Quote:

---

While Hitchens doesn't explain where it comes from, explaining that as a species we couldn't have progressed to where we are today without this knowledge is at least addressing it. It is an evolutionary byproduct of being a social species

---

Hasn't every species on earth progressed to where we are today, many of whom can't reason the way humans do?

DryFly said:

---

Quote:

---

While Hitchens doesn't explain where it comes from, explaining that as a species we couldn't have progressed to where we are today without this knowledge is at least addressing it. It is an evolutionary byproduct of being a social species

---

Hasn't every species on earth progressed to where we are today, many of whom can't reason the way humans do?

---

every species has progressed to where humans are today?

I get what you are saying about empathy, and I agree that it explains away the argument you quoted. I'm not sure that it fully explains what is going on when we make moral choices though.

We both agree we are instinctually empathetic. We also both agree we instinctually desire self-preservation. Sometimes these two instincts nicely align and both favor a certain course of action. Other times, they are in direct conflict. C.S. Lewis uses the example of a person drowning in the ocean. Imagine a person, on the shore, sees someone drowning in the ocean 100 yards out. The person on the shore is a mediocre swimmer and believes that a rescue mission poses a significant danger to himself. The empathy instinct motivates him to attempt a rescue. The self-preservation instinct desires to remain on the shore.

What is it that judges which instinct is right? It does not make sense to me to say it is empathy that is judging between itself and self-preservation, and it is too simple to say one always acts upon whichever instinct is the strongest. Sometimes the course of action one deems as right, is the one the person feels less inclined to do. It seems there is something apart from either of the two instincts that arbitrates which of the two will lead to the right course of action. What is that thing in your view?

AstroAg17 said:

---

I'd argue that true altruism does exist. I can think of too many examples which seem truly altruistic. IMO this is due to triumphs of reason over instinct. Reason here meaning the recognition that others experiences are valuable, even if you can't relate to them.

---

We also have nonhuman examples of what appears to be altruism. In which case, it's hard to ascribe selfish motives to such actions since they have no recognizable sense of self.

To speculate how ethics came from god in a purely evolutionary way, one would just have to speculate that humans evolved to believe in a god that limited their selfish behavior as a balance to the survival of the fittest evolutionary tendencies that might otherwise overly abusing one's own species to the detriment of the survivability of the overall population against other species.

Although, such a position would infer atheistic evolutionists should support religion for this very purpose. And this actually does happen, because many atheists support other's "belief" if it works for them and regulates ethics to a degree they personally prefer.

Actually, group support almost certainly evolved before anything else. That would encourage and select for altruistic behavior that helped the group survive and thrive. Religious impulses evolved along a separate track but also supported the strength of the group and were selected for.

Quote:

---

I've seen so many discussions where the Christians argue that without God there can't be an absolute standard by which we define good and evil. I think that's a debatable point, but even if it is true then so what? We are completely unable to prove that an absolute standard of good and evil exists in the first place and if you are going to argue that we can identify what is good and what is evil based on what the vast majority of people believe it be then you've just set your definition as something subjective.

---

You are right, I am unable to prove that an absolute standand of good and evil exists. As a fun exercise, think of all of the things you accept to be true in your life right now that you are completely unable to prove? Do you know that we are unable to prove all of history? We cannot rewind the battle of Little Big horn, see the video evidence, etc, but we believe it happened. Why? Based upon evidence and not proof. We need to ask the right questions?

Is there evidence that's points to there being an absolute standard of evil? Lying, stealing, adultry, rape, murder. What are the negative consequences of continuous coveting? Someone's possessions, wife, etc? How does one feel when they are being lied to, especially when someone is trying to con them? How does one feel when their kids are abused, raped? Why do cannibals eat other humans but don't want to be eaten themselves or to have their kids eaten?

Quote:

---

So why do most people have similar morals? One word: empathy. Humans are social creatures and our species has spent it's entire existence living together in groups. The populations that cooperated more and fought within the group less were far more successful and likely to pass down their genes and it is undeniable that complex behaviors can be ingrained within animals and humans, not just learned. So we have this biological impulse to act in ways that benefit the group along with the intelligence and social awareness to be able to understand the consequences of our actions and how others might respond to them. Roll it up into a ball and what do you get? Morality.

