Killing in the name of...

[_Sethbag]

brade,

Swear. I spent 15 minutes looking at and thinking about these questions. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "false" to all of them.

I'm glad you took the time to think about them. I hope you recognized the significant difference between the first two and the second two.

This is a trick question. In the minds of the true believers, there is no difference. They don't merely think that they know what God has commanded them, they know it.

[_Jersey Girl]

Seth

This is a trick question. In the minds of the true believers, there is no difference. They don't merely think that they know what God has commanded them, they know it.

Yes, I noted the difference in the wording, but I agree that the premise is the same in all 4 questions. That's why I want to read Hasa's reason for giving different answers to each set.

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

-

[_Hoops]

I agree that in the minds of true believers, there may be no difference.

Despite what they say. If one is a true believer then it's impossible that they have an answer with which you agree. Ridiculous

Believers lack the adequate proof to claim knowledge

No, they lack adequate proof (I'll assume you mean evidence) that you accept. Two different things.

and their claim to know could be based on the faulty premise

So could yours.

for example that feelings are an appropriate method for determining truth claims.

Or sensory perception.

While a believer may sincerely believe, they don't know according to this definition even if they genuinely claim that they do.

Well, sure, you make up the definition then decry believers when they don't satisfy your definition. You've rigged the game.

The places that they would fall short on are the lack of evidence or proof and the possibility of a false premise.

So do you.

[_brade]

Ok, so under the assumptions that God is good and his commands are for the best, here's how I answer the first two:

(1) If God commands you to kill your own child, then you should do it.

True

(2) If God commands somebody to kill their own child, then they should do it.

True

Things aren't as easy for the next two questions.

(3) If you sincerely believe that God has commanded you to kill your own child, then you should do it.

Here's what a friend said about this question. I know the level of evidence I would need to sincerely believe that God had commanded me to kill my own child - it would be really, really high. This response amounts, I think, to saying that I would only have that sincere belief in the case that God did in fact command me to kill my own child. And assuming God is good and all then, then If that's right, then we should borrow the assessment of question 1 and say, true. At least, I should say 'true', because I believe the level of evidence I would demand to accept the command would be extremely high. I don't know about you ;)

(4) If somebody sincerely believes that God has commanded them to kill their own child, then they should do it.

But here things get a bit more complicated. It's tempting to say at first glance that believers ought to accept (4). But I'm not so sure, and it seems to me that what I've said about (3) comes into play. The concern here is that some people might form sincere beliefs on much lower standards of evidence, and for those people, even if I think (3) is true, I want to say that (4) is false; that is to say that it isn't the case that if somebody has that sincere belief, then they should do it. Specifically, if that belief wasn't formed on the basis of some sufficiently high standard of evidence, then they shouldn't. On this analysis, (4) as it's worded should be regarded as false.

Before I go further, I'd like to know what you guys think about what I said about (3).

Also, Jersey Girl, I'm not quite sure how to challenge you. You're answer is that in the case where God in fact does command you, and God is good, you should not do what God commands. I'm not sure why you think you shouldn't. It might help me if you would explain why you believe in this case that you should not do what the good God commands.

[_Themis]

This is a trick question. In the minds of the true believers, there is no difference. They don't merely think that they know what God has commanded them, they know it.

LOL true. There are a few up in the Celestial saying they know.

[_honorentheos]

Hi Brade,

Regarding your answer to 3: The reason I gave my answer to 3 as false/no is based on my own understanding of the fallibility of the mind combined with the consequences of being wrong. If I can not say that I KNOW God commanded it but only have a sincere belief it's God's will then to act in this case is unconscionable. The cost (taking the life of my own child) of being wrong is far, far outweighed by the consequences of being being right in my belief but failing to act on it, in my opinion. At this point, the notions of "good" become so twisted as to deconstruct my entire moral framework.

Of note, I think Abraham is described as having direct conversations with God, contesting God's will, thinking on it for days before acting. Abraham is in direct communication with God yet precisely due to the damage this appears to cause his own moral framework he has a very hard time acting. He KNOWS God commanded it, yet doesn't want to do it. The moral philosopher Susan Neiman has suggested that it is precisely because Abraham contests with God whenever God's commands appears to contradict his idea of good that makes Abraham a moral model for us today. I'd agree with her thought.

So, I disagree that even the most rigorous standards for having sincere belief justify acting on this belief when the consequences are so costly. One has to KNOW.

As a real world example, consider the level of sincere belief people held in 2002/2003 regarding the probability that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons and had weapons of mass destruction ready to be used on the US. in my opinion, the consequences of war were poorly understood by most of us, while we over-inflated our sense of security in our sincere belief this was so. Many people will not get to live their lives due to that type of thinking, and many many more will go through their lives with physical and emotional scars they will never be able to fully recover from. If there is any reason to suspect that we only believe rather than know, the cost of acting needs to be the primary concern. It's why I am generally opposed to the death penalty unless there is very, very compelling evidence. The cost to a just society of taking a life wrongfully is too high to risk being wrong.

[_LDSToronto]

This is a bit of a spin-off from the this thread. Discussions about Abraham and Isaac often focus on questions like, "What would you do?". In fact, I asked that question in the other thread. But it occurs to me that that's not the interesting question. I'd like to focus here on a few questions that sound similar but which seem to be more interesting. These are for believers and non-believers alike. Take it as a true/false quiz:

(1) If God commands you to kill your own child, then you should do it.

(2) If God commands somebody to kill their own child, then they should do it.

(3) If you sincerely believe that God has commanded you to kill your own child, then you should do it.

(4) If somebody sincerely believes that God has commanded them to kill their own child, then they should do it.

If you're not a believer, assume for the sake of answering the questions that God exists and that he's good.

Assuming god exists, is morally perfect, and appears to me/somebody and tells me/somebody directly, then (1) & (2) is true. Kids, watch out.

(3) & (4) are more tenuous. Assuming god exists and is morally perfect, the source of believe is not necessarily clear. One can not be justified in their belief without seeing the causal chain clearly - how can I be certain that sincere belief that I/somebody should kill my/somebody's child is generated by a message from god? What if that belief came by way of a mental illness or personality defect? Or, suppose the message was not clear - perhaps god was signaling me/somebody stop the child from doing something incorrect, but it was misinterpreted as killing.

No, because (3) & (4) rely on something other than god physically appearing and issuing the command, then I'd have to say false. Kids, you're safe.

But, aside from those responses, there is another question - would you kill your child, knowing you ought to kill your child because god commanded the child's death?

For me, the answer in every case is NO, I wouldn't.

H.

[_honorentheos]

Another thought, Brade - I'm disturbed by the idea that a person could consider saying "true" to 3 but then say "false" to 4. While it's perfectly understandable that we feel our own standards of determining the truth of something are rigorous and thorough, it reveals a common flaw in human thinking. I believe Christians might recognize in it the directive to remove the beam from one's own eye before attempting to remove the sliver from your neighbor's eye. We should actually be more skeptical of our own assessment of what is true, given that we are so close to the subject as to be unable to step back and reassess.