The Overwatch Problem

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
These questions are absolutely relevant. Let’s be honest, the entire purpose of this intellectual exercise is to try to prove through reason that God is immoral.

how are you measuring success? How could you ever prove any of those items you bring up? The God Catholics know is both omnipotent and omniscient. Are you debating these points? Are you questioning whether man has free will? or the ethical imperative to help others in need?

Originally Posted by paul c
These questions drive home the fact that God defines what is and isn’t moral - not you. And since he defines morality, how can he be immoral?

God’s morality is the standard by which morality would be judged, is it not?

Originally Posted by paul c
The fact is, this whole exercise is ridiculous because the most you can prove is that you don’t approve of God’s morality. And in the end, who cares what you approve of?

You are ignoring the very basic point I am making to you. I am telling you that you could never, ever decide effectively that God is immoral because God sets the standards, whether you like it or not.

Originally Posted by paul c
My definition of Good is that it corresponds with God’s wishes so by definition, God is good.

This is true. What God defines as moral IS moral. Its his universe.

If you held such a belief about Lucifer there would similarly be no possibility of him being evil.

True, but Lucifer didn’t create the universe, so he doesn’t make the rules.

But that is beside the point: The question is if there is a moral imperative for humans to try to prevent evils inflicted on others.

Is this really the question you are after? If so, there are better ways to address it. If this is what you are looking for state it explicitly and don’t try to couch it in somekind esoteric proof involving God allowing freedom of choice. They are very different exercises.

The question of if God is subject to that moral imperative is something of a side note. If there is a moral imperative either God is failing to uphold it, or the ethics don’t apply and neither does the terminology of being ethical.

The end result of either position on the subject is the same, so I don’t think it is important to discuss such a tangent in the context of the thread’s topic.

Why didn’t you just ask the question,“is there a moral imperative to prevent evils inflicted on others?” I suggest you start a new thread with that question. You’ll get a much different set of responses.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
Love is chosing to do something for someone without expecting anything in return so love depends on freedom of action.

Choice is meaningless if you can’t act on your choice.

 

[Phage0070]

how are you measuring success? How could you ever prove any of those items you bring up? The God Catholics know is both omnipotent and omniscient. Are you debating these points? Are you questioning whether man has free will? or the ethical imperative to help others in need?

Success in addressing intellectual arguments through reasoned debate; if you simply wish to hold your beliefs in peace, you need not post at all.

As for which points I am debating, potentially all of them. The argument may have a flaw in its structure, or one or more untrue premises, or be sound. The goal is to find out which of these is the case.

God’s morality is the standard by which morality would be judged, is it not?

Does the same moral standard applied to humans also apply to God?

I am telling you that you could never, ever decide effectively that God is immoral because God sets the standards, whether you like it or not.

The question is about assessing based on already established standards, not about making standards of our own. If in fact God doesn’t adhere to the same moral standards as humans and we cannot effectively decide that God is immoral, then we also cannot effectively decide that God is moral (or it would be a pointless distinction).

This is true. What God defines as moral IS moral. Its his universe.
True, but Lucifer didn’t create the universe, so he doesn’t make the rules.

Don’t you see how this erodes the meaning of God being “good”? It isn’t a statement about God’s ethics, it is just a statement about power. You would be more accurate to say “God is powerful”; unless of course you are assuming “might makes right”.

Is this really the question you are after? If so, there are better ways to address it. If this is what you are looking for state it explicitly and don’t try to couch it in somekind esoteric proof involving God allowing freedom of choice.

It is one of a variety of issues addressed in the OP. The question I wish addressed is the argument outlined in the OP; please refrain from assumed ulterior motives, as the imagination of every potential poster is too broad a topic to be properly discussed.

Debate of the premises in the argument is exactly the thread of discussion I expected. There are only two explicitly stated premises, so don’t feel out of place discussing one you disagree with.

 

[Phage0070]

Choice is meaningless if you can’t act on your choice.

So if you are prevented in acting on your choice to love God, then it is meaningless?

 

[Neo_Scotist]

I’ll keep it simple. You trotted out the same arguments, so I won’t bother repeating myself. Do we have a moral imperative to stop evil whenever possible? if yes, Where does this imperative come from?

You already admitted that evil and good are subjective, so how can there be a moral imperative?

Couldn’t we just as sensibly say that you’re unethical because you don’t build animal shelters to stop animal suffering? What about the poor, do you do everything that is possible to stop evil? Don’t bother with these two questions, we know that the answer is no. Does that mean you’re a moral delinquent?

I find it strange every time atheists’ speak of moral imperatives, how can that be even be meaningful to him?

 

[Phage0070]

You already admitted that evil and good are subjective, so how can there be a moral imperative?

Is the concept of subjective morality too hard for you to understand?

Couldn’t we just as sensibly say that you’re unethical because you don’t build animal shelters to stop animal suffering?

Assuming subjective morality, and your moral code required such a thing, yes you could say that. I would be free to disagree though, the same as you are free to disagree on the moral imperative to stop evil actions when possible.