---

Empathy is a popular go to word used these days as an attempt to justify morals by those who have a naturalistic world view. Consider all of the ways non-human critters behave that would be immoral for humans. Humans are unique creatures.

Where does it fall short and fail to define moral standards? How could empathy be evil or lead to great evil? Using empathy one may lie to their wife and kids to keep from hurting their feelings. Empathy does not define why lying and adultry are wrong, why stealing is wrong.

Pcychologist - Against Empathy
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-science-compassion-paul-bloom

This biological impluse to act in ways that benefit the group, intelligence, social awareness = morality? Do not most people have biological impluses to act in the benefit of themselves vs the group?

You are crediting this biological impulse, people acting similar to others, to empanthy when it's actually the God given conscience that each human has. Remember the greatest command? Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, and mind, AND love your neighbor as yourself. When we mistreat others, we are sinning and our conscience convicts us. We are also living under a curse and our bodies desire to live selfishless, to lust, to have pride, be envious, lift ourselves up while slandering others, not forbid ourselves any pleasure. We can get to a point where we ignore and betray our own conscience.

Macarthur said:

---

But I'm not trying to be dense when I say that I think this video is a poor example. I think he answered the question. As others on this thread have already pointed out, this issue has been kicked around countless times and I think those that fall on the side of objective morality have an incredibly weak case.

---

I'm really not sure how you can say that. He most certainly did not. As darg points out the question was an ontological one and he avoided answering it directly like the plague. I also love how he tosses the witty little quip that evil comes from "religion," which of course is a ridiculous notion, but then gets his panties in a wad when all the evil committed by those with secular worldview gets tossed back at him.

I think he makes it quite obvious in this particular clip that his beef with religion is as much, if not more, emotional as it is rational. He makes very passionate emotional appeals and doggedly avoids any logical ones.

Also, calling it a weak case without demonstrating why you think so isn't a particularly persuasive argument, either.

As for the argument itself, I think our resident atheists and agnostics have done a good job of addressing why morality might exist, but have still failed to address the underlying question of why anyone should actually follow it. Or, I should amend that to say it was discussed, but I didn't see anyone provided any rational reason why you would or should. You can be very very successful in this world if you are willing to play fast and loose with morality. I could argue that atheists and agnostics that stick rather, um, faithfully to a judea christian ethos when provided pragmatic opportunities to do otherwise are being foolish.

Oh, and hi internet friends. Long time no see. Missed you fellas.

Aggrad08 said:

---

You need to read more of your Bible. What does it say about non Jewish slaves and the treatment of the captured women. As for genocide, they dash the babies heads against the rocks, what crime are they being punished for.

And there is no objective morality even with God, you can only pretend at it. You blindly assert God says he agrees, which you have no objective way of demonstrating. And you have no answer for euthyphos dilemma.

---

There are quite a few very reasonable arguments that answer the Euthyphro dilemma. I've personally always favored the one proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas. I'm going to be lazy and borrow the summarization from wiki but it does so rather adequately:

Quote:

---

Like Aristotle, Aquinas rejected Platonism. In his view, to speak of abstractions not only as existent, but as more perfect exemplars than fully designated particulars, is to put a premium on generality and vagueness. On this analysis, the abstract "good" in the first horn of the Euthyphro dilemma is an unnecessary obfuscation. Aquinas frequently quoted with approval Aristotle's definition, "Good is what all desire." As he clarified, "When we say that good is what all desire, it is not to be understood that every kind of good thing is desired by all, but that whatever is desired has the nature of good."In other words, even those who desire evil desire it "only under the aspect of good," i.e., of what is desirable. The difference between desiring good and desiring evil is that in the former, will and reason are in harmony, whereas in the latter, they are in discord.

---

Quote:

---

In the case of humans, as Aquinas says, to be able to sin is indeed a consequence, or even a sign, of freedom (quodam libertatis signum). Humans, in other words, are not puppets manipulated by God so that they always do what is right. However, "it does not belong to the essence of the free will to be able to decide for evil." "To will evil is neither freedom nor a part of freedom." It is precisely humans' creatureliness that is, their not being God and therefore omniscient that makes them capable of sinning. Consequently, writes Pieper, "the inability to sin should be looked on as the very signature of a higher freedom contrary to the usual way of conceiving the issue." Pieper concludes: "Only the will [i.e., God's] can be the right standard of its own willing and must will what is right necessarily, from within itself, and always. A deviation from the norm would not even be thinkable. And obviously only the absolute divine will is the right standard of its own act" and consequently of all human acts. Thus the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma, divine command theory, is also disposed of.

