God is not held to the same moral standard because he has the power to undo any action.
I would liken such a God with those three omni attributes as being effectively equivalent to a human author. A human author has total unbridled dominion over his characters. He knows ahead of time everything they will do and can do. He has total knowledge of their storyline. he exists out her characters' internal sense of space and time within the story.
He is capable or writing or rewriting any part of the story at will. "Murder" to him is merely the killing off of a storybook character, and is of no more moral consequence than J.R.R. tolkien killing off Sauron.
What does God's power have to do with God's moral standing? In this world, some people have more power than other people, but we don't generally believe that the powerful people are entitled to exercise their power however they want. If anything, they may actually be held to a higher standard: for instance, if powerless little Blinking Spirit lies, it's no big deal, but if the President of the United States lies, the fates of nations may be irrevocably altered.
What allows an author to do whatever he wants with his characters without moral repercussions is not his power to do so, but rather the fact that his characters are not people. They are not conscious; they do not have independent wills and desires; they cannot form the thought, "Hey, I don't want to die." But morality exists to regulate relationships between independent conscious entities who desire different things - in other words, it's for people. The common core of moral intuitions, found again and again in cultures all around the world, is the Golden Rule: "Treat others as you would like to be treated". That articulation is not strictly accurate, but it will do for our purposes here, because it does illustrate two key concepts about morality. First, "as you would like to be treated" indicates that morality is looking at people's desires. Second, "as you would like to be treated" recognizes that you are not special or privileged. Every other person is just as much a person as you, with the same sort of independent will and desire; they are not, as sociopaths and young children believe, robots that only exist for your benefit. These are the fundamental realizations that allow morality to run. You shouldn't treat people like crap, because people don't want to be treated like crap.
And no matter how powerful you are, the personhood of the people under your power does not change. You could be an office manager or the dictator of a nation-state or the all-powerful creator of the universe: the people you're interacting with are still people, and still don't want to be treated like crap, so you still shouldn't treat them like crap.
I have to contend however using your example that you do seem to acknowledge ultimately that power can in fact render a different moral standard. As you wrote, power may even impose a higher moral standard because obvious the fate of nations may be at stake if someone say..the president were to lie, but if you were to lie, the consequences would be smaller.
Even acknowledging your argument that humans are conscious beings with value to their personhood, doesnt it remain true that power necessarily invokes different moral standards by virtue of the differences in power because of the consequences.
If you lie, the consequence is relatively minor. (someone might die, go bankrupt, divorce, or have a bad day)
If the president lies, he can affect the balance of power of nations, and even cause untold human suffering by initiating war.
So what then for God?
Would it make sense to hold God to the same moral standard as man, if it does not make sense to hold the president to the same standards as you?
But that makes it an arbitrary standard. What if god declares tomorrow that you must lower your newborn baby into a vat of acid, centimetre by centimetre, because god has now deemed it good?
You can't have a serious discussion if you're gonna come up with some crazy examples. Why don't you say something more reasonable like "What if God deemed its necessary to park a tractor trailer up your ass?"
I have to contend however using your example that you do seem to acknowledge ultimately that power can in fact render a different moral standard. As you wrote, power may even impose a higher moral standard because obvious the fate of nations may be at stake if someone say..the president were to lie, but if you were to lie, the consequences would be smaller.
Even acknowledging your argument that humans are conscious beings with value to their personhood, doesnt it remain true that power necessarily invokes different moral standards by virtue of the differences in power because of the consequences.
If you lie, the consequence is relatively minor. (someone might die, go bankrupt, divorce, or have a bad day)
If the president lies, he can affect the balance of power of nations, and even cause untold human suffering by initiating war.
So what then for God?
Would it make sense to hold God to the same moral standard as man, if it does not make sense to hold the president to the same standards as you?
I chose my words carefully. I wrote "If anything, they may be held to a higher standard", not "They are held to a higher standard." The point of this was to illustrate intuitively that any difference that might arise would go in the opposite direction from that which you are suggesting (and which Christians almost invariably suggest when talking about a different standard for God): there might be things which a human can morally do which God cannot do, but there won't be things which God can morally do which a human cannot do (setting aside pure differences in capability). So no, it won't be the case that God can kill people as he pleases the way an author kills characters, because that would be a lower standard - much, much lower.
Now, if you want to drop the lower-standard argument and ask whether a higher standard exists, I'm going to turn around and say, no, it actually doesn't. And you've put your finger on why. My lie is morally different than the President's lie because they have different consequences - in other words, we're not actually performing the same action. If somehow I were in a position to tell a lie that would have the same consequences as the President's, or to accomplish those consequences through some other action, then I would naturally be held to the standard for those consequences. Conversely, if the President were to tell a white lie that had as few consequences as my lie, then he would be held to the standard for those consequences. There is in fact one common standard that governs both actions, and they would govern in exactly the same way no matter who was performing the action. All that having power means is that you can and probably will be performing bigger, more consequential actions. It doesn't change the standard by which you evaluate all your actions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You can't have a serious discussion if you're gonna come up with some crazy examples. Why don't you say something more reasonable like "What if God deemed its necessary to park a tractor trailer up your ass?"
