There is no right choice. That's the point of the dilemma. It's been designed with competing horrible choices to force someone to pronounce death on an innocent person. At core, the dilemma is not about morality at all, but instead about cruelty. "How much death will you inflict and why?"

Yes, God would probably never be in such a situation, but when you think about it, the morality isn't really about what God would do - otherwise we couldn't use it as a standard, because we're never in the position of God (for example, God can kill people, since he's their maker). It's more about what God would do if he was himself a human (a real, powerless human, not Jesus).

So the right choice, in this situation, is the choice compatible with God's nature, and within human's capabilities. And it looks like even the most righteous man on earth wouldn't be able to make the right choice here.

I know you want really bad to hang on to this dilemma as a way to evaluate God. To be honest, though we humans get tangled in these situations, I'm not sure that God has ever faced a situation where there are only two choices and they're both bad. God always has options at His disposal that are greater than ours and different from them, based on His position and attributes. I would say with some confidence that God has never been and would never be in this position. I would guess you think I'm being evasive, but I'm really not. I'm confident that God would not be limited by the box of this dilemma.

I disagree with this line of thinking. It smacks of Divine Command theory, which is an illegitimate approach to Christian ethics. In Divine Command theory, things become morally good because God commands them, in which case ethics is totally arbitrary. it's not a biblical position.
That's not what I meant - I was talking about God's nature being the source of morality. If it's in God's nature to do this and that, then it's moral, because God's nature if perfectly good.

Your examples show a choice between a lesser evil and a greater one. Lying is bad, but not saving a life is worse, and there's no doubt that God approved of people hiding Jews. The Trolley Problem is different - here both options seem equally bad, and if they really are, then even God would not be able to make the right choice here. Which seems absurd.

> technically, whatever option God chooses, it's the good one, and it's not for us to judge.

I disagree with this line of thinking. It smacks of Divine Command theory, which is an illegitimate approach to Christian ethics. In Divine Command theory, things become morally good because God commands them, in which case ethics is totally arbitrary. it's not a biblical position.

> And yet we're still expected to act morally, in every situation.

We see occasions during WWII where people hid Jews and then lied about it. We see similar situations in the Bible, such as Rahab in Joshua 2, where she hid spies and lied about it. The Bible never endorses her lying, but doesn't condemn it, either. But we all know that there are some situation where there ARE no perfectly moral choices, so people try instead to "do the right thing," which is protect Jews from extermination at the hands of a corrupt government. That doesn't make their decision moral, but it does make it the best decision to have made. We must be careful not to conclude that the ends justifies the means, which is also not a biblical position. In situations of moral conflict, which are inevitable in life, we are asked by the Bible to act with wisdom more so than to act with morality.

> It's contrived because no matter what one chooses, it's both wrong and condemnable.

I disagree here - technically, whatever option God chooses, it's the good one, and it's not for us to judge. So I don't want to judge God for having a preference here, I'm only pointing out the problem that in this situation there seem to be no right choice - both for us and for God. And yet we're still expected to act morally, in every situation. So what is the moral choice here? Or, at least, which one is less immoral? Are they both equally bad, and should you just toss a coin to choose? You have to act one way or another, there's no other way out. And if you no longer can use God as a standard (because God disapproves of both choices, I guess), what should you do?

I didn't mean to imply that you were seeking to blame God. My apology if that's how I came across. I know many critics and detractors on this forum ARE seeking to blame God, but that wasn't your angle or intent. I got that. Sorry if I miscommunicated.

I realize you are presenting a binary situation of non-neutrality, seeking what someone who is a God-follower would do, and what God would approve of. I get that. But it's my opinion that answering the question will lead you in a false direction that will inevitably lead to misdirection and misunderstanding. That's why I keep turning away from the question. It's contrived because no matter what one chooses, it's both wrong and condemnable. That doesn't help us understanding anything about "something that God himself would do if he was a human in this situation." It simply does not lead us to "this problem should have one solution." I don't agree with the idea that this contrived problem of no solutions should have only one solution, and it will tell us about God's moral perfection.

I think you're responding to an accusation I didn't make. I don't want to blame God for anything - I'm only presenting a situation where you have only two choices, and it's not possible to stay neutral, because inaction has consequences as well. And normally you'd ask yourself: what would God want me to do? What would he approve of? That's how we know what is moral, isn't it? So the question is: what would God want you to do in this situation? Nothing or something?

Excellent question. In a context of vibrant human life where free will is at play, there will always be ethical conflicts. We see it in our society in the conflict between religious freedom and sexual rights, and also in freedom of speech vs. saying hateful or dangerous things. Values and morals are eventually bound to conflict, and decisions must be made. Is there any decision that is perfect? Yes, ultimately, but in a situation where only two choices are given, the opportunity for a perfect decision is past. Now only poor choices are left.

Rather than evaluating God’s morality with a contrived dilemma designed to elicit condemnation, let’s (briefly) look at some real biblical situations.

Genesis 6: The Flood. People who don’t bother to think deeply condemn God for killing babies. “He had a moral dilemma: let the world be consumed by evil or to kill babies, so He chose to kill babies. Jerk!!” But that’s not the story. The story is that the world was corrupt beyond imagination, and evil was about to consume society. So (and here’s the difference), God raised up Noah as a preacher of righteousness, who told the people to change their ways or they would be destroyed, either by their own evil or by God in judgment (evil should be punished). The people gave God the finger and refused to change. Now, when the judgment comes, who is most responsible for the death of those babies? The people are. They could have changed, but didn’t. We see the same story at the end of Jonah 3, where because the people changed, God didn’t destroy them. It was the people who decided to call God’s bluff, but it was no bluff. So is this a “perfect” solution? “Perfect” is tough to define there.

Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah. People who don’t bother to think deeply condemn God for condemning homosexuality. But look at what’s really going on here. It is a city of violent sexual abuse. They had had many opportunities to change their ways, and yet refused every one of them. Who is to blame, then, when judgment comes? God was even willing to forgive the entire city if 10 righteous people were in the whole city. Only 10. There were not. This was the people’s fault, not God’s.

The 10 plagues of Egypt and the “murder” of the firstborn. God had given them time after time, chance after chance, to repent, come clean, and do the right thing. They didn’t. So is God to blame for their own stupidity and rebellion? I don’t think so.

The book of Joshua: The Conquest of Canaan. God told Moses that each city should first be given an opportunity to surrender, and if they surrendered, they would be spared. Instead, the cities mounted war against Joshua. Is God to blame for their deaths?

See, there are always more than two choices. There are always mitigating circumstances. There are always efforts made by God to avoid “the worst scenario.” Always. That’s why these moral dilemmas are so misleading when it comes to analyzing God’s morality through them.

I would ask the courtesy that you take the time to read Jeremiah 18.1-12. It should take you only 4 minutes to read. In real life, and in relation to a real God and His real moralituy, it’s never as simple as “Are you going to kill one person or 5?”

Ok, so the question is: how to reconcile the existence of unsolvable moral dilemmas with the God being the standard of morality? If morality is based on what God would do/expect you to do, then what are you supposed to do in a situation like this?