> I'm talking about worldly pleasures that the bible tells us to abstain from

OK, then we're talking in parallel lines pointing in the same direction. I was assuming you were speaking to the subject of killing babies, but you're speaking more generally about a Christian's relationship to the world. OK, I agree with you.

> I agree that the bible can be used to support the idea. It can also be interpreted to support the idea that anyone who doesn't know Jesus goes to Heaven.

Correct. And since we really can't say for sure, it's even more of an argument against the utilitarian approach of, "Hey, just kill all the babies because it's their guaranteed ticket to heaven!" Since we're not actually told, we have to err on the side of caution and certainly on the side of truth, and not succumb to a ludicrous theology and praxis that says it's a great idea to kill babies to facilitate their eternity in heaven.

> I consider this to untrue. Our lives on Earth have just as much meaning as our lives in eternity. We are not to ignore the body, as taught in some Greek philosophies; instead, our bodies are the temple of God, and they will be resurrected. What we do in this life matters. Nothing we do in this world is meaningless.

I think we agree. I'm talking about worldly pleasures that the bible tells us to abstain from. Our mission to save souls has great meaning only because the consequences are eternal. But that really is the only thing that we can do in this world that would have any value.

> I don't agree with this, either. The Bible hints at the concept.

I agree that the bible can be used to support the idea. It can also be interpreted to support the idea that anyone who doesn't know Jesus goes to Heaven. Its a similar argument that you've made with the scripture you've used. Babies, like unaware adults, do not know they are breaking God's law. If we say that babies go to Heaven, then surely adults who also do not poses knowledge should go to Heaven right? It could then be suggested that we should not tell people about Jesus because they will go to Heaven anyways. If we told them and they don't believe what we tell them, we put them in danger. The people who sinned before the law weren't breaking the law but are still guilty of their sin.

> well I'm just trying to get you to explain why evil exists without making a utilitarian argument. If you can do that, I'd be very interested.

My point is that it's longer than will fit in the limitations of the forum, especially if I am answering other questions and addressing other comments you have.

> Again, you're arguing against government, not my proposed system of ethics.

I'm not arguing government, I'm using government as an example. What is true in politics is also true in personal relationships. All relationships are contests and balances of power. Every relationship is fundamentally a power struggle.

> As for the life the child could have lived, it would have been meaningless because we as Christians do not value worldly mortal things.

I consider this to untrue. Our lives on Earth have just as much meaning as our lives in eternity. We are not to ignore the body, as taught in some Greek philosophies; instead, our bodies are the temple of God, and they will be resurrected. What we do in this life matters. Nothing we do in this world is meaningless.

> I think the age of accountability is just something created to comfort a grieving mother.

I don't agree with this, either. The Bible hints at the concept.

• Romans 5.13 says people who lived before the law will have a different standard of accountability before God. Babies are not cognizant of the law.
• Deuteronomy 1.37-40 says that those too young to be held accountable are not held accountable in the same way as those who were in a position to know.
• In Isaiah 7.15, God recognizes that some people (such as babies) are too young to know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right.

Therefore, according to the Bible, there just may be an age before which people are not held responsible or accountable for sin.

> I actually written a chapter in a book on this subject.

do you mind sharing?

> Then we need to start a new discussion thread.

well I'm just trying to get you to explain why evil exists without making a utilitarian argument. If you can do that, I'd be very interested.

> The psychology of power is always in play, and especially in politics and in the financial sector. Two humans can't interact without power being a factor. When it comes to government, the abuse of power is inevitable.

Again, you're arguing against government, not my proposed system of ethics.

> I have learned that everything can be used to evil at times. Misguided goodness causes just as much evil as sin. Even good that is not done can result in evil.

I provided you a system that seeks to maximize the individual's happiness and well being. In what way could this result in evil?

> (1) You don't know what that child's life would have been like and what good influence he or she might have had on Earth;

As for the life the child could have lived, it would have been meaningless because we as Christians do not value worldly mortal things. The nice experiences the child could have had wouldn't justify putting the child in harms way (hell).

> (2) since the Bible doesn't tell us what happens to children who die before they are capable of making a decision, we are only speculating using the reasoning and revelation available to us.

Agreed, but when we are asked what we believe, we shouldn't adhere to the age of accountability concept because it can justify murdering children. Thats why I don't believe in it. I say "not sure". I think the age of accountability is just something created to comfort a grieving mother.
But we must be consistent in what we say and must speak the truth.

> Self-defense is biblically justified. Infanticide is not.

Depends on whether you believe the age of accountability is biblical. I don't. Some do.

> What's more lawful is living to please God in all your ways.

By saving children from potential eternal punishment if you believe in the age of accountability.

> so when someone asks you "Why do evil things happen if God is loving?" You would say, its too complicated, God's ways are higher than our ways.

No, I actually written a chapter in a book on this subject. It takes more than a sound-byte answer. If someone really wants to know, we can go into this, and I have—many times. But it would pretty much have to be a forum by itself.

