God, humans and Consequentialism

[PaulSacramento]

An interesting read ( that I agree with) by WLC in regards to consequentialism:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/conseque ... em-of-evil

The questions:

Dear William Craig

Imagine we are in what is now southern Germany a hundred years before the birth of Jesus. A certain bandit, Richard, quite lost to history, has raided a village and killed all its inhabitants bar one. This final survivor, a pregnant woman named Angie, he finds hiding in a house about to be burned. On a whim of compassion, he orders that her life be spared.

But perhaps, he should not have done so. For let us suppose Angie was a great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother of Adolf Hitler. The millions of Hitler's victims were thus also victims of Richard's sparing of Angie.

Perhaps, had Richard killed Angie, her son Peter would have avenged her, thus causing Richard's widowed wife Samantha to get married again to Francis. And perhaps had all this happened Francis and Samantha would have had a descendant 115 generations on, Malcolm the Truly Appalling, who would have conquered the world and in doing so committed crimes vastly more extensive and terrible than those of Hitler. Thus the immediate consequences of an action like killing an innocent villager can be swamped by the consequences thousands of years in the future, which no one could ever reasonably foresee. Maybe I met someone at a bar last weekend whose progeny 2,000 years from now will cause human extinction. That would imply that the worst thing I ever did in my entire life was refrain from murdering that bar acquaintance. This seems to imply that there's basically no way to know if you're making the right ethical decisions.

So how do you know then whether you're making the right ethical decision? It seems to be a bit problematic to know whether you committed a sin since your sin (such as a murder for example) could be the greatest good for the humankind

Thank you

John

The reply:

I selected your thoughtful question, John, because it has important bearing on two issues: ethical theory and the problem of evil.

First, your question exposes a fatal flaw in consequentialist ethical theories like utilitarianism, which says that our moral duty is to do those actions that will bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Sam Harris, for example, is a consequentialist, who says that we should act so as to bring about the greatest flourishing of sentient life.

As your illustrations show, this is a hopeless prescription, since due to our inherent limitations, we are simply in no position to make such assessments. So you’re right that on a consequentialist view, “there's basically no way to know if you're making the right ethical decisions.”

By contrast, on what is called a deontological view, our decisions are to be guided by certain moral principles, which we can know to be true without having to look into the future to see the outcomes of our choices. A theistic version of such a theory will see these principles as constituted by God’s commandments for moral behavior. We should, for example, in answer to Albert Camus’ question in The Plague, work to alleviate the suffering wrought by the disease because that is what we have been commanded to do, without speculating on God’s purposes in permitting the plague.

Now, of course, sometimes the application of these moral principles will require us to consider the consequences of our actions—for example, whom shall we treat first in the plague?—but that is still not consequentialism because the rightness or wrongness of those actions is not determined just by their consequences. Even if by the vicissitudes of history deliberately infecting someone with the disease should issue in some great benefit for mankind, it would still be morally wrong to commit such an atrocity.

So the theist has no problem knowing “whether you committed a sin since your sin (such as a murder for example) could be the greatest good for the humankind.” If you murdered an innocent person, you have broken God’s commandment and have therefore sinned, regardless of the great good that might come of it.

This has relevance to the problem of evil because just as we are in no position to assess the ultimate outcomes of our choices, neither are we in a good position to judge that God lacks morally sufficient reasons for permitting some instance of suffering in the world. God sees the end of history from its beginning and providentially directs a world of free persons toward His pre-visioned ends through the free choices they make. To borrow your example, by permitting someone to be murdered in the bar last weekend, God may have prevented the extinction of the human race 2,000 years from now. Notice that this is not consequentialism: it is not to say that you should have murdered the person in the bar or that his murder was not evil and a sin. It is to say that God can have morally justifying reasons to permit evils to occur. They are evil; but they are justly permitted. The assumption of those who do not see this is that “What should not be should not be permitted.” That principle is false. There can be genuinely evil acts, things which should not be, and yet we—and God—can be morally justified in allowing them occur.

When we think of God’s providence over the whole of human history, we can see how hopeless it is to speculate on whether God probably lacks morally sufficient reasons for permitting evils to occur. We are in no better position to make such judgements than we are to make judgements about the ultimate outcomes of our choices.



Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/conseque ... z3rrknDyZC

[Bluejay4]

Awesome.

[Audacity]

". . .(n)either are we in a good position to judge that God lacks morally sufficient reasons for permitting some instance of suffering in the world. God sees the end of history from its beginning and providentially directs a world of free persons toward His pre-visioned ends through the free choices they make."

Awesome.

I agree. It is awesome that god, an omniscient and omnipotent being, had to inflict suffering upon millions and millions of people in order to attain his final goal, whatever it may be. One would think a being with such super-duper powers could have made an end run around suffering and still win the game. Evidently god just doesn't have the wherewithal, nor does the suffering bother him enough. Getting over the goal line is worth the anguish of the players he put into the game. We're nothing more than expendable pawns in his pursuit of the pennant who are expected to thank him for the chance to serve and suffer. How nice. Praise god.