Mine was a perfectly fine example designed to illustrate a point about the arbitrary nature of god’s goodness compared with what we as humans would consider morally good.
Most people have a hissy fit about people from other religions killing in god’s name, but it’s all seemingly fine and dandy when someone from your own religion does it.
I have to contend however using your example that you do seem to acknowledge ultimately that power can in fact render a different moral standard. As you wrote, power may even impose a higher moral standard because obvious the fate of nations may be at stake if someone say..the president were to lie, but if you were to lie, the consequences would be smaller.
Even acknowledging your argument that humans are conscious beings with value to their personhood, doesnt it remain true that power necessarily invokes different moral standards by virtue of the differences in power because of the consequences.
If you lie, the consequence is relatively minor. (someone might die, go bankrupt, divorce, or have a bad day)
If the president lies, he can affect the balance of power of nations, and even cause untold human suffering by initiating war.
So what then for God?
Would it make sense to hold God to the same moral standard as man, if it does not make sense to hold the president to the same standards as you?
I chose my words carefully. I wrote "If anything, they may be held to a higher standard", not "They are held to a higher standard." The point of this was to illustrate intuitively that any difference that might arise would go in the opposite direction from that which you are suggesting (and which Christians almost invariably suggest when talking about a different standard for God): there might be things which a human can morally do which God cannot do, but there won't be things which God can morally do which a human cannot do (setting aside pure differences in capability). So no, it won't be the case that God can kill people as he pleases the way an author kills characters, because that would be a lower standard - much, much lower.
Now, if you want to drop the lower-standard argument and ask whether a higher standard exists, I'm going to turn around and say, no, it actually doesn't. And you've put your finger on why. My lie is morally different than the President's lie because they have different consequences - in other words, we're not actually performing the same action. If somehow I were in a position to tell a lie that would have the same consequences as the President's, or to accomplish those consequences through some other action, then I would naturally be held to the standard for those consequences. Conversely, if the President were to tell a white lie that had as few consequences as my lie, then he would be held to the standard for those consequences. There is in fact one common standard that governs both actions, and they would govern in exactly the same way no matter who was performing the action. All that having power means is that you can and probably will be performing bigger, more consequential actions. It doesn't change the standard by which you evaluate all your actions.
Just as a clarification, my initial question was "is God held to the same moral standard as humans?" I wasn't arguing God's standard is necessarily higher or lower, just different.
Well this is a good point, but also important. Is it not true then that a "different" moral standard would inherently arise as differences in power, knowledge, and station would create a different moral question?
In other words, if you lied and the president lied, then you inherently have a different moral standard by virtue of the fact that you have the moral scenarios of the a) head of state lying vs b) a random citizen lying.
In fact, you cannot even pose the same moral question without denying the premise---namely removing the presidenthood from the president.
So then perhaps it is better to ask:
Is God killing someone a different moral question than a random person killing someone?
If those are two different moral scenarios altogether, then are two different standards evoked for each of those different moral scenarios?
Is God killing someone a different moral question than a random person killing someone?
If those are two different moral scenarios altogether, then are two different standards evoked for each of those different moral scenarios?
Depends entirely on the circumstances. One killing per se is not better than another. If you look in the Bible for examples, though, God kills a lot of people in circumstances where those people are not an immediate danger to the lives of others. It'd be wrong for a person to do that; it's wrong for God to do it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Is God killing someone a different moral question than a random person killing someone?
If those are two different moral scenarios altogether, then are two different standards evoked for each of those different moral scenarios?
Depends entirely on the circumstances. One killing per se is not better than another. If you look in the Bible for examples, though, God kills a lot of people in circumstances where those people are not an immediate danger to the lives of others. It'd be wrong for a person to do that; it's wrong for God to do it.
I'd challenge this assertion. If the principle is true that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, then any sinner endangers his entire community. But the greater question, in my mind, is on the basis of what moral standard is God doing wrong?
What allows an author to do whatever he wants with his characters without moral repercussions is not his power to do so, but rather the fact that his characters are not people. They are not conscious; they do not have independent wills and desires; they cannot form the thought, "Hey, I don't want to die." But morality exists to regulate relationships between independent conscious entities who desire different things - in other words, it's for people. The common core of moral intuitions, found again and again in cultures all around the world, is the Golden Rule: "Treat others as you would like to be treated". That articulation is not strictly accurate, but it will do for our purposes here, because it does illustrate two key concepts about morality. First, "as you would like to be treated" indicates that morality is looking at people's desires. Second, "as you would like to be treated" recognizes that you are not special or privileged. Every other person is just as much a person as you, with the same sort of independent will and desire; they are not, as sociopaths and young children believe, robots that only exist for your benefit. These are the fundamental realizations that allow morality to run. You shouldn't treat people like crap, because people don't want to be treated like crap.
If God decreed His own murder from the foundation of the world for a reason, then how is God not following the Golden Rule when God kills others for that same reason?
You can't have a serious discussion if you're gonna come up with some crazy examples. Why don't you say something more reasonable like "What if God deemed its necessary to park a tractor trailer up your ass?"
Mine was a perfectly fine example designed to illustrate a point about the arbitrary nature of god’s goodness compared with what we as humans would consider morally good.
Most people have a hissy fit about people from other religions killing in god’s name, but it’s all seemingly fine and dandy when someone from your own religion does it.
