Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Objective Morality and Punishment

Paul Manata’s thread has received some interaction from our newest friend, “exbeliever.” Exbeliever has brought to us the ol’ Amalekite canard, arguing that if God ordered the “systematic killing of a whole people” (and exbeliever has yet to show us that this is indeed what God ordered), the morality of Christianity cannot be an objective universal morality. In other words, if God says “Do not murder” in one place, and then commands man to kill in another place, Christian morality can be neither objective nor universal.

Here, I would like to point out a few unjustified assumptions and presuppositions on the part of exbeliever that causes her (I think exbeliever is female, I’m sorry if I am incorrect) to suggest these arguments. “Murder” is the unjust taking of another’s life. But not every act of taking the life of another is murder. I’m sure that even atheists recognize this. Does exbeliever consider it to be “murder” to kill someone in war? Or does exbeliever consider capital punishment to be “murder”? In order for exbeliever to argue against the objectivity or the universality of the commands of God, exbeliever must show that it is contradictory for God to forbid murder but then at the same time command that a man’s life be taken. But exbeliever has not shown this to us. And specifically in the case of the Amalekites, exbeliever must show that God commanded murder.

Has God anywhere forbidden the taking of another man’s life, or has he simply forbidden murder?

Genesis 9 6″Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”

It is based upon the sanctity of life (that “God made man in his own image”) that God commands that those who murder should be put to death. And God has not given this authority to everyone, but he has given this authority to governing authorities:

Romans 13 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

Therefore, Scripture is clear: governing authorities who “bear the sword” are servants of God. They receive their authority from him, and they are one of the tools which God uses to carry out his wrath on the wrongdoer. So we have no confused, subjective morality here. No inconsistency. Also, notice that the Biblical basis for punishment is not for the benefit of the of the wrongdoer, but for the punishment of the wrongdoer and the avenging of the wrath of God.

Keeping these things in mind, let’s look at some of the statements of exbeliever:

This is exactly my point. You say that you have a “universal” standard of morality; that something is “universally” good or evil. But it’s not “universal” at all by your definition. God can do something against that universal standard and it is, then, “good.”

Let’s remove this from the Amalekite framework (killing in war) for a moment it and place it in the Romans 13 framework (capital punishment). Is God’s institution of governing authorities who bear the sword against his universal standard of morality? Does Romans 13 contradict “Do no murder”? I think we have shown that it does not.

Exbeliever may be for or against the death penalty. But if she is for it, then we should point out that if her arguments were true, they would only betray the inconsistencies in her own worldview because what we have here is nothing different than the state proclaiming “Do not murder” and then at the same time putting to death those who murder. Does exbeliever believe this to be an inconsistency in the state?

I’m sure that you would oppose the “systematic killing of a whole people or a nation.” You would call that a “universal” evil.

I think that exbeliever has yet to show that the Amalekite situation is indeed the “systematic killing of a whole people or a nation.” But let’s say that it is. No, I would not call that a universal evil. I would call the unjustified “systematic killing of a whole people or a nation” to be a universal evil. Exbeliever fails to distinguish between the two. The Bible sets the framework for unjustified killing (murder), and justified killing (capital punishment, etc). The Bible does not, however, state “killing is wrong in all circumstances” and then portray God commanding killing and calling it good. That would indeed be an inconsistency, but that is not what we have here.

In the past, you have said that morality comes from the nature of god, implying that something is bad because it is something that god would not do. Yet, in certain biblical texts, your god does exactly those things that you claim is not in his nature to do.

“Something is bad because it is something that God would not do” is not the same thing as stating that morality comes from the nature of God. But exbeliever seems to be arguing that God would not kill (in any circumstance), and therefore forbids killing (in any circumstance), but then commands killing (in any circumstance). But that is simply not what we have here. We have a God who would never murder, who forbids murder, but who here commands killing. And while many have pointed out that since God does not communicate through direct, infallible revelation anymore and would therefore no longer command an Amalekite situation, that does not negate the fact that God does, in fact, still command killing. The Genesis 9:6 and the Romans 13:4 commands still exist today. But these are commands for justified killing (i.e, capital punishment), not murder.

You wrote: “Is it not “good” that a criminal gets punished? I must assume, therefore, that you think it is “evil” for us to punish criminals. Maybe you think child molesters should not be punished, at all.”

Your assumption is correct if by “punishment” you mean any vindictive, non-rehabilatory action. Do I believe child molesters should simply go free? Of course not. If they are a danger to others, they should be put away somewhere where they cannot harm others and where they can learn different behaviors. If they cannot learn those behaviors, they must remain detained, not for punishment, but rather for public safety.

I think it is barbaric to inflict pain and/or suffering for vengeance. “Punishment” should always be in the best interest of the person who has committed an offense.

