Atheism and evil

[Resha Caner]

My original statement was 5 people guilty of trying to kill thousands of innocent people. If we assume 5000 guilty people in the process of killing 100 innocent people; I would say kill the guilty in order to spare the innocent.

OK. So I'm trying to ask if the degree of the slaughter ever enters your consideration. Suppose the entire nation of Japan were engaged in the process of trying to kill these 100 innocent people. Would you say it is justified to kill 130 million people to save 100 innocents?

You see where this is going. The line is fuzzy. I don't know what number would make it fuzzy for you, but I expect at some point your answer is going to flip from yes to no. I'm asking what criteria makes you change your answer as the number of people killed increases.

Or, maybe you think the 130 million should be killed.

 

[Ken-1122]

OK. So I'm trying to ask if the degree of the slaughter ever enters your consideration. Suppose the entire nation of Japan were engaged in the process of trying to kill these 100 innocent people. Would you say it is justified to kill 130 million people to save 100 innocents?

You see where this is going. The line is fuzzy. I don't know what number would make it fuzzy for you, but I expect at some point your answer is going to flip from yes to no. I'm asking what criteria makes you change your answer as the number of people killed increases.

Or, maybe you think the 130 million should be killed.

First of all this is just my personal opinion.
Now you have left a lot of information out! Are you talking about the entire Nation of Japan during WW-2? When their goal was to march down Washington DC and do to us as they did to China, and other nations they conquered? Or are you talking about Japan today who are some of our closest allies? What is the context of sacrificing 100 lives for millions of other lives? These details is what will cause me to flip from yes to no.


Ken

 

[Resha Caner]

First of all this is just my personal opinion.
Now you have left a lot of information out! Are you talking about the entire Nation of Japan during WW-2? When their goal was to march down Washington DC and do to us as they did to China, and other nations they conquered? Or are you talking about Japan today who are some of our closest allies? What is the context of sacrificing 100 lives for millions of other lives? These details is what will cause me to flip from yes to no.

But in the process of shifting from WWII Japan to contemporary Japan aren't you also shifting your judgement of them from guilty to innocent?

I'm saying these 130 million people are guilty of trying to kill the 100. Guilt implies you think they are wrong to do it. So, let's say the nation of 130 million doesn't like that the KC Royals didn't win the World Series and they blame the 100 umpires in major league baseball (MLB) for the Royals loss.

Would you kill an entire nation of 130 million people to stop them from killing 100 umpires?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Your mistake is trying to separate consequences from value.
Again; unless there is action; it is all subjective, because it only exist in your head.

Ken

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... Actions are not subjective, actions are objective.

 

[Ken-1122]

But in the process of shifting from WWII Japan to contemporary Japan aren't you also shifting your judgement of them from guilty to innocent?

Yes!

I'm saying these 130 million people are guilty of trying to kill the 100. Guilt implies you think they are wrong to do it. So, let's say the nation of 130 million doesn't like that the KC Royals didn't win the World Series and they blame the 100 umpires in major league baseball (MLB) for the Royals loss.

Would you kill an entire nation of 130 million people to stop them from killing 100 umpires?

Again; if there were no alternative; if all 130 million would not rest unless those innocent people were killed, I would kill the guilty to spare the innocent; no matter the number of guilty who has to die. If they are allowed to kill this 100 people, who is to say when they decide to kill another 100? When does it stop?



Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... Actions are not subjective, actions are objective.

Yes! That's why I said UNLESS there is action; because judgment calls of good, bad, evil etc. are subjective but action is objective.

Ken

 

[Resha Caner]

Again; if there were no alternative; if all 130 million would not rest unless those innocent people were killed, I would kill the guilty to spare the innocent; no matter the number of guilty who has to die. If they are allowed to kill this 100 people, who is to say when they decide to kill another 100? When does it stop?

Then I was wrong. As long as guilt is determined, the scale of the slaughter would not sway you. You would be willing to endorse genocide if you decided an entire nation was guilty of a crime.

 

[Ken-1122]

Then I was wrong. As long as guilt is determined, the scale of the slaughter would not sway you. You would be willing to endorse genocide if you decided an entire nation was guilty of a crime.

If that were the only way to prevent them from killing innocent people; yes.


Ken

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes! That's why I said UNLESS there is action; because judgment calls of good, bad, evil etc. are subjective but action is objective.

Ken

Well not really, because even if you're debating a possible moral situation that hasn't yet happened, you're still debating what the objective consequences of the possible actions are.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well not really, because even if you're debating a possible moral situation that hasn't yet happened, you're still debating what the objective consequences of the possible actions are.

If nothing has happened yet; we will be debating what the objective consequences of the possible actions will be (not what they are) But yes we will be debating consequences that will be subjective, once the actions take place. But as long as everything remains a discussion; that discussion is subjective.


Ken

 

[Dave Ellis]

If nothing has happened yet; we will be debating what the objective consequences of the possible actions will be (not what they are) But yes we will be debating consequences that will be subjective, once the actions take place. But as long as everything remains a discussion; that discussion is subjective.


Ken

Consequences are always objective.

Your opinions about those consequences (especially debating in advance) will be subjective, but it doesn't change what the objective reality of those consequences are or will be.

 

[Ken-1122]

Consequences are always objective.

Your opinions about those consequences (especially debating in advance) will be subjective, but it doesn't change what the objective reality of those consequences are or will be.

I think we are on the same page. Consequences are objective, but a discussion about some theoretical consequence if some future action were to take place; that discussion is subjective.

Ken

PS I just re-read what I wrote previously. I wrote; "But yes we will be debating consequences that will be subjective, once the actions take place.
I meant to say objective; rather than subjective.

 

[Resha Caner]

If that were the only way to prevent them from killing innocent people; yes.

