Is genocide ok if God tells you to do it?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK, but ...

So what do you make of the story in 1 Samuel 15 about the slaughter of the Amakelites? Do you reject this part of the Bible as factually true?
​

I'm simply asking you to answer the question you pose.

I don't know if there's a real, historical event at its core, but I reject the idea that it was commanded by God if there is.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

EX 17:16 ... The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

EX 17:16 ... The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.​

Is that supposed to establish that it was commanded by God?

 

[TheKnight]

Why not think for yourself and make that conclusion yourself?

I am thinking for myself. It's not like I wake up and say "oh well, I can't figure it out, might as well ask God." It's more like I actually do think about it and realize that you cannot find an objective basis for any sort of morality. At least you can't for any sort of morality that you desire to enforce (the only exception to this is a morality that everyone agrees upon, but that too is imperfect).

Like I said, both Charles Manson and Osama Bin Laden claimed that they were only doing what God told them too do. If God does exsist, how can you say that they were lying and delusional? What if God really did talk to them? If you ask me, God telling Manson and Bin Laden to slaughter innocent people is pretty consistant with what he's said in the past. You know...about killing babies.

Maybe He did. I have reason to believe that He didn't because those people aren't here. They were not successful. In essence, God didn't come to 3 million of their ancestors and tell them that He desires certain things of them and then help them survive for the next 3300 years (the Jews are still around).

You say that most people who "hear God" experience something that does not come from God; fair enough. However, all you have, then, is a collection of things that you know God didn't do. This doesn't say anything about how God actually operates.

I know that. I didn't say that God doesn't speak to people as a voice in the head, but that I have no reason to believe that He does.

How exactly can you tell the difference betwen an objective morality recognized by everyone and a subjective morality implanted somehow into every single person?

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are asking here...

Just to clarify, you are saying is that all you need is to be 51% sure that the apparition is really “God” and not a chemical imbalance in your brain, and then you would go out killing babies. Is that what you are saying? That all you need is 50%+? Are you saying that if you were 51% certain that you had received a message from “God” then your own sense of right and wrong would go right out the window?

Seeing as how I can't know anything 100% (btw, no one can), all I need is evidence of a 50%+ probability of the decision I'm making to be a correct one. At least if I am trying to make a logical decision. If we can't know anything 100%, but can know over 50%, then we should always make the decision that has more then 50% chances of being the correct decision.

This comes very close to a very true statement. All you need to do is remove the first word. If you did so then your statement would conform with your experience.

I can't and won't say that every person who claims to hear God speak in their heads is lying/delusional. I can't know that. All I can know is that those who I have met that have made that claim have been wrong.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

EX 17:16 ... The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.

Is that supposed to establish that it was commanded by God?

No - it is to ask what it might mean to speak of a war "from generation to generation" against an enemy that is wholly exterminated or portrayed as wholly exterminated.

Parenthetically, it is very hard to understand/appreciate 1 Samuel 15 without (a) recognizing that the author/redactor was no doubt aware of Exodus 17, (b) noting the Moses-Midianite||Saul-Amalekite parallels, and (c) appreciating the anti-monarchial polemic begun earlier in Samuel.

 

[fantome profane]

I am thinking for myself. It's not like I wake up and say "oh well, I can't figure it out, might as well ask God." It's more like I actually do think about it and realize that you cannot find an objective basis for any sort of morality. At least you can't for any sort of morality that you desire to enforce (the only exception to this is a morality that everyone agrees upon, but that too is imperfect).

I hope you will forgive me for saying this, I don’t like to get personal in theses discussions as it is rarely appropriate. However you did mention in another post that you were a teenager. So I would respectfully suggest that if you cannot find an objective basis for morality that you keep looking. Your exploration of Judaism is a good start, but continue to explore the ideas of other cultures and moral philosophers. There are many systems of ethics that you have yet to explore.

Seeing as how I can't know anything 100% (btw, no one can), all I need is evidence of a 50%+ probability of the decision I'm making to be a correct one. At least if I am trying to make a logical decision. If we can't know anything 100%, but can know over 50%, then we should always make the decision that has more then 50% chances of being the correct decision.

I agree that you can never be 100% sure, and to me that is a good reason for never committing genocide or infanticide. Usually the people who commit these kind of acts are those people who have convinced themselves that they are 100% sure. People are rarely able to commit such horrendous acts while thinking “I am not completely sure about this”.

But 51%? Think about this. Imagine you were on a jury deciding whether or not the person accused of murder was actually guilty. If after all the evidence had been presented to and after careful deliberation you were able to be only about 51% sure that the accused was actually guilty, then in that case you would have to acquit. 49% doubt is more than reasonable doubt. But you are saying that even if you had 49% doubt that “God” told you to kill an innocent child, you would still sentence that child to death. Think about this, that is all I am asking you to do. Just think about this.

 

[TheKnight]

I hope you will forgive me for saying this, I don’t like to get personal in theses discussions as it is rarely appropriate. However you did mention in another post that you were a teenager. So I would respectfully suggest that if you cannot find an objective basis for morality that you keep looking. Your exploration of Judaism is a good start, but continue to explore the ideas of other cultures and moral philosophers. There are many systems of ethics that you have yet to explore.