Where did you get this standard, exbeliever? Did you simply make it up? The Bible states the opposite, and therefore has an opposite standard. But you give me no justification for your standard here, so my only requirement in response is to equally assert “That is unbiblical thinking.”

This is the same idea of punishment described in Hebrews 12:10–”Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness.”

Is exbeliever really trying to state that the Bible agrees with her standard of government? First of all, the context of Hebrews 12:10 is not civil government; it is God’s Fatherly interaction with his adopted sons. Furthermore, Romans 13 does not base punishment upon the benefit of the one punished, but upon the wrath of God.

I believe “punishment” is only just if it results in another’s good.

Why? Says who? You? Where did you get this standard? Don’t just assert, exbeliever. Show it!

This is one of the things I hold against any concept of a god who eternally punishes for vegeance’s sake.

Ok. But who are you?

…So, three issues: (1) how can “universal” evils be “universal” if they are good when committed by god; (2) how can you say that something is evil because it is not in god’s nature when god acts on them himself; (3) how can you condemn any “evil” act when that act may have been commanded by your god?

To answer number one, exbeliever has equated two different standards, and then attempted to show an inconsistency. This has already been refuted. For number two, exbeliever has yet to show God acting against his commands. For number three, exbeliever has yet to show us where God commanded something against his previous commands, or against what I would call evil.

Evan May.

UPDATE: exbeliever has informed me that he is male, so please mentally change all "she"s and "her"s to "he"s and "him"s.


4 comments:

  1. Evan,

    Unfortunately, I don't even have time to respond on one blog, much less two.

    A few quick thoughts though.

    1) I'm a male, but considering humanity's past history of chauvenism, I consider it a complement to come across as a female. ;)

    2) [Your objection #1 in which you write, "exbeliever has equated two different standards, and then attempted to show an inconsistency."] I never said anything about murder in my comments. I once used murder as a hypothetical, but NEVER used it in the way you are arguing here. I agree with your entire argument about murder and have for a very long time. Sorry that you wasted time on that straw man.

    3) Referring to my condemnation of vindictive punishment, you asked: "Where did you get this standard, exbeliever?"

    I was simply responding to Paul's question.

    I'm in the process of an internal critique of Christian morality and it would be a red-herring to pull me off of that task to start another.

    I would be glad to discuss my metaethics once we've finished discussing yours.

    The presuppositionalists have invited internal critique, so that is what I have been doing. It seems, however, that, in order to avoid this critique, many of the presuppositionalists try to turn the tables so they don't have to answer any questions about their own worldview.

    4) [Your objection #2 in which you write, "exbeliever has yet to show God acting against his commands."] I don't think this was my intent in the first place. I am simply pointing out that if you believe that threatening rape for disobedience is universally wrong, then your god is guilty.

    My point, as I have stated it several times on Paul's blog, is that the Christian worldview does not provide a rationally justifiable standard for morality. The Christian cannot say if any act is "good" or "evil" because any act can be justified by saying that God did it and God is justified by doing so.

    If a Christian sees a rape, then, the Christian is at a loss to call it "good" or "evil." God could have guided the rapist to commit that rape as an act of punishment because this is what God threatens in Zechariah 14:2.

    My argument is with the foundation of the Christian argument.

    Like I said, I really don't even have time to argue on Paul's site, much less anywhere else. I'm sorry that I won't continue the discussion here.

    Thanks for listing me as your "newest friend." ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1) I’m a male, but considering humanity’s past history of chauvenism, I consider it a complement to come across as a female. ;)

    Well, I'm glad you made the best of it, but I edited the post above with and update notification. My apologies.

    2) [Your objection #1 in which you write, “exbeliever has equated two different standards, and then attempted to show an inconsistency.”] I never said anything about murder in my comments. I once used murder as a hypothetical, but NEVER used it in the way you are arguing here. I agree with your entire argument about murder and have for a very long time. Sorry that you wasted time on that straw man.

    What, then, was wrong about God's command here? How did it contradict another one of God's commands, or "something God would do"?

    3) Referring to my condemnation of vindictive punishment, you asked: “Where did you get this standard, exbeliever?”

    I was simply responding to Paul’s question.

    I’m in the process of an internal critique of Christian morality and it would be a red-herring to pull me off of that task to start another.

    I would be glad to discuss my metaethics once we’ve finished discussing yours.

    The presuppositionalists have invited internal critique, so that is what I have been doing. It seems, however, that, in order to avoid this critique, many of the presuppositionalists try to turn the tables so they don’t have to answer any questions about their own worldview.


    Well, here is the problem: if you are doing an internal critique, you have to stay within the bounds of the worldview. And the Bible does not base punishment upon the benefit of the believer, but upon the wrath of God. You stated that eternal punishment is immoral. But on what standard? In an internal critique, you must show that it is immoral on Biblical standards, but I have shown that it is not. But if you are arguing that it is immoral based upon you standards, then you must, of course justify your standards. Either way, your argument is non-constructive.