> My answer may be unsatisfying but I would like to hear your attempt considering that this is a common question that people ask and you seem to be interested in saving souls.

Then we need to start a new discussion thread.

> The United States seeks to maximize individual liberties.

This is ideally true, but in practical everyday life, it doesn't turn out to be that way. Also, as we have seen many times, individual liberties are at conflict with each other (for instance, LGBTQ claims of civil discrimination are often at odds with Christian claims of religious discrimination). We can't all have individual liberties. We all know there are many problems, abuses, and conflicts over this matter.

> Your response "well, maximizing individual happiness can't happen because people in power" is just not true.

The psychology of power is always in play, and especially in politics and in the financial sector. Two humans can't interact without power being a factor. When it comes to government, the abuse of power is inevitable.

> It just seems like you don't like utilitarianism when it works because utilitarianism has been used for evil previously.

I have learned that everything can be used to evil at times. Misguided goodness causes just as much evil as sin. Even good that is not done can result in evil.

I don't like utilitarianism because it ignores half of the equation for the sake of the other half, and I'm convinced that's a disastrous position that will often result in the justification of all kinds of evil for the sake of an allegedly desirable end.

> The child only gains from this situation (securing a spot in Heaven).

First of all, you can't say this on two grounds: (1) You don't know what that child's life would have been like and what good influence he or she might have had on Earth; (2) since the Bible doesn't tell us what happens to children who die before they are capable of making a decision, we are only speculating using the reasoning and revelation available to us. Therefore we can't truly guarantee only gain by infanticide.

> You have no idea that this would happen. The child could also grow up to become hitler v2.

True, so it's not our place to decide. Since the utilitarian option is not necessarily the wisest or the right pursuit, we should defer the decision to someone with omniscient wisdom, viz., God.

> I am a Christian.

Glad to hear it.

> My beliefs don't justify killing children tho.

Glad to hear it. Neither do mine.

> The law "thou shall not kill" doesn't rule out the necessity of killing an enemy.

Correct. You're absolutely right.

> It is good that you defend your family and killing in defense of your family would be a consistent and lawful utilitarian action.

Self-defense is biblically justified. Infanticide is not.

> What could be more lawful than saving your children from the Devil?

What's more lawful is living to please God in all your ways.

> No, you can't legitimately say this. God is not utilitarian. His permission of evil is a deep and complex issue far greater than the 10K character limit here.

Right so when someone asks you "Why do evil things happen if God is loving?" You would say, its too complicated, God's ways are higher than our ways. I think you've just justified your non-response by saying that its complex. I could answer the question in while still recognizing our inability to truly understand his ways. My answer may be unsatisfying but I would like to hear your attempt considering that this is a common question that people ask and you seem to be interested in saving souls.

> Rules are made to maximize the happiness of the powerful, and the happiness of the proletariat is subservient to the goals of the ruling class.

The United States seeks to maximize individual liberties. This is in the US constitution which is a set of rules written by people in power for the people not in power. Your response "well, maximizing individual happiness can't happen because people in power" is just not true. Even if it were true, my response is still utilitarian and your critique is no longer with the ethical theory but with government. It just seems like you don't like utilitarianism when it works because utilitarianism has been used for evil previously. Unless you have some other reason why you dislike the system that you have not shared.

> There is no such thing as "total happiness." Happiness is an individual attribute, not a mass reality.

See your point: "Suppose the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people can be achieved by enslaving or killing the rest?"

Your question includes some "total happiness" metric. I'm responding to your point.

> Because the end doesn't justify the means.

The means would be killing a child. The child only gains from this situation (securing a spot in Heaven). The only loss involved is that of the parents which is purely selfish. You can say "murder is wrong" but how so in this case? You as a Christian recognize eternity right? We also recognize that we may end up in hell for eternity. What could be a more loving action than to secure another persons soul in Heaven?

> The utilitarian view was practiced by Nazi Germany: murder is justified if it accomplishes the goal. It's a horrific worldview.

I've already addressed this point. I see that it concerns you but its not relevant to a system of utilitarianism that seeks to maximize souls saved.

> (1) we either kill them so they can attain life or (2) if we don't kill them they will suffer for eternity.

Not an accurate representation of what was being proposed. We're securing salvation and removing the possibility of the person going to hell.

> There is at least a 3rd choice: let them live and teach them the truth about life so they can have life now and life in the future.

You have no idea that this would happen. The child could also grow up to become hitler v2.

> Letting a child grow up and potentially show many thousands of people the way to heaven is the far better choice. So I will exercise that same privilege now: Please consider giving your life to Jesus and thereby finding true life. You have an opportunity now to make the right choice. Don't let the opportunity in front of you pass by. Come to Jesus.

I am a Christian. My beliefs don't justify killing children tho. The law "thou shall not kill" doesn't rule out the necessity of killing an enemy. It is good that you defend your family and killing in defense of your family would be a consistent and lawful utilitarian action. What could be more lawful than saving your children from the Devil?

