Is there anything a God could do that would make him evil?

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think my thoughts are particularly modern in all this. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth and all.

Maybe your thoughts on this aren't modern, but simply being that you've referred to concepts of Lex talionis doesn't make them specifically biblically centered either ...

 

[Moral Orel]

Maybe your thoughts on this aren't modern, but simply being that you've referred to concepts of Lex talionis doesn't make them specifically biblically centered either ...

Okay. My question is still unanswered.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No. But if someone steals $50 from you, that is a crime against you, not a crime against me. If someone steals $50 from me, that is a crime against me, not a crime against you. Even in your analogies, crimes are "against" who they're harmed, not someone who isn't harmed.

Again, stealing money from someone doesn't harm them, especially stealing from God!!! The ONE HARMED is the thief.

GOD PAID THE PRICE - HIS PRECIOUSNESS

for your sin.

Reject that, die apart from Him, He cares, because HIS SON DIED for your sins.

 

[Moral Orel]

Again, stealing money from someone doesn't harm them

Yes it does. Financial harm is a real thing. So is mental harm, emotional harm, etc.

 

[zippy2006]

In order for something to be just, fair, or equitable, you have to weigh it against something else.
It's just to offer a fair wage because you're weighing the wage against the work performed.

It seems like you're conflating justice with recompense. Compensation is fair, but fairness isn't compensation. Compensation is just, but justice isn't compensation.

An old definition of justice is "Rendering to each one his due," or "Rendering to each one his right." If you injure or employ, then it is just to repay or pay (respectively), but justice isn't merely transactional. For example, the just man will defend himself, his family, and his country against harm. In this case justice is a matter of duty, not recompense.

(Note, though, that promise-keeping is a form of justice-as-recompense. The fulfillment of a promise is weighed against the promise itself (or the "man's word"). A promise is the creation of an obligation which must in turn be fulfilled.)

It's just to fulfill one's contractual obligations after the other party has,

According to such a notion no contractual obligation would ever be fulfilled.

...but you can't conflate that with keeping a promise. Fulfilling your end of a contract is fulfilling a promise, but fulfilling a promise isn't necessarily fulfilling your end of a contract.

A promise is a one-way obligation; a contract is a two-way obligation (or three-way, or four-way, etc.). You might define a contract as a legally enforceable set of agreed-upon promises. Either way, fulfilling a promise is just, and fulfilling a contract is just, and for much the same reason.

If I make an unsolicited promise to you that I'm going to wash your car, it isn't "just" to keep that promise because it isn't compared with anything.

Of course it's just. I addressed your compensatory notion above.

It feels like you're trying to conflate "just" with anything "good". But lots of things are good that are unjust. Being generous, for one.

All that is just is good but not all that is good is just.

It's good to give people more than you owe them, like tipping well, right? But that isn't just. How can being just be intrinsically good when it's good to be unjust? If I offer you more than a fair wage, am I being bad because I am acting unjustly?

Supererogation is certainly not unjust.

Now like you said, we're talking about retributive justice, so why is your example the opposite of that?

The reason we moved to the topic of justice is because you asserted that justice itself has no intrinsic value. I gave an example of non-retributive justice in order to establish a non-controversial ground/genus by which we could then determine whether retributive justice is, in fact, just. (I said this in different words a long time ago.)

• Zip: Meting out a just punishment is contrary to neither goodness or love.
• Orel: What's good about justice for justice's sake?
• Zip: Justice is good in itself, is it not?
• Orel: That's what I'm questioning.
• Zip: First, what is your understanding or definition of justice?
• Orel: Justice is equity, fairness.
• Zip: And you don't think equity and fairness have intrinsic value?
• Orel: ...no. Not intrinsic value, anyways.

I believe Tinker's response was much better. Rather than questioning justice itself, he questioned the justice of an act. His standing argument is that the act of eternal punishment is unjust because it is non-rehabilitative.

 

[Moral Orel]

It seems like you're conflating justice with recompense. Compensation is fair, but fairness isn't compensation. Compensation is just, but justice isn't compensation.

An old definition of justice is "Rendering to each one his due," or "Rendering to each one his right." If you injure or employ, then it is just to repay or pay (respectively)

Just because I owe you something doesn't mean you deserve it.

justice isn't merely transactional. For example, the just man will defend himself, his family, and his country against harm. In this case justice is a matter of duty, not recompense.

Until a threat presents itself, the man is only waiting, he isn't doing justice. When someone attacks him, his family, or his country, he attacks them back, and then justice has happened.

(Note, though, that promise-keeping is a form of justice-as-recompense. The fulfillment of a promise is weighed against the promise itself (or the "man's word"). A promise is the creation of an obligation which must in turn be fulfilled.)

That doesn't sound like two things that can be compared. And later you're going to tell me that you want a non-controversial ground to work from, but you're arguing for something that doesn't relate to retribution. Bad analogy, try again.

According to such a notion no contractual obligation would ever be fulfilled.

People have reasons to do things other than justice. I already gave a reason for this after the first mock conversation where you made up things for me to say.

Supererogation is certainly not unjust.

How so? We agree that paying a fair wage is just. So paying a wage that is not fair should be unjust, right? (less than a fair wage) < (a fair wage) < (more than a fair wage). You aren't owed that extra money, so how is it fair to pay it to you? It's good, no doubt. But it doesn't equal a fair wage.

The reason we moved to the topic of justice is because you asserted that justice itself has no intrinsic value.

We started at the topic of justice, what are you talking about?

I gave an example of non-retributive justice in order to establish a non-controversial ground/genus by which we could then determine whether retributive justice is, in fact, just. (I said this in different words a long time ago.)

