As many current philosophies seek to determine the chief good, any insight into its nature should naturally be desired. I would like to propose here not an aspect of it only, but what must be the chief good. This is not written to be added to the repotiore of various debatable ideas, but submitted as the sure truth of the matter, reasoned, yet resting ultimately not on the mind of man.
First it must be stated that most entertain happiness as the chief good, and from there venture to define a basis of morals accordingly. I will try to tie both together here to support my view of the chief good.
Several options are usually considered as a basis for morals, the reason for moral actions. First, the action is against (or necessitated by) the rules. But upon consideration, it appears that two rules may contradict one another, in which case one or both must be wrong. The second option: others would not appreciate it. However, this is only binding to one who cares about others. We must find why someone should care. Third, it is, or is not in our self-interest. But this idea only works for situations in which others realize we are acting rightly. This does not restrain the person who is alone. And finally, its against Gods law, the religious stance. However, it may be asked: Does God forbid actions because actions are wrong, or are the actions wrong because God forbids them? If the first, then the reason why they are wrong still eludes us. But if the second is correct, morals are random, and without basis. Moral and Cultural relativism have been given a hearing also and are found wanting. In fact, they are self-refuting. If it were true that there are no objective morals, then that in itself would define an objective morality, and so is self-refuting.
However, one option has been hidden from view between the two refuted religious positions. That is what I would like to pursue. This third option under religion is that God forbids/allows certain actions/attitudes according to his own nature and character. Thus he does not look to some other standard to declare right from wrong. This was the problem with the first idea, which was that God declares actions wrong because they are. This third option also avoids the problem of right and wrong randomly being declared by God. Instead, it is a reflection, so to speak, of his own character/attitude/being. It must be assumed here also that God does not change, which does not admit of any problem.
Now to the chief good. It has been proposed that happiness is our chief good. I will not try to argue with that. However, it is also true that the Chief Good (in an general abstract sense) IS God, and as it pertains to people, is to glorify and find satisfaction in Him. At first, these seem apposed to one another: glorify God, and happiness. But they are not. In fact, they are the same. Before I proceed, I must say that the notion that happiness must exist in oneself cannot be true. Happiness must of necessity have an object, or be based in/on something. It is true that someone could seek happiness in oneself, but that is not the same as saying happiness exists in oneself. It would appear that true happiness could only be based in a perfection which must be valued and exist in and of itself. God fits the criteria, assuming his nature is perfect, self-existent, etc. Assuming this God is the creator or cause of everything that exists besides him, all else that exists is of necessity lesser than him and not perfect. (At this point, it may be helpful to remember the argument for God being the basis for morals also.) So it follows that man would find his greatest happiness in God himself, and not something lesser. It also follows that if this God is perfect, he would be good. And so it follows that he would be good to us, seeking our greatest good, which is ALSO his greatest good. Finding happiness or satisfaction in something shows its worth. So God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him. (Piper) So mans chief good is to glorify God BY enjoying him forever. And Gods greatest purpose concerning us is that we would enjoy Him forever.
This all begs the question: If God wants us to be satisfied in knowing him, why arent we?
There are two ways to approach this question.
1) We are trying to find satisfaction somewhere else
2) We dont know how to know/find God
First, we look for our chief good somewhere else. But again, why. Why would we seek satisfaction in imperfection? Well, for one, most people generally agree that humans are imperfect. If we are imperfect, our ability to choose the good/perfect over the imperfect could be messed up. Moreover, God would have made his creation perfect, a reflection in a sense of his own nature. Somehow imperfection entered. We and the rest of nature became imperfections, and so this imperfection caused a distance to be drawn between the perfect and the imperfect.
And the second point: We dont know how to know/find God. Well, from the statements above, one might wonder, can the imperfect find the perfect? And if we could, would we want to while we remained imperfections? Perfection and imperfection naturally repel one another. The imperfect cannot find the perfect. But, again the original question: If God wants us to be satisfied in him, why arent we? Couldnt he find a way? Well yes. If hes powerful enough to cause our existence, hes powerful enough to make us perfect again.
Back up for a moment. What is the relation between the imperfection of man and the perfection of God? If we were perfect once, but now are not, something had to happen which caused the change. This change, which could only cause by ourselves or another party (excluding God in a direct sense). The action/attitude which caused this could be labeled sin. At the point at which this happens, our status is changed from perfect to sinful.
If sin is a crime against the moral law based on the nature of God (as argued at first), and we are sinful by nature (having sinned), God cant abide this. Because of his nature, he cannot abide us and is wrathful towards us. But again, the question: is there a way for our status to be changed? If sin caused us to be sinners, can he change us back again? If I commit murder, can the judge say, Youre free. Not guilty.? No. Neither can God. Sin deserves his wrath. The punishment is there to be had. But if God wants to change us, how can he? Simple, yet profound - he can take the punishment for himself. And so, in the end, it is possible to have our chief good by knowing and being satisfied in God, through the death and resurrection of Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.
Jonathan Reeves
The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the childrens children, to the third and the fourth generation. Exodus 34:6-7
Thus says the LORD: Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the LORD. Jeremiah 9:23-24
I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose. Isaiah 46:9-10
"Be holy, for I am holy." Leviticus 11:44
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Romans 3:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned-every one- to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all......Out if the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities... Isaiah 53:6,11
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. - Jesus (John 3:16-17)
All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. - Jesus (Matthew 11:27-28)
These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. - Jesus (John 15:11)
First it must be stated that most entertain happiness as the chief good, and from there venture to define a basis of morals accordingly. I will try to tie both together here to support my view of the chief good.