Pro tip:
Instead of perceiving my post as an attack, you should take a moment to see how ludicrous your post is.
For your reference:
Quote from Gabriel Chase »
What if god declares tomorrow that you must lower your newborn baby into a vat of acid, centimetre by centimetre, because god has now deemed it good?
Ummm.... yeah, nice try at going for the shock factor of a nonsensical example to the point of borderline trolling. If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to make a better effort than that.
But that makes it an arbitrary standard. What if god declares tomorrow that you must lower your newborn baby into a vat of acid, centimetre by centimetre, because god has now deemed it good?
It is not arbitrary. God has a certain nature with particular attributes, and God's moral law is consistent with God's nature.
What allows an author to do whatever he wants with his characters without moral repercussions is not his power to do so, but rather the fact that his characters are not people. They are not conscious; they do not have independent wills and desires; they cannot form the thought, "Hey, I don't want to die." But morality exists to regulate relationships between independent conscious entities who desire different things - in other words, it's for people. The common core of moral intuitions, found again and again in cultures all around the world, is the Golden Rule: "Treat others as you would like to be treated". That articulation is not strictly accurate, but it will do for our purposes here, because it does illustrate two key concepts about morality. First, "as you would like to be treated" indicates that morality is looking at people's desires. Second, "as you would like to be treated" recognizes that you are not special or privileged. Every other person is just as much a person as you, with the same sort of independent will and desire; they are not, as sociopaths and young children believe, robots that only exist for your benefit. These are the fundamental realizations that allow morality to run. You shouldn't treat people like crap, because people don't want to be treated like crap.
If God decreed His own murder from the foundation of the world for a reason, then how is God not following the Golden Rule when God kills others for that same reason?
This is a very good point and one I wanted to make, but at a different time.
God as judge must see to it that those who do evil reap the consequences of that evil. One may call it cruel or evil in itself when a judge passes judgment for infractions, but in the Christian tradition, God did not spare his own son.
He could have simply said, enough is enough. I'm done with this whole punishing business, this whole condemning to hell thing.
He didn't.
We don't know why God chooses to implement that path, or really what has to go into maintain justice or the fundamental balance of good and evil in this universe. But for whatever reasons it may be, it was important enough that God could not simply undo this paradigm even for his own son, when his son had to bear the sins of the world.
45 From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. 46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).
By christian tradition at least, the golden rule is arguably met.
If God decreed His own murder from the foundation of the world for a reason, then how is God not following the Golden Rule when God kills others for that same reason?
This is a gross misunderstanding of the Golden Rule. Does the Golden Rule justify a suicidal person murdering others? Of course not.
Is God killing someone a different moral question than a random person killing someone?
If those are two different moral scenarios altogether, then are two different standards evoked for each of those different moral scenarios?
Depends entirely on the circumstances. One killing per se is not better than another. If you look in the Bible for examples, though, God kills a lot of people in circumstances where those people are not an immediate danger to the lives of others. It'd be wrong for a person to do that; it's wrong for God to do it.
I'd challenge this assertion. If the principle is true that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, then any sinner endangers his entire community. But the greater question, in my mind, is on the basis of what moral standard is God doing wrong?
One example is God killing Onan for failing to impregnate his dead brother's wife (who he married due to Levirate marriage). He "spilled his seed on the ground" to spite God, and he killed him. Another time a couple of kids called a prophet "baldy" and a bear appeared and mauled them. And God also killed whomever touched the ark of the covenant.
If God decreed His own murder from the foundation of the world for a reason, then how is God not following the Golden Rule when God kills others for that same reason?
This is a gross misunderstanding of the Golden Rule. Does the Golden Rule justify a suicidal person murdering others? Of course not.
I would argue that if a person delighted in hurting themselves then the Golden Rule would indeed justify hurting others.
Whatever 'extra' you want to impute to the Golden rule is your own device, but it's not stated by the Golden rule.
Therefore, Bernard Shaw's counter to the Golden rule was:
"Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same"
One example is God killing Onan for failing to impregnate his dead brother's wife (who he married due to Levirate marriage). He "spilled his seed on the ground" to spite God, and he killed him. Another time a couple of kids called a prophet "baldy" and a bear appeared and mauled them. And God also killed whomever touched the ark of the covenant.
I know the examples. The idea behind "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" is that the smallest amount of sin is like a disease that can sweep, corrupt, and ultimately destroy an entire population if left unhindered. It is that powerful of a force. So when God kills a sinner God is protecting the rest of the community from that person's sin. Onan's sin is the first step down the path towards the atrocities committed by the pagan nations like the Caananites and the Phoenicians, who both ultimately committed ritual child sacrifice in the name and worship of their pagan Gods.
How did those nations go down that path? It all started with disobeying God's mandate to live fruitfully and multiply. The wages of sin is death. This applies to more than just individuals. It also applies to entire societies and even nations.
If God decreed His own murder from the foundation of the world for a reason, then how is God not following the Golden Rule when God kills others for that same reason?
This is a gross misunderstanding of the Golden Rule. Does the Golden Rule justify a suicidal person murdering others? Of course not.