---

Good to see you around here. I always enjoy your posts.

Quote:

---

There are quite a few very reasonable arguments that answer the Euthyphro dilemma. I've personally always favored the one proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas. I'm going to be lazy and borrow the summarization from wiki but it does so rather adequately:

---

I'm familiar with those and I think them weak.

To argue that the very nature of god is good simply rephrases the question. It doesn't answer it. You are basically moving the question and providing absolutely no answer. The basic dilemma is :"is something good because god(s) will it, or do god(s) will it because it's good".

By asserting god's very nature is good we just reword the dilemma to no avail: "is god's nature good because he says it is, or is god's nature good because it does good"

This stance rejects the argument without addressing it. The fundamental question of the dilemma is "how do we know what is good". To assert god's nature is good offers us nothing toward this pursuit.

Quote:

---

In the case of humans, as Aquinas says, to be able to sin is indeed a consequence, or even a sign, of freedom (quodam libertatis signum). Humans, in other words, are not puppets manipulated by God so that they always do what is right. However, "it does not belong to the essence of the free will to be able to decide for evil." "To will evil is neither freedom nor a part of freedom." It is precisely humans' creatureliness that is, their not being God and therefore omniscient that makes them capable of sinning. Consequently, writes Pieper, "the inability to sin should be looked on as the very signature of a higher freedom contrary to the usual way of conceiving the issue." Pieper concludes: "Only the will [i.e., God's] can be the right standard of its own willing and must will what is right necessarily, from within itself, and always. A deviation from the norm would not even be thinkable. And obviously only the absolute divine will is the right standard of its own act" and consequently of all human acts. Thus the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma, divine command theory, is also disposed of.

---

I think this entire line of thought poorly founded. I rather like the wording of the criticism the wiki article has "that such arguments rest upon an impermissibly anthropomorphic conception of God"

If the presupposition of omniscience weren't a problem in and of itself (I think it is), the very arrogance to assume that a perfectly rational and knowing thing couldn't possess a wildly varying sense of morality is pretty striking.

dargscisyhp said:

---

Good to see you around here. I always enjoy your posts.

---

seconded

Aggrad08 said:

---

By asserting god's very nature is good we just reword the dilemma to no avail: "is god's nature good because he says it is, or is god's nature good because it does good"

This stance rejects the argument without addressing it. The fundamental question of the dilemma is "how do we know what is good". To assert god's nature is good offers us nothing toward this pursuit.

---

I don't think that it doesn't address it, but rather elucidates why it's not a dilemma at all. A perfect understanding of existence would naturally include a perfect understanding on what is and isn't good. Does good exist because the creator willed it to be so, or is good an intrinsically obvious reality to any being with the full knowledge to ascertain it? Either option makes no effective difference in my mind. What's the dilemma?

Quote:

---

If the presupposition of omniscience weren't a problem in and of itself (I think it is), the very arrogance to assume that a perfectly rational and knowing thing couldn't possess a wildly varying sense of morality is pretty striking.

---

I think that's a fair argument. A big part of Aquina's reasoning is that no rational being desires evil. But rather desires what they perceive to be good with limited and often very flawed information and reasoning. A being that is not limited so would then naturally desire and will good in its unadulterated and perfect form. I find that reasoning to be fair because even our most notorious "evil doerers" thought what they were doing would achieve some good. The Nazis truly thought they were making their culture and the world a better place. And while there do appear to be people who just want "to see the world burn," we can generally find some pretty obvious flaws in their makeup that allows them to be so disjointed. So, presumably, a being with the capacity and understanding to make creation itself possible would obviously lack those flaws, but I freely admit there is a bit of assuming going on there. We have little way of knowing for certain if such an assumption is accurate.

Quote:

---

I don't think that it doesn't address it, but rather elucidates why it's not a dilemma at all. A perfect understanding of existence would naturally include a perfect understanding on what is and isn't good.

