On what grounds is the saint’s response preferable to the criminal’s? A difference of quality implies it is simply a matter of taste…
If the saint’s response is preferred by the majority (and that would depend very much upon the saint in question, I would venture to suggest) then that is a relevant difference as far as human society is concerned.
Might is not right nor is the preference of the majority always right.
On what grounds do you suppose that there is some inherent superiority in the subjective response of a saint to that of a criminal?
The subjective response of a saint corresponds to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity based on the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of God.
And does this hold for any and all circumstances?
It holds when the subjective response of a saint corresponds to those principles.
It is constantly used as evidence that God doesn’t exist whereas subjective opinions have no bearing whatsoever on the nature of reality!
The conception of god that is generally countered by the argument from evil/suffering is that of a loving, all-powerful god. The important thing is that this god is conceived of as a subjective being, as we are subjective beings. That a subjective being with intentions, as opposed to an indifferent force of nature, could allow and even create the quantity of actual suffering in the world runs very much counter to what most people would consider a ‘loving’ god - most people would find it repugnant to cause suffering to someone they loved, even if they did imagine it was for some ‘greater good’. And after all, subjective opinions are themselves part of the nature of reality. Then you must believe suffering is objectively evil as well as subjectively evil if it runs to what most people would consider a ‘loving’ go…
