DiscussMormonism.com

mentalgymnast wrote:

Morley wrote:He's obviously the god of obedience at the expense of moral reasoning.

And another associated question to throw into the mix of questions I've asked:

Does God know how to make lemonade from lemons?

Sure, the god you're talking about would know how to make lemonade from lemons. He'd also know how to make lemonade without lemons.

mentalgymnast wrote:Does He, at times, provide the needed lemons?

A narrow, petulant, and arbitrary God might, indeed.

mentalgymnast wrote:And...is that lemonade good? : wink:

In the Abraham-Issac case, the lemonade was pretty bitter.

MG- Since you keep asking these questions as if they are somehow get-out-of-a-reasonable-discussion free cards, I'll answer them.

mentalgymnast wrote:1. Do two wrongs ever make a right?

Not for an omnipotent God, no. Process is everything.

mentalgymnast wrote:2. Assuming that God is subject to the ramifications of people being free agents, does He look at number one, or that which we would normally consider to be a logical fallacy (leading to moral quandaries and ambiguities), as a tool/means to accomplish a greater good?

Not without violating his godliness.

mentalgymnast- Now how 'bout answering the questions posed to you?

Gadianton wrote:H,

I'm trying to avoid dilemmas either within the calculation or the variety of materialist calculus. Happily, at the time the story was written, the Jews didn't have a concept of a personal afterlife. Assuming all Isaac had was his own life and personal happiness, plus the happiness of a "fruition of seed" -- the patriarchal ideal of having a large family, we can assume for the scenario that Isaac dying at that point robs him of all happiness, and is therefore morally wrong.

Here's my question. What if Abraham would have killed Isaac anyway? Perhaps the angel was too slow, or perhaps he questioned the authority of the angel. If the happiness of Isaac matters -- I think it would be disingenuous at this point to say the killing was justified by the greater good of trust Abraham showed -- if he would have killed Isaac, would it have been a sin?

If by this we are assuming what God wills to be is good, what is against God's will is evil, to act against God's will is sin, and God sent the angel of the LORD to stop Abraham it seems simple enough to say yes, for Abraham to proceed in killing Isaac and preventing his living a life of fulfillment and joy would have been a sin. That being contingent on God never intending for Abraham to actually kill Isaac.

Perhaps you mean you are trying to avoid the Euthyphro Dilemma that points out the problem with this system, though, in which case I'm curious where you intend to take this?

honorentheos wrote: Euthyphro Dilemma

now you have me googling

mentalgymnast wrote:

honorentheos wrote:Suppose you were a well tuned moral agent whose moral compass swung on principle. Suppose you were told one story of a cartel boss who commanded one of his henchmen to shoot his son in the head to prove his loyalty, and when he follows through he finds the gun had been loaded with blanks. And then a second story regarding a claimed divine being who demanded his devotee sacrifice his son to him to prove he would do whatever the deity commanded. Being a moral agent you would see on principle both stories are the same, describing monsters who use power and fear to compel their followers to do horrific things. Because commanding a father murder his son to prove his loyalty to anything is horrific.

On the other hand suppose you were not a moral agent but instead had your moral compass pulled off true north towards an allegance that is the foundation of what you consider right. Suppose in this case that institution is the cartel. Clearly the boss was right and what he did was due to having the best interest of the henchman at heart. The boy was not murdered by his dad while his dad was able to prove his loyalty. Surely this ended in the maximum possible good, right?

Earlier I asked two questions:

1. Do two wrongs ever make a right?
2. Assuming that God is subject to the ramifications of people being free agents, does He look at number one, or that which we would normally consider to be a logical fallacy (leading to moral quandaries and ambiguities), as a tool/means to accomplish a greater good?

Do these two questions and the possible ramifications of the answers play into these examples that you give?

Do two wrongs make a right? Do two murders cancel one another out? Does a spouse being unfaithful get canceled out if the other has revenge sex? Does cheating in business justify cheating the cheat? Is violence canceled out into a greater good by more violence?