---

Sure, if we grant objective morality is true. I think good and evil can be logically subjective even with a creator. But let's say we grant it's true that there is an objective morality. It still doesn't answer the question you posted:

Quote:

---

Does good exist because the creator willed it to be so, or is good an intrinsically obvious reality to any being with the full knowledge to ascertain it? Either option makes no effective difference in my mind. What's the dilemma?

---

You are simply describing each horn of the dilemma, they each have plenty of pitfalls and implications. The wiki article you sourced goes into it in good detail. Asserting anything about god's nature did nothing to address the either horn of the dilemma or the logical results of either path. This is what I mean when I say it doesn't address it, and why I disagree that it demonstrates it's not a dilemma.

Dirt Driver, you are right in that I can't 100% prove a lot of things. But I'm also not attempting to use those things to convince people that there's a deity out there who will eternally punish you if you don't believe in him. So there is a bit of difference there.

As far as your examples of things most people agree are bad, all of them could be explained by evolution and ingrained social behaviors just as easily as divine mandate. So you have to do more to prove your point than just list them. In any event, none of those things are absolutely wrong by the Biblical standard anyway. Read the Old Testament, God gave permission or encouragement to do pretty all of them in certain situations. And if there is even one instance in which one of those actions is OK, then the prohibition is not absolute.

I think you're missing my point on empathy and evolved social behaviors. Remember that individuals don't evolve, populations do. So saying that you don't see how a certain behavior benefits an individual doesn't really grasp the whole picture.

And yes, empathy doesn't define any behavior as good or bad. It is simply the ability to understand how others would react to a given situation. For example, if you don't like people lying to you it is possible for you to use empathy to guess that others might not like people lying to them either.

Good can be defined by purpose if there is indeed a creator.

If I create a program to separate all the blue M&Ms from the rest in a bowl, then it is only good if it successfully does that. You can say, "well that's stupid", or "I think it should separate out the yellow ones because they are better". But I'm the creator so I define good.

If our universe was created by something that wanted all life to kill each other, then good would be killing.

So good and bad would only be subjective to the creator. You may not like being killed, and you could say that being killed isn't good to you and your personal morality, but ultimately it would be good if that was what the universe was created for.

That's a remarkably cynical and disturbing take. It means there is no objective good or evil, there's only what the most powerful decides at any moment.

Dr. Watson said:

---

That's a remarkably cynical and disturbing take. It means there is no objective good or evil, there's only what the most powerful decides at any moment.

---

i think that's the point he's making.

Dr. Watson said:

---

That's a remarkably cynical and disturbing take. It means there is no objective good or evil, there's only what the most powerful decides at any moment.

---

Well, it would only be disturbing if that creator didn't care about us or wanted us to suffer. But I don't see how it is disturbing for simply being the truth of what would objectively be moral.

If you lived in a universe that was created by an entity that intended for you to suffer, would you really find any happiness in the idea that at least that creator wasn't "moral"? After all, "morality" is simply talking about an idea.

Quote:

---

You need to read more of your Bible. What does it say about non Jewish slaves and the treatment of the captured women. As for genocide, they dash the babies heads against the rocks, what crime are they being punished for.

And there is no objective morality even with God, you can only pretend at it. You blindly assert God says he agrees, which you have no objective way of demonstrating. And you have no answer for euthyphos dilemma.

---

Dashing babies heads: Understanding context.
What is a Psalm?
What is the context of Psalm 137?
Is God commanding others to dash babies heads?

When God uses Israel to judge the nations harshly what are they doing, how many years was God patient with them before acting? Are they not burning their babies alive in worship of Molech?

When Israel does the same things, does not God judge them as well by the Bablyonians and Asserians?

Quote:

---

The basic dilemma is :"is something good because god(s) will it, or do god(s) will it because it's good".

---

• One cannot answer this question without first having a abolute standard of good and evil in order measure the 'something' against
• An abolute standard of good and evil can only exist if God exists.
• If we are the result of an unguided uncreated collision in space then no absolute standard of good and evil exists (relative standards exists but they are just opinions)
• When one says, "God will's it" do they mean God causes it, or God allows it?
• How does one know what God has willed?

