Does God have a right to take life?

[variant]

Interesting. You don't believe that as the owner, creator, and sustainer of creation that God would have special rights that His creatures do not?

Rights are just ideas, a God that can do anything has any right it wants.

There is no way to enforce a difference of opinion on rights.

 

[sahjimira]

God can do anything He wants. He's God and knows what and why He does things

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

I don't think this has anything to do with rights. It has to do with authority and the argument for or against God doing his will on his creations is all about acknolegement of that authority.

I have many good friends that are absolute Atheists because they can not see the same thing Christians see because Christians see the world through the filter of faith. It is belief that his message and his benevolence that Christians acknowledge when they give themselves to him.

It is an extension of this belief that makes the taking of lives agreeable to those who believe in him.

 

[Chany]

Hi,
Please. Leaving out his leading words of "Assuming God of theism exists", is what you have done here.
You have completely changed the question he asked, to a statement of your own. Then you answered your own statement.
The question started this way. Assuming God of theism exists. .....
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

I haven't.

It's called a thought experiment.

The claim is that creating a person grants one ownership over them and, therefore, license to do whatever one wants with said person, including killing them.

I presented a sci-fi-esque scenario in which a create a new species of persons. In this scenario, the mere fact that I created these people does not make it permissible to do whatever I want with them.

In other words, merely creating persons does not entail ownership. Therefore, saying God created me does not mean God can morally do whatever he wants with me. He does not own me like a character in a novel or a machine; my personhood, rational agency, and sentience grant me moral status beyond that of a slave. As a moral agent, God must adhere to and respect these moral principles.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You do not have the right because you did not give them life. God did. You were part of the means by which God caused said kid to be born but this does not equate to you being the giver of life for the very life you have is not a result of anything you have made, but rather, God's spirit which sustains you.

First off, the fact that god gave anybody life to begin with, or sustains life is unsubstantiated.

However, for the sake of argument lets say there is a god and he originally created life. That doesn't change the fact that the creation of a new person is a result of my sperm cell meeting up with the egg cell of a woman. God is not required for that to happen, even in a hypothetical universe where a god exists.

In short, parents create children, not god.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Assuming the God of theism exists, He is responsible for creating and upholding the world. The world, being His creation, belongs to Him and he has rights over it. At every moment He is sustaining our lives and it would only take his drawing away from us for us to be obliterated from existence. We are living on His land, breathing His oxygen, inhabiting His bodies that He made.

Does this God have the right to discontinue our lease, as it were, and end our lives? Why or why not?

Death is certainly harder on the living than it is on the dead.

I rather like my life. It certainly seems to be better than death. If God cares at all about what I like, why would he choose to do something that from my perspective, would seem so cruel? And not just to myself but to everyone around me. I would hope that everyone I've met doesn't want me dead. If I was to die, that would most certainly bring greif and pain to those around me.

I think a better question would be, "Does God have the right to cause suffering or pain?"

 

[quatona]

You do not have the right because you did not give them life. God did. You were part of the means by which God caused said kid to be born but this does not equate to you being the giver of life for the very life you have is not a result of anything you have made, but rather, God's spirit which sustains you.

Which just demonstrates that the orgininal question is meaningless. God is unique in that God is the only entity that "gives life", there exists no precedence, no comparison or analogy for that. So how would anyone arrive at the conclusion "An entity that gives life has the right to..." (or the opposite)?
I could just as well posit the maxime "An entity that gives life has the absolute obligation to sustain it unconditionally."
I see no way how such statements can possibly be discussed reasonably.

 

[quatona]

Interesting. You don't believe that as the owner, creator, and sustainer of creation that God would have special rights that His creatures do not?

Rather, I´d say It has special obligations that Its creatures do not. (With great power come great responsibilities, and all that...)

On another note, a counter-question: Do you think humans have the right to take a life even though they aren´t its owners, creator and sustainers?

 

[katerinah1947]

I haven't.

It's called a thought experiment.

The claim is that creating a person grants one ownership over them and, therefore, license to do whatever one wants with said person, including killing them.

I presented a sci-fi-esque scenario in which a create a new species of persons. In this scenario, the mere fact that I created these people does not make it permissible to do whatever I want with them.

In other words, merely creating persons does not entail ownership. Therefore, saying God created me does not mean God can morally do whatever he wants with me. He does not own me like a character in a novel or a machine; my personhood, rational agency, and sentience grant me moral status beyond that of a slave. As a moral agent, God must adhere to and respect these moral principles.

Hi,

Here it seems; Here it looks like your central thought hinges on the word 'mere' and also you.
"""In this scenario, the mere fact that I created these people does not make it permissible to do whatever I want with them.""""

Do you see how you have moved the question of '''Assuming The God of theism exists...., ''' from God, to "I", to you as God?

Do you see how you have removed the words 'of theism' also?

