import variables — Bob Ross
I said you were shifting the goal-post because obviously innocence is a key component of murder: no one disputes that and my original comment was a definition of murder. — Bob Ross
Bob, by your reasoning, if "murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person and a killing is to end the natural life of a being", then aren't we destined to be murdered by God eventually and intentionally as we lead our innocent ordinary lives? By that reasoning, all human deaths are murders by God. I would argue that If God go and kill someone it isn't murder because they haven't truly died since their soul is immutable and ends up in heaven to face God's judgement. — GregW
↪GregW I don't think that is true. God may indirectly intentionally kill people or let them die; but He does not directly intentionally kill people (notwithstanding just punishment).
What definition of murder are you using? — Bob Ross
What variables? You mean truth and the actual reality of the situation at hand? That's a bit of an abrasively dismissive way of describing such, wouldn't you say? But alright then.
And the officer responds, "oh you're just importing variables into the hypothetical". It is not a hypothetical. It literally happened. At least, allegedly, per the text we're discussing.
Okay, so like I said. Maybe your premise is invalid. Simply, perhaps you're just wrong about one or more things. This is why religion is not generally a "hot topic" in the halls of philosophy. Because faith is belief, and belief is anything you deem fit. It's your right, after all.
Ok, thank you for the clarification. If you are using my definition and leveraging that God is not murdering people because they can't truly die, then no one ever commits murder. Are you accepting that? I want to make sure we are on the same page about the consistent conclusion of your position here.
If I kill an innocent infant, then the same logic would apply: I have not murdered them because they haven't truly died. — Bob Ross
I agree that there are legally justified killings. If you commit a legally justified killing, then you will likely not be in trouble with the law. let's look at a hypothetical example. God asked a man to hijack an airplane and crash it into a building full of evil people. In obeying God's command, is he justified in killing thousands of people? Is this a justifiable killing in a court of law? — GregW
You didn't reply to my last post here, so I don't know what you think about it. The current discussion started from the point that I replied to your post, in which you were saying that OT is wrong.I don't see the relevance: can you elaborate on how this relevant to the OP? — Bob Ross
Why didn't Jesus Himself say that portion of the OT is false? How could Jesus miss such an important thing in His teaching, if the purpose of His teaching is to complete the prophecy as well?Let me grant you that Jesus relates himself to the messiah from the OT which, in turn, is related to the God of the OT (the father). My argument demonstrates that the OT gets some stuff wrong about God because God can't do some of the things the OT claims God did; so those portions are false. — Bob Ross
↪Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
"This idea occurred to me as a part of an argument that God cannot be a utilitarian: ...... So there is no maximum amount of goodness that God could create, just as there is no largest integer. But utilitarianism requires us to cause the maximum amount of good possible. Therefore God cannot be a utilitarian."
I commend your cleverness and ingenuity here; but I think this is fallacious. Goodness is not quanitified over like an atom: it isn’t a concrete being but, rather, a property that concrete beings can have.
...... — Bob Ross
You didn't reply to my last post here, so I don't know what you think about it. The current discussion started from the point that I replied to your post, in which you were saying that OT is wrong.
Why didn't Jesus Himself say that portion of the OT is false?
You do when you relate evil as privation of good. Good and evil are fundamental features of our experiences. We humans mostly prefer good over evil because of our genes. So we are biased.
C: EXODUS SLAVERY AND INDENTURED SERVITUDE
This is talking about beating slaves (or perhaps indentured servants) as permissible:
When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
This is talking about raping women, selling women into sex slavery, and the implicit permissibility of polygamy (although I will keep the whole passage so not to misconstrue the other parts)(emphasis added):
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
......
ACCUSATION(S)
Rape, slavery, and indentured servitude are unjust and God cannot commit an injustice; so Exodus cannot be Divinely inspired. — Bob Ross
Probably or certainly!? If God fails to convey His message, then He is not God.Given Jesus failed to address the OT’s mistakes and given him referring to himself as the messiah and that the OT is errant, it follows that Jesus probably wasn’t God. — Bob Ross
I would like to bring you to the crux of our discussion: You mentioned that evil exists, but it is not real. Don't you see a problem in this statement? I am afraid that you need to read through our discussion to see why we reached such a crux.Goodness is the equality of essence and esse; so it follows that badness is the privation (inequality) of essence and esse. So badness to goodness is like darkness to light.
You would have to provide a different account of goodness to make it work with your view that evil is some positive, real thing out there. My point was that I am a privation theorist about evil; so I do no think it is just as unreal as darkness. — Bob Ross
Probably or certainly!? If God fails to convey His message, then He is not God.
I would like to bring you to the crux of our discussion: You mentioned that evil exists, but it is not real. Don't you see a problem in this statement?
The problem with this rejoinder is that it reduces God to a consequentialist. E.g., He codifies rules about slavery because no one would have listened to Him if He spoke the ethical truth that it is wrong; ....
God cannot be a consequentalist: an action's permissibility can be influenced by the circumstances, but some actions are clearly bad or good in-themselves and actions like murder, rape, etc. are bad in-themselves. He cannot tip the scales of an immoral act because the consequences of doing it would be a greater good: God does not weigh actions on a scale of the most good for the most people. — Bob Ross
And if thy brother-Israelite is brought by poverty to sell his own liberty to thee, do not submit him to bondage with thy slaves; let him work in thy household as if he were a hired servant or a free alien, till the year of jubilee comes. Then, with his children, he must be restored to his kindred and to his ancestral lands. The Israelites know no master but me, their rescuer from Egypt; they must not be bought and sold like slaves; do not use thy power over him, then, to treat him ill, as thou fearest God’s vengeance. Your men-slaves and women-slaves must come from the nations round about you; or they must be aliens who have come to dwell among you, or children of theirs born on your soil; these you may hold
as chattels, passing them on to your children by right of inheritance, as belonging to you in perpetuity; but you must not lord it over your brother-Israelites. — Leviticus 25: 39-46, Knox translation
What are your thoughts on the other two examples I gave in the OP?