Replace the "something" with an actual word.
is (murder) good because god(s) will it, or do god(s) will (murder) because it's good".
is (forgivness) good because god(s) will it, or do god(s) will (forgiveness) because it's good".

What is the evidence that God wills forgiveness or murder? For the Christian today, we have years of God's revealation about His standard of Good and Evil. For us that are older we have lived enough time on earth to experience the negative consequences of what God calls sin. We also have a conscience that when we read the options above (murder and forgivness) are conscience aligns with one and that happens to agree with God. Not a coincidence.

God allowed evil men to do a great evil in killing Jesus, and used that evil event to atone for the sins of the world, give the opportunity of freedom from sin and death, and pain and guilt for our good.

Dr. Watson said:

---

That's a remarkably cynical and disturbing take. It means there is no objective good or evil, there's only what the most powerful decides at any moment.

---

There is no objective good or evil in a meaningless universe.

Aggrad08 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Good to see you around here. I always enjoy your posts.

---

seconded

---

Some would say he's been -- wait for it --

























silent for too long.

DryFly said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

That's a remarkably cynical and disturbing take. It means there is no objective good or evil, there's only what the most powerful decides at any moment.

---

There is no objective good or evil in a meaningless universe.

---

Meaning is subjective. My point is that he's basing morality on power rather than any truly objective standard; you know, the sort of thing theists keep telling me is only possible under theism.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

That's a remarkably cynical and disturbing take. It means there is no objective good or evil, there's only what the most powerful decides at any moment.

---

Well, it would only be disturbing if that creator didn't care about us or wanted us to suffer. But I don't see how it is disturbing for simply being the truth of what would objectively be moral.

If you lived in a universe that was created by an entity that intended for you to suffer, would you really find any happiness in the idea that at least that creator wasn't "moral"? After all, "morality" is simply talking about an idea.

---

Our universe is full of suffering. I'm not sure this actually helps your argument.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

That's a remarkably cynical and disturbing take. It means there is no objective good or evil, there's only what the most powerful decides at any moment.

---

Well, it would only be disturbing if that creator didn't care about us or wanted us to suffer. But I don't see how it is disturbing for simply being the truth of what would objectively be moral.

If you lived in a universe that was created by an entity that intended for you to suffer, would you really find any happiness in the idea that at least that creator wasn't "moral"? After all, "morality" is simply talking about an idea.

---

Our universe is full of suffering. I'm not sure this actually helps your argument.

---

So, if our universe was consciously created for a purpose, and if that purpose was to have the most suffering for sentient beings as possible in it, then all that suffering would technically be "good". As it would be fulfilling the purpose for it existing. Why does it make that notion more "disturbing" that it would technically be "good" as opposed to it being "technically bad" if the same exact amount of suffering was happening regardless?

I can see you saying the suffering itself would be disturbing. That a creator wanted that suffering to happen even more so. But to say that it is disturbing to think that technically if that suffering was fulfilling or even contributing to the fulfillment of the purpose of the universe then it would be good so far as the purpose of the universe is concerned, I don't get.

This is utilitarian nihilism.

Aggrad08 said:

---

You are simply describing each horn of the dilemma, they each have plenty of pitfalls and implications.

---

I find this to be a bit of an overstatement so let's look at them individually. Under the first horn we have:

Quote:

---

sovereignty and omnipotence

---

I don't find either of these criticisms particularly noteworthy. The fact that God cannot violate the fact that 1+1 equals 2 no more violates his sovereignty and omnipotence then does the fact that he cannot violate moral law if it in fact does exist.

Quote:

---

freedom of will

---

The fact that God always chooses correctly doesn't necessarily indicate that he had no choice. When George Springer goes 6 for 6 at the plate he still had to execute that perfection. Perfection, in and of itself, does not violate a freedom of will, but rather demonstrates a perfect execution of that will.

Quote:

---

Morality without God

---

This is the strongest criticism, but I feel it misses the point. Moral law has little applicable meaning without an arbiter. Posted speed limits are useless without something to reinforce them.

I'll hit up the second horn later. Getting the attention guilt trip from the little guy .

79 actually already mirrored what my arguments in favor of divine command theory would be. If no moral law exists outside of the purposes of the creator then ultimately those are the only purposes that really matter. Our objections, in the long run, are effectively meaningless.