> I mean, if we take a macro view of our existence, we could say that God is a utilitarian because he permits evil and creates people knowing they will go to hell because the objective justifies the means.

No, you can't legitimately say this. God is not utilitarian. His permission of evil is a deep and complex issue far greater than the 10K character limit here. I hope you have done some reader and thinking before you blurt out a statement like this, but since you have blurted it out, I might guess you haven't. I would recommend that you do some research before arriving at a conclusion. It's the way of reason.

> I would say in this situation, we ought to "maximize happiness for the individual" which would rule out the possibility of enslaving or killing the rest.

As you well know, the way it works is that it's those in power who get to make the rules, and it's generally the happiness of the powerful that get to create the culture. You know how life really works. The point of power is to exercise it. Powerful people use power to increase their power and to maintain their power. Rules are made to maximize the happiness of the powerful, and the happiness of the proletariat is subservient to the goals of the ruling class.

> Why should we maximize happiness for the individual rather than maximizing total happiness?

There is no such thing as "total happiness." Happiness is an individual attribute, not a mass reality.

> In what way would killing children so that they go to Heaven be immoral?

Because the end doesn't justify the means. In a deontological framework, which I believe is the moral approach rather than a utilitarian view, both the means and the ends matter. Murder is wrong. The utilitarian view was practiced by Nazi Germany: murder is justified if it accomplishes the goal. It's a horrific worldview.

> But don't you think the alternative is worse?

There are more than two choices. It's not just a matter of (1) we either kill them so they can attain life or (2) if we don't kill them they will suffer for eternity. There is at least a 3rd choice: let them live and teach them the truth about life so they can have life now and life in the future.

> Letting a child grow up and potentially go to hell for eternity seems worse than killing the child and knowing it will go to Heaven.

Letting a child grow up and potentially show many thousands of people the way to heaven is the far better choice. So I will exercise that same privilege now: Please consider giving your life to Jesus and thereby finding true life. You have an opportunity now to make the right choice. Don't let the opportunity in front of you pass by. Come to Jesus.

> I would say in this case, the end justifies the means.

I don't believe the end EVER justifies the means. Both the means and the ends matter, and there are ways they can both be valued. We don't have to choose one over the other.

I mean, if we take a macro view of our existence, we could say that God is a utilitarian because he permits evil and creates people knowing they will go to hell because the objective justifies the means.

> Suppose the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people can be achieved by enslaving or killing the rest?

You've just set the objective to "Maximize total happiness". I would say in this situation, we ought to "maximize happiness for the individual" which would rule out the possibility of enslaving or killing the rest. Why should we maximize happiness for the individual rather than maximizing total happiness? well because I'm an individual and its in my best interest that we maximize the individuals happiness because I can't know if I will be enslaved or live happily.

In what way would killing children so that they go to Heaven be immoral? We understand murder is wrong so the act of killing is wrong. But don't you think the alternative is worse?

Letting a child grow up and potentially go to hell for eternity seems worse than killing the child and knowing it will go to Heaven. I would say in this case, the end justifies the means. The only reason not to do this would be a selfish fear of God's wrath for the murderers salvation. This would not be loving but would be self-interested. This selfishness is just as much of a sin as the act of murder.

The argument you have posed is a utilitarian argument: Do whatever works. The end justifies the mean.

It has been correctly objected that principles of this sort can yield absolutely awful results. Suppose the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people can be achieved by enslaving or killing the rest? Many illustrations of this sort are fatal to your proposal. This is not a moral principle, but rather than abandonment of morality. You put so-called morality in the hands of the powerful to define a supposed "good outcome," and in the process possibly justifying the most horrendous means at hand.

Instead, the means have to pass the test of goodness and morality also, in order for the equation to balance.

Instead, Christians would take a deontologist viewpoint: the rightness or wrongness of an act derives from the action itself and not from solely the consequence of the act. If a person is ethical and seeking a justifiably ethical end, then he should be ethical at all times without exception. The means are just as important as the ends. It is self-contradictory for some who claims to have high moral standards and a moral goal to engage in morally dubious behavior to achieve a moral end. Instead, we look for moral means to moral ends so there is no self-contradiction. It is very hard to justify an unethical act by stating that the goodness of the outcome outweighs any wrongdoing. No excuse can make a morally wrong decision a right one. Taking an unethical step to solve a problem makes a person just as guilty and immoral as the original wrongdoer. Instead, the ends and means must be worthy of each other.

While many Christians believe that aborted children go to heaven, frankly the Bible makes no definitive statement on it. Therefore we are wildly and immorally remiss to abort babies to "Skip the test and get the prize."

Do aborted babies go to heaven? I've been told by Chistians that they do. An Abortion literally lets the "person" skip the test and get the prize. Where is the moral issue? It's a bonus, if you believe in an eternal heaven. Right? Can someone explain the counter argument?