Critical Thinking/Ethics class...need different views on question below. Thanks!!?

Question

Is an action morally right simply because God approves of it, or does God approve of an action because it is morally right?

Answer 1

Here's the flaw in your question:  a critical thinking class would NEVER ask a question entailing a decision or an action based on an imaginary figure which is the reason why it's a "critical thinking" class, get it?  Now, such questions would be asked and are expected in Sunday school

Answer 2

i'm very surprised that a class about critical thinking would use examples involving god, first and foremost.

anyway, i guess we can boil down your question to "is an action moral because it is permitted, or is it permitted because it is moral?"

morals are a personally and culturally subjective set of social guidelines. as such, moralism is an inherantly subjective concept. in terms of human social dynamics, i think it's that actions are moral because they are permitted. what people deem as moral and immoral is largely based on what their various cultures view as moral.

the vast majority of americans would likely view the concept of an honor killing as immoral while people from a tribalistic middle eastern society may view an honor killing as morally acceptable.

conversely, the hypothetical tribal society may view certain types of clothing as immoral while american people would see no problem with them. (this is a rather extreme example, but it's just to illustrate a point)

Answer 3

Morality is (or should be) based upon common sense and sound judgment. I don't think that god has any thing to do with morality. The moral choice in any situation represents the greater good.

Answer 4

It's a trick question - the critical thinking answer is that there is no God.  

Answer 5

Hmm, tough one, I don't think God has anything to do with what I THINK is morally right. For example, I think judging homosexuals and thinking homosexuality is a sin, is wrong. They are humans, and you have to respect them equally. Many people say oh you know, homosexuality is a choice, only because they don't want to admit God made a mistake (which he did because your born homosexual not a choice). Think of it this way when did you decide you where heterosexual?  You didn't it's just natural same with homosexuality.  

Answer 6

Neither as God does not exist.

An action is morally right/wrong because each individual has an innate moral compass in addition to (or in conjunction with) what their society deems acceptable.

Answer 7

The questions assumes the existence of a god that is both moral and infallible.

Very well, let's accept that supposition:

If the action, or at least the idea of the action, pre-existed the god, or at least existed independently, then the god would be able to consider the action and judge it to be either right or wrong.

If, on the other hand, the action could not exist without the god pre-imagining it, then it could only be a moral action, which would leave open the question of the origin of immoral action. (Because surely the perfectly moral god would be incapable of pre-ordaining them).

So in a universe that included a god who was not only morally perfect but also omnipotent, either there would only be morally good events, or else there would have to be another, equally omnipotent creator of morally evil actions.

Answer 8

For a question that has the words "ethics" and "thinking" in the title,sure looks like it only offers one narrow minded view to either answer,since there is no such thing as god why give that as an option?

Answer 9

That does indeed sound like an ethics class problem though.

The issue is the distinction between teleology and deontology (if you don't know these terms yet in ethics class you both will and should).  Can an action be categorically good or bad in all circumstances?  Is it wrong to lie, even under oath, to a Gestapo squad seeking the children hiding in your neighbor's attic?  Is it right to avoid killing another human being even as he is about to pour a virulent contaminant into a city water supply that would kill thousands?  For absolute deontology to be correctr, the answer has to be "yes".  

But if God, or yourself as a moral agency, makes exceptions (and almost no theists take the "do not kill" commandment literally, even saying falsely that the word meant only murder when it used for many kinds of death including execution in the Bible) based on outcome or alternative choices, then we must surely become entirely teleological and take felicife calculus as the only valid metric for a moral choice.  As such we must be act based utilitarians, right?  Moral agenets who weigh the outcome of each choice and take the ones that maximize benefot or minimize harm.

The problem there of course comes in other examples, even if they are often ones that strain credulity.  If a madman demands you rape a child to save 20 lives, is it moral to do so? Certainly children can survive being raped, and certainly the loss of 20 lives is worse than that rape (if you disagree, then just ask this question in reverse - is it OK to kill 20 people to save a child from being raped?), but there are few indeed who would make that choice even if some equally bizarre condition were set up so that he could not renege or be making false promises/threats.