If on the other hand I agreed with you that not building animal shelters was immoral, it would be rather hypocritical to claim I was still moral despite not doing so don’t you agree?

I find it strange every time atheists’ speak of moral imperatives, how can that be even be meaningful to him?

Have you ever held an opinion that was different from someone else, but you still thought your position was better? For instance, do you have an opinion about the best system of government, or economic model?

You seem to be arguing that if such things are not programmed into the very fabric of the universe that it is unreasonable to hold opinions about them.

 

[davidv]

Is the concept of subjective morality too hard for you to understand?

It is not understandable at all as it is a contradiction.

Assuming subjective morality, and your moral code required such a thing, yes you could say that. I would be free to disagree though, the same as you are free to disagree on the moral imperative to stop evil actions when possible.

If on the other hand I agreed with you that not building animal shelters was immoral, it would be rather hypocritical to claim I was still moral despite not doing so don’t you agree?

Have you ever held an opinion that was different from someone else, but you still thought your position was better? For instance, do you have an opinion about the best system of government, or economic model?

You seem to be arguing that if such things are not programmed into the very fabric of the universe that it is unreasonable to hold opinions about them.

It seems to me you are misstating the position. Nature Moral Law, on which morality is based, is an objective standand. There does not seem to be a similar standard for your list above, unless these systems encroach upon morality.

 

[davidv]

If you don’t know if the punishment is different, or why God would need to observe the act, then how can you state with any confidence that they are distinguished? I can see you hoping they are different, but there is scriptural support at least for adultery that desire to commit the sin counts as doing it within your heart. Considering that we are judged on our hearts…

My “I don’t know” did not apply to the question of difference.

Re: differences - I believe that we suffer consequences for our sins in proportion to their seriousness and our culpability either in this life or the next. It seems obvious to me that the intent to commit a sin, though sin, is not a serious as actually committing it. This principle shows up in the American Justice system. Is the penalty for conspiracy to commit murder the same a first degree murder?

Perhaps I spoke too soon; there are apparently some who believe that God requires evil in order to bring about certain types of good. To rephrase an earlier question in this vein, what would happen if everyone decided to do no evil? This is hypothetical of course, but by your view apparently love couldn’t exist. Wouldn’t God’s plan for us then require that some people do evil?

I believe that God does not need evil. He allows it and makes it work out for good.
Evil must exist as a consequence of free will
Free will is required for true love.
If no evil, then no free will and consequently no love.

 

[paul_c]

So if you are prevented in acting on your choice to love God, then it is meaningless?

No one can stop you from loving God.

 

[Phage0070]

I believe that we suffer consequences for our sins in proportion to their seriousness and our culpability either in this life or the next. It seems obvious to me that the intent to commit a sin, though sin, is not a serious as actually committing it.

Then do you disagree on the second premise where refraining from preventing evil actions is immoral, on the grounds that by doing so you ensure greater repercussions for their actions?

So, for instance you wouldn’t press the button to stop the hypothetical rape on the grounds that by allowing the rapist to go through with it he would get punished more. This seems you place punishment to others over kindness to others in priority?

I believe that God does not need evil. He allows it and makes it work out for good.

If God does not need evil then allowing evil is needless, correct?

Evil must exist as a consequence of free will

Please clarify; do you mean evil actions, or the concept of “evil” in general? The distinction is integral to the discussion.

 

[Phage0070]

No one can stop you from loving God.

But you earlier indicated that intent without action is meaningless. So can you clarify what physical action is involved with loving God?

 

[Neo_Scotist]

Is the concept of subjective morality too hard for you to understand?

Ah, a rhetorical question as to how you derive your ought’s and imperatives in utilirian grounds, or how we know that your subjective imperative is the best, color me unimpressed.

If on the other hand I agreed with you that not building animal shelters was immoral, it would be rather hypocritical to claim I was still moral despite not doing so don’t you agree?

Well, you said “stopping evil when possible is an ethical imperative." and you don’t take care of animals, the poor and the sick whenever is possible. so I guess according to your standard that the answer to the question is… well, i’ll leave it to your imagination.

Frankly, I fail to see why you shortchange animals from your “imperative.”

Have you ever held an opinion that was different from someone else, but you still thought your position was better? For instance, do you have an opinion about the best system of government, or economic model?

You seem to be arguing that if such things are not programmed into the very fabric of the universe that it is unreasonable to hold opinions about them.

I am simply saying that because an atheist universe is determined, any idea of moral responsibility in those circumstances becomes meaningless.

 

[Neo_Scotist]

If there are no moral obligations, a person cannot be immoral for failing to do what he doesn’t have to do. When you show me how your moral imperatives are binding both for us and to god, I’ll take your argument more seriously.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
how are you measuring success? How could you ever prove any of those items you bring up? The God Catholics know is both omnipotent and omniscient. Are you debating these points? Are you questioning whether man has free will? or the ethical imperative to help others in need?

that’s not exactly a measurement is it?

As for which points I am debating, potentially all of them. The argument may have a flaw in its structure, or one or more untrue premises, or be sound. The goal is to find out which of these is the case.

what would be proof for you of any of these things?