I see. So you don't have a problem with 1 Samuel 15, then.

 

[Ken-1122]

I see. So you don't have a problem with 1 Samuel 15, then.

I am a man. I am not a perfect, all knowing, all powerful God with the power and ability to change hearts.
If I had the ability to change the hearts of the 130 million Japanease who wanted to kill the american umpires (per your scenario) I would rather change their hearts than kill them. I would rather take away their freewill, even if it meant turning them into robots rather than kill them all. Of course if I were all powerful, capable, and wise; I would be able to figure out a way to change hearts and still remain their freewill in tact now won't I?


Ken

 

[Dave Ellis]

I think we are on the same page. Consequences are objective, but a discussion about some theoretical consequence if some future action were to take place; that discussion is subjective.

Ken

PS I just re-read what I wrote previously. I wrote; "But yes we will be debating consequences that will be subjective, once the actions take place.
I meant to say objective; rather than subjective.

Ah, in that case you're right, we're probably on the same page then

 

[Resha Caner]

I am a man. I am not a perfect, all knowing, all powerful God with the power and ability to change hearts.
If I had the ability to change the hearts of the 130 million Japanease who wanted to kill the american umpires (per your scenario) I would rather change their hearts than kill them. I would rather take away their freewill, even if it meant turning them into robots rather than kill them all. Of course if I were all powerful, capable, and wise; I would be able to figure out a way to change hearts and still remain their freewill in tact now won't I?

I wouldn't agree with all the premises you've listed or their outcomes. Omnipotence in no way bestows an ability to produce contradictions, etc.

But, I'll take your answer as an affirmation with a stipulation - you want to give them a chance to change their heart. I don't recall you mentioning that before, but I'll ask why you think that option is not available in 1 Samuel 15?

 

[Ken-1122]

I wouldn't agree with all the premises you've listed or their outcomes. Omnipotence in no way bestows an ability to produce contradictions, etc.

What contradictions?

But, I'll take your answer as an affirmation with a stipulation - you want to give them a chance to change their heart. I don't recall you mentioning that before, but I'll ask why you think that option is not available in 1 Samuel 15?

My answer was a negative. I do have a problem with what happened to the Amalekites. If this God can harden the Egyptian Pharaoh's heart; (resulting in the suffering and death of countless innocent Egyptians) with no problem; don't tell me he couldn't have soften the hearts of the Amalekites without the world coming to an end. In other words; if he is willing to affect someone's free will in order to make them more evil, he should be more than willing to affect someone's free will in order to make them less evil

Ken

 

[Resha Caner]

What contradictions?

You were proposing God could effect someone who has free will but doesn't have free will.

My answer was a negative. I do have a problem with what happened to the Amalekites. If this God can harden the Egyptian Pharaoh's heart; (resulting in the suffering and death of countless innocent Egyptians) with no problem; don't tell me he couldn't have soften the hearts of the Amalekites without the world coming to an end. In other words; if he is willing to affect someone's free will in order to make them more evil, he should be more than willing to affect someone's free will in order to make them less evil.

Well, you've no basis for having a problem with it due to what you said. I mean, you're free to dislike what happened, but you've no basis for convincing anyone your disgust is justified. God did exactly what you said you would do when convinced an entire nation is guilty of a crime.

WRT Pharaoh it is interesting how people summarily apply specific instances to the whole story. Regardless, I ask again: What makes you think this option for God to appeal to hearts was not available in this situation?

 

[Ken-1122]

You were proposing God could effect someone who has free will but doesn't have free will.

No; I was proposing God could effect someone who has free will without taking away his free will.

Well, you've no basis for having a problem with it due to what you said. I mean, you're free to dislike what happened, but you've no basis for convincing anyone your disgust is justified.

How do you come to this conclusion? Freewill allows me to voice my opinion; and anyone who agrees with me will agree my disgust is justified.

God did exactly what you said you would do when convinced an entire nation is guilty of a crime.

No, I said I would change hearts if I were capable of doing so. Now if you are gonna claim God is able to harden hearts but can't soften them; explain why.

WRT Pharaoh it is interesting how people summarily apply specific instances to the whole story. Regardless, I ask again: What makes you think this option for God to appeal to hearts was not available in this situation?

I made a case that this option WAS available in that situation.

Ken

 

[Resha Caner]

No; I was proposing God could effect someone who has free will without taking away his free will.

Sure, but that's true of anyone. You were appealing to an idea of omnipotence such that the outcome would be determined. Once the outcome is determined, there is no free will. You even said you would prefer God make us robots.

How do you come to this conclusion? Freewill allows me to voice my opinion; and anyone who agrees with me will agree my disgust is justified.

No. It simply means they agree with your arbitrary opinion to spare a nation in this case and kill them in that case. Agreement with your opinion is not justification.

No, I said I would change hearts if I were capable of doing so. Now if you are gonna claim God is able to harden hearts but can't soften them; explain why.

I never said that. God does in fact encourage people toward mercy and forgiveness (Matthew 18:21-35).

I made a case that this option WAS available in that situation.

Good.

So, God commanded Saul to kill the Amalekites. Had God wanted to determine that outcome, he could have hardened Saul's heart (as you pointed out he did in the case of Pharaoh). But he didn't. As a result Saul didn't kill the Amalekites. So, why was there any need in this case for God to soften someone's heart?

Rather, he showed a passive mercy toward the Amalekites by not overruling Saul's decision and hardening his heart.

So, the slaughter didn't happen. The Amalekites happily lived on to attempt genocide yet again in the book of Esther. So what is it you're upset about? IMO your "disgust" is completely unfounded based on the ethic you have expressed.

Maybe you should consider the alternative expressed here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7854866-4/#post66731145