• Zip: Meting out a just punishment is contrary to neither goodness or love.
• Orel: What's good about justice for justice's sake?
• Zip: Justice is good in itself, is it not?
• Orel: That's what I'm questioning.
• Zip: First, what is your understanding or definition of justice?
• Orel: Justice is equity, fairness.
• Zip: And you don't think equity and fairness have intrinsic value?
• Orel: ...no. Not intrinsic value, anyways.

Sounds like obfuscation to work from an example that isn't retribution. You've got us arguing over whether a promise is justice instead of whether retributive justice is good after saying that our conversation is about retributive justice. Just give me your example of retributive justice since mine is so bad.

I believe Tinker's response was much better. Rather than questioning justice itself, he questioned the justice of an act. His standing argument is that the act of eternal punishment is unjust because it is non-rehabilitative.

Sounds boring.

 

[zippy2006]

Just because I owe you something doesn't mean you deserve it.

That's pretty much just what owing means.

Until a threat presents itself, the man is only waiting, he isn't doing justice. When someone attacks him, his family, or his country, he attacks them back, and then justice has happened.

I will concede this point. Consider another example: it is just for the state to recognize a right to free speech.

How so? We agree that paying a fair wage is just. So paying a wage that is not fair should be unjust, right? (less than a fair wage) < (a fair wage) < (more than a fair wage). You aren't owed that extra money, so how is it fair to pay it to you? It's good, no doubt. But it doesn't equal a fair wage.

Rendering more than what is due is not injustice. Gratuity is not a crime.

Sounds like obfuscation to work from an example that isn't retribution.

It's actually called rationality. If you don't know what justice is, you will never be able to determine whether retribution is just.

You've got us arguing over whether a promise is justice instead of whether retributive justice is good after saying that our conversation is about retributive justice.

You're the one who decided to argue about the nature of justice itself rather than give an argument against the example of the OP.

Do you deny the legitimacy of retributive justice altogether?

 

[Moral Orel]

That's pretty much just what owing means.

Nope.

Owed: To be under obligation to pay or repay
Deserved: Justly or rightly earned; merited

If I promise you something, I owe it to you, fine. That doesn't mean you earned it.

I will concede this point. Consider another example: it is just for the state to recognize a right to free speech.

So, you'll give another example, but you won't let it be an example of retributive justice... Why are you so resistant to do so?

Rendering more than what is due is not injustice. Gratuity is not a crime.

I don't see any reasoning here.

It's actually called rationality. If you don't know what justice is, you will never be able to determine whether retribution is just.

Nah, it's pretty clearly obfuscation. You decided to add another example, but you won't go near retribution. I bet if you ever did it's going to look an awful lot like mine that you made up problems to have with.

Also, you never said my definition of "justice" was incorrect, so I don't know why you're trying to imply I don't know what it is now.

You're the one who decided to argue about the nature of justice itself rather than give an argument against the example of the OP.

Do you deny the legitimacy of retributive justice altogether?

I already answered this. Give us an example of retributive justice and we'll talk about it. Better yet, let's start with just the first half of mine. I sock you in the nose. Now you can tell me what the most just thing that can be done in response.

 

[Larniavc]

IF THEY GET IN THE ARK they will be saved.

That barbaric. How could a god be so cruel?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That barbaric. How could a god be so cruel?

It would be kinder to let everyone die in your opinion ?

 

[Larniavc]

It would be kinder to let everyone die in your opinion ?

Would it be kinder to have Noachian ‘life boats’ accessible for every one? That way being accidentally born on the wrong continent would not be a God mandated death sentence.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Would it be kinder to have Noachian ‘life boats’ accessible for every one? That way being accidentally born on the wrong continent would not be a God mandated death sentence.

EVERYONE COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. They chose NOT TO. Instead, they CONTINUED IN GROWING IN WICKEDNESSES AND SIN. They (probably) mocked NOAH and laughed in derision and hilarity at NOAH and his sons working on the ARK and WARNING EVERYONE of the destruction coming.

 

[Larniavc]

EVERYONE COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. They chose NOT TO. Instead, they CONTINUED IN GROWING IN WICKEDNESSES AND SIN. They (probably) mocked NOAH and laughed in derision and hilarity at NOAH and his sons working on the ARK and WARNING EVERYONE of the destruction coming.

Even the ones on the other side of the planet who had never heard of God or Noah and simply did not want to drown?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Even the ones on the other side of the planet who had never heard of God or Noah and simply did not want to drown?

Yes, even from all parts of, even from the other side of the planet.

 

[Larniavc]

Yes, even from all parts of, even from the other side of the planet.

Those poor people. God really must have had it in for them to not give them a fighting chance.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Those poor people. God really must have had it in for them to not give them a fighting chance.

Did you skip everything?

They all had wonderful opportunity to be saved from the flood.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

EVERYONE COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. They chose NOT TO. Instead, they CONTINUED IN GROWING IN WICKEDNESSES AND SIN. They (probably) mocked NOAH and laughed in derision and hilarity at NOAH and his sons working on the ARK and WARNING EVERYONE of the destruction coming.

Even the ones on the other side of the planet who had never heard of God or Noah and simply did not want to drown?

Yes, even from all parts of, even from the other side of the planet.

 

[Larniavc]

Did you skip everything?

They all had wonderful opportunity to be saved from the flood.

How could they be saved if they had never heard of God or Noah because they were in (say) the Americas or Australia?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Remember King Solomon ?


or, more recently, Columbus ?

 

[Larniavc]

Remember King Solomon ?


or, more recently, Columbus ?

You’re going to have to explain what you mean by that.