Originally Posted by paul c
God’s morality is the standard by which morality would be judged, is it not?

How could they? Does the same moral standard apply between humans and flies?

Originally Posted by paul c
I am telling you that you could never, ever decide effectively that God is immoral because God sets the standards, whether you like it or not

Fine, we can’t judge God, its as simple as that.

Originally Posted by paul c
This is true. What God defines as moral IS moral. Its his universe.
True, but Lucifer didn’t create the universe, so he doesn’t make the rules

Again, God made the world and everything in it. What coincides with his wishes is good. anything that doesn’t is bad.

Originally Posted by paul c
Is this really the question you are after? If so, there are better ways to address it. If this is what you are looking for state it explicitly and don’t try to couch it in somekind esoteric proof involving God allowing freedom of choice

The reason we have Catholic answers Forum is to provide posters with the Catholic position on their questions. If that isn’t what you are looking for, you are wasting your time here.

 

[Phage0070]

Well, you said “stopping evil when possible is an ethical imperative." and you don’t take care of animals, the poor and the sick whenever is possible.

First of all, I don’t consider animals to be moral agents. This is related to their ability to exercise moral judgment in return. That is of course another debate on which you may disagree.

Second, who says that I have to be perfect in my standard of morality? That seems a rather ridiculous requirement, and not one that would be expected by default.

I am simply saying that because an atheist universe is determined, any idea of moral responsibility in those circumstances becomes meaningless.

This appears to be the root of your problem with the OP. First of all, I think it is obvious how even without a universally defined set of rules for poker, a player who agrees to participate in a game can be expected to follow the “arbitrary” rules involved and excluded if they will not. Similarly someone participating in a society can be expected to follow their moral rules or be excluded (often forcefully).

Secondly, the concept of ethics is necessarily applied by humans. If we conclude that God is not ethical by our standards, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything in the cosmic sense. After all, our disapproval doesn’t effect his existence or power. It simply involves the conclusion that by our standards, God is not ethical.

 

[Phage0070]

that’s not exactly a measurement is it?

Do you normally expect a numerical scale to determine your success in everything?

what would be proof for you of any of these things?

Convincing argument. As this deals with ethics and God, there isn’t really anything to make scientific tests on or about.

How could they? Does the same moral standard apply between humans and flies?

If flies could exercise morality as humans, perhaps there would be. But of course there is not. However, humans might easily be considered unethical by the standards of flies had they ethics.

Fine, we can’t judge God, its as simple as that.

Nonsense, it is done on a daily basis by theists and non-theists alike. “God is good”, what do you call that if not an ethical judgment?

The reason we have Catholic answers Forum is to provide posters with the Catholic position on their questions. If that isn’t what you are looking for, you are wasting your time here.

I was under the impression that this was an apologetics forum. I’m not exactly sure how Catholics can practice apologetics against each other.

 

[davidv]

First of all, I don’t consider animals to be moral agents. This is related to their ability to exercise moral judgment in return. That is of course another debate on which you may disagree.

Second, who says that I have to be perfect in my standard of morality? That seems a rather ridiculous requirement, and not one that would be expected by default.

This appears to be the root of your problem with the OP. First of all, I think it is obvious how even without a universally defined set of rules for poker, a player who agrees to participate in a game can be expected to follow the “arbitrary” rules involved and excluded if they will not. Similarly someone participating in a society can be expected to follow their moral rules or be excluded (often forcefully).

Secondly, the concept of ethics is necessarily applied by humans. If we conclude that God is not ethical by our standards, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything in the cosmic sense. After all, our disapproval doesn’t effect his existence or power. It simply involves the conclusion that by our standards, God is not ethical.

Problem with the OP is that the argument is unsound, as premise 2 has not been demonstrated to be true. In fact much evidence has been provided indicating that it is false.

 

[Phage0070]

Problem with the OP is that the argument is unsound, as premise 2 has not been demonstrated to be true. In fact much evidence has been provided indicating that it is false.

Noted. You don’t consider it a moral imperative to stop evil actions by others when possible.

 

[paul_c]

Do you normally expect a numerical scale to determine your success in everything?

It doesn’t have to be numerical, but you need some criteria to declare success.

Convincing argument. As this deals with ethics and God, there isn’t really anything to make scientific tests on or about.

Agreed

If flies could exercise morality as humans, perhaps there would be. But of course there is not. However, humans might easily be considered unethical by the standards of flies had they ethics.

My point is that God is further above man than man is above the flies. The ethics of one can not be applied to the other.

Nonsense, it is done on a daily basis by theists and non-theists alike. “God is good”, what do you call that if not an ethical judgment?

Self definition.

I was under the impression that this was an apologetics forum. I’m not exactly sure how Catholics can practice apologetics against each other.

Apologetics is explaining the faith to others. This site is hear to do that to people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who want to understand what Catholicism is about. You’re not asking any questions about the Catholic Faith so I wonder what your motive to be here really is…

 

[davidv]

Noted. You don’t consider it a moral imperative to stop evil actions by others when possible.

What I consider does not imply what it means to God.