Is genocide ok if God tells you to do it?

[fantome profane]

So tell me, if I am happy by killing others, and I feel that their death is best for them, am I being moral according to your system?

(BTW, I don't find joy in killing others). If you believe that the purpose of life to be happy, and killing makes a person happy, then on what basis can you (with your own standard of how life should be lived) judge another person?

Or do you presume to know what makes everyone happy and therefore feel that everyone should be bound to live by your opinion of what makes them happy?

Try thinking of it like this. In the moral equation your own happiness should carry no more and no less weight than the happiness of others. If you can conclude that as the result of the act that you are contemplating happiness for all those who could possibly be affected will see a net increase, then and only then can you consider the act moral. If killing infants makes you happy you must still consider the effect that your action will have not only on the infant, but the family of that infant, of the community in which the infant lives, and even the effect it will have on your family (what would your mother think?), friends and community. If after taking all this into account honestly and completely you can say that the result will be a net increase in happiness then you can consider the act moral.

But as Autodidact has already pointed out very few people actually take pleasure in the killing of other people. I think we have a natural aversion to harming other people. With the exception of the sociopath we all have compassion and empathy for other people. However this natural aversion however can be overcome when people give up their own sense of morality and succumb to the authority of another, even when that other authority is “God”.

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -
Blaise Pascal

 

[Autodidact]

I would take it a step further, fantome. You cannot kill the baby without becoming a baby-killer. You cannot avoid the feelings of sorrow and horror you would create in yourself. You would make yourself miserable, possibly for the rest of your life.

Here's another quote you'll like:

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
-- Steven Weinberg

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Never in the entire history of humanity has a truly perfect being ever ordered genocide. Always wrong and practically wrong are not the same thing though. And thus if a truly omnibenevolent, omniscient being were to order its use then the genocide would necessarily have to be the moral option.

Some people have claimed that a being which is omni-stuff ordered genocide sure. And those have been to the nearest of our ability to discern morally wrong.


The problem here is that we are arguing from a position of complete ignorance. Without access to the same evidence that a merely "Super" being has we cannot say for sure that what was ordered was not ultimately moral.

The same problems that time travel has is the same one's we have here. Do you know how to predict what will happen 200 years from now? (If you can't, then time travel is probably a very dangerous prospect) And if you can't exactly where do you get off telling a being which can accurately predict what will happen 200 years from now that they are wrong about well... just about anything?


Is killing 5,000 to save 500,000,000 wrong if it is the least harmful way to do so? What if waiting till tomorrow would require 10,000 instead of 5,000? How is anyone supposed to know?



That's why it is NECESSARY to keep this discussion purely in the theoretical. In the theoretical if an actual omnibenevolent/omniscient being did come down and say: "Do this," well then it is time to do exactly that no arguments. But in the real world we don't have access to any such being and as such there can be no real arguments for actually performing the genocide.

MTF

 

[Autodidact]

Well in the actual, genocide is not a rare occurrence, so it's valuable to try to figure out whether it's moral, and if not, why it happens.

 

[fantome profane]

Never in the entire history of humanity has a truly perfect being ever ordered genocide. Always wrong and practically wrong are not the same thing though. And thus if a truly omnibenevolent, omniscient being were to order its use then the genocide would necessarily have to be the moral option.

Some people have claimed that a being which is omni-stuff ordered genocide sure. And those have been to the nearest of our ability to discern morally wrong.


The problem here is that we are arguing from a position of complete ignorance. Without access to the same evidence that a merely "Super" being has we cannot say for sure that what was ordered was not ultimately moral.

The same problems that time travel has is the same one's we have here. Do you know how to predict what will happen 200 years from now? (If you can't, then time travel is probably a very dangerous prospect) And if you can't exactly where do you get off telling a being which can accurately predict what will happen 200 years from now that they are wrong about well... just about anything?


Is killing 5,000 to save 500,000,000 wrong if it is the least harmful way to do so? What if waiting till tomorrow would require 10,000 instead of 5,000? How is anyone supposed to know?