[Mallz]

Audacity, did someone drop you on your head when you were a baby? And it's Gods fault?

Your lack of understanding (and vast knowledge of fallacies) doesn't even get you the term neophyte.

[Audacity]

Audacity, did someone drop you on your head when you were a baby? And it's Gods fault?

Your lack of understanding (and vast knowledge of fallacies) doesn't even get you the term neophyte.

Ah yes, the last resort of the toothless: ad homs. Interesting that you'd blatantly expose yourself like this, but I thank you for it.

[Mallz]

Guess I should post this here:

That's an observation taken from circumstantial evidence you present, not an ad hominem. Sorry that you're so ignorant on such topics and come off arrogant.

Keep being fallacious and it will keep being pointed out.

[IceMobster]

". . .(n)either are we in a good position to judge that God lacks morally sufficient reasons for permitting some instance of suffering in the world. God sees the end of history from its beginning and providentially directs a world of free persons toward His pre-visioned ends through the free choices they make."

Awesome.

I agree. It is awesome that god, an omniscient and omnipotent being, had to inflict suffering upon millions and millions of people in order to attain his final goal, whatever it may be. One would think a being with such super-duper powers could have made an end run around suffering and still win the game. Evidently god just doesn't have the wherewithal, nor does the suffering bother him enough. Getting over the goal line is worth the anguish of the players he put into the game. We're nothing more than expendable pawns in his pursuit of the pennant who are expected to thank him for the chance to serve and suffer. How nice. Praise god.

So... Can someone prove this being a fallacy or whatever?
I see fair points here.
Enlighten me (us) please.

[B. W.]

". . .(n)either are we in a good position to judge that God lacks morally sufficient reasons for permitting some instance of suffering in the world. God sees the end of history from its beginning and providentially directs a world of free persons toward His pre-visioned ends through the free choices they make."

Awesome.

I agree. It is awesome that god, an omniscient and omnipotent being, had to inflict suffering upon millions and millions of people in order to attain his final goal, whatever it may be. One would think a being with such super-duper powers could have made an end run around suffering and still win the game. Evidently god just doesn't have the wherewithal, nor does the suffering bother him enough. Getting over the goal line is worth the anguish of the players he put into the game. We're nothing more than expendable pawns in his pursuit of the pennant who are expected to thank him for the chance to serve and suffer. How nice. Praise god.

So... Can someone prove this being a fallacy or whatever?
I see fair points here.
Enlighten me (us) please.

Okay let me put it to you another way:

It is awesome that the idea of leftist Utopian governmental entity, an omniscient and omnipotent entity, had to inflict suffering upon millions and millions of people in order to attain its final goal, whatever it may be. One would think such an entity, with its super-duper powers could have made an end run around suffering and still win the game. Evidently Atheism, Marxism, Progressive liberalism just doesn't have the wherewithal, nor does the suffering bother this entity enough. Getting over the goal line is worth the anguish of the players he put into the game. We're nothing more than expendable pawns in his pursuit of the pennant who are expected to thank the leftist for the chance to serve and suffer. How nice. Praise Progressive Socialism!

Now defend atheism, Marxism, Progressive socialism....
-
-
-

[Audacity]

". . .(n)either are we in a good position to judge that God lacks morally sufficient reasons for permitting some instance of suffering in the world. God sees the end of history from its beginning and providentially directs a world of free persons toward His pre-visioned ends through the free choices they make."

Awesome.

I agree. It is awesome that god, an omniscient and omnipotent being, had to inflict suffering upon millions and millions of people in order to attain his final goal, whatever it may be. One would think a being with such super-duper powers could have made an end run around suffering and still win the game. Evidently god just doesn't have the wherewithal, nor does the suffering bother him enough. Getting over the goal line is worth the anguish of the players he put into the game. We're nothing more than expendable pawns in his pursuit of the pennant who are expected to thank him for the chance to serve and suffer. How nice. Praise god.

So... Can someone prove this being a fallacy or whatever?
I see fair points here.
Enlighten me (us) please.

Okay let me put it to you another way:

It is awesome that the idea of leftist Utopian governmental entity, an omniscient and omnipotent entity, had to inflict suffering upon millions and millions of people in order to attain its final goal, whatever it may be. One would think such an entity, with its super-duper powers could have made an end run around suffering and still win the game. Evidently Atheism, Marxism, Progressive liberalism just doesn't have the wherewithal, nor does the suffering bother this entity enough. Getting over the goal line is worth the anguish of the players he put into the game. We're nothing more than expendable pawns in his pursuit of the pennant who are expected to thank the leftist for the chance to serve and suffer. How nice. Praise Progressive Socialism!

Now defend atheism, Marxism, Progressive socialism....
-
-
-

Yeah, pretty much figured you'd end up saying something like this: "I can't tell you where Audacity is wrong so I need to change the subject. Therefore, just tell me where I'm wrong instead."

I don't know if IceMobster cares about your irrelevant challenge or not, but I certainly don't.

