[justhelpingout]

A system of ethics and moral rules that is evolved over time with no relation to how things are in themselves is simply so much legacy code, to be replaced by the stronger man at a time convenient to him.

If, on the other hand, moral rules and ethics are due to the natures of things then there must be someone who intended things to exist in the manner they are intended to exist. That being must be a person because of the principle of sufficient cause (since we exist). Faith is the response to communication from this person. It does not require abandoning of reason, but simply picks up where reason cannot ascend to because of its lack of perspective.

[jf-]

> If, on the other hand, moral rules and ethics are due to the natures of things then there must be someone who intended things to exist in the manner they are intended to exist.

This is not at all clear to me. Can you clarify?

[justhelpingout]

Morals and ethics are either relative or absolute. If they are relative then they are not based on "what a thing is" (it's essence, to use an Aristotelean term) but on "how useful it is to me" or some other relative criteria). If, on the other hand, "what you ought to do with this thing" is based on "what is this thing and what is it intended to be", then there must exist some `intender` who is the reason for this thing's form / end being what that form / end is.

[jf-]

Thanks for the explanation. Something that is absolute needs an absolute reference frame, in other words. Here you’re saying that the absolute reference frame is what God intends.

I’m not sure that there is such an absolute reference frame for morality, but this is too long a conversation to get into here!