Board index ‹ Jesus

[Book Mitten]

> Even if it doesn't prevent or rehabilitate, each person should ultimately and ideally get what they deserve.

Doesn't this potentially become vengefulness? You condemned carrying out punishment out of spite earlier, doesn't retributive justice seem similar?

[jimwalton]

> Doesn't this potentially become vengefulness?

It could if the "judge" (whether an officer of the law or the individual carrying out the sentence) is corrupted by pride, hate, or bribery. In the case of God, His judgments are always just, so any sentencing is based on right and wrong, not emotions or spite.

> You condemned carrying out punishment out of spite earlier, doesn't retributive justice seem similar?

Carrying out a just sentence isn't definitively or automatically spiteful. It can be a rather impersonal process. The judge doesn't know the individual; he hears the case, weighs the evidence, renders a judgment and pronounces a fair sentence. It's "the punishment fits the crime," not any sense of vengeance or spite.

In the case of God, though, His knowledge of us is always personal, but neither is there any sense of corruption, emotion, or any alternative interferences—just ultimate rightness based on total knowledge.

[Book Mitten]

> In the case of God, though, His knowledge of us is always personal, but neither is there any sense of corruption, emotion, or any alternative interferences—just ultimate rightness based on total knowledge.

I think the difference between us is that you start from the idea that God is just and good and believe from there that this world will is ultimately the same (at least in its conclusion) You seem to base this belief on a number of factors, including intuitive experience of what you call God (you mentioned earlier that atheists dismiss this; I personally do not. It's something I take note of in the weighing up process), as well as biblical literature and the appearance of order in the cosmos. I look into the world and see some goodness, but not enough. There is some order for sure, but I see many cases of needless evil, and things which simply shouldn't exist. I believe based on this a creator God of this universe, if there is one, is either not omniscient, not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent. One or more of the three. These three traits are often listed as essential to God by theists, so this leads me to doubt.

> Carrying out a just sentence isn't definitively or automatically spiteful. It can be a rather impersonal process. The judge doesn't know the individual; he hears the case, weighs the evidence, renders a judgment and pronounces a fair sentence. It's "the punishment fits the crime," not any sense of vengeance or spite.

A human judge carrying out this process will act with imperfect knowledge and circumstances, and will often issue a sentence based on adaptive function. What I mean by this, in this particular example, is that retributive punishment can be used as an incentive for criminals to stay away from crime, as well as to set an example for other people that might be interested in becoming criminals. A third option is that someone (judge, law, or other justice seeking person) may believe that turning the tables on the evildoer (so that they experience the same degree of deprivation as their victim) is just. Either way I think that the justice seeking person would rather the crime be prevented in the first place, even if it took away the evildoer's freedom, especially since the would be victim's freedom would be taken away by the evildoer.
Simply inflicting suffering on someone after the fact if it has no redemptive effect (such as the redemptive effect explored by authors like Dostoyevsky) is uncalled for.

[jimwalton]

> I think the difference between us is that you start from the idea that God is just and good and believe from there that this world will is ultimately the same (at least in its conclusion) You seem to base this belief on a number of factors, including intuitive experience of what you call God

This seems like an accurate assessment to me of a position I hold. Thank you.

> I look into the world and see some goodness, but not enough.

Interesting. I see plenty of bad and evil (too much), but I think if the good in the world didn't outweigh the bad, we would have a whole lot less of "live and let live" as well as many forms of cooperation for survival. I think if the bad outweighed the good in the world, there would be far more violence than there is and far less tolerance of one's neighbor is is gathering and using resources that could be valuable to "me" in my efforts to survive and thrive.

When I look at a city like Mexico City and its miles and miles of corrugated steel shacks and barely subsistence living, if bad outweighed the good we would (in my opinion) see more murder and arson to reduce the competition and enhance my potential for minimal precious resources. And so also around the world. But people tolerate and cooperate, and even assist.

>A human judge carrying out this process will act with imperfect knowledge and circumstances, and will often issue a sentence based on adaptive function.

Correct. I agree.

> What I mean by this, in this particular example, is that retributive punishment can be used as an incentive for criminals to stay away from crime, as well as to set an example for other people that might be interested in becoming criminals.

Again, I agree. But God doesn't run the world this way (and I can't remember if we've already discussed this) because from a divine-to-humanity strategy, the paradigm is ultimately self-destructive. In society we want people to choose to be good (regardless of the reason: morality, praise, survival, fear—they all work in this scenario); in our relationship with God, people choosing the good just to receive praise becomes counter-productive, so also if they choose the good to get a prize or out of fear. The whole system is self-contradictory and so doomed to failure.

