Philosophy Now Forum

Jaded Sage wrote:I mean to suggest that it is possible that God's action in this instance was either morally permissible or morally obligatory.

Hi Sage,

I think the only way we can understand God, is through the bible. But in order to do that, we need to first understand what God's deal was. We need to ask ourselves, was he good or was he bad?

When one reads the bible with the mindful intent, that God is a good God, then the only way possible to interpret the bible is through purity of heart. There is no other way...if one is to believe God is Good. So then, any misunderstanding that one has, that tells one that he should kill because God deems it 'obligatory' or 'permissible' , is not thinking logically as far as goodness goes. If in the same breath, one can recite the "Holy/Good" 10 commandments, and believe wholeheartedly that a Good God gave them to us so that we may know how to behave, and then in the next breath say, we can suspend those commandments at certain times, is not understanding what 'Good' means.

I think so many times, we allow society to tell us that we are 'justified' and doing God's work. But this is wrong. It doesn't stand to reason that a Good God would be in heaven rooting us on to kill in any way, when clearly he has given us a command not to do so.

I believe this is where purity of heart comes into play. Murder is always wrong, whether or not God tells us to do it, or is is justifiable according to our fellow humans.

Let's suppose for a moment, Abraham refused to murder Issac. A good God, according to the 10 commandments of the bible, would not have punished Abraham if he chose not to kill Issac...if he simply told God "No" that would have been the ultimate good. Because, all Abraham would have to say is on judgment day....is...,

"I had 2 choice to make to follow your word, God.

1. I could choose to obey your commandment, "thou shall not kill.

or

2. I could choose to obey the angel you sent telling me to kill.

I chose the first commandment because it held the most weight as far as goodness goes."

So you see, a good God would not punish Abraham for following the rules...in fact, I think if God is good, that is how he would like us to interpret the bible in every instance. Meaning, he would want us to read a story and think how to interpret it with good intentions not with bad. Only a bad God would want us to interpret the bible with evil intentions.

Now some will argue that this is not the case...and that is fine. Be on your merry way . But make no mistake, if a thought is pure and good, it can't contain the premise, "Hell yeah, it's good to kill in that case!"

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:Harming in the name of goodness can also be called self-defense. This does not equate terrorism to self-defense, and it does not equate goodness of intent to action.

There is no such thing as harming in the name of goodness.

They all say that. US when it went into Iraq and Afghanistan; Libya; in it's attempted regime change in Syria.

And guess who in Paris on Friday?? Yep ISIL Daesh.

Everyone is killing for the greater good.

All of it equates to terrorism.

Yes, Hobbes...I get what you are saying. But think about what I am saying...please. You are reading me wrong.

Here is what you are reading:

"There is no such thing as harming in the name of goodness." (You are thinking that because ISIL thinks they are doing good that they are correct in their actions according to the way they see things)

I am not saying that.

What I am saying when I said:

"There is no such thing as harming in the name of goodness."

Is precisely that....you literally can't "Harm" and call it "good". There is no such thing even if someone thinks there is...they would be literally mistaken.

The two words are not even close in meaning. "Harmful Goodness" is an oxymoron.

God sends you to hell. You say 'this is unfair! you have no right!'. You stomp your feet.

God sez 'to hell I sent you and in hell you'll stay' (if he talks to you at all).

You yell some more...stomp your feet some more.

About that time, the demons come along...time for the daily sodomy with a pitchfork!

As two feet of pitchfork handle runs through you like pipe cleaner, you curse god.

Morality ain't got nuthin' to do with nuthin'.

That is all.

henry quirk wrote:God sends you to hell. You say 'this is unfair! you have no right!'. You stomp your feet.

God sez 'to hell I sent you and in hell you'll stay' (if he talks to you at all).

You yell some more...stomp your feet some more.

About that time, the demons come along...time for the daily sodomy with a pitchfork!

As two feet of pitchfork handle runs through you like pipe cleaner, you curse god.

Morality ain't got nuthin' to do with nuthin'.

That is all.

Again I ask, if this is what you think a good God would do, then where is the antithesis of this?

If both God and Satan are bad then again I ask, "What or who is good?"

If we have a word for the concept 'Good" where did the word come from?