    4) [Your objection #2 in which you write, “exbeliever has yet to show God acting against his commands.”] I don’t think this was my intent in the first place. I am simply pointing out that if you believe that threatening rape for disobedience is universally wrong, then your god is guilty.

    My point, as I have stated it several times on Paul’s blog, is that the Christian worldview does not provide a rationally justifiable standard for morality. The Christian cannot say if any act is “good” or “evil” because any act can be justified by saying that God did it and God is justified by doing so.

    If a Christian sees a rape, then, the Christian is at a loss to call it “good” or “evil.” God could have guided the rapist to commit that rape as an act of punishment because this is what God threatens in Zechariah 14:2.

    My argument is with the foundation of the Christian argument.


    In my worldview, every action is based upon the decree of God, but human responsibility is not removed, and therefore it does not follow that the action is "good", and therefore no one has a basis to call any "evil" "good."

    Thanks for listing me as your “newest friend.”

    Well, hey, anyone who aids me in displaying the rationality of Christianity and the irrationality of any other worldview is certainly my friend. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm deeply offended by exbeliever's patriarchal use of gender-specific pronouns. How could he be so insensitive to the transgender community? We feel excluded by this jackbooted effort to impose his homophobic social constructs and oppressive linguistic structures on the rest of us. His blatant sexism is nothing short of hate-speech!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am simply pointing out that if you believe that threatening rape for disobedience is universally wrong, then your god is guilty.


    But God is not "threatening rape for disobedience." He is withdrawing His protection and proclaiming what will come to pass if the nation does not repent from its apostasy. This is not an arbitrary command to rape, it is a consequence of the apostasy of the nation. I'd add that God will then hold those that commit the rapes guilty for doing them, so it's not as if God is allowing rape and not punishing the rapists. You could say, "Why punish them if they did His will?" Good question. Did they do it because they love God and wish to follow Him? No, they did it because they devalued women and sought to destroy the covenant community and served idols.

    God is simply allowing the perps to do what they desire, and the victims are victimized because God is withdrawing His hand of protection. Under the terms of the covenant, He is under no obligation to continue protecting them.

    So, once again, we are left wondering where (a) God is seen "commanding" rape; and where the victims have a just claim for God's protection from harm when they are the ones apostatizing?

    Why is God obligated to protect them?

    If these rapes reflect the judgment of God, brought about by national apostasy, how are they unjust?

    Ex-believer must show that the victims would have a just claim against God. They are apostates. Why is God obligated to punish this kind of sin in the afterlife and not this one?

    Once again, we must ask what the motive behind the acts of the rapists is in this situation? Are they loving God and seeking to do his will or trying to destroy his people and spitting in God's face in the process?

    Apparently ex-believer wants to discuss morality with out respect to motives and through continuing to confound first and second order goods as if there is no difference.

    Our choices have motives and desires that moral responsibility is actually established. Responsibility requires that our acts, of necessity, be intentional. Inability usually does not diminish culpability in a moral decision. If a human were asked to fly and they could not due to their physical limitations, we could not justly blame them for their inability, but if someone were to borrow $100 million and squander it in a week of wild living in Vegas, his inability to repay would not alleviate his responsibility.

    Ex-believer has conflated responsibility and blame. This is a basic level confusion. Responsibility is a necessary, but insufficient condition for blame. Responsibility and blame are two different things.

    Ex-believer trivializes disobedience. Let's run some numbers here. If a man sins just 10 times a day for 50 years, that is 182,500 sins committed against a holy God. Add to that willful apostasy from the covenant. Why, then, is God obligated to prevent the consequences of that apostasy from falling upon that person, such as the destruction of their home or any other action, such as rape? Either the woman raped is the victim of the apostasy of the leadership, to which, by her own actions she has given her approval or she is one of the leaders who has lead the nation into apostasy. Take your pick and show how this makes God unjust or inconsistent.

    If a Christian sees a rape, then, the Christian is at a loss to call it “good” or “evil.” God could have guided the rapist to commit that rape as an act of punishment because this is what God threatens in Zechariah 14:2.

    No, it does not, for God holds those persons who did it accountable for it, because their motive for doing it was not love for God or obedience to His decree. That motive, the doing of something for the first order good not merely the second order good is what is required for guilt or innocence, blameworthiness, etc. on the part of men, the ones to whom the Law is addressed. The reason the perpetrator did it must be considered not just the occurrence of the act. Why is God bound to comply with a second order good, when those with whom He interacts are all deserving of everlasting condemnation? Where is God Himself the one committing the act, and how is the act unjust as a consequence of apostasy from the covenant?

    ReplyDelete