That's why it is NECESSARY to keep this discussion purely in the theoretical. In the theoretical if an actual omnibenevolent/omniscient being did come down and say: "Do this," well then it is time to do exactly that no arguments. But in the real world we don't have access to any such being and as such there can be no real arguments for actually performing the genocide.

MTF

How would you make the determination that this being is truly omni-benevolent?

Keep in mind that the question is not would it ever be morally right for an omniscient being to order genocide, the question is would it ever be right for us to obey that order. Here the imperfect human knowledge works against the proposition of genocide more than it works for it. If “God” were to order a genocide we being humans would still have no way of knowing with absolutely certainty that this “God” is omni-benevolent (or benevolent at all). I might argue that the mere fact that this entity order a genocide is evidence that it is not benevolent (not proof, but evidence), but even putting that argument aside we cannot know for sure either way. So “Gods” command can play no role either way in determining whether the proposed genocide is moral. This leaves is with our own moral reasoning and intuitions.

 

[Carico]

i had this debate in another thread, but that one seems to have vanished, so i thought id create this one.

when conquering Palestine, the Hebrews committed genocide against a number of peoples there. and this wasnt long after he gave them the commandments telling them not to kill.

of course i dont believe this, i believe its an excuse the Hebrews used to excuse their genocide. but, for the sake of argument, lets say the order did come from god, did that make it ok? shouldnt an order like this be a sure sign that your god is evil? or does having him on your side matter more?

God is the one who told us what murder is. So God telling the Jews to conquer His enemies is no more murder than a judge handing out a death sentence to those who have broken the laws he is authorized to enforce.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

How would you make the determination that this being is truly omni-benevolent?

Keep in mind that the question is not would it ever be morally right for an omniscient being to order genocide, the question is would it ever be right for us to obey that order. Here the imperfect human knowledge works against the proposition of genocide more than it works for it. If “God” were to order a genocide we being humans would still have no way of knowing with absolutely certainty that this “God” is omni-benevolent (or benevolent at all). I might argue that the mere fact that this entity order a genocide is evidence that it is not benevolent (not proof, but evidence), but even putting that argument aside we cannot know for sure either way. So “Gods” command can play no role either way in determining whether the proposed genocide is moral. This leaves is with our own moral reasoning and intuitions.

This would necessarily be true if we were in a good position to argue about the long-term effects of our decision making, which we are not. Even if you were to argue that we cannot verify the "absolute nature" of the being in question, the simple fact is we could and should easily understand that this being possesses far greater perspective than us and being that it is in a simple position to crush us with its awesome cosmic powers (or whatever passes for that) that it doesn't need to "convince" us to genocide when it can merely wave its hand (or whatever) and we all die.

So the reasonable course of action is to go with whatever plan the being with greater knowledge, perspective, experience, power and "plausible benevolence" believes to be the best plan. That is merely from a "practical" point of view.


For the purposes of this thread I had thought that we were arguing as though certain "omni" qualities were are part of this creator being's existence as a premise. Certainly an omniscient being would be aware of a way to make us aware (to an extent) of its transcendental knowledge and to an extent "prove" its benevolence. An omnipotent being could even make us aware of its "absolute" qualities even while us remaining imperfect.

I do agree that an omnipotent being with no limitations on action (self-limited being the only reasonable option) would never able to morally order genocide given my understanding of morality, but a self-limited omnipotent being might very well not have any other option and how exactly are we supposed to know when "God" doesn't have any other options?

MTF

 

[Autodidact]

God is the one who told us what murder is. So God telling the Jews to conquer His enemies is no more murder than a judge handing out a death sentence to those who have broken the laws he is authorized to enforce.

Especially those evil enemy babies and unrepentant toddlers. Violating God's laws like that. They should have known better.

1 Samuel 15:
Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.

 

[Sunstone]

God is the one who told us what murder is. So God telling the Jews to conquer His enemies is no more murder than a judge handing out a death sentence to those who have broken the laws he is authorized to enforce.

