Board index ‹ Jesus

[jimwalton]

> Not everyone is correct. Some people are stupid and wrong.

Nothing more true has ever been expressed.

> This implies a value on wellbeing, and if the well-being of other living things didn't get in the way of their own wellbeing (assuming they didn't care this way or that about others) I don't see why they wouldn't say "Others having good lives, why not?"

I'm always amazed at Russian, Iranian, and North Korean politics. I would think Russia would say, "Hey, we have enough land and people. Let's just be happy and wealthy Russians." I would think Iran would say, "You know, live and let live." I would think North Korea would say, "Our people have everything a human could ever want. Let's just build our infrastructure even greater than it is."

But you know, they don't. We don't get in the way of Russia's wellbeing, or Iran, or NK. Some cultures just aren't satisfied with the status quo, but seem intent on disrupting the wellbeing of others.

[Book Mitten]

> This is where it's good to have an omniscient and righteous judge. God can be trusted to do what is perfectly fair. He can take environment, motive, and intent into consideration.

Sure, but what I'm disputing is whether he can be assumed to have these traits in the first place. I'm looking into this world to figure out whether its creator, if there is one, is righteous.

> As we've already discussed, God chooses not to stop it in the first place because His interference robs us of our humanity, robs us of science, and ultimately of the ability of cause-and-effect reasoning. But I think we have covered this ground already.

We have, and we still have our disagreements. I'd like to return to that later. But for now, let's look at the immediate subject. The consequences you list are indeed the example of inferiority when it comes to the consequence of a state of him exerting that much interference. That is what you're arguing. Is that right?

> They are only somewhat related, as I think we all know. What we intend and what results are often two different things.

But what we intend is focused on what we expect or aim for as a result, is it not?

> The perp can not lay claim to, "Hey, but it turned out good, right?" His intent and delivery were only evil.

If his actions lead to the highest good however, this takes at least some sting out of it I think.

[jimwalton]

> what I'm disputing is whether he can be assumed to have these traits in the first place.

The only way we can know anything about the traits of deity is if the deity chooses to reveal them and himself to us. On what grounds do you dispute that God would be ungodlike? A "deity" who is not righteous is no deity, but rather a demented spiritual power.

> The consequences you list are indeed the example of inferiority when it comes to the consequence of a state of him exerting that much interference. That is what you're arguing. Is that right?

I don't understand your question (or the position you're wondering if I'm taking).

• "The consequences you list" (being robbed of humanity, science, reasoning)...
• "are indeed the example of inferiority" (Um, huh?)
• "when it comes to the consequence of a state of him exerting that much interference" (I don't get it).

Please try again.

> But what we intend is focused on what we expect or aim for as a result, is it not?

Yes, of course. But intention and reality can be (and often enough are) very different things, so our expectation or aim only plays partially into the picture.

> If his actions lead to the highest good however, this takes at least some sting out of it I think.

You almost seem to be implying a utilitarian approach, which is one that I reject. I subscribe to a more deontological view. Just because it happens to end well, or because someone else makes it end well, in no way justifies the evil, which was his intent. "Taking some of the sting out" is moot if it leads us to say, "Well, then the evil was at least partially good, right?" No. Wrong.

[Book Mitten]

> (and possibly you are not implying that desire is the only factor involved).

That is true

> We are quite complex beings, and I don't agree that we can pin it down to one source.

I agree. But there is a source. Even if that source is us ourselves, I don't think we can change fundamentally who we are, except with a counterbalancing part of who we also are.

> I don't think so. The impetus, I think, comes from predispositions combined with experiences combined with visceral intuitions.

I think visceral intuitions are a form of experience, however fast. They are made manifest in the realm of experience.

> Some cultures just aren't satisfied with the status quo, but seem intent on disrupting the wellbeing of others.

There's a context to that though. Their well-being may only come about through disruption of another's wellbeing. A malevolent impetus like this will often be tied to something deeper, such as biological instinct, custom, beliefs about the world, and so on.

[jimwalton]

> Their well-being may only come about through disruption of another's wellbeing.

And yet we both know that many times the will to power has nothing to do with bringing about one's wellbeing, but instead has to do with power as a corrupting influence and expression.

> A malevolent impetus like this will often be tied to something deeper, such as biological instinct, custom, beliefs about the world, and so on.

Agreed, but I consider it still malevolent. But possibly those who see it only as biological instinct, cultural expression, or flowing with the flux would have difficulty seeing it as "evil." As we've covered several times, if it's pursuit of one's alleged wellbeing through biological instinct or flowing with the flux, can it really be condemned? I think so, but that's because I subscribe to an objective standard that defines such concepts for us.

[Book Mitten]

> Agreed, but I consider it still malevolent.

As do I.

> As we've covered several times, if it's pursuit of one's alleged wellbeing through biological instinct or flowing with the flux, can it really be condemned?

I would say yes. It should be condemned without sanctimonious feeling however, and dealt with in a measured way. This might involve imprisonment, maybe killing in order for the victim to survive. Some forms of punishment seem unbalanced however. I think the subject of punishment out of spite should be treated with caution and care.

> And yet we both know that many times the will to power has nothing to do with bringing about one's wellbeing, but instead has to do with power as a corrupting influence and expression

Such is experienced by the subject as good or desirable in some sense, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

I don't think I'm a utilitarian. Partly because bad intentions can themselves be experienced as bad, and have at least the potential to cause harm.

[jimwalton]

> I think the subject of punishment out of spite should be treated with caution and care.

I agree, but I would say it even stronger. Punishment out of spite has no place where we are talking about justice.

> Such is experienced by the subject as good or desirable in some sense, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Without an objective standard, then, is it "good" and "right"? And how would we evaluate such a thing?

[Book Mitten]

I'm not saying it's good simply because someone sees it that way. I'm saying that if they have no way of seeing things differently, they can't be expected to act according to a different perspective.

> I agree, but I would say it even stronger. Punishment out of spite has no place where we are talking about justice.

Perhaps you're right. If this is the case, why then are certain criminals punished in hell in a non preventative and (seemingly) purely retributive way?

You might argue that revenge sets an example to other criminals in this world, to steer them away from crime, but I'm not sure punishment after the fact has the same effect, either on outcome or intention.

[jimwalton]

> I'm saying that if they have no way of seeing things differently, they can't be expected to act according to a different perspective.

I disagree. No one lives in a vacuum. if we take Hitler, for example (ah, Hitler, the quintessential example of all things evil), he had plenty of chances to see things differently and to act differently. I just will not buy that he couldn't be expected to act according to a different perspective.

> If this is the case, why then are certain criminals punished in hell in a non preventative and (seemingly) purely retributive way?

[jimwalton]

> If this is the case, why then are certain criminals punished in hell in a non preventative and (seemingly) purely retributive way?

The nature of justice is that the punishment be appropriate to the crime. While prevention and rehabilitation are both laudable, at core justice is about people getting what they deserve—of giving to each their due in accordance with their nature, mind, and actions. Even if it doesn't prevent or rehabilitate, each person should ultimately and ideally get what they deserve.