Me, I'm an atheist...I think god is a fiction...but, if there is one, I got no reason to believe he'd be anything more than the wielder of the biggest stick, doin' exactly what he wants to do, for whatever reasons he cobbles together.

I can judge him till the cows come home and it won't make a bit of difference.

But then, mebbe god is like Howard's Crom, that grim being who sparks the fire of 'self' and then just watches it burn without intervening. Crom gives one the tools to 'do', then has the good sense to leave one alone to sink or swim. Crom won't help, but he doesn't punish.

Meh, 'god'.

#

"If we have a word for the concept 'Good" where did the word come from?"

Seems to me: 'good' is what folks call that which benefits them. Other folks, not benefited, call that same thing 'evil'.

Eye of the beholder.

As for the placeholder itself ('good'): consult a dictionary for the etymology.

henry quirk wrote:
Seems to me: 'good' is what folks call that which benefits them. Other folks, not benefited, call that same thing 'evil'.

Eye of the beholder.

Just because you are being cynical does not make it true. How do you account for the folks who can see past just what benefits them?

No, there is definitely something that means good...for the dictionary tell us so. (Sung like the song 'for the bible tells us so.' lol )

"How do you account for the folks who can see past just what benefits them?"

Gimme an example.

Pretty sure I can show how self-interest is at the root of it.

#

"for the dictionary tell us so"

HA!

henry quirk wrote:"How do you account for the folks who can see past just what benefits them?"

Gimme an example.

Pretty sure I can show how self-interest is at the root of it.

I am pretty sure you can too. but it doesn'tmean you are right.

I am sure there are people who truly want goodness to befall others. That they desire goodwill toward mankind doesnt necessary mean they have an ulterior motive. Cynicism doesn't change that.

It is the definition of "good". Pure and simple.

artisticsolution wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:Harming in the name of goodness can also be called self-defense. This does not equate terrorism to self-defense, and it does not equate goodness of intent to action.

There is no such thing as harming in the name of goodness.

They all say that. US when it went into Iraq and Afghanistan; Libya; in it's attempted regime change in Syria.

And guess who in Paris on Friday?? Yep ISIL Daesh.

Everyone is killing for the greater good.

All of it equates to terrorism.

Yes, Hobbes...I get what you are saying. But think about what I am saying...please. You are reading me wrong.

Here is what you are reading:

"There is no such thing as harming in the name of goodness." (You are thinking that because ISIL thinks they are doing good that they are correct in their actions according to the way they see things)

I am not saying that.

What I am saying when I said:

"There is no such thing as harming in the name of goodness."

Is precisely that....you literally can't "Harm" and call it "good". There is no such thing even if someone thinks there is...they would be literally mistaken.

The two words are not even close in meaning. "Harmful Goodness" is an oxymoron.

Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.

I don't think there is a disjunction here, People claim that they wage war for good.

Surely this begs the question what is good.

artisticsolution wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:I can't tell if this comes from dishonesty or foolishness. I didn't say it IS justified but that it is possible that it COULD BE justified. The way you portray it is inaccuate, as if I think every instance of such a thing is acceptable. Talking to you is counter-productive, if you don't shape up.

I see it the opposite way. Talking to you is counter-productive if you will not be honest.

Only an immoral satanic mind will ever say that there is justice in the torture of a baby for 6 days before finally killing it.

That is what you are saying as you are not agreeing that it is completely and always immoral for God to do so.

If you can justify it, then have at it, or tuck your immoral tail and join your God in hell.

Regards
DL

I don't think jade was think in these terms. So you really can't call innocence, immorality.

I agree that it is immoral to kill a baby, even if it is hitler, but I think what she was getting at is that if we knew what was going to happen for sure , then we'd be saving lives. But the point is...we could never know that...unless we were God.

Now God, what his deal is, I will never know. But if I don't think of him as good, then where do I look for goodness? If the idea of good exists...where do I turn to find it?

In my mind, it's easier to just imagine a being who would be the epitome of good. And I would not be able to understand it/him/her. But show me a tangible thing that is Good, and I will consider it.

Life is good.

Our friend indicated that torturing a baby for 6 days because of anger at the father is somehow justifiable, --- but you will note that the poster did not come back to try to justify that immoral belief.