That is a straw man. A person commits suicide for selfish reasons. Jesus agreed to His own crucifixion in order that He might save many. The average suicidal person has different reasons for committing suicide. The average person usually commits suicide to save himself/herself from something. Jesus walked straight into the wrath and anger of God in order to spare people that He loved from what He Himself had to endure.
That is a straw man. A person commits suicide for selfish reasons. Jesus agreed to His own crucifixion in order that He might save many. The average suicidal person has different reasons for committing suicide. The average person usually commits suicide to save himself/herself from something. Jesus walked straight into the wrath and anger of God in order to spare people that He loved from what He Himself had to endure.
So... how is it following the Golden Rule for God to kill people who have not agreed to their own deaths?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
TO be frank the God of Christianity is held to a much higher moral standard than us humans. The Bible admits humanities fallen nature but God and his physical manifestation (Jesus) are held to be morally perfect.
I know the examples. The idea behind "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" is that the smallest amount of sin is like a disease that can sweep, corrupt, and ultimately destroy an entire population if left unhindered. It is that powerful of a force. So when God kills a sinner God is protecting the rest of the community from that person's sin. Onan's sin is the first step down the path towards the atrocities committed by the pagan nations like the Caananites and the Phoenicians, who both ultimately committed ritual child sacrifice in the name and worship of their pagan Gods.
How did those nations go down that path? It all started with disobeying God's mandate to live fruitfully and multiply. The wages of sin is death. This applies to more than just individuals. It also applies to entire societies and even nations.
What people conveniently forget is that God let his own people the Jews languish in slavery for four centuries to give the Caaninites every chance of repentance a people could want. Only when the inequity of the Canaanites was so complete as to their not being a single innocent one among them does he call his people out Egypt and back to their homeland to call the Canaanites to judgement.
But why shouldn't the agents matter? Different agents will have different starting levels of information, which also mean different mental contexts.
If a martian were to take a kidney from a man with three kidneys, but had no internal understanding of pain as humans experience it, I would hold that he? she/it? would be less culpable than a human agent who did understand pain.
In other words, different agents may have different levels of information, which mean different moral situations posed altogether.
Point of order: our hypothetical example keeps shifting, which makes it very hard to address it concretely. If you don't mind, I would like it if we could focus on the following specific hypothetical. These are all of the relevant facts:
- A kidney is needed.
- There are two potential subjects we can get it from.
- Subject A has only one kidney; if it is removed he will die (or live a life of terrible suffering)
- Subject B has three for some reason; if one is removed he will suffer no harm beyond the immediate pain of removal.
- The moral decision maker must either choose A or B; there are no third ways.
Now, keeping that example fixed:
Why shouldn't the nature of the agent making this decision matter? Because the agents' knowledge level doesn't change the moral judgment. The moral judgment must take into account all of the relevant facts; if there are relevant facts of which some agent is not aware, then it may act immorally out of ignorance, but it still acts immorally -- the judgment remains the same.
What's more, the moral judgment here is based on reasoning from those facts. One path results in an obvious outcome of greater suffering with no net benefit -- a conclusion which any sufficiently-able reasoner will reach. Reasoning tells you A is wrong, and reasoning works the same for everybody, so choosing A here is wrong for anyone. If you choose A, you're wrong. If an alien chooses A, he's wrong. If God chooses A, he's wrong too.
(There may be a further distinction between the "verdict" and the "sentence" here. Anyone who chooses A gets a guilty "verdict," but the sentence may be commuted to some extent if the party is ignorant. But note that as Blinking Spirit pointed out earlier, this can only result in creatures towards the apex of intellect being more forcibly held to the universal standard of guilt.)
But if two agents are starting with different degrees of information, then one cannot pose the same moral situation equally on both of them by virtue of that inequality of information.
The agents only need relevant information, and it's an interesting exercise to consider what our ignorance must consist of in given situations when applying this notion.
For instance, the God of the Hebrews is said to have endorsed the genocide of the entire race of Midianites. Suppose he did, and suppose further that this was morally justified based on your notion of disparate levels of knowledge.
What constellation of facts, of which we are ignorant, could possibly justify that? Well, every single Midianite man, woman, and child, down to the smallest babe, would have had to be a monster the likes of which one can scarcely imagine -- look at the worst of the people the Hebrew God suffers to live, and then imagine that an entire race, even the babies, is simultaneously guilty of worse crimes than those.
This state of affairs is effectively impossible. Anyone who believes this is so is morally bankrupt anyway and will never be anything else. So sometimes this principle of ignorance is just not applicable.
Also note that, as has been pointed out, one doesn't have to be God to know more than you. It's possible Stalin knew something you don't that justifies his mass murder. So. Down this road lies madness. We are rarely so ignorant that we can't make an approximately right moral judgment in an obvious situation.
I'm not aware of anything in Catholicism that states that God must follow his own rules. Why would he? He isn't human, and God's morality is designed for humans. Angels aren't beholden to human morality, so why would God be? He's the creator, the parent figure, and, to put it simply, parents don't have to go to bed at 8pm just because their children do.
