Prepping for class, I came across this interesting passage in Reid’s Essays on the Active Powers of the Human Mind (IV.4):
God’s moral perfection doesn’t consist in his having no power to act badly. [...] God’s moral perfection consists in this: having an irresistible power to do everything, he exercises it only in doing what is wisest and best.
I have two questions about this quote:
1. Are you inclined to agree with the general point that moral perfection consists not in lacking power to act badly, but in doing only what is wisest and best?
2. If you are (or were) a theist, are you (or would you be) inclined to agree with Reid’s more specific point that God’s moral perfection consists not in lacking power to act badly, but in doing only what is wisest and best?
1. I intuitively agree with the first point about just what moral perfection is, though I suspect that in trying to make it a part of a belief set I might find some complications.
2. If I were a theist I would want to agree with Reid. Once again, I think that it is in relation to other beliefs about the nature of God, that this might encounter difficulty.
Quincy
When GOD said to Moses ” I AM WHO AM ” He did not tell man ” I have being” but ” I AM BEING.” It seems that whenever we speak of GOD as having quality’s or attributes. we bring GOD down to man’s conception of himself. We transform GOD into our image and likeness. GOD does not have love, power, wisdom, being, or any other quality or virtue added onto HIS BEING. GOD IS LOVE, POWER, WISDOM and BEING.
In so much of the “Wisdom Literature” within RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY, PSYCHOLOGY and ZEN, man is being asked to turn from the Having Orientation to the Being Orientation by men like Socrates, Plato, Jesus,Thomas Merton, Gabriel Marcel, Abraham Joshua Heschel, Erich Fromm and D.T. Suzuki.
Moral perfection at it’s root is to think,feel and will through acts of unconditional love for oneself, for others and for GOD. It is only through acts of Unconditional Love that MAN is truly free. To have oneself is to loose oneself. To give oneself is to find oneself.
[...] http://unfspb.wordpress.com/2007/04/19/two-questions-about-moral-perfection/ [...]
Sometimes I have a really strange and humbling thought.
We realize that Man is the only self reflecting and other reflecting being in the universe as far as is known to the mind of Man. We know also that Man must reflect on the Being of GOD, but we have to wonder if a monkey or a porpoise can come any closer to the understanding of the Being of Man then we can come to the understanding of the BEING of GOD.
Is Reid saying that god does have the power to act badly but because he only exercises his power to do what is wisest and best – despite the fact that an irresistible power is acting on him to do “everything,” which I assume includes bad things – he is morally perfect?
If god is being acted upon by an irresistible power (meaning force acting on god that he would not possibly be able to resist), that paints god in a new light for me, one of a competing, limited force in nature rather than an omni-controlling one
Due to the fact that the terms are ambiguous, I find it difficult to favor this definition of moral perfection. Wisdom and making the best decision are subjective. When Reid says god’s perfection lies in the fact that he exercises his powers to do what is wisest and best, for whom is god making these decisions? Is god deciding what is best for god? Me? Reid? Europe? Beatrice Hennings in Hoboken, NJ? Since there are competing factions throughout our world, and since what is best or wise for one particular group is often in direct opposition to what is best and wise for another, how are we to arrive at any meaningful consensus as to what constitutes wisdom or what is best? It is subjective. There are innumerable disputes regarding what’s best and wisest. If god serves as arbiter in such disputes, isn’t he simply picking favorites? When he makes a decision that positively impacts one group, isn’t he also making a decision to negatively impact another?
I agree with some of what jack of April 20th said, but I disagree and criticize some of his statements as well. I agree that when we refer to god, “We transform GOD into our image and likeness.” People merely take human qualities and attribute those same qualities to god, even if those qualities are infinitely increased and attributed free of all negativity. However, immediately after making his statement, (and if I understand what you are saying correctly, Jack) Jack does exactly what he is criticizing others for doing: he attributes god with the qualities of “love,” “power,” “wisdom,” and “being.” These are human qualities.
I don’t see any reason for anyone who believes in a god or not to be satisfied with this explanation of moral perfection posited by Reid.
Reid, in my comment I was trying to express the idea that there is an infinitely unbridgeable qualitative difference between “the having mode of existence” and the “BEING MODE OF EXISTENCE.” When GOD says to man ” I AM WHO AM ” HE is not saying I have being
but ” I AM BEING.” The difference between “GOD’S BEING” and “man’s being” is “GOD IS BEING” and man receives being. “GOD’S BEING IS ETERNAL” and man’s being is eternal in only one direction. The same thing is true for the so called quality’s or attributes of GOD. To say that “GOD IS LOVE” is not the same as saying GOD has love or GOD loves.
That’s what I meant when I said GOD does not have love, power, wisdom, being, or any other quality or virtue added onto HIS BEING. GOD IS LOVE, POWER, WISDOM and BEING.
I realize that we can only use human language to speak of GOD, but the danger is that we tend to think that some of the abstract symbols we use such as the word “quality’s” or the word “attributes” have the same meaning for GOD as they have for man.
Andrew,I ment to address my previous comment to you.
jack
Ok Jack, thanks for clearing me up. I think I understand what you are saying better now.
I hope this doesn’t digress too far from the subject, but this made me think about Hume. I believe it was Hume who suggested that if there is a god, we are incapable of knowing ANYTHING about him/her/it. I believe he suggested that it is not at all necessary that god be anything like what most people make god out to be. He says that, for example, god could be a human. God may not be benevolent, and could possibly, even, be something which isn’t even conscience. He also makes another interesting statement about god. He suggests that since there is evil in the world that god must either be not all powerful, or else he would be able to defeat/displace evil. Or, if god is all powerful, then god himself must not be all good, or he would banish all evil. I think Hume would say that Reid’s definition, so to speak, about moral perfection is not good, or even irrelevant with respect to god.
Yes, I do agree that moral perfection consist of doing what is the best and the wisest. I agree with this because someones morals is what they believe to be right and even if it isnt always the best choice, its what that person believes to be the best and the wisest. For example, not telling someone the truth is wrong, but it could be the best and wisest thing to do because they might not be able to handle the truth. If I was a theist, I would agree with Reid, becuase it would mean that God does not always do what is right, just what is the best and the wisest.
Moral perfection is the total relinquishment of your survival instincts. It is the relinquishment of self. People who sacrifice their lives for others have therefore engaged in moral perfection. In other words, a conscious decision to totally relinquish self or your survival instincts which resulted in your death would be an “absolute” of this principle. This is exemplified by Jesus’ willingness to die for others. Or the story I read recently about a Marine who threw himself on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers.
http://www.amosknows.com
The key to understanding morality is encapsualted in the words of Christ when He told us what the two great commandments are. Study that statement by Christ. There is where we find the KEY to life, wisdom and fulfilment, and full realization of our humanity. He knows what he is talking about. No other thinker, writer, philosopher ever gave us the ‘key’, Jesus did it–of course, he knows, he made us in His likeness. Truth is simple, we humans complicate it to the point of boredom, perplexity, and confusion.
If we don’t understand morality and the perfection of the Creator in His moral aspects, it’s simply because we beat too much around the bush with metaphysical especulations and pride.