If you create something with feelings, does that give you the absolute moral right to torture it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ANV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ANV

Guest
A scientist created something with sentiments, does that give the scientist an absolute moral right to torture that thing he created? Why when it comes to God, we excuse him by saying that he has the absolute right to deal with what he created, even if it was not right and immoral, including killing infants, like in the old testament, the flood etc… or any other immoral act, does being a creator of something and more even with sentiments, gives you the absolute right to kill and torture it and to escape the moral bound? Is something right because God says so and wrong because says it is? Then this is not a real morality but an absurd one.
 
A scientist is not God. A scientist works with what’s around him. God creates without needing to create from anything. Furthermore, God Himself is pure, unconditioned existence. All beings that exist conditionally only exist by participation in what God is,at each and every moment. When a scientist creates, he creates something independent of himself. When God creates, everything that exists is entirely dependent at all times for their existence upon God. Anything that exists is but a steward of that existence. It ultimately belongs to God. This isn’t simply a legality, it’s a metaphysical truth. If God retracts what He was giving, that is perfectly within His rights. Not because of might, not because of arbitrary legality, but because it is truly His. There’s no comparison between the ethics of a human “creator” and God. The human creator will never be the foundation upon which all existence (or even his own creation) has total ontological dependence on by participation in His own act of existence which is indistinguishable from his essence. A question which more closely mirrors the reality is about whether an author is morally required to deal with the imaginary characters in his head ethically, but even that’s not perfect.

Personally, like many, I don’t subscribe to “Divine Command Theory” (things are good because God says they are), and neither do I believe that the good exists in some Platonic realm of forms whether God’s there or not. I (and many) favor natural law based on essences, and say that the foundation of human morality is based on actions/choices that bring us closer to manifesting the ideal of human nature in ourselves. We are human, so what is morally good for us is to behave like humans should, to be more fully human. What it means to be a good human is not the same as being a good dog or a good rose bush or a good hydrogen atom, and to be good in general is to be what you are. And being God is like none of these things whatsoever.
 
You are thinking as humans do, and not as God does. God wills our good. Any evil which befalls us God does not cause, but allows so that He alone may bring good from it. His will is that we spend eternity free from this “body of death.”

Hard to see “torture” in that.
 
ANV said:
A scientist created something with sentiments, does that give the scientist an absolute moral right to torture that thing he created? Why when it comes to God, we excuse him by saying that he has the absolute right to deal with what he created, even if it was not right and immoral, including killing infants, like in the old testament, the flood etc… or any other immoral act, does being a creator of something and more even with sentiments, gives you the absolute right to kill and torture it and to escape the moral bound? Is something right because God says so and wrong because says it is? Then this is not a real morality but an absurd one.
Click to expand...
If I was God I would create a world that was so perfect that no one would want to mess it up. Even though they had free will and could choose evil things or just minimally harmful things… they would NEVER WANT to do things to mess it up. Why couldn’t he do that??? Or why bother to create a world at all??? Maybe I could make the creatures love me because that’s what I want…
 
Wesrock said:
A scientist is not God. A scientist works with what’s around him. God creates without needing to create from anything. Furthermore, God Himself is pure, unconditioned existence. All beings that exist conditionally only exist by participation in what God is,at each and every moment. When a scientist creates, he creates something independent of himself. When God creates, everything that exists is entirely dependent at all times for their existence upon God. Anything that exists is but a steward of that existence. It ultimately belongs to God. This isn’t simply a legality, it’s a metaphysical truth. If God retracts what He was giving, that is perfectly within His rights. Not because of might, not because of arbitrary legality, but because it is truly His. There’s no comparison between the ethics of a human “creator” and God. The human creator will never be the foundation upon which all existence (or even his own creation) has total ontological dependence on by participation in His own act of existence which is indistinguishable from his essence. A question which more closely mirrors the reality is about whether an author is morally required to deal with the imaginary characters in his head ethically, but even that’s not perfect.