This of course does not mean that God ultimately is capricious or evil (as we might define it) under divine command theory, only to point out that if he is that's tough cookies for us and we can still only hope to capture his whimsical favor.

Of course no monotheistic believer actually believes in this god. So if such a god does exist it seems rather uninterested in human interaction in the first place and is perfectly content to watch as we fumble around for this omnibenevolent figment of our imaginations.

I'm not saying life is meaningless. Im just pointing out the objective facts of hypotheticals.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

sovereignty and omnipotence

---

I don't find either of these criticisms particularly noteworthy. The fact that God cannot violate the fact that 1+1 equals 2 no more violates his sovereignty and omnipotence then does the fact that he cannot violate moral law if it in fact does exist.

---

The fact that god who created all is somehow beholden to what he created. If god is not the author of morality who is? I see this as something that cannot be casually dismissed.

Quote:

---

freedom of will.

---

I also don't think this is a big deal as god is restricted in all kinds of ways.

Quote:

---

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality][/url]

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Morality without God

---

This is the strongest criticism, but I feel it misses the point. Moral law has little applicable meaning without an arbiter. Posted speed limits are useless without something to reinforce them.

---

But god is no arbiter. At least not in this life. The only arbiter of law is man, imperfect though we are we do a far better job than any creator at this task.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

79 actually already mirrored what my arguments in favor of divine command theory would be. If no moral law exists outside of the purposes of the creator then ultimately those are the only purposes that really matter. Our objections, in the long run, are effectively meaningless.

---

Yea the might is right stuff in many contexts can be justified this way as a matter of practicality. But you've got little ground to stand on when you talk about objective morality. Which is the context of my remarks.

Quote:

---

This of course does not mean that God ultimately is capricious or evil (as we might define it) under divine command theory, only to point out that if he is that's tough cookies for us and we can still only hope to capture his whimsical favor.

---

Yup, might is right is tough cookies, and it is arbitrary also.

Quote:

---

Of course no monotheistic believer actually believes in this god. So if such a god does exist it seems rather uninterested in human interaction in the first place and is perfectly content to watch as we fumble around for this omnibenevolent figment of our imaginations.

---

That I strongly disagree with. A majority of theistic believers adhere to an ECT version of hell. There is very little god could do to be less benevolent to the great majority of mankind under this view. It actually amazes me how many people believe in an utterly vile god, justify the cruelty and capriciousness of the OT and the arbitrary and heavily geographically deterministic way god determines the saved from the damned.

Quote:

---

That I strongly disagree with. A majority of theistic believers adhere to an ECT version of hell. There is very little god could do to be less benevolent to the great majority of mankind under this view. It actually amazes me how many people believe in an utterly vile god, justify the cruelty and capriciousness of the OT and the arbitrary and heavily geographically deterministic way god determines the saved from the damned.

---

While I strongly share your sentiment here the vast majority of believers who do believe in hell also believe that God is just and fair and that every soul, regardless of where it was born or raised, will be given a fair chance. So, to my point, they still believe in what they perceive to be a benevolent God.

Aggrad08 said:

---

The fact that god who created all is somehow beholden to what he created. If god is not the author of morality who is? I see this as something that cannot be casually dismissed.

---

I don't know. It's a matter of viewing morality as something with intrinsically obvious realities to it that can be ascertained by any rational and compassionate entity. Or at least some aspects of morality. Let's say, for instance, that the strong preying on the weak is something ultrauniversal that would be true in any "world" in the same way have one of something and then having another of that same something would always yield two of those somethings.

Now, many theists who share this viewpoint do allow for the possibility that some aspects of morality are obviously true regardless of context and some others could still be dictated by God for his specific purposes.

Quote:

---

But god is no arbiter. At least not in this life. The only arbiter of law is man, imperfect though we are we do a far better job than any creator at this task.

---

Well, I would argue that even in this life that we are the tools at the ultimate arbiter's disposal. The good men and women of congress don't actually enforce laws either, that doesn't mean that aren't the ones who design and pass them to be enforced by others.

Of course though, ultimately God's task within this paradigm is to enforce morality on the grand scale, where this life is just a small piece of the ultimate puzzle.