Imagine that your spouse wants you to love him/her for the right reasons, so he/she says "they" will give you good sex if you just love them deeply. Well now they're in a pickle. They have no way to tell if you really love them or are just being good to get the sex, or if you're afraid of the alternatives, or if you're just trying to get by. The system is its own demise.

> A third option is that someone (judge, law, or other justice seeking person) may believe that turning the tables on the evildoer (so that they experience the same degree of deprivation as their victim) is just.

This isn't exactly what I'd say, but it's closer than the others. Justice is: if you steal from someone, you owe that amount in return plus some for what you did (inconvenience, deprivation, ruination, whatever). If you cheat, you recompense to that amount and then some. Nobody should just get away with wrongdoing. And it's just because it's wrong. Great if they are rehabilitated and stop. Great if they fear the system and don't even do in the first place. Best of all if they know right from wrong and aren't even thinking in that direction let alone acting on it. It's not just a matter of turning the tables in them, but a matter of just recompense and just punishment for wrong as a moral category.

> Simply inflicting suffering on someone after the fact if it has no redemptive effect (such as the redemptive effect explored by authors like Dostoyevsky) is uncalled for.

I disagree. OK, someone murders a family. He or she is unremorseful, actually feeling happy and smug about it, and no amount of punishment will rehabilitate or change him. So ... just... let him go? Or put him in therapy for a little while (which, in my hypothetical, won't be effective). Inflicting suffering on this person is uncalled for? See, I could never agree with that. It's not about rehabilitation or prevention (though those are both desirable). It's about justice for the perpetrator. If we value anything about the victim (the value of their lives, their rights, their possessions, etc.), we can't just ignore the action because trying to do anything about it will be ineffective.

[Book Mitten]

> Interesting. I see plenty of bad and evil (too much), but I think if the good in the world didn't outweigh the bad, we would have a whole lot less of "live and let live" as well as many forms of cooperation for survival. I think if the bad outweighed the good in the world, there would be far more violence than there is and far less tolerance of one's neighbor is is gathering and using resources that could be valuable to "me" in my efforts to survive and thrive.

> When I look at a city like Mexico City and its miles and miles of corrugated steel shacks and barely subsistence living, if bad outweighed the good we would (in my opinion) see more murder and arson to reduce the competition and enhance my potential for minimal precious resources. And so also around the world. But people tolerate and cooperate, and even assist.

The point I'd make regarding all this is not that there isn't a significant amount of good, but that there are inexcusable cases of bad. Cases of evil that, as far as I can see, have no good reason to exist.

> I disagree. OK, someone murders a family. He or she is unremorseful, actually feeling happy and smug about it, and no amount of punishment will rehabilitate or change him. So ... just... let him go? Or put him in therapy for a little while (which, in my hypothetical, won't be effective).

I'm not saying just let them go. I'm saying the situation of them doing evil should be prevented in the first place. God could leave a trail for police to catch the criminal before the crime occurs. All involved would still have free will according to what appears to be your definition. You said earlier that victims still had free will even when evil was inflicted upon them.

> Inflicting suffering on this person is uncalled for? See, I could never agree with that. It's not about rehabilitation or prevention (though those are both desirable). It's about justice for the perpetrator.

I would have a good mind to kill someone who killed my family without hesitation. I think we would both have thoughts of inclination that way in those circumstances. I would also want to know why the perpetrator did so however, and I would want to deal with the reason, whether it was mental illness, difficult circumstances for survival, etc. Of course they have responsibility, but it would be better if their action was orientated towards good in the first place. If you're talking about a killer that kills for no other reason than enjoying it, there will often be a biological or phenomenological defect from which their impetus stems. This doesn't discount that their conscious self is responsible, but they could have been prevented from having a murderous impulse simply through a different state of affairs being steered into being. This wouldn't take away from their free will according to what appears to be your definition (discussed earlier, sorry if I misinterpreted). They would simply respond to a different set of stimuli. The same way victims according to a supposed free will scenario still have it but are reacting to being a victim.

[jimwalton]

> but that there are inexcusable cases of bad. Cases of evil that, as far as I can see, have no good reason to exist.

I agree that it looks like that. The Bible the sin capability and cruelty quotient of humanity is extreme, and these are the extreme examples of why we need a redeemer. Secondly, we are not in a position to judge whether any good comes from these horrific events somewhere in the line (which might show a possible small reason for them be allowed to happen). Third, since humans have free will, God doesn't intervene in every negative exercise of free will, not even the extreme bad ones. Fourth, if God were to intervene, it would lead to untenable life consequences for humanity. But we've covered this ground.

