Board index ‹ Morality

[Hender Williamshot]

I’m not claiming that killing infants to save them from growing up in evil environments is immoral. Perhaps it is objectively moral. As I have said, I’m trying to determine if the objective morality upon which this act is based applies equally to man, since man’s morality is based upon the nature of God.

If it would be immoral for man to do the same thing now, then what specifically exempts God from the same objective morality?

[jimwalton]

The same moral code and moral standards apply to us, but it would be mostly immoral for us to do the same thing, not only just now, but at any time, because we are not omniscient. We would be hedging our bets, assessing risk, wondering about various possible future outcomes, but since God knows all and sees all, His course of action is certain where ours would be speculative.

The objective morality upon which this is based does apply equally to man. If we were able to discern the same amount of knowledge, we would also be right to perform the same action. Medically we could do this in the event of a toxic uncontainable incurable disease that had infected a community. In an extreme circumstance, we would (with great agony) destroy the community (even the babies) if there were no hope of cure and only horror of contagion. This is what the Bible says God sees spiritually and does (with great agony) in judgment.

[Hender Williamshot]

If objective morality dictates that it is good for God to kill infants before they grow up in evil environments, then wouldn’t the same objective morality dictate that it is bad for God to permit infants to grow up in evil environments?

[jimwalton]

No, because the actions God took in the Flood and at the 5 cities of the plain is identified as a hopeless, unredeemable situation. In the case of complete, systemic, and irreversible toxicity, the only solution is destruction. Most evil environments don't qualify for those categories. Despite their evil, and possibly even ubiquitous and thorough evil, if there is some redeemable hope (Gn. 18.32), then destruction is not the warranted course. Many children grow up in evil environments that are reached by others, reached by the gospel of Christ, experience life-change, are helped by the man community and repatriated to other locales—there are many possible scenarios where hope can be extracted even from dense evil. There may be many reasons God permits infants to grow up in evil environments. But when an environment is hopeless incorrigible, then it's moral to wipe out the community to save others who may be tainted by the same "cancer."

[Hender Williamshot]

> But when an environment is hopelessly incorrigible, then it's moral to wipe out the community to save others who may be tainted by the same "cancer."

About 4 responses ago you explained in great detail how the entire community was not wiped out and how inaccurate it was to interpret “kill ‘em all” as literally killing everyone.

[jimwalton]

No I didn't. I said there was no genocide. It's true that in the Flood an entire community was wiped out, but not the population of the world (genocide). During the conquest of Joshua 3 cities were burned—three communities, not an entire people group (genocide of the Canaanites).