You have to remember that the monotheistic, abrahamic religions got their origin from the polytheistic semetic sky god. The polytheistic religions of the time tended to have antagonistic deities (think the vindictiveness of the Greek Gods). God, as Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in him today, is simply a fundamentally different concept than the god from the stories that much of the Torah have their roots in. That's the source of much of the confusion between the modern hippie interpretation of a peaceful and loving God and the wrathful God of the old testament. The modern concept of God has simply evolved from his original 'sky god' roots over thousands of years, with many stories being reinterpreted as time goes by.
But the greater question, in my mind, is on the basis of what moral standard is God doing wrong?
On the basis of what moral standard is God doing good?
To answer both your question and Cloudman's: by his own. He is literally the being who defines the concept of right and wrong for humanity - he is the final moral standard. Anything he deems is evil is evil. Anything he deems is good is good. At least, that's true if you believe in him and believe he determines who does and does not get into Heaven. It's sort of an ultimate 'Might makes right' scenario. It's not like you can appeal to a higher court when you get sent to Hell.
To answer both your question and Cloudman's: by his own. He is literally the being who defines the concept of right and wrong for humanity - he is the final moral standard. Anything he deems is evil is evil. Anything he deems is good is good. At least, that's true if you believe in him and believe he determines who does and does not get into Heaven. It's sort of an ultimate 'Might makes right' scenario. It's not like you can appeal to a higher court when you get sent to Hell.
This came up in the other thread, but there is no way to evaluate the authority of God without invoking your own authority. By making the declaration that God is moral, you are using your own sense of what is right or wrong, otherwise you couldn't tell the difference between a moral being and an immoral one.
To answer both your question and Cloudman's: by his own. He is literally the being who defines the concept of right and wrong for humanity - he is the final moral standard. Anything he deems is evil is evil. Anything he deems is good is good.
If good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God Himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the righteous Lord.
-- C. S. Lewis
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
But why shouldn't the agents matter? Different agents will have different starting levels of information, which also mean different mental contexts.
If a martian were to take a kidney from a man with three kidneys, but had no internal understanding of pain as humans experience it, I would hold that he? she/it? would be less culpable than a human agent who did understand pain.
In other words, different agents may have different levels of information, which mean different moral situations posed altogether.
Point of order: our hypothetical example keeps shifting, which makes it very hard to address it concretely. If you don't mind, I would like it if we could focus on the following specific hypothetical. These are all of the relevant facts:
- A kidney is needed.
- There are two potential subjects we can get it from.
- Subject A has only one kidney; if it is removed he will die (or live a life of terrible suffering)
- Subject B has three for some reason; if one is removed he will suffer no harm beyond the immediate pain of removal.
- The moral decision maker must either choose A or B; there are no third ways.
Now, keeping that example fixed:
Why shouldn't the nature of the agent making this decision matter? Because the agents' knowledge level doesn't change the moral judgment. The moral judgment must take into account all of the relevant facts; if there are relevant facts of which some agent is not aware, then it may act immorally out of ignorance, but it still acts immorally -- the judgment remains the same.
What's more, the moral judgment here is based on reasoning from those facts. One path results in an obvious outcome of greater suffering with no net benefit -- a conclusion which any sufficiently-able reasoner will reach. Reasoning tells you A is wrong, and reasoning works the same for everybody, so choosing A here is wrong for anyone. If you choose A, you're wrong. If an alien chooses A, he's wrong. If God chooses A, he's wrong too.
(There may be a further distinction between the "verdict" and the "sentence" here. Anyone who chooses A gets a guilty "verdict," but the sentence may be commuted to some extent if the party is ignorant. But note that as Blinking Spirit pointed out earlier, this can only result in creatures towards the apex of intellect being more forcibly held to the universal standard of guilt.)
But if two agents are starting with different degrees of information, then one cannot pose the same moral situation equally on both of them by virtue of that inequality of information.
The agents only need relevant information, and it's an interesting exercise to consider what our ignorance must consist of in given situations when applying this notion.
For instance, the God of the Hebrews is said to have endorsed the genocide of the entire race of Midianites. Suppose he did, and suppose further that this was morally justified based on your notion of disparate levels of knowledge.
What constellation of facts, of which we are ignorant, could possibly justify that? Well, every single Midianite man, woman, and child, down to the smallest babe, would have had to be a monster the likes of which one can scarcely imagine -- look at the worst of the people the Hebrew God suffers to live, and then imagine that an entire race, even the babies, is simultaneously guilty of worse crimes than those.
This state of affairs is effectively impossible. Anyone who believes this is so is morally bankrupt anyway and will never be anything else. So sometimes this principle of ignorance is just not applicable.
Also note that, as has been pointed out, one doesn't have to be God to know more than you. It's possible Stalin knew something you don't that justifies his mass murder. So. Down this road lies madness. We are rarely so ignorant that we can't make an approximately right moral judgment in an obvious situation.
I can think of some scenarios which might justify the moral calculus sufficiently that it may not considered wrong per se.
The biggest counter to the killing of the midianites is consent.
Let's suppose the following:
-God creates human souls in heaven. Prior to being born into a specific body he tells them, I have ordained for you a particular purpose. If you accept this purpose you, then you may go down to earth. If you do not accept it, you may remain as an angel in heaven. But you have your free will to choose.
