As regards to the topic as an irreligious person I can perhaps also bend the rules if I believed my action may benefit the majority or even those who I have a loyal inclination to but I don't adhere to a moral agent only my conscious and common sense.
But if a god (regardless if the god is legitimate) ordered me to take the life of another (or commit something that would ordinarily be unpleasant or cause me to break the law) even if it was a "test" my conscious would be pricked so I would naturally decline. But if I perhaps understood the reasons why I was asked to carry out such action and how that may affect the majority and the future I would be really conflicted and whatever may inspire my next action would not be because of any "loyalty" to god but more so a sense of duty to my neighbours on earth.

Ok let us try this another way so as to divorce your mind from the image you might have of God:

Having your conscience intact, if you were all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing, impartial and unwavering in principle could you possibly be wrong when judging any matter?

I may know the final outcome and even the best possible solution but I would not interfere because that will betray a partiality IMHO.

emöfine2: I may know the final outcome and even the best possible solution but I would not interfere because that will betray a partiality IMHO.

You've lost me here.
The question was if any case was brought before you to judge, could you possibly be wrong seeing that you know everything about the case and you are incapable of showing favoritism?
It seems to me that you are saying that you won't judge at all because if your judgment favors anyone, it would mean that you are partial?
Sorry I disagree with you partiality is not about who gets favored but about whether the right person was favored.

Okay...I guess I hadn't really divorced the image I had of "God" when you asked me the question although I still think your description doesn't match that of "God" (well at least the one in the bible).

And I was looking at impartiality as neutral not fairness.

In any case if I had such characteristics I can thus provide the best possible answer but that doesn't necessarily mean that the solution I present may not involve an act that may be considered wrong like I talked about the case of murder in post no.10.

(However I would never create a situation where another will have to prove their loyalty or allegiance to me and that is why I find it hard to accept that the biblical god is impartial.)

emöfine2: Okay...I guess I hadn't really divorced the image I had of "God" when you asked me the question although I still think your description doesn't match that of "God" (well at least the one in the bible).

How so? which of the seven conditions I stated does not describe God.

And I was looking at impartiality as neutral not fairness.
In any case if I had such characteristics I can thus provide the best possible answer but that doesn't necessarily mean that the solution I present may not involve an act that may be considered wrong like I talked about the case of murder in post no.10.

It depends on who is considering your actions as wrong, remember you are the all-powerful, all-knowing creator and lawgiver. You would only have been wrong if you allowed Abraham to carry it out to the end because then you would be contradicting our own nature.

(However I would never create a situation where another will have to prove their loyalty or allegiance to me and that is why I find it hard to accept that the biblical god is impartial.)

I don't quite see the link between you asking someone to prove his/her allegiance and your impartiality

Mr_Anony:

For anything to be a true standard for morality
1. It must be all-powerful or at least more powerful than man i.e. must be powerful enough to punish evil and reward good.
2. It must be omniscient i.e. must be able to properly know and understand everything and every motive
3. It must be all-seeing i.e. must be able to see a case from every possible angle. No evidence should escape it.
4. It must agree with man's conscience but must be able to determine when man deviates from the dictates of his conscience.
5. It must be impartial and must deliver justice irrespective of persons.
6. It must not waver and must not change with the wind i.e. what was once evil will not suddenly become good and vice versa(note this is different from it's permissiveness)
7. It must essentially be singular i.e. it must be of one mind and purpose and must not be self-contradicting.

It is to the extent of which a legal system satisfies these criteria that we can say it is a just law. Do you agree?

The criteria I have laid out are the characteristics of my God. Any other god must have these same characteristics to be an objective standard for morality.



I don't see any major difference; either way you would be good by doing whatever God says

The absurdity of placing a moral agent as the writer of moral rules, who writes the rules for this agent??

God is not a man, when will men understand that?

Kay 17:

The absurdity of placing a moral agent as the writer of moral rules, who writes the rules for this agent??

It seems to me that you assume that a moral agent should not also make the law. On what do you base this assumption?

First, its possible to distinguish btw morality and good/evil. Morality engages the right vs the wrong, its a cultural insight as to good/evil. Society is the creator of morality subsequently subcultures like religion. The necessity lies in its usefulness not ceremony, and all societies perceive that need.

Good/Evil deal with the level of agreement and harmony with the environment and Nature. Perfection points to a conflictless world, btw man vs man, Nature vs man.

Kay 17: First, its possible to distinguish btw morality and good/evil. Morality engages the right vs the wrong, its a cultural insight as to good/evil. Society is the creator of morality subsequently subcultures like religion. The necessity lies in its usefulness not ceremony, and all societies perceive that need.

No my friend it is not possible to separate morality and good/evil. Morality by definition is the distinguishing between good and evil. Society is not the creator of morality, If I was born on a desert island, I can argue that I would still think it evil to harm another human being if I met one. Morality tests in infants have shown that babies as young as six months already have moral inclinations. This goes to suggest that morality is universal and not a tool of sorts developed to suit our purposes. You can check out these links.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275892/Were-born-moral-Babies-tell-good-evil-months.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Good/Evil deal with the level of agreement and harmony with the environment and Nature. Perfection points to a conflictless world, btw man vs man, Nature vs man.

This part of your post i fail to grasp. You seem to me to be describing some utopia which I cannot relate to the points made in this thread

Mr_Anony:
How so? which of the seven conditions I stated does not describe God.

I interpreted impartiality as neutral which god most certainly isn't.

It depends on who is considering your actions as wrong, remember you are the all-powerful, all-knowing creator and lawgiver. You would only have been wrong if you allowed Abraham to carry it out to the end because then you would be contradicting our own nature.

But you had already admitted that whatever god says is "good" so if Abraham wasn't stopped from sacrificing Isaac would you still not mark such command from god as "good"...after all Abraham would have just been seen to obey god.