[RickD]

Hey Audacity,


I have a book that comes highly recommended by a lot of people here. Is God a Moral Monster.

I have a copy of it, and you are welcome to have it if you are truly interested. Just give me an address to send it to, and it's yours for free.

Let me know.

[PaulSacramento]

". . .(n)either are we in a good position to judge that God lacks morally sufficient reasons for permitting some instance of suffering in the world. God sees the end of history from its beginning and providentially directs a world of free persons toward His pre-visioned ends through the free choices they make."

Awesome.

I agree. It is awesome that god, an omniscient and omnipotent being, had to inflict suffering upon millions and millions of people in order to attain his final goal, whatever it may be. One would think a being with such super-duper powers could have made an end run around suffering and still win the game. Evidently god just doesn't have the wherewithal, nor does the suffering bother him enough. Getting over the goal line is worth the anguish of the players he put into the game. We're nothing more than expendable pawns in his pursuit of the pennant who are expected to thank him for the chance to serve and suffer. How nice. Praise god.

If you don't understand the argument, you can simply just say so.
Note that NOWHERE does the argument state that God INFLICTS anything on anyone.

I see that you have decided to create a notion of God

"One would think a being with such super-duper powers could have made an end run around suffering and still win the game",

that doesn't really understand what THAT kind of God would actually be like.

[Audacity]

". . .(n)either are we in a good position to judge that God lacks morally sufficient reasons for permitting some instance of suffering in the world. God sees the end of history from its beginning and providentially directs a world of free persons toward His pre-visioned ends through the free choices they make."

Awesome.

I agree. It is awesome that god, an omniscient and omnipotent being, had to inflict suffering upon millions and millions of people in order to attain his final goal, whatever it may be. One would think a being with such super-duper powers could have made an end run around suffering and still win the game. Evidently god just doesn't have the wherewithal, nor does the suffering bother him enough. Getting over the goal line is worth the anguish of the players he put into the game. We're nothing more than expendable pawns in his pursuit of the pennant who are expected to thank him for the chance to serve and suffer. How nice. Praise god.

If you don't understand the argument, you can simply just say so.

But I do understand.

Note that NOWHERE does the argument state that God INFLICTS anything on anyone.

I know, but he has. That you may think that killing innocent infants and small children is justified, flies in the face of common morality. And that you evidently believe god is not subject to such moral principles really needs to be justified. So, what ya got?

I see that you have decided to create a notion of God

..............."One would think a being with such super-duper powers could have made an end run around suffering and ...............still win the game",

that doesn't really understand what THAT kind of God would actually be like.

So tell us then, just what kind of good god elects to inflict suffering onto people when he doesn't have to?

[PaulSacramento]

I know, but he has. That you may think that killing innocent infants and small children is justified, flies in the face of common morality. And that you evidently believe god is not subject to such moral principles really needs to be justified. So, what ya got?

What exactly do you base this "common morality" on ??

See, your very atheism, when taken to it's eventual and undeniable conclusion, states that morality is subjective and relative.
Since you made the existence of God a moral issue and yet, as an atheist, do not have a moral foundation to stand on other than a relative and subjective one, I ask you again:
On what basis do you condemn God for His actions?

[RickD]

Ooh, a paradox!!

[B. W.]

". . .(n)either are we in a good position to judge that God lacks morally sufficient reasons for permitting some instance of suffering in the world. God sees the end of history from its beginning and providentially directs a world of free persons toward His pre-visioned ends through the free choices they make."

Awesome.

I agree. It is awesome that god, an omniscient and omnipotent being, had to inflict suffering upon millions and millions of people in order to attain his final goal, whatever it may be. One would think a being with such super-duper powers could have made an end run around suffering and still win the game. Evidently god just doesn't have the wherewithal, nor does the suffering bother him enough. Getting over the goal line is worth the anguish of the players he put into the game. We're nothing more than expendable pawns in his pursuit of the pennant who are expected to thank him for the chance to serve and suffer. How nice. Praise god.

So... Can someone prove this being a fallacy or whatever?
I see fair points here.
Enlighten me (us) please.

Okay let me put it to you another way:

It is awesome that the idea of leftist Utopian governmental entity, an omniscient and omnipotent entity, had to inflict suffering upon millions and millions of people in order to attain its final goal, whatever it may be. One would think such an entity, with its super-duper powers could have made an end run around suffering and still win the game. Evidently Atheism, Marxism, Progressive liberalism just doesn't have the wherewithal, nor does the suffering bother this entity enough. Getting over the goal line is worth the anguish of the players he put into the game. We're nothing more than expendable pawns in his pursuit of the pennant who are expected to thank the leftist for the chance to serve and suffer. How nice. Praise Progressive Socialism!

Now defend atheism, Marxism, Progressive socialism....
-
-
-

Yeah, pretty much figured you'd end up saying something like this: "I can't tell you where Audacity is wrong so I need to change the subject. Therefore, just tell me where I'm wrong instead."

I don't know if IceMobster cares about your irrelevant challenge or not, but I certainly don't.

Then no answer will be given you...

The irony...