The truth is we are ALL teleologists - there is not one person no matter how religious or how dedicated to categorical imperatives who would not steal to save his child's life if no other alternative were possible.   But equally true is that we all, by social conditioning and evolutionary psychological development, have rules against certain types of behavior deep in our psyche.

For the specific question, which is really just a question on whether deontology derived from a putative God is a valid source of morality, a few examples of what God approves of in Scripture, from genocide to slavery to execution of all manner of innocuous transgressors, should suffice.  An intriguing corollary to examine (assuming you are not in a religious school) might be whether God could be said to even be a teleologically sound moral agent.

EDIT for GC below.  I'll see your John and raise you an Isaiah.  45:7 to be precise.  Can light create darkness?  Sure!  Which is harder to see - a dim shape in a dark night or a dim shape just beyond the reach of a streetlight on a dark night?  On a more theological basis, if evil exists and God did not create it who did?  Does God have the power to override that choice or not?  Does evil exist without being in God's plan?

Kind of funny comparison here.  A friend of mine is a Captain in the Navy (UK Royal Navy).  His command is not a hugev ship but it has more than 100 crew members, working 24/7 on a whole host of various jobs that no human being could possibly master in complete detail across their whole range.

If a fire drill is not completed on schedule while he is asleep, it is his fault.  If a maintenance order is not completed properly by an engineer performing a complex task outside his (the Captain's) expertise. it is his fault.

He is less well educated academcially and paid less than I am as a corporate middle manager to assume total responsibility for every thing that can go wrong on a military vessel whether he sees it or not, whether he can do the job or not, or even understand the job or not.  He's 42 years old, and just a normal pretty bright pretty capable guy, but I can name ten people brighter and ten people more technically proficient than him that we both know (and he would both agree, and probably say the same about me).

And the UK government does not give him the easy cop-out that you seem to give to an ominpotent, eternal, omnisicient universal creator who knows and sees all and can shape the very universe itself out of nothing.

You have low standards I must say.

Answer 10

If things are moral simply because God approves of it, then morality is at the whim of God.  God could at any moment decide that murder is now good.

If God approves of an action because its morally right, that means we don't need God for morality.

This problem is known as Euthyphro's dilemma and was proposed in Plato's dialogue "Euthyphro ".  And yes this is a question that would be asked in a legitimate critical thinking class.

Answer 11

1.) God is just pretend.

2.) "Because I said so" can NEVER be the sole justification for claiming an action is moral.  From there it's a very short step to go to "I was only following orders"...

Answer 12

Either option is nauseating.  

Answer 13

This...doesn't sound like a legitimate critical thinking class.

For starters, who is to say God approves of anything? THAT is critical thinking.

Answer 14

God is light and in Him is no darkness.  1John1:5  This means that what God does, thinks and commands can only be good.  There is no evil in Him.  Can a light create darkness?  No.   So, whatever God commands on morality is as it should be and it is good because that is His nature.  

Answer 15

Sounds more like a circular logic apologistic class question.

Answer 16

Most churches let their profits decide on an interpretation.

Answer 17

People have to figure out what makes sense by taking everything into account.  If you try to base it on a Bible verse then you can always find a verse to justify any position.

Answer 18

Religion does not have the exclusive rights to morals. Religious fundamentalism will provoke a good person to do evil things.

Answer 19

Both your critical thinking and ethics will benefit from doing your own homework.

Answer 20

Ask god...no answer? thought so!

Answer 21

I'm sorry, but "God" and "Critical Thinking" are incompatible, as Epicurus worked out 2300 years ago.

Answer 22

Paul, Romans 9

"Potter's clay" argument.  God can do whatever he chooses and it's right.

According to Paul and the bible, anyway.