The strictures of living on earth of course is that you must be born into a human body with no memory of your time here in heaven. Furthermore, as angels in heaven you have watched countless humans before you, you know the drill, you see their tribulations, and most of all you may only take part in going to earth if you consent to my complete and utter dominion over your temporal lives on earth, including genocide. Your memory however will be restored to you in heaven.
If you agree to goto earth, you goto earth under those conditions.
I would argue that in this very strange scenario, that God's is absolved of genocide by virtue of the consenting parties.
Of course, this would be completely unknowable to us.
Another scenario:
God is in fact the LIVING TRIBUNAL (TM), responsible for balancing realities in the cosmic order. Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, but Amoral, the living tribunal may at him whim destroy entire universes to maintain the balance of cosmic order in the marvel multiverse.
Yet here, his genocide, terracide, and beyond is not evil, but merely amoral. He merely does what must be done for the greater good of maintaining the cosmic balance.
Another less ridiculous scenario:
God changes his laws:
For example, there was a time when the sons bear the sins of the father.
A.(Exodus 20:5) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
B.(Deuteronomy 5:9) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
C.(Exodus 34:6-7) - "Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."
Then a thousand years later,
The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
“‘The parents eat sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?
3 “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.
5 “Suppose there is a righteous man
who does what is just and right.
6 He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife
or have sexual relations with a woman during her period.
7 He does not oppress anyone,
but returns what he took in pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.
8 He does not lend to them at interest
or take a profit from them.
He withholds his hand from doing wrong
and judges fairly between two parties.
9 He follows my decrees
and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign Lord.
10 “Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things[a] 11 (though the father has done none of them):
“He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor’s wife.
12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.
13 He lends at interest and takes a profit.
Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.
14 “But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:
15 “He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife.
16 He does not oppress anyone
or require a pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.
17 He withholds his hand from mistreating the poor
and takes no interest or profit from them.
He keeps my laws and follows my decrees.
He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
19 “Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die.
25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26 If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will die for it; because of the sin they have committed they will die. 27 But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life. 28 Because they consider all the offenses they have committed and turn away from them, that person will surely live; they will not die. 29 Yet the Israelites say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Are my ways unjust, people of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?
30 “Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!
Here notice God says, this manner of judgment will no longer happen.
“As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.
God anticipates the protests even for the people at the time appear to believe that this manner of judgment is unjust.
19 “Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die.
25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26 If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will die for it; because of the sin they have committed they will die. 27 But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life.
In this scenario, the killing of the midianites may be simply been acceptable within human moral judgment at the time.
I have to contend however using your example that you do seem to acknowledge ultimately that power can in fact render a different moral standard. As you wrote, power may even impose a higher moral standard because obvious the fate of nations may be at stake if someone say..the president were to lie, but if you were to lie, the consequences would be smaller.
Even acknowledging your argument that humans are conscious beings with value to their personhood, doesnt it remain true that power necessarily invokes different moral standards by virtue of the differences in power because of the consequences.
If you lie, the consequence is relatively minor. (someone might die, go bankrupt, divorce, or have a bad day)
If the president lies, he can affect the balance of power of nations, and even cause untold human suffering by initiating war.
So what then for God?
Would it make sense to hold God to the same moral standard as man, if it does not make sense to hold the president to the same standards as you?
Hell no, he's God. Maybe you can hold him up to the same moral standards as his peers, but certainly not humans.
You can't have a serious discussion if you're gonna come up with some crazy examples. Why don't you say something more reasonable like "What if God deemed its necessary to park a tractor trailer up your ass?"
I chose my words carefully. I wrote "If anything, they may be held to a higher standard", not "They are held to a higher standard." The point of this was to illustrate intuitively that any difference that might arise would go in the opposite direction from that which you are suggesting (and which Christians almost invariably suggest when talking about a different standard for God): there might be things which a human can morally do which God cannot do, but there won't be things which God can morally do which a human cannot do (setting aside pure differences in capability). So no, it won't be the case that God can kill people as he pleases the way an author kills characters, because that would be a lower standard - much, much lower.
Now, if you want to drop the lower-standard argument and ask whether a higher standard exists, I'm going to turn around and say, no, it actually doesn't. And you've put your finger on why. My lie is morally different than the President's lie because they have different consequences - in other words, we're not actually performing the same action. If somehow I were in a position to tell a lie that would have the same consequences as the President's, or to accomplish those consequences through some other action, then I would naturally be held to the standard for those consequences. Conversely, if the President were to tell a white lie that had as few consequences as my lie, then he would be held to the standard for those consequences. There is in fact one common standard that governs both actions, and they would govern in exactly the same way no matter who was performing the action. All that having power means is that you can and probably will be performing bigger, more consequential actions. It doesn't change the standard by which you evaluate all your actions.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Mine was a perfectly fine example designed to illustrate a point about the arbitrary nature of god’s goodness compared with what we as humans would consider morally good.
Most people have a hissy fit about people from other religions killing in god’s name, but it’s all seemingly fine and dandy when someone from your own religion does it.
Just as a clarification, my initial question was "is God held to the same moral standard as humans?" I wasn't arguing God's standard is necessarily higher or lower, just different.
Well this is a good point, but also important. Is it not true then that a "different" moral standard would inherently arise as differences in power, knowledge, and station would create a different moral question?