Personally, like many, I don’t subscribe to “Divine Command Theory” (things are good because God says they are), and neither do I believe that the good exists in some Platonic realm of forms whether God’s there or not. I (and many) favor natural law based on essences, and say that the foundation of human morality is based on actions/choices that bring us closer to manifesting the ideal of human nature in ourselves. We are human, so what is morally good for us is to behave like humans should, to be more fully human. What it means to be a good human is not the same as being a good dog or a good rose bush or a good hydrogen atom, and to be good in general is to be what you are. And being God is like none of these things whatsoever.
Click to expand...
I really like this! 🙂
 
They obviously subscribe to the fallacious belief that the only good question is one so loaded that you can see the seams pulling apart. There’s another poster around here with what seems like a Croatian user name that engages in similar practice.

I genuinely think they don’t see it. At least, they don’t see how it’s fallacious.

In order to properly answer, you also have to educate. In this defensive setting, I’m reasonably confident that’s not possible.
 
You’re an atheist.
Check.
Got that memo in spades.
Give it a rest already. If anyone thought you were genuinely interested in faith or God, or rational arguments, that would be different. But you are agenda posting, which is against forum rules.
In fact, it’s one of the few rules left standing.

I’ve often wondered; if atheism is so great, why are atheists so unhappy? On the surface it looks like a joyless, miserable way of thinking. Your threads certainly don’t show anything different.

There is an atheist here who is a regular poster, 2, in fact, that post thoughtfully, take into account the other side of things, and are generally very welcome on any thread. Nice folks. Take a page from their books, and see if you don’t get more conversation going. As it stands, you’re just banging the same old drum.
 
petra22 said:
If I was God I would create a world that was so perfect that no one would want to mess it up. Even though they had free will and could choose evil things or just minimally harmful things… they would NEVER WANT to do things to mess it up. Why couldn’t he do that??? Or why bother to create a world at all??? Maybe I could make the creatures love me because that’s what I want…
Click to expand...
The only way to create this world is to limit a person’s free will, because no matter how perfect a situation may be, you cannot guarantee that no one will reject it. Remember, Satan had perfect knowledge of God, he saw God in all of his goodness, and still chose to reject Him. Nothing in creation can be as perfect as God because nothing in creation can be God, ergo, it is impossible to create something that no one will reject.

OP, instead of trying, rather poorly, to be a troll on these forums, why not actually spend some time trying to learn. You post the same question under different names day after day, and then never listen to any of the responses. You’re choosing to remain ignorant where answers are available, and you are failing to recognize that God is not just a big person. We are not the Greek Pagans, who’s gods are fashioned after humans. We are Catholic, and we deal in the God of the universe.
 
pianistclare said:
You’re an atheist.
Check.
Got that memo in spades.
Give it a rest already. If anyone thought you were genuinely interested in faith or God, or rational arguments, that would be different. But you are agenda posting, which is against forum rules.
In fact, it’s one of the few rules left standing.

I’ve often wondered; if atheism is so great, why are atheists so unhappy? On the surface it looks like a joyless, miserable way of thinking. Your threads certainly don’t show anything different.

There is an atheist here who is a regular poster, 2, in fact, that post thoughtfully, take into account the other side of things, and are generally very welcome on any thread. Nice folks. Take a page from their books, and see if you don’t get more conversation going. As it stands, you’re just banging the same old drum.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Who’s being unloving? Several people have offered constructive suggestions. No one has been abusive. No one has banned him.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t directed at anyone. I said it a bit in jest, but also goes to him as well.
 
ANV said:
A scientist created something with sentiments, does that give the scientist an absolute moral right to torture that thing he created? Why when it comes to God, we excuse him by saying that he has the absolute right to deal with what he created, even if it was not right and immoral, including killing infants, like in the old testament, the flood etc… or any other immoral act, does being a creator of something and more even with sentiments, gives you the absolute right to kill and torture it and to escape the moral bound? Is something right because God says so and wrong because says it is? Then this is not a real morality but an absurd one.
Click to expand...
There are a couple points you are forgetting.

God is all good

And

God knows everything

A scientist is a mortal, not all good, even if they are mostly good, doesn’t know everything, even if they are one of the most brilliant scientists out there. They cant make decisions that they’d know for certain were right.

One can’t compare God with mere man. And to do so without taking in account those beleived attributes if God is disingenuine argument.

Anyhoo, Welcome to catholic answers. 👋
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top