uruk,
I feel like in some cases I'm answering the same questions over and over again, so this keeps getting longer and longer. Feel free to prune out redundant questions because the answer won't change!
Then free will is not truly free. Only when god wants it to be free.
Yup. You can't fly, so it's not truly free.
I am talking about the moral value of the act itself.
There is only one act you can perform. That act is one of the following:
- stealing (and thereby saving a life)
- not stealing (and thereby letting someone die)
One of those choices is more moral than the other. That choice is the
right act to perform given those two possible choices.
A "bad act" may be the "right" choice in to achieve a specific end.
In other words,
the end DOES justify the means in this case, in contradiction with "the ends don't justify the means" as you've said previously.
The act itself is one of the two choices above. If you choose stealing, then it IS the right and most moral choice, so how can it be a "bad act?" The act that involves
not stealing is the wrong and most immoral choice, so how could it be the "good act?"
But the moral value of the end does not change the moral value of the "bad" act. It is still a bad act that leads to a good end.
I disagree that acts without context have moral values. In this case, it is obvious that the act of stealing is the most moral act possible in that circumstance. More to the point, if you lived your life according to "the ends don't justify the means," you would morally have to let the person die. Therefore, it is much more apt to say "the ends don't
always justify the means."
The fact that you are limited to just making bad acts inorder to achieve a good end still does not change the fact that those acts are still immoral or bad
If you choose a "bad act" to achieve a good end, then you are admitting that
the end DOES justify the means.
We are talking about which course of action would be the most moral course of action to take. You cannot say "both courses of action are immoral" because that doesn't help you to decide which action is the correct one. You have to make a judgment concerning which is
less immoral or
more moral. In order to do that you have to consider the consequences of both choices. If you assert that the ends don't justify the means, you would have to do nothing, which means letting the person die, which is decidedly the
less moral (
more immoral) of the two choices.
So then you're saying God can commit immoral and bad acts just so long as the outcome is good because the better the outcome the less immoral the act is. But wait! the act is still immoral, Just considered "less" immoral.
What does that say about omni-benevolence?
To say that act A is "less immoral" than act B is equivalent to saying that act A is "more moral" than act B. To say that act A is "more immoral" than act B is equivalent to saying that act A is "less moral" than act B. God is omni-benevolent as long as his choices achieve the greatest good possible.
There are no absolute "immoral" or "moral" acts, but rather a continuum based on the context of circumstance. This is clear from the mental gymnastics you have to go through to state that "
A 'bad act' may be the 'right' choice in to achieve a specific end," and then pretend that it's not in direct contradiction with your premise that "
the ends don't justify the means."
Nope. I just said that we just allow it. We just accept that a bad thing had to be done and ignore the other consequences of the act .
Pray tell, what do you think "the ends don't justify the means" means?
Why do we allow it? Because it would be utterly absurd to let the person die so that you don't steal, that's why.
The ends, in fact, DO justify the means under those circumstances.
but my point is that actions that are still bad and immoral. Bad things that have to be done so that good things can result.
Again, you are just restating that
the ends DO justify the means.
That would nean that god would have to do bad things so that good things happen. Which would mean that God is not omni-benevolent.
By your definition of omni-benevolence, perhaps. But your definition is not one that many other people, including Christians, hold.
In order for you to hold that definition, you have to keep contradicting yourself, so it's no surprise that the definition would lead to a contradiction! But you might consider using a definition that Christians actually use if you intend to disprove the Christian God. Otherwise, you've only managed to disprove some other god that you've made up.
Assigning arbitray numbers to show an offset of some sort still does not change that fact the bad and evil things are still have a level of evil assigned to it.
The illustration shows that it is possible that in order to maximize the goodness in the world, we MUST have free will
even if having free will results in us always doing evil. Not having free will results in less goodness than having free will, regardless of how many good or evil deeds we do because of it.
Well now that I am unrealistcaly constrained into a forced choice (sounds familiar?) I would say that I would choose to lie to save the girl. (remember my other choices were taken away from me) Because I have no other choice to take. I am forced to make an immoral choice because that is the only choice available to me that will lead to the desired outcome.
So once again,
the end DOES justify the means.
(Is god also constrained in what he has to do to achieve his goal? Are his decisions also similarly constrained? What does that say about omni-potence?)
Possibly. It says that it is possible that the most good can only be achieved if there is also the possibility of evil.
It's a question of what you are willing to do to achieve a desired outcome.
The ends justify the means!
It's also semantics to say "that a bad thing is the right thing to do", you're playing with words.
Except that I never said that. I said that whether an act is "bad" or not depends on its context. In the context where stealing something saves someone's life, it's not bad at all -- it's good.
It is more accurate to say "that this act was necessary to achieve this goal." The act was a "bad" act but it was necessary to achieve a "good" goal.
Both mean the same thing as "
the ends justify the means."
Well then god does operate under a different set of moral codes than we do. But Than what does "in his image" mean?
God operates under a different set of moral codes only insofar as God must act to achieve the greatest good
possible, whereas we act to achieve the greatest good
that we can given our limitations.
By having free will? The suffering guy may be willing to give up his free will if the suffering would stop.
You may be willing to spend your entire life locked in a steel box in order to avoid the possibility of being hit by a truck, but that doesn't mean it would lead to the greatest good.
May be you could answer this for me. Do we still have free will in heaven?
Is suffering still a price we have to pay for free will in heaven?
I don't know. You'd have to ask a Christian. My guess is that from the descriptions I've heard of heaven, the choices are limited there, but there is no suffering either.
Yes, assuming the freedom to choose good in the face of temptation to choose evil is a greater good.
To who? The ones who suffer or the ones who benefits from the suffering?
We all benefit if we all have the freedom to choose between good and evil.
Is the greater good still so great if suffering is required for it's existance. Would not the greater good be even greater if there were no suffering to achieve it?
That is assuming that the greatest good can be achieved without suffering, and the presumption here is that it can't by its very nature. Can you prove that it can?
As your numbers put it, one subtracts from the other. Greater good without the suffering would be greater than the greater good with the suffering.
Do the math, and show me a scenario using the numbers in my illustration how a greater good can be achieved without free will than with it. Looking at the BEST scenario without free will and the WORST scenario with free will, it is clear that the greater good is always achieved with free will than without it.
It's still a bad thing for the one who was stolen from. But we choose to overlook his loss for the greater good.
The ends justify the means.
Still greater good without the theft is greater than the greater good with the theft.
Better than
that would be saving the person without the theft and also finding a million dollars. But that's not a possibility in the scenario I presented.
The subtraction caused by the theft taints the greater good.
And yet it's still the greatest good possible in the scenario I described, and therefore theft is the most moral choice.
But that's redefining the meaning of the word to suite a desired characteristic.
No, it's the common meaning of the word. You are redefining it in order to prove the impossibility of an "omni-benevolent god". But you're not disproving the Christian God at all.
I can disprove the possibility of an omni-benevolent god also by re-defining "omni-benevolent" to mean "mortal," in which case I can claim that "mortal god" is a contradiction and therefore the existence of an omni-benevolent god is impossible!
Of course, if I want to disprove the
Christian God (rather than my own "mortal god") then I have to use terms in the way
Christians use it.
It's omni-benevolence, but not really. Its a christian interpretation of omni-benevolence.
If you say so. I won't quibble except to say that it's the common definition of the word and the one you're using is not. Regardless, you have to use theirs if you want to disprove a God that contains the characteristics they believe their God to possess.
-Bri