And fine, to answer your question posed here, given you and an entirely different theistic reality, possibly based on the theism of you, if you were God, then yes, in your case it would not be permissible for all that you are and all that you do, to kill your creations when you pleased. But, you are neither God, nor do you know what happens to those left behind and to those taken, to presuppose lack of Goodness.

'of theism' means what God really is and what God really does, typically using a reference book on that theism of God. It is not about using philosophy or you, or anything else, when that is in the question. It is also not about accidentally jumping subjects and fields by inserting you for God, again not on purpose.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,
I made an error. It would not be permissible for you to destroy your created human being, from what I think I know of you now. However, if I actually found out and knew you, maybe even for you, it would be not only permissable, but right and correct.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Let's say we make a robot with artificial intelligence. I mean real A.I. Not just a robot with smart-aleck quips programmed in, but a robot with no intelligence of his own, only the ability to learn about the world around it, much like how a child must learn about the world.

Once the robot learns of his own creation and the significance he has to the world, would it then be immoral to harm or disable or shut down that robot?

I think this is a question we're going to have to answer in the not-so-distant future if robotics, computers and A.I. continue to improve as they have been.

 

[anonymous person]

First off, the fact that god gave anybody life to begin with, or sustains life is unsubstantiated.

Ok. Well remember, the OP asked a hypothetical question. Keep that in mind.

However, for the sake of argument lets say there is a god and he originally created life. That doesn't change the fact that the creation of a new person is a result of my sperm cell meeting up with the egg cell of a woman. God is not required for that to happen, even in a hypothetical universe where a god exists.

In short, parents create children, not god.

Parents owe their existence to God in this hypothetical. Without God there would be no parents giving birth to children.

 

[katerinah1947]

Let's say we make a robot with artificial intelligence. I mean real A.I. Not just a robot with smart-aleck quips programmed in, but a robot with no intelligence of his own, only the ability to learn about the world around it, much like how a child must learn about the world.

Once the robot learns of his own creation and the significance he has to the world, would it then be immoral to harm or disable or shut down that robot?

I think this is a question we're going to have to answer in the not-so-distant future if robotics, computers and A.I. continue to improve as they have been.

Hi,
Yes, it is not always immoral to harm or disable or shut down that robot, even if the robot is good.
Yes, it is sometimes immoral to harm or disable or shut down that robot, even if the robot is good.
How, is this a hard concept?
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[anonymous person]

Which just demonstrates that the orgininal question is meaningless. God is unique in that God is the only entity that "gives life", there exists no precedence, no comparison or analogy for that. So how would anyone arrive at the conclusion "An entity that gives life has the right to..." (or the opposite)?
I could just as well posit the maxime "An entity that gives life has the absolute obligation to sustain it unconditionally."
I see no way how such statements can possibly be discussed reasonably.

Then do not discuss it then.

 

[anonymous person]

I haven't.

It's called a thought experiment.

The claim is that creating a person grants one ownership over them and, therefore, license to do whatever one wants with said person, including killing them.

I presented a sci-fi-esque scenario in which a create a new species of persons. In this scenario, the mere fact that I created these people does not make it permissible to do whatever I want with them.

In other words, merely creating persons does not entail ownership. Therefore, saying God created me does not mean God can morally do whatever he wants with me. He does not own me like a character in a novel or a machine; my personhood, rational agency, and sentience grant me moral status beyond that of a slave. As a moral agent, God must adhere to and respect these moral principles.

And He does just that. That is what hell is for.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Hi,
Yes, it is not always immoral to harm or disable or shut down that robot, even if the robot is good.
Yes, it is sometimes immoral to harm or disable or shut down that robot, even if the robot is good.
How, is this a hard concept?
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

But what if the robot learns to enjoy his existence? If he truly gets the significance of being the only created material being with consciousness, wouldn't it be immoral to end that consciousness?

 

[anonymous person]

But what if the robot learns to enjoy his existence? If he truly gets the significance of being the only created material being with consciousness, wouldn't it be immoral to end that consciousness?

Who said God ends a person's consciousness when He causes their biological functions to cease?

The person lives on and is created in the image of God and therefore is eternal. They continue their existence either in heaven or hell.

 

[quatona]

Then do not discuss it then.

Pretend this is the philosophy forum.

 

[Beechwell]

I would say that a creators relationship with its creation is governed by a responsibility towards creation, rather than having absolute rights over creation.

If course this assumes my understanding of morality is of any relevance to the question. If you assume that the creator is beyond any morality, or if its actions are automatically morally good, then the question is if of course pointless.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Who said God ends a person's consciousness when He causes their biological functions to cease?

The person lives on and is created in the image of God and therefore is eternal. They continue their existence either in heaven or hell.

Well considering that consciousness appears to be a product of biological functions, its very hard for me to imagine thoughts existing outside of a brain.

But let's assume they can for the sake of argument. Do you want to die, even though you know you will live on, do you want to actually experience death, however it may come, and leave everyone behind in tears and sorrow for their loss? Do you think that's ok as long as there is some reward for it?