I've looked at other ethical systems. Most of them are similar (with differences being in the minor details). There really isn't an objective basis for morality. I mean, unless we have something akin to a "third party"...One human's opinion on morality vs another human's opinion on morality....who's to say which is right?

Think about this, that is all I am asking you to do. Just think about this.

You assume that I haven't. The fact is that I have thought about it. No one makes any decision with 100% certainty. Any person who claims to have 100% certainty of anything is rather arrogant.

If you can't know 100% then all you need is the majority of probability, which is 51%. Or otherwise you should just not decide at all.

 

[Autodidact]

I've looked at other ethical systems. Most of them are similar (with differences being in the minor details). There really isn't an objective basis for morality. I mean, unless we have something akin to a "third party"...One human's opinion on morality vs another human's opinion on morality....who's to say which is right?

I think we've seen that trying to resort to a supernatural being doesn't actually give you an objective basis either. In fact, what it gives you is a situational relativism in which things that would be immoral are moral, if the person doing them beleives that God told them to do it. And we've all seen how unreliable that is. I'm sure you agree that most of the people who think God told them to kill other people are mistaken.

I find an objective basis for morality in the facts of science. It's not situational, it's not relativistic, and it's not just my opinion. It turns out that compassion works, and makes me and everyone else happier. I think it makes a much better basis for morality than the ancient directions of a primitive war-God recorded by His tribe 3000 years ago.

 

[TheKnight]

It's not any more conclusive, but it does allow for enforceable morality. Any human developed moral system is not enforceable. At least not fairly so.

Science has nothing to do with morality.

 

[Autodidact]

It's not any more conclusive, but it does allow for enforceable morality. Any human developed moral system is not enforceable. At least not fairly so.

An enforceable but evil morality is worse than no morality.

Science has nothing to do with morality.

It does with mine. (Which, as we've already learned, prohibits infanticide. Unlike yours. As I said at the beginning, any morality that permits infanticide and genocide isn't worth spit, no matter how enforceable.

 

[TheKnight]

An enforceable but evil morality is worse than no morality.

There's no such thing as a logically evil morality.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

If "God" is merely very smart, very powerful, and mostly/largely benevolent it is not guaranteed to be moral, but is very likely still and as such under most circumstances you should simply go along with it (you have no way of checking to see if said being is in error, and you can only hope for the best assuming its benevolence is in fact true).

If "God" is omniscient and omnibenevolent, but NOT omnipotent, then performing the genocide is logically required to be a moral act.

If "God" is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, then at No Point is genocide EVER a moral act.


The reconciliation of the above is such that "God's" omnipotence trumps the omniscience. As long as "God" is capable of doing anything, then genocide is never necessary. You can simply alter the will whichever being's are going to be key to causing harm in the future.

Of course there is a problem here: If "God" is omnipotent in truth, but not omnipotent in "practice" because he "self limits" on the grounds of preserving free will (to some or whole extent), then we must return to the middle option: whereby "God" is omniscient and omnibenevolent and therefore should carry out the act.

MTF

 

[Autodidact]

There's no such thing as a logically evil morality.

Again I have just a teeny little aversion to the whole stabbing-babies-to-death thing, but that's just me.

 

[Autodidact]

There's no such thing as a logically evil morality.

How is "logically evil" different from "evil?"

I think we can start with the agreed upon premise that stuff like murdering babies is bad, and we want to end up with a morality that condemns it. No? You don't agree to that? Hmmm... interesting.

If you do, then, logicaly, if your morality permits it--under any circumstances--then you have an evil morality. Yours does. Hence, QED, your is evil. Seriously.

 

[Autodidact]

Here's another formal proof:

1. Genocide is bad.
2. Therefore, a morality that condemns genocide is better than one that does not.
3. My morality condemns genocide; yours does not, if God permits it.
Therefore, my morality is better than yours.

 

[TheKnight]

How is "logically evil" different from "evil?"

The words don't make sense. To imply that there is an evil morality is to infer that there is an objective standard by which to compare various moral systems to.

I think we can start with the agreed upon premise that stuff like murdering babies is bad, and we want to end up with a morality that condemns it. No? You don't agree to that? Hmmm... interesting.

If you do, then, logicaly, if your morality permits it--under any circumstances--then you have an evil morality. Yours does. Hence, QED, your is evil. Seriously.

So then you do admit to reaching a conclusion first, and then later on figuring out the system best supports the conclusion you arrived at first?

Here's another formal proof:

1. Genocide is bad.

How do you know that genocide is bad?

 

[painted wolf]

How do you know that genocide is bad?

Ask the Huron...

wa:do

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How do you know that genocide is bad?

This is where your rot leads you.

 

[Autodidact]

The words don't make sense. To imply that there is an evil morality is to infer that there is an objective standard by which to compare various moral systems to.

How is "logically evil" different from "evil?"

So then you do admit to reaching a conclusion first, and then later on figuring out the system best supports the conclusion you arrived at first?

I think when doing ethics it behooves us to take an advance peak at the outcome to help us evaluate where our system might take us.

How do you know that genocide is bad?

I'm sorry, I thought you agreed that genocide is evil. Am I mistaken? If not, then we can agree on that premise.

 

[TheKnight]

I'm sorry, I thought you agreed that genocide is evil. Am I mistaken? If not, then we can agree on that premise.

Whether or not I agree isn't answering the question. How do you know that geocide is bad?