We agree, but it would be a mistake for me to allow you to use this point as part of your argument. Why? Because we agree for different reasons. I accept the above on faith - as a part of revelation.
That is most peculiar. What does it matter if we arrive at the same conclusion from two different starting points and using different methods?
As a matter of fact, I wish to use
only Catholic arguments to prove that God is not benevolent. If I happen to agree that those Catholic teachings are valid - even though I do not accept Catholicism as fully correct, what difference does it make?
What you said is that you wish to discard my argument just because I don’t accept the same principle** for the same reason **as you do! I am confused, why?
What is your basis for accepting it? I can tell you one thing, it isnt pure reason.
But it is purely rational. It is based on the reverse “golden rule”: “do
not do unto others that you do
not wish them do unto you”. And that rule is fully secular. It is based upon the mutal recognition that both of us are humans, and we both wish to be treated with the same respect - as long as our behavior warrants it. (And no, I do not believe that a torturer and rapist deserves the same respectful treatment. They have lost their human dignity when they failed to observe it in others. But let’s not go into this problem right here and now.)
And here is where the problems start. Within my understanding of the above, each human being has an inherent individual dignity equal to every other individual’s inherent dignity. My reason for this is that each human being is created in the “image and likeness” of God, and is loved by God. This is, ultimately, a statement of faith even though it is supported by reason. It cannot be proven intellectually. It would be a mistake for me to grant you this truth if you cannot logically demonstrate it.
I did it above using the principle of the reverse golden rule. It is accepted by atheists and believers alike. (By the way, I have nothing against the direct “golden rule”, except it is easier to abuse. Example: a rapist might say: “I want that beautiful girl over there to make passionate love to me. Therefore - by the golden rule - I will go and make passionate love to her - whether she wants is or not”. Remeber: the direct golden rule says nothing about the wishes of the recipient. The reverse golden rule does.)
I know this is hard for you to accept, but I will try to present a situation where your “suffering vs good” construct falls apart. And when it does, it will do so because it fails to acknowledge an inherent dignity based upon God’s love of the individual and nothing else.
Imagine an unconscious, homeless man who knows no one and who is dying of AIDS in a hospital. There is a young, HIV+ child with loving parents who cannot receive the care he needs because the hospital’s resources are tapped. The decision is made to painlessly euthanize the AIDS victim and allow the child to be treated.
Question: Is this morally acceptable?
Well, lets see according to your criteria:
Was there any suffering? No. Did any good result from it? Yes, a sick boy was helped. Therefore, the evil, which was entirely(proportionate) necessary to accomplish a greater good was justifiably applied and the “right thing” was done.
My answer: No, the individual human dignity of the AIDS victim was violated without the right to do so. Only God has the right to take the life which He created.
Your example is interesting, though you did not include God’s omnipotence in the equation. We speak of the scarcity of resources here, which could easily alleviated by God - if he wanted to.
My disagreement follows from the fact that I do not consider it “dignified” to allow someone to “linger on” even if there is no hope for recovery. Life and death are not mutually exclusive, life and undignifying pain are.
As for myself, I have a living will, in which I expressly forbid to use artificial life-extending procedures if I would happen to be in an irreverisble scenario, and life would be reduced to a “vegetative state”. So I practice, what I preach.
The rest of my argument is equally rational. The old man’s life has already “ended”, his continued existence has nothing to offer for him. If he had the mind, he probably would request the euthanasia himself.
But the real problem is this:
by sheer accident the old man arrived in the hospital first, and the sick child arrived later. If the order of arrival would be reserved, you would argue the same arguments on behalf of the child.
So God’s will is reduced to the random arrival time of these two patients. What would be your moral solution, if they arrived
simultaneously? The hospital still would have one bed only, one of them would have to be turned away. How would you exercise a moral choice? And we
must choose.
My postition remains that we are incapable of measuring good and evil accurately enough and that specific limitation precludes a definitive analysis of any situation. I am willing to entertain any scenario you wish to construct as I am open minded.
I will present the case in the next post, since it would run afoul of the 6000 character limitation imposed by the software.