Regards
DL

artisticsolution wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:Really? What I'm arguing for is non-closed-mindedness. It is presumptuous, is it not, to assume that any given act, without a context, is unjustifiable. In fact, I remember specifically learning in university that there is an entire school of thought that argues that—can't remember the name. It argues that no act, by itself, is either moral or immoral, but devoid of any ethical value.

Why wouldn't you be able to understand a being that is the epitome of good? Is that the same as saying you can't understand the idea of goodness itself.

I'm not talking about justice. Purity here means being justified and being justified here means doing the right thing. I mean to suggest that it is possible that God's action in this instance was either morally permissible or morally obligatory.

how is being justified the same as doing' the right thing'?

The whole meaning of being justified is doing something that is not right usually but circumstances have made it impossible to do the 'right' thing...so one has to say....' I did the wrong thing but I was justified because of such and such.'

Ifor it was the right thing in the first place we wouldn't even have the need for a word such as 'justified'.

Are you not getting what I am saying or have I misunderstood what you are getting at?

You misunderstood my meaning. Let's just replacs that with "It is possible God was right in doing what He did."

Jaded Sage wrote:Really? What I'm arguing for is non-closed-mindedness. It is presumptuous, is it not, to assume that any given act, without a context, is unjustifiable..

We had all the context of the story. I saw the act as immoral and you did not.

You are wrong regardless of your argument. Oh wait you had no argument. Just a bit of name calling.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote: Our friend indicated that torturing a baby for 6 days because of anger at the father [COULD BE] somehow justifiable, --- but you will note that the poster did not come back to try to justify that immoral belief.

Regards
DL

I'll be glad to give it a look once I know the verse. The point I'm making is that it is mistaken to judge something preemptively.

artisticsolution wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:I mean to suggest that it is possible that God's action in this instance was either morally permissible or morally obligatory.

Hi Sage,

I think the only way we can understand God, is through the bible. But in order to do that, we need to first understand what God's deal was. We need to ask ourselves, was he good or was he bad?

When one reads the bible with the mindful intent, that God is a good God, then the only way possible to interpret the bible is through purity of heart. There is no other way...if one is to believe God is Good. So then, any misunderstanding that one has, that tells one that he should kill because God deems it 'obligatory' or 'permissible' , is not thinking logically as far as goodness goes. If in the same breath, one can recite the "Holy/Good" 10 commandments, and believe wholeheartedly that a Good God gave them to us so that we may know how to behave, and then in the next breath say, we can suspend those commandments at certain times, is not understanding what 'Good' means.

I think so many times, we allow society to tell us that we are 'justified' and doing God's work. But this is wrong. It doesn't stand to reason that a Good God would be in heaven rooting us on to kill in any way, when clearly he has given us a command not to do so.

I believe this is where purity of heart comes into play. Murder is always wrong, whether or not God tells us to do it, or is is justifiable according to our fellow humans.

Let's suppose for a moment, Abraham refused to murder Issac. A good God, according to the 10 commandments of the bible, would not have punished Abraham if he chose not to kill Issac...if he simply told God "No" that would have been the ultimate good. Because, all Abraham would have to say is on judgment day....is...,

"I had 2 choice to make to follow your word, God.

1. I could choose to obey your commandment, "thou shall not kill.

or

2. I could choose to obey the angel you sent telling me to kill.

I chose the first commandment because it held the most weight as far as goodness goes."

So you see, a good God would not punish Abraham for following the rules...in fact, I think if God is good, that is how he would like us to interpret the bible in every instance. Meaning, he would want us to read a story and think how to interpret it with good intentions not with bad. Only a bad God would want us to interpret the bible with evil intentions.

Now some will argue that this is not the case...and that is fine. Be on your merry way . But make no mistake, if a thought is pure and good, it can't contain the premise, "Hell yeah, it's good to kill in that case!"

This is way off topic. We are discussing a specific action of God's, but you seem to be arguing against terrorism.

Greatest I am wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:Really? What I'm arguing for is non-closed-mindedness. It is presumptuous, is it not, to assume that any given act, without a context, is unjustifiable..

We had all the context of the story. I saw the act as immoral and you did not.

You are wrong regardless of your argument. Oh wait you had no argument. Just a bit of name calling.

Regards
DL

I haven't read that story, and it wasn't provided.