I don’t blame you at all for correctly using the term. However, it is a fact that not only we cannot be sure that allowing the rape will have the desired effect on the rapist, but experience shows that it will have a detrimental effect on bothe parties, we can be quite certain that allowing the rape is not an effective way to cure that “damaged will”.
Personal example- I suffered from an anxiety disorder, which was extremely traumatic for me. However, in learning to cope with it I learned how to control my emotions, which proved incredibly helpful for me in my normal, everyday life. I was really shy and socially awkward when I was younger, but this experience helped keep me humble once I was more popular later on.
Another more serious example is Maximilian Kolbe, who as a celibate priest sacrificed his life in a concentration camp to save a father who was going to be executed. I’m sure that had some sort of effect on the man, and it would not have happened without the experience of the concentration camp.
How can you claim that? It is only human to feel resentment, anger, the desire to “hit back”. Our house was burglarized once, and it was a traumatic experience - even though it cannot be compared to having one’s body violated. Don’t concentrate on the rape only. It can be torture, murder, rape, etc… in case of a murder the victim is annihilated, and there can be no more “moral integrity”.
The burglary had one huge impact on you- it made you aware of the human tendency towards resentment, anger, and the desire to “hit back.” By making you aware of those tendencies, the burglary helped bring the issue of human morality sharply into focus, which is really far more important than any physical possessions you had and your own physical safety.
The main way that suffering helps order our wills is by making us aware of the consequences of our actions. It helps crystallize the very real choices that we face by giving predictable consequences to them. When suffering is eliminated, the consequences of our actions tend to disappear from our view. Look at the example of any standard rich female celebrity. The poor farmer who is keenly aware of danger and the consequences of responsibility and irresponsibility is in a far better position morally than the rich brat raised in a cotton-candy world where they don’t have to work hard or think about morality and its consequences.
Right on. This is the topic of this thread. The “pure will” is not relevant, only the person’s ability to act on that will.
The pure will is very relevant, because it is the real human exercise of our intent. Think of marriage. Most people want to marry other people who actually have the will to respect them. No one would want to marry a person who wanted to murder their spouse, even if that person was permanently restricted from carrying out that will.
But this is not what I am talking about. I am talking about conflict resolution. The strategy you argue for is this: “do not curb the violent action by interrupting it forcefully”. You say that it may cure the attacker’s damaged will. You have absolutely no evidence that it will cure it. On the other hand, all evidence shows that uncurbed violence will lead to more violence. If the attacker gets away with his act, it is very likely that he will perform more acts of violence.
First off, no one says that God never curtails the exercise of will. However, if God curtails the exercise of that will, nothing happens. Thus, we do not know about it. We are only aware of the times where God does not restrict a person’s ability to act. We have no idea what percentage of total willed acts that is.
The evidence shows that consequences of actions make those actions meaningful. Your house was broken into. You are now keenly aware of the danger present in such acts, and you also have a clear indication of why you should not break into someone else’s house. God’s goal is to make as many people choose the good as possible. Thus, it is necessary to allow the consequences of our actions to some extent in order to educate us on the actual consequences of our choice.
Let’s consider game theory. There are two people playing a strategy game, where they can “cooperate” or “antagonize”. Both acts will have an effect on the game, in the form of a payoff matrix. Your proposed strategy is that if one player performs an “antagonistic” move, you should still attempt to “cooperate” (these are mathematical terms here). A simple calculation shows that this is not a good strategy. The “antagonizer” will get more and more “antagonistic”. On the other had, the “retribution” strategy is not good either. If every “hostile” move is met with a “retribution” strategy, both players will “lose”, so to speak. The optimal strategy is to teach that a proper combination and balanace of “appeasment and retribution” will lead to the optimal strategy, where both players will reach the optimum. Of course in Biblical times there was no game theory. Jesus could not have known about the proper ways of conflict resolution. Thus his “ill-advised advice” of “turn the other cheek”, or “do not resist evil”.
Jesus also said “render to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s,” which would have been sound advice to follow, given that the Temple was destroyed during the ill-fated Jewish rebellion 30 years later.
You describe a game of “conflict resolution.” Think about what this means. It involves the best way to resolve conflict. Without any suffering, there would be no conflict, and hence no game. God wants us to win the game by the method you describe, so He allows conflict to make the game possible. Learning to cooperate is the goal, but you can’t learn to cooperate without conflict.
Here’s an example from economics. Money works well as the medium of exchange because it provides information about the costs/benefits of the transaction. Without money, it would be hard to gauge what is a good deal or not. By allowing the existence of money, we allow for greater efficiency in building up society.
Suffering works as a medium of choice. Suffering or its lack thereof is the consequence of certain choices. Our experience of suffering allows us to make judgement about the costs/benefits of each choice. By allowing the existence of suffering as a consequence of bad action, God allows us to more effectively build up our moral character through informed knowledge of the costs and benefits of individual choices we are faced with.