> God could leave a trail for police to catch the criminal before the crime occurs.

Ah, "Minority Report." Arresting people before they've done anything wrong. I think this strategy is rife with problems.

> but it would be better if their action was orientated towards good in the first place.

This is where the real work of God is: changing hearts, not preventing crime.

[Book Mitten]

> In society we want people to choose to be good (regardless of the reason: morality, praise, survival, fear—they all work in this scenario); in our relationship with God, people choosing the good just to receive praise becomes counter-productive, so also if they choose the good to get a prize or out of fear. The whole system is self-contradictory and so doomed to failure.

I would say people should choose to be good because of good being experienced as something desirable itself.

> Imagine that your spouse wants you to love him/her for the right reasons, so he/she says "they" will give you good sex if you just love them deeply. Well now they're in a pickle. They have no way to tell if you really love them or are just being good to get the sex, or if you're afraid of the alternatives, or if you're just trying to get by. The system is its own demise.

They would be able to tell if they didn't make such an offer. If I love them it occurs at a deep rooted level within myself. I don't choose to do it out of thin air. Of course, love is made manifest through action, but the prior impetus must be there. Love is experienced as good in itself and thus desirable, not simply as something used cheaply as a means to an end.

[jimwalton]

> I would say people should choose to be good because of good being experienced as something desirable itself.

I agree with this, too. But we know humans. They would do anything for the wrong reason if the payoff was big enough.

> love is made manifest through action, but the prior impetus must be there.

Exactly. That's why the Retribution Principle isn't going to work. The RP is too vulnerable as something that could be used very cheaply and flippantly as a means to an end.

[Book Mitten]

> I agree with this, too. But we know humans. They would do anything for the wrong reason if the payoff was big enough.

Would they? Why must this be so? More importantly, how can you claim this to be true? I know some humans, but not all. Also see my other question about why God would create a world in which people are drawn to evil. In addition, can't the loving relationship itself be the payoff?

[jimwalton]

> Would they?

By my experience, yep. Especially in our modern era, we are attracted to big payoffs and quick solutions, and not as motivated by morality. Here's a fun (or frightening) little tidbit (https://www.elitedaily.com/social-news/ ... rs/1346072).

> Why must this be so?

It's not that it must be so, it's just the human condition and more so our modern mindset.

> Also see my other question about why God would create a world in which people are drawn to evil.

It is of benefit that humans (whether through natural evolution or investment by God) have a sense of right and wrong, so that survival is not only possible but enhanced. For the sake of this discussion, since you asked why God would create in such a way, I'll take the conversation in a theistic direction.

If this is not the best possible world (a world in which life-enhancing behaviors were impossible), then such moral choice to make a positive difference in the world is an asset. For this, a being needs three things: knowledge of the good and its benefits, the ability to make such a choice for good/benefit, and the power to play out such a choice. A world where choices only make things worse would hardly be worth having.

Knowledge of the good and its benefits implies or necessitates commensurate knowledge of alternatives to that direction. So God could be motivated to make such beings who have knowledge of the alternatives and some power over themselves and at least somewhat over their environs, both people and circumstances. They are able to participate in determining the destiny of things. That there should be beings with such motivation and control is good. They would be higher than mere robots, higher than animals (who are more concerned with and capable of power, instinct, and survival), and more like an image of their Creator—little creators.

Such creatures would by necessity be of limited knowledge, power, and choice, for another being of unlimited attributes as God Himself would potentially be able to stop God doing things, and it's logically contradictory to have two omnipotent beings in competition with each other.

A creature with limited knowledge, power, and choice would not by necessity be perfectly good. His limited knowledge may not always perceive the right. His limited choice may not always select the right. His limited power may not always effect the right. Because of his freedom, he has no intrinsic inhibitions to avoid what is wrong and always do what is right. For that, he would have to have the good and the right perpetually forced on him.

What seems to be the only logical and rational option is creatures who are created almost morally good from the start, who have a knowledge of what is right and good, and who have considerable choice over a period of time of self-determination.

An omniscient being such as God would always know to choose the right and an omnipotent being would have to power to always do what is right. Those of limited knowledge and power do not have that same capability, by necessity. Sometimes he will choose the wrong in ignorance, sometimes he will be in the wrong by lack of power, and sometime he will choose the wrong for some perceived (though misguided) benefit.

> In addition, can't the loving relationship itself be the payoff?

Yes. This is why I have chosen Christianity. It's not for health and wealth here in this life, but for the relationship with God. That's the prize (Philippians 3.7-8, 14).