But don't you agree that you pretty much have got to be morally retarded to actually believe that the children the ancient Hebrews were murdering deserved being murdered any more than the 20th Century Jewish children deserved being murdered by the Nazis?

 

[TheKnight]

Where did you get that definition?

Merrian-Webster Dictionary.

Yes, I take the Aristotelian view that ethics is about living the virtuous life.

But how do you determine what virtuous is? That too is subjective to the person. For you it may be virtuous to do something whereas to another what you did could be offensive. Who defines virtuous?

You are looking for a set of rules to follow. That is a primitive view of morality. If you look at ethics as an enquiry into how to use wisdom to learn virtue, you get a more sophisticated type of morality.

I wouldn't call it a set of rules. Morality per Judaism is much more than that. It's an extremely flexible system of processes by which a person determines the appropriate action for various situations...Pardon the cliché but it's a lifestyle.

Yes, that's a primitive view, rife with problems.

What makes it primitive? The fact that it is based on belief in God?

Since there is no God

And, as I mentioned earlier, because of this particular disagreement, further discussion will be futile.

I haven't read all of these, so excuse me if it's already been brought up but what if god himself (if he exists at all) commits genocide; does that make it moral and would that make you moral yourslef if you unquestionngly continue to worship him?

God kills everyone.

Look at it like this. Every human being is sustained by God's existence. He is constantly focusing life-energy into us which keeps our souls bound to our bodies and thus keeps us alive.

Imagine it like this: You have an appliance, and you plug it into the wall. If you decide to unplug the appliance, have you done something immoral? The appliance could be working just fine, but for whatever reason you decide to unplug.

Or Imagine this: You need electricity, but unfortunately you cannot afford it. So you go next door and ask your friend if you can borrow his electricity. He agrees and then you guys both make it so that your house and his house both run on the electricity that he pays for.

One day, your friend decides that he doesn't want to give you electricity any longer and turns it off to your house. Did he do something wrong? No, it was his electricity and it's not like he took it from you, he just decided to stop giving you more.


In the same way, the death of a person is God's pulling the plug. It's when God decides not to continue sustaining their existence (which means they die). Is it genocide if God decides to stop sustaining the existence of a group of people?

Try thinking of it like this. In the moral equation your own happiness should carry no more and no less weight than the happiness of others. If you can conclude that as the result of the act that you are contemplating happiness for all those who could possibly be affected will see a net increase, then and only then can you consider the act moral. If killing infants makes you happy you must still consider the effect that your action will have not only on the infant, but the family of that infant, of the community in which the infant lives, and even the effect it will have on your family (what would your mother think?), friends and community. If after taking all this into account honestly and completely you can say that the result will be a net increase in happiness then you can consider the act moral.

But as Autodidact has already pointed out very few people actually take pleasure in the killing of other people. I think we have a natural aversion to harming other people. With the exception of the sociopath we all have compassion and empathy for other people. However this natural aversion however can be overcome when people give up their own sense of morality and succumb to the authority of another, even when that other authority is “God”.

 

[fantome profane]

Hey Knight.

You quoted my post but didn’t respond to it. What’s up Knight? What did you think about what I said?

In the same way, the death of a person is God's pulling the plug. It's when God decides not to continue sustaining their existence (which means they die). Is it genocide if God decides to stop sustaining the existence of a group of people?

Again the question is not whether the actions of “God” are moral or not. The question is whether the actions of human beings are moral or not. Is it moral for a human being to commit genocide? If “God” wants to pull the plug, let “God” do it.

 

[TheKnight]

Try thinking of it like this. In the moral equation your own happiness should carry no more and no less weight than the happiness of others. If you can conclude that as the result of the act that you are contemplating happiness for all those who could possibly be affected will see a net increase, then and only then can you consider the act moral. If killing infants makes you happy you must still consider the effect that your action will have not only on the infant, but the family of that infant, of the community in which the infant lives, and even the effect it will have on your family (what would your mother think?), friends and community. If after taking all this into account honestly and completely you can say that the result will be a net increase in happiness then you can consider the act moral.