Several options are usually considered as a basis for morals, the reason for moral actions. First, the action is against (or necessitated by) the rules. But upon consideration, it appears that two rules may contradict one another, in which case one or both must be wrong. The second option: others would not appreciate it. However, this is only binding to one who cares about others. We must find why someone should care. Third, it is, or is not in our self-interest. But this idea only works for situations in which others realize we are acting rightly. This does not restrain the person who is alone. And finally, its against Gods law, the religious stance. However, it may be asked: Does God forbid actions because actions are wrong, or are the actions wrong because God forbids them? If the first, then the reason why they are wrong still eludes us. But if the second is correct, morals are random, and without basis. Moral and Cultural relativism have been given a hearing also and are found wanting. In fact, they are self-refuting. If it were true that there are no objective morals, then that in itself would define an objective morality, and so is self-refuting.
However, one option has been hidden from view between the two refuted religious positions. That is what I would like to pursue. This third option under religion is that God forbids/allows certain actions/attitudes according to his own nature and character. Thus he does not look to some other standard to declare right from wrong. This was the problem with the first idea, which was that God declares actions wrong because they are. This third option also avoids the problem of right and wrong randomly being declared by God. Instead, it is a reflection, so to speak, of his own character/attitude/being. It must be assumed here also that God does not change, which does not admit of any problem.
Now to the chief good. It has been proposed that happiness is our chief good. I will not try to argue with that. However, it is also true that the Chief Good (in an general abstract sense) IS God, and as it pertains to people, is to glorify and find satisfaction in Him. At first, these seem apposed to one another: glorify God, and happiness. But they are not. In fact, they are the same. Before I proceed, I must say that the notion that happiness must exist in oneself cannot be true. Happiness must of necessity have an object, or be based in/on something. It is true that someone could seek happiness in oneself, but that is not the same as saying happiness exists in oneself. It would appear that true happiness could only be based in a perfection which must be valued and exist in and of itself. God fits the criteria, assuming his nature is perfect, self-existent, etc. Assuming this God is the creator or cause of everything that exists besides him, all else that exists is of necessity lesser than him and not perfect. (At this point, it may be helpful to remember the argument for God being the basis for morals also.) So it follows that man would find his greatest happiness in God himself, and not something lesser. It also follows that if this God is perfect, he would be good. And so it follows that he would be good to us, seeking our greatest good, which is ALSO his greatest good. Finding happiness or satisfaction in something shows its worth. So God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him. (Piper) So mans chief good is to glorify God BY enjoying him forever. And Gods greatest purpose concerning us is that we would enjoy Him forever.
This all begs the question: If God wants us to be satisfied in knowing him, why arent we?
There are two ways to approach this question.
1) We are trying to find satisfaction somewhere else
2) We dont know how to know/find God
First, we look for our chief good somewhere else. But again, why. Why would we seek satisfaction in imperfection? Well, for one, most people generally agree that humans are imperfect. If we are imperfect, our ability to choose the good/perfect over the imperfect could be messed up. Moreover, God would have made his creation perfect, a reflection in a sense of his own nature. Somehow imperfection entered. We and the rest of nature became imperfections, and so this imperfection caused a distance to be drawn between the perfect and the imperfect.
And the second point: We dont know how to know/find God. Well, from the statements above, one might wonder, can the imperfect find the perfect? And if we could, would we want to while we remained imperfections? Perfection and imperfection naturally repel one another. The imperfect cannot find the perfect. But, again the original question: If God wants us to be satisfied in him, why arent we? Couldnt he find a way? Well yes. If hes powerful enough to cause our existence, hes powerful enough to make us perfect again.
Back up for a moment. What is the relation between the imperfection of man and the perfection of God? If we were perfect once, but now are not, something had to happen which caused the change. This change, which could only cause by ourselves or another party (excluding God in a direct sense). The action/attitude which caused this could be labeled sin. At the point at which this happens, our status is changed from perfect to sinful.
If sin is a crime against the moral law based on the nature of God (as argued at first), and we are sinful by nature (having sinned), God cant abide this. Because of his nature, he cannot abide us and is wrathful towards us. But again, the question: is there a way for our status to be changed? If sin caused us to be sinners, can he change us back again? If I commit murder, can the judge say, Youre free. Not guilty.? No. Neither can God. Sin deserves his wrath. The punishment is there to be had. But if God wants to change us, how can he? Simple, yet profound - he can take the punishment for himself. And so, in the end, it is possible to have our chief good by knowing and being satisfied in God, through the death and resurrection of Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.
Jonathan Reeves
The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the childrens children, to the third and the fourth generation. Exodus 34:6-7
Thus says the LORD: Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the LORD. Jeremiah 9:23-24
I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose. Isaiah 46:9-10
"Be holy, for I am holy." Leviticus 11:44
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Romans 3:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned-every one- to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all......Out if the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities... Isaiah 53:6,11
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. - Jesus (John 3:16-17)
All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. - Jesus (Matthew 11:27-28)
These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. - Jesus (John 15:11)