In other words, if you lied and the president lied, then you inherently have a different moral standard by virtue of the fact that you have the moral scenarios of the a) head of state lying vs b) a random citizen lying.
In fact, you cannot even pose the same moral question without denying the premise---namely removing the presidenthood from the president.
So then perhaps it is better to ask:
Is God killing someone a different moral question than a random person killing someone?
If those are two different moral scenarios altogether, then are two different standards evoked for each of those different moral scenarios?
Depends entirely on the circumstances. One killing per se is not better than another. If you look in the Bible for examples, though, God kills a lot of people in circumstances where those people are not an immediate danger to the lives of others. It'd be wrong for a person to do that; it's wrong for God to do it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'd challenge this assertion. If the principle is true that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, then any sinner endangers his entire community. But the greater question, in my mind, is on the basis of what moral standard is God doing wrong?
If God decreed His own murder from the foundation of the world for a reason, then how is God not following the Golden Rule when God kills others for that same reason?
Pro tip:
Instead of perceiving my post as an attack, you should take a moment to see how ludicrous your post is.
For your reference:
Ummm.... yeah, nice try at going for the shock factor of a nonsensical example to the point of borderline trolling. If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to make a better effort than that.
Flame warning. - Blinking Spirit
It is not arbitrary. God has a certain nature with particular attributes, and God's moral law is consistent with God's nature.
This is a very good point and one I wanted to make, but at a different time.
God as judge must see to it that those who do evil reap the consequences of that evil. One may call it cruel or evil in itself when a judge passes judgment for infractions, but in the Christian tradition, God did not spare his own son.
He could have simply said, enough is enough. I'm done with this whole punishing business, this whole condemning to hell thing.
He didn't.
We don't know why God chooses to implement that path, or really what has to go into maintain justice or the fundamental balance of good and evil in this universe. But for whatever reasons it may be, it was important enough that God could not simply undo this paradigm even for his own son, when his son had to bear the sins of the world.
45 From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. 46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).
By christian tradition at least, the golden rule is arguably met.
This is a gross misunderstanding of the Golden Rule. Does the Golden Rule justify a suicidal person murdering others? Of course not.
God has a certain nature, and that nature is moral.
What is moral is what is consistent with God's nature.
All you've managed to say is that it is the nature of God to be within God's nature. And a tautology is a tautology.
One example is God killing Onan for failing to impregnate his dead brother's wife (who he married due to Levirate marriage). He "spilled his seed on the ground" to spite God, and he killed him. Another time a couple of kids called a prophet "baldy" and a bear appeared and mauled them. And God also killed whomever touched the ark of the covenant.
I would argue that if a person delighted in hurting themselves then the Golden Rule would indeed justify hurting others.
Whatever 'extra' you want to impute to the Golden rule is your own device, but it's not stated by the Golden rule.
Therefore, Bernard Shaw's counter to the Golden rule was:
"Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same"
I know the examples. The idea behind "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" is that the smallest amount of sin is like a disease that can sweep, corrupt, and ultimately destroy an entire population if left unhindered. It is that powerful of a force. So when God kills a sinner God is protecting the rest of the community from that person's sin. Onan's sin is the first step down the path towards the atrocities committed by the pagan nations like the Caananites and the Phoenicians, who both ultimately committed ritual child sacrifice in the name and worship of their pagan Gods.
How did those nations go down that path? It all started with disobeying God's mandate to live fruitfully and multiply. The wages of sin is death. This applies to more than just individuals. It also applies to entire societies and even nations.
That is a straw man. A person commits suicide for selfish reasons. Jesus agreed to His own crucifixion in order that He might save many. The average suicidal person has different reasons for committing suicide. The average person usually commits suicide to save himself/herself from something. Jesus walked straight into the wrath and anger of God in order to spare people that He loved from what He Himself had to endure.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What people conveniently forget is that God let his own people the Jews languish in slavery for four centuries to give the Caaninites every chance of repentance a people could want. Only when the inequity of the Canaanites was so complete as to their not being a single innocent one among them does he call his people out Egypt and back to their homeland to call the Canaanites to judgement.
Point of order: our hypothetical example keeps shifting, which makes it very hard to address it concretely. If you don't mind, I would like it if we could focus on the following specific hypothetical. These are all of the relevant facts:
- A kidney is needed.
- There are two potential subjects we can get it from.
- Subject A has only one kidney; if it is removed he will die (or live a life of terrible suffering)
- Subject B has three for some reason; if one is removed he will suffer no harm beyond the immediate pain of removal.
- The moral decision maker must either choose A or B; there are no third ways.
Now, keeping that example fixed:
Why shouldn't the nature of the agent making this decision matter? Because the agents' knowledge level doesn't change the moral judgment. The moral judgment must take into account all of the relevant facts; if there are relevant facts of which some agent is not aware, then it may act immorally out of ignorance, but it still acts immorally -- the judgment remains the same.
What's more, the moral judgment here is based on reasoning from those facts. One path results in an obvious outcome of greater suffering with no net benefit -- a conclusion which any sufficiently-able reasoner will reach. Reasoning tells you A is wrong, and reasoning works the same for everybody, so choosing A here is wrong for anyone. If you choose A, you're wrong. If an alien chooses A, he's wrong. If God chooses A, he's wrong too.