We are talking about a God who is Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Omnipotent. Such a God, for example, could present Himself to individuals, so there would be no doubt, and teach the correct way to live life, so there would be nothing wrong. Why does God hide from us? Prophecies have all failed!I don’t see why that would be the case. Although maybe you are getting at a divine hiddenness objection. — Bob Ross
I do.I distinguish between being and reality; and you don’t. — Bob Ross
That says nothing to me. To me, real means actually existing as a thing, whether it is different modes of experience or beings.something is real if and only if it is a member of reality. — Bob Ross
I cannot see how this follows given my definition of real.For example, the color orange that I see, phenomenally, has being but is not a member of reality—so it exists but is not real. — Bob Ross
I agree that there are legally justified killings. If you commit a legally justified killing, then you will likely not be in trouble with the law. let's look at a hypothetical example. God asked a man to hijack an airplane and crash it into a building full of evil people. In obeying God's command, is he justified in killing thousands of people? Is this a justifiable killing in a court of law? — GregW
Your hypothetical assumes God assessed the evil of the people within the building and determined that their death would save the world from greater harm, or perhaps he assessed their just dessert to be death by airplane. That is, this was not the killing of innocent people, and it would go somewhere along the lines of any other preemptive response (like self defense) or just punishment.
This is not to suggest that when someone believes God tells them to do something that they are justified in doing it or that that there isn't real danger in relying upon what you believe the will of God is when you act. Your hypothetical, strictly construed, is that God directed the order, so here we know it was God's will. — Hanover
Then you need to refurbish your position. You said that God does not murder because when he kills us we don't truly die. This applies to all killings within your view.
You need to clearly define what murder is and then apply that standard to God's killings. So far you just keep ad hoc patching your view. You say God can't murder because you don't really die, but we both agree that's false; so now you are appealing to God just being special.
I'll ask you again: how do you define murder? — Bob Ross
Suppose I am a state legislator in a country where abortion is permitted up to "viability"
I tell you that to prevent that I would have voted for a six-week ban with exceptions for rape and incest, and I'm no consequentialist
Does this passage contradict the other (Ex 21:7-11)?
Could we start with a definition of consequentialist?
1. What kind of consequentialist do you think the O.T. God would have to be?
"if God was good, could God have given a tribal, near eastern group like the Hebrews this sort of law, or would a "good God" necessarily have to give them a more enlightened law?
Firstly, endorsing a law that does not protect against certain evil is not the same as endorsing a law that protects evil. To use your example about pro-life voting, a pro-life law that explicates it is impermissible to abort after 6 weeks is not technically endorsing abortion prior and up to 6 weeks; whereas a law that explicates it is permissible to abort before and up to 6 weeks is endorsing abortion. The former is permissible for a person to vote for (assuming that’s the best law they can manage to get passed) whereas the latter would be impermissible. This is a subtle and seemingly trivial note but is really crucial.
I think you are focusing on the wrong part of the passage in Ex. 21:20-21: it declares it morally permissible to beat slaves because they are property: it states that explicitly. It doesn’t merely outline that beating slaves is immoral. The claim that beating slaves is immoral is true and there’s nothing wrong with endorsing that even if slavery is permitted under the current legal system (so long as you didn’t vote or comply with that being in place).
I would say God is acting consequentialistic, and so would you in the pro-life example if you endorsed the latter example I gave, because He is endorsing immorality as a means towards a good end; and this means that the action being intrinsically wrong is being ignored or denied (which is unique to consequentialism).
…
I am not endorsing abortion by voting in a bill that only explicates that abortion after a certain stage is immoral and illegal: if I could pass a law that banned it outright and I still chose to endorse this other option then it would imply that I find it morally permissible to do (all else being equal).
You are absolutely right that one is permitted to limit the evil effects of evil as best one can; but this does not include doing evil as a means towards that good end. If you go around arguing that abortion is perfectly fine up to the 6 week mark, then you are doing something immoral even if it is for a good end of mitigating the effects of abortion; and you don’t have to do that to endorse a bill that limits abortion without banning it outright.
Why does God hide from us?
That says nothing to me. To me, real means actually existing as a thing, whether it is different modes of experience or beings.
Bob, we are at loggerheads because not only can't we agree on the definition of murder
You were with your friend living an innocent ordinary life when God appears and struck you with a thunder bolt.
Your friends all said that you were murdered by God when they buried you.
You were brought to heaven, body and soul., and in the presence of God, you asked: Him why did you murdered me?
Now you are truly dead
Hanover
Hanover, you appear to be saying that as long as you are certain that the order cane from God, you are justified in the killings of thousands of people. Sadly, I think that most people agree with you. Today, Presidents, Prime Ministers, and religious leaders have ordered men to fly airplanes to drop bombs into buildings full of people, innocent or not. These are all considered to be legally justified killings, we no longer need to use God for justification. — GregW
Else, given what Bob Ross has said, I am not convinced he would find this persuasive. He would ask whether it is permissible to "kill" a demon for their future crimes, Minority Report-style. — Leontiskos
It's not a speculative preemptive strike, but one where we know what will happen if we relent because the warning was from God, not just some UN inspectors who might be wrong. — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.