If you define "right" as God's will, then you may be thinking that God or some person could do or command something that we might think of as wrong such as murder or theft that is used to twist another person choosing to act against God's will such that the outcome is still God's will. But that's not changing anything about the discussion regarding morality. You are still assuming God's will defines what is right. You aren't demonstrating that we have good reason to view God's behavior as morally exemplary. Even still, in the case of Abraham there aren't two wrongs. There's one wrong - God commanding Abraham to kill his son. It doesn't get twisted back on itself by Abraham doing anything other than following through on God's command...unless...you're saying complying with God's command when it's obviously wrong is ALSO WRONGWHUUUTUTTTTT!!!????? And THAT BECOMES RIGHT????!!!

No, that's too stupid even for this discussion. Point is, you didn't change anything by positing the above. You're just avoiding the issue that God appears to behave in ways, or command people to behave in ways, that the majority of rational person would recognize as immoral.

mentalgymnast wrote:I'll ask a further question that spins off of the first two I'm asking.

Would a creator God that loves perfectly engage in the practice of using wrongs to make a right? We see that as a moral flaw. Is it in all cases/situations?

I'm thinking of a quote from Joseph Smith:

“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.”

I question whether or not your comparing God to a cartel boss is a false equivalence. Whether or not we are safe in making a direct connection between the two without the possibility of this scenario/analogy falling flat when we consider whether or not "Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire" comes into play.

And it does, admittedly, all come down to whether or not this "God" is the one and only true God rather than a figment of imagination or creation of the human mind. That I get.

We are left with the question I asked earlier, "Who is this God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?"

Regards,
MG

See above. Again, God is a cartel boss according to your world view.

Morley wrote:

honorentheos wrote: Euthyphro Dilemma

now you have me googling

MG is basically arguing one half of it.

honorentheos wrote: Euthyphro Dilemma

Morley wrote:now you have me googling

honorentheos wrote:MG is basically arguing one half of it.

Yeah, I can see that.

honorentheos wrote:
Do two wrongs make a right?

The point I'm trying to make in a convoluted sort of way and it now appears that there may be some misunderstanding due to my lack of being more explicit and communicating more directly is simply this:

With a mass of humanity endowed with moral agency there are going to be myriads upon myriads of moral dilemmas distributed throughout the aggregate of humanity and as they are compounded are going to create/result in massive amounts of ambiguity and gray area where the wrongs and rights get intermixed together and often become nebulous and difficult when attempting to always make the perfect judgment calls. God, being all knowing, is able to take/work with all the wrongs and rights and ultimately make lemonade. At times He may even introduce what appears to be a wrong (the Abraham/Isaac story) in order to achieve a greater good. Either immediately or down the road. The wrongs that humans do are wrong within the scope of individual actions and outcomes but those wrongs can be made into lemonade in the aggregate. We focus on the wrongs as being the end all rather than looking to how wrongs can be catalysts towards a greater good.

It is God that is the conductor and orchestrates the symphony, or should I say cacophony, of choices...wrong and right...to ultimately make the best composite outcomes possible.

I think that we often fail to factor in the real messiness of it all and would like to see God operate in a fashion that meets our moral expectations in the here and now. We, simply put, want to make black and white moral judgments that are 'just right' or 'just wrong'. Period. But as a discerning mind can see, moral dilemmas and inconsistencies among fallible human beings create a world where morality is more realistically defined in a way closer to the way Joseph Smith defined it (posted earlier).

I suppose the thing that I take issue with at times on this board and among some critics is that it seems like folks would like to put God in a box and define what He can and can't to rather than letting an all knowing God just be God. And trust that He has us all covered and has our best interests at heart. I see folks frequently questioning that assumption, in one way or another, and then sooner or later finding themselves either agnostic/atheist or some flavor of pantheist.

They can't wrap their mind around a God that is a LOT bigger than they are.

Regards,
MG

honorentheos wrote:If you define "right" as God's will...

Yes, but again that "right" may consist of an aggregate of variables as I've summarily described in my previous post.

Regards,
MG