What does it mean for x to depend on y?
{x depends on y if and only if [x could not have been actual or possible without y or (y causes the actuality of x or y causes the condition that makes x possible)]}
For example, a thought A depends on a thinking thing B if and only if A could not have been actual or possible without B, or B causes the actuality of A or B causes the condition that makes A possible. Intuitively, it appears that a thought depends on a thinking thing.
Let’s now consider the following claim: “morality depends on God”. With the term “morality,” I simply mean a principle or a system of principles that rational and impartial people recognize as binding to a rational and impartial agent (assuming that such principle or principles are relevant to the agent’s situation S), who is trying to determine what needs to be done in S, in order to avoid causing any significant and unnecessary harm to herself or another living creature. Let’s suppose that Bill, an extremely wealthy individual, encounters Joe, an individual who desperately and immediately needs a $50 medication to survive. Here’s a moral principle that Bill should consider:
(P) “Try to help anyone whom you can help, as long as your act of helping does not impose unbearable or weightier burdens on yourself or other individuals.”
Clearly, if Bill is rational and impartial, he is supposed to recognize P as a binding principle that can (or even ought to) guide his action in that particular situation. So, if morality depends on God, then God must have caused the inherent bindingness of P. When a principle is inherently binding, it imposes itself to a rational and impartial agent as an obligation. How can God cause the inherent bindingness of P? A theist can give different possible answers. For example, it is possible that God causes it, since it emanates from God’s own nature or character. Suppose that God is compassionate. So, from God’s compassionateness, we can derive the duty to help someone with legitimate needs. It is also possible that God embedded a design or purpose for God’s creation and certain action-guiding principles just happen to be more conducive than others for realizing God’s embedded purpose for God's creation. So, in this picture, the cultivation of a helpful attitude is simply more conducive than the cultivation of an unhelpful attitude for realizing God’s purpose for God's creation. In this picture, an action N1 is morally right, because actions of a similar sort {N2, N3, N4…} are generally conducive to the realization of God’s purpose for God's creation.
{x depends on y if and only if [x could not have been actual or possible without y or (y causes the actuality of x or y causes the condition that makes x possible)]}
For example, a thought A depends on a thinking thing B if and only if A could not have been actual or possible without B, or B causes the actuality of A or B causes the condition that makes A possible. Intuitively, it appears that a thought depends on a thinking thing.
Let’s now consider the following claim: “morality depends on God”. With the term “morality,” I simply mean a principle or a system of principles that rational and impartial people recognize as binding to a rational and impartial agent (assuming that such principle or principles are relevant to the agent’s situation S), who is trying to determine what needs to be done in S, in order to avoid causing any significant and unnecessary harm to herself or another living creature. Let’s suppose that Bill, an extremely wealthy individual, encounters Joe, an individual who desperately and immediately needs a $50 medication to survive. Here’s a moral principle that Bill should consider:
(P) “Try to help anyone whom you can help, as long as your act of helping does not impose unbearable or weightier burdens on yourself or other individuals.”
Clearly, if Bill is rational and impartial, he is supposed to recognize P as a binding principle that can (or even ought to) guide his action in that particular situation. So, if morality depends on God, then God must have caused the inherent bindingness of P. When a principle is inherently binding, it imposes itself to a rational and impartial agent as an obligation. How can God cause the inherent bindingness of P? A theist can give different possible answers. For example, it is possible that God causes it, since it emanates from God’s own nature or character. Suppose that God is compassionate. So, from God’s compassionateness, we can derive the duty to help someone with legitimate needs. It is also possible that God embedded a design or purpose for God’s creation and certain action-guiding principles just happen to be more conducive than others for realizing God’s embedded purpose for God's creation. So, in this picture, the cultivation of a helpful attitude is simply more conducive than the cultivation of an unhelpful attitude for realizing God’s purpose for God's creation. In this picture, an action N1 is morally right, because actions of a similar sort {N2, N3, N4…} are generally conducive to the realization of God’s purpose for God's creation.
Comments