Hi there, Apologia Sophia. Thanks for the words of welcome
this still does not answer how one could accuse God of being immoral.
I think you’re right, strictly speaking, if one accepts this argument. One cannot say that God is “immoral.” Rather, one can define what it means for one human being to love another being – good-will, kindness, benevolent concern – and argue that there is no evidence of such love, as regards a hypothetical God. This doesn’t mean that such a loving God doesn’t exist, just that the evidence for such a loving God is not obvious to them. Obviously, original sin – and the devil, for that matter – are used to explain all the ways in which it would *seem * that there does not appear to be someone “out there” who loves us with caring, providential concern. If one does not find these explanations convincing, then the dilemma remains. One can also say that, “God’s love for us is not entirely comprehensible” (though I have to smile at this, because this is what human beings say when they have romantic feelings for someone who does not reciprocate, but where they ignore the signals).
, on this view, is no longer an ought but a tendency.
I would have to agree with that. There is still a
conditional ought, however, which is no small thing – namely,
if we want to survive as a society (and a species), we ought to be good to each other. I would even say that *if *you want to be happy and fulfilled as an individual, you ought to be good to your neighbor (in my experience, the happiest people I know are the most altruistic; the unhappiest or most dissatisfied, the most selfish).
Again, though, I wouldn’t put it in terms of accusing God of immorality, but rather of positing that the universe is seemingly indifferent to the needs of human beings. There could be a loving God behind those appearances, but there is still the deceptive appearance of a world that doesn’t appear to care about us in a personal way (e.g., Voltaire’s poem on the earthquake of Lisbon in the 18th century, which could have been a poem on the tsunami in Indonesia).
Plus is it really moral of me to not kill because I don’t want to be killed? This is not what the golden rule aims to suggest.
It’s certainly not
sincere, for that to be the only reason not to kill
Not killing because one does not want to go to jail – or, for that matter, does not want to spend an eternity in hell – is also not the most sincere of motives, but your neighbor will take it! On a social level – in terms of laws – I believe the prohibition against murder is, ultimately, pragmatically based. Murder is wrong because it is a violation of the
social rights of others. They
may ultimately be metaphysically-based rights – as regards humans towards other humans – but I don’t think we can prove this. But what is clear is that the right to life exists as a social right, and that it protects the interests of the vast majority of human beings living in a society. Few would
want murder to be made legal, if that meant that it was legal for others to murder them. They certainly wouldn’t want it to be open season on their children, either.
On a personal level, though, there is such thing as sincerity and genuine altruism. Take the case of a young child – this child does not want to hurt its parents; to the contrary, it loves its parents. Most parents love their children. People love their friends, and there are many people – assuming they live in a peaceful, orderly society – who have a general goodwill towards strangers. Other people are a source of great happiness to them, even if it is something as simple as a casual conversation with a stranger. Their social instincts are well-developed. This is fortunate for them, because – if not murdering others were a daily struggle, that was as difficult to resist as resisting an overpowering urge – their lives would be very difficult, indeed.
My own ultimate argument in favor of altruism is that it is – however unlikely it may seem – the only means towards lasting satisfaction or fulfillment. In my own way, I’ve observed those who believe that “anti-social” behavior is the way to happiness, and have observed they are chronically dissatisfied.
98% were Nazis, I believe their ideology would still be wrong.
Hitler was a great example. If Gandhi was at one side of the spectrum in terms of peace of mind and inner-contentment, Hitler would seem to have been at the opposite end of the spectrum. His soul was in a continuous state of unrest, and he was – obviously – chronically dissatisfied, himself. Nothing was enough for him. He also, obviously, had very little insight into himself or his own motives. His theories about the conspiracies of international Jewry were obviously paranoid fantasies, and were probably a mask for other issues. He didn’t know himself, whereas Gandhi was at the opposite end of the spectrum, in terms of insight into his own character.
Pragmatically, we know that there were people who were against Hitler – first of all, the Jews themselves. It definitely wasn’t in their interest, to be persecuted or killed. History also showed that this individual was an
objective threat not only to the survival of the Jewish people, but to the survival of the European people as a whole, including the German people. Motives for resisting Hitler were not the most sincere of motives – altruistic concern for the Jews was more in hindsight – but were based on the fact that he threatened peace and stability in Europe and, ultimately, the world. He was like a walking H-bomb – wherever he went, he brought death and destruction in his wake (not least of all, to the German people themselves).
seems like the rational materialist has the more irrational task, no? (look into the Absrudism of Albert Camus. I like Camus, he is an interesting fellow).