(There may be a further distinction between the "verdict" and the "sentence" here. Anyone who chooses A gets a guilty "verdict," but the sentence may be commuted to some extent if the party is ignorant. But note that as Blinking Spirit pointed out earlier, this can only result in creatures towards the apex of intellect being more forcibly held to the universal standard of guilt.)
The agents only need relevant information, and it's an interesting exercise to consider what our ignorance must consist of in given situations when applying this notion.
For instance, the God of the Hebrews is said to have endorsed the genocide of the entire race of Midianites. Suppose he did, and suppose further that this was morally justified based on your notion of disparate levels of knowledge.
What constellation of facts, of which we are ignorant, could possibly justify that? Well, every single Midianite man, woman, and child, down to the smallest babe, would have had to be a monster the likes of which one can scarcely imagine -- look at the worst of the people the Hebrew God suffers to live, and then imagine that an entire race, even the babies, is simultaneously guilty of worse crimes than those.
This state of affairs is effectively impossible. Anyone who believes this is so is morally bankrupt anyway and will never be anything else. So sometimes this principle of ignorance is just not applicable.
Also note that, as has been pointed out, one doesn't have to be God to know more than you. It's possible Stalin knew something you don't that justifies his mass murder. So. Down this road lies madness. We are rarely so ignorant that we can't make an approximately right moral judgment in an obvious situation.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
On the basis of what moral standard is God doing good?
You have to remember that the monotheistic, abrahamic religions got their origin from the polytheistic semetic sky god. The polytheistic religions of the time tended to have antagonistic deities (think the vindictiveness of the Greek Gods). God, as Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in him today, is simply a fundamentally different concept than the god from the stories that much of the Torah have their roots in. That's the source of much of the confusion between the modern hippie interpretation of a peaceful and loving God and the wrathful God of the old testament. The modern concept of God has simply evolved from his original 'sky god' roots over thousands of years, with many stories being reinterpreted as time goes by.
To answer both your question and Cloudman's: by his own. He is literally the being who defines the concept of right and wrong for humanity - he is the final moral standard. Anything he deems is evil is evil. Anything he deems is good is good. At least, that's true if you believe in him and believe he determines who does and does not get into Heaven. It's sort of an ultimate 'Might makes right' scenario. It's not like you can appeal to a higher court when you get sent to Hell.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I can think of some scenarios which might justify the moral calculus sufficiently that it may not considered wrong per se.
The biggest counter to the killing of the midianites is consent.
Let's suppose the following:
-God creates human souls in heaven. Prior to being born into a specific body he tells them, I have ordained for you a particular purpose. If you accept this purpose you, then you may go down to earth. If you do not accept it, you may remain as an angel in heaven. But you have your free will to choose.
The strictures of living on earth of course is that you must be born into a human body with no memory of your time here in heaven. Furthermore, as angels in heaven you have watched countless humans before you, you know the drill, you see their tribulations, and most of all you may only take part in going to earth if you consent to my complete and utter dominion over your temporal lives on earth, including genocide. Your memory however will be restored to you in heaven.
If you agree to goto earth, you goto earth under those conditions.
I would argue that in this very strange scenario, that God's is absolved of genocide by virtue of the consenting parties.
Of course, this would be completely unknowable to us.
Another scenario:
God is in fact the LIVING TRIBUNAL (TM), responsible for balancing realities in the cosmic order. Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, but Amoral, the living tribunal may at him whim destroy entire universes to maintain the balance of cosmic order in the marvel multiverse.
Yet here, his genocide, terracide, and beyond is not evil, but merely amoral. He merely does what must be done for the greater good of maintaining the cosmic balance.
Another less ridiculous scenario:
God changes his laws:
For example, there was a time when the sons bear the sins of the father.
A.(Exodus 20:5) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
B.(Deuteronomy 5:9) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
C.(Exodus 34:6-7) - "Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."
Then a thousand years later,
The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
“‘The parents eat sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?
3 “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.
5 “Suppose there is a righteous man
who does what is just and right.
6 He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife
or have sexual relations with a woman during her period.
7 He does not oppress anyone,
but returns what he took in pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.
8 He does not lend to them at interest
or take a profit from them.
He withholds his hand from doing wrong
and judges fairly between two parties.
9 He follows my decrees
and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign Lord.
10 “Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things[a] 11 (though the father has done none of them):
“He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor’s wife.
12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.
13 He lends at interest and takes a profit.
Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.
14 “But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:
15 “He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife.
16 He does not oppress anyone
or require a pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.
17 He withholds his hand from mistreating the poor
and takes no interest or profit from them.
He keeps my laws and follows my decrees.
He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
19 “Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die.
25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26 If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will die for it; because of the sin they have committed they will die. 27 But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life. 28 Because they consider all the offenses they have committed and turn away from them, that person will surely live; they will not die. 29 Yet the Israelites say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Are my ways unjust, people of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?
30 “Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!
Here notice God says, this manner of judgment will no longer happen.
“As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.
God anticipates the protests even for the people at the time appear to believe that this manner of judgment is unjust.
19 “Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die.
25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26 If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will die for it; because of the sin they have committed they will die. 27 But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life.
In this scenario, the killing of the midianites may be simply been acceptable within human moral judgment at the time.