So you base morality on the happiness factor? I don't understand that.

What about Hitler and the Jews. If it made all of Germany happy to kill the Jews, would it have been moral to do so?

What if it made God, the Israelites, and their neighbors (one less nation, one less thing to compete with) happy to wipe out Amalek?

Hey Knight.

You quoted my post but didn’t respond to it. What’s up Knight? What did you think about what I said?

Sorry, I forgot it...

Again the question is not whether the actions of “God” are moral or not. The question is whether the actions of human beings are moral or not. Is it moral for a human being to commit genocide? If “God” wants to pull the plug, let “God” do it.

If you base your morality on what God tells you to do then yes.

 

[fantome profane]

So you base morality on the happiness factor? I don't understand that.

What about Hitler and the Jews. If it made all of Germany happy to kill the Jews, would it have been moral to do so?

You have to take everything into account. You can't just look at one side of the equation. The theoretical increase in happiness of the Germans cannot balance out the intense suffering of the Jews.

But in reality Germany did not benefit from the events of the holocaust and it did not make Germans happy. The German nation is still suffering from those events. There was no increase in happiness that could balance out the intense suffering of the Jews. The fact is that the German people suffered as a result, and continue to suffer from it decades latter.

The ethics of utilitarianism is only one system of ethics that you should consider. Personally I think you also need to consider personal autonomy and the inherent value of human life. This together with utilitarianism seems to work for me.

If you base your morality on what God tells you to do then yes.

And if you base your ethics on tea leaves then it is moral if the tea leaves tell you to do it. But is that a good system of ethics?

 

[TheKnight]

But is that a good system of ethics?

"Good system of ethics" does not have an objective definition.

 

[Humanistheart]

"Good system of ethics" does not have an objective definition.

And no 'god' is objective. Since you admit objectivity is required to determine proper ethics than you must also be admitting that no god can be the center of ethics, so in fact we have our answer to this thread. God commanding genocide would not make it right to do so. Thank you for helping conclude this knight.

 

[Humanistheart]

You have to take everything into account. You can't just look at one side of the equation. The theoretical increase in happiness of the Germans cannot balance out the intense suffering of the Jews.

Correct Fantome. It's hard to see how anyone could have missed such an obvious fact.

 

[TheKnight]

And no 'god' is objective. Since you admit objectivity is required to determine proper ethics than you must also be admitting that no god can be the center of ethics, so in fact we have our answer to this thread. God commanding genocide would not make it right to do so. Thank you for helping conclude this knight.

God, if there is one, based on His very position would be objective. And even if He weren't it wouldn't matter because there wouldn't be anything outside of Him for us (or Him) to base His objectivity on.

 

[Humanistheart]

God, if there is one, based on His very position would be objective. And even if He weren't it wouldn't matter because there wouldn't be anything outside of Him for us (or Him) to base His objectivity on.

Wrong yet again Knight. It would of course, partially depend on your definition of 'God' but given your usage you most likely are referring to the christian god. If that god existed he's a being, obviously. Right and wrong would be based on his personal opinion. Which is not objective. So yes, we can clearly say he's not an objective base for morality and thus no more qualified to dictate morality than you or I.

Also, while it's not necesary anyway, it's a mere assumption that there'd be nothing outside of him to base said objectivity on. Even if we assume that all in this universe was his creation, there are other realities *according to multi-verse theory*. Who created those? Who created your god? So as I said, merely an assumption on your part.

 

[Katzpur]

Sure, it's okay if God tells you to do it, but you'd better make damn good and sure it's Him telling you.

 

[Katzpur]

Wrong yet again Knight. It would of course, partially depend on your definition of 'God' but given your usage you most likely are referring to the christian god.

Why would a Jew be referring to the Christian God?