Friday, October 14, 2005
Baby-killing Gods
The book I've been reading expressed an interesting point, which I thought I might share. (Lion of Macedon : David Gemmell)
Here it is.
If you saw a rabid dog about to kill a baby, what would you do?
Obviously stop it.
What if you knew the baby would grow up to be a destroyer, leading armys of slughter across the world, leading to 100 years of war. Perhaps you might let it die (No. Down. Its my podium, Im not finished.. you can disagree in a sec, :P)
But then what if the baby was to father a child who would bring about a lasting age of peace and tranquility to the land, lasting for 1000 years? What would you do then.
I've paraphrased this horribly, but the point is maintained. The point is, this can quickly become a situation where there is no right answer, your actions will lead to consequences, and even knowing them all, the right choice will not be obvious.
(Asside. This is pretty much how I see God during the creation of the world... he can see all the consequences of all the possible ways of making us before he does so. The difference is with his complete forknowledge of all consequences and his perfection, he can actually make these decisions. Ok, thats a pretty horrid analogy, but I hope you get my point.)
So what would you do in the situation above (Ok.. you can make those objections now) Personally, I would save the baby in all three cases. We dont have the complete knowledge or the discernment to make a choice like that, so all we can do is what we see to be right in all situations. And regardless, I don't think I could live with myself very comfortably if I didn't make an attempt to save the baby, regardless of his future.
Another quick one, from the same book, again heavily paraphrased (Sorry David 8-) )
When evil through its actions rises up and needs to be challenged by good, If we do stoop to its levels, If we, for example set out to murder hitler, and succeed, who wins. (Oh no, goodwins law.. I preemptivly lose any argument that springs ouit of this. Ok, substitute bush or howard.)
Well obviously hitler loses out, but in this situation, I believe evil has triumphed over good. We have stooped to the level of committing evil acts ourselves, for 'good' reasons perhaps, but it is still the first step on the road. Its justification of doing evil for the “right reasons”, which is still doing evil at its core. There is no right reason for us to do wrong. We can justify it all we want, but eventually it comes down to this. We're imperfect, can we really trust our judgement on what is right?
We cant decide to suspend the rules and do things we instinctivly know are wrong just because the circumstances change. We need to have a more solid view of right and wrong than that.
Here it is.
If you saw a rabid dog about to kill a baby, what would you do?
Obviously stop it.
What if you knew the baby would grow up to be a destroyer, leading armys of slughter across the world, leading to 100 years of war. Perhaps you might let it die (No. Down. Its my podium, Im not finished.. you can disagree in a sec, :P)
But then what if the baby was to father a child who would bring about a lasting age of peace and tranquility to the land, lasting for 1000 years? What would you do then.
I've paraphrased this horribly, but the point is maintained. The point is, this can quickly become a situation where there is no right answer, your actions will lead to consequences, and even knowing them all, the right choice will not be obvious.
(Asside. This is pretty much how I see God during the creation of the world... he can see all the consequences of all the possible ways of making us before he does so. The difference is with his complete forknowledge of all consequences and his perfection, he can actually make these decisions. Ok, thats a pretty horrid analogy, but I hope you get my point.)
So what would you do in the situation above (Ok.. you can make those objections now) Personally, I would save the baby in all three cases. We dont have the complete knowledge or the discernment to make a choice like that, so all we can do is what we see to be right in all situations. And regardless, I don't think I could live with myself very comfortably if I didn't make an attempt to save the baby, regardless of his future.
Another quick one, from the same book, again heavily paraphrased (Sorry David 8-) )
When evil through its actions rises up and needs to be challenged by good, If we do stoop to its levels, If we, for example set out to murder hitler, and succeed, who wins. (Oh no, goodwins law.. I preemptivly lose any argument that springs ouit of this. Ok, substitute bush or howard.)
Well obviously hitler loses out, but in this situation, I believe evil has triumphed over good. We have stooped to the level of committing evil acts ourselves, for 'good' reasons perhaps, but it is still the first step on the road. Its justification of doing evil for the “right reasons”, which is still doing evil at its core. There is no right reason for us to do wrong. We can justify it all we want, but eventually it comes down to this. We're imperfect, can we really trust our judgement on what is right?
We cant decide to suspend the rules and do things we instinctivly know are wrong just because the circumstances change. We need to have a more solid view of right and wrong than that.
# posted by ChinDoGu @ 18:51 
Comments:
<< Home
But since you are not God then how would you know that the future these things will happen? In this case all you can do you react. Which leads in to - everything is a reaction. You may take time to think before you speak (or act). But any action you take is related to what just happened (as in the argument in the next post). Your reacton may be baised in lots of different things such as: your feelings at the time, life experiences, the person, etc.
# posted by 
: Monday, October 17, 2005 10:53:00 am
: Monday, October 17, 2005 10:53:00 am
Its true, its a non-sensical example, since you can never know. Nethertheless, I think the conclusion is a valid one.
We do what is right, and revel in the consequences.
(And yes, doing what is right is to a large extent about reaction)
We do what is right, and revel in the consequences.
(And yes, doing what is right is to a large extent about reaction)
A significant problem with this analgy is the idea that after the particular incident (saving the child) your invlovement, & ability to affect the future is over. That is crap, know that the child may become a dictator and save them and then take other actions to prevent them becoming a dictator perhapes even killing them yourself on the eve of their dictatorship. The furute is unwritten, what happens is based upon our ONGOING choices, and only way to garuntee not making the right choice is bay makeing no choice for fear of making the wrong choice.
No, we don't "do what is right". Some people, in fact, deliberately do what is wrong. But, as people trying to be good or nice, we do what we think is right, what we hope like hell will turn out to be right. The thing is that every action has unforseen consequences, affects people in ways you can't predict, and some of those consequences won't be "good". No consequences can be predicted in their totality, except by God.
On the other hand, in trying to do what's right we, as chrisians or as members of society (though the former moreso), are called to adhere to a code of conduct. This means that "good" and "bad" behaviour are proscribed by faith and/or laws. In the christian faith, at least, but also relatively entrenched into western society, is the concept that doing evil to eradicate evil doesn't change the fact that you did evil: two wrongs don't make a right. There are exceptions to this rule - abused women who kill their husbands, for example, and, I suppose, capital punishment - but even here the actions aren't seen as "good" or "right" but as "a necessary evil" (a concept I find despicable in all it's forms, as I do capital punishment).
I had a point. I know, no, one doesn't kill the baby. You do what the situation merits because you don';t know the future and because God gave us instincts (in this case a gut revulsion against letting a creature die) and a conscience for a reason and because He has a plan and knows all things and because He says that human life is precious and we should cherish and protect it. Is it a loving act to allow the child to be savaged and torn apart?
As for sinking to the level of evil in order to stop it, no. Just no. You are responsible for your own actions and if you do evil there are consequences, no matter what your reasons were. It may be a very black and white view, The Wrong Thing is The Wrong Thing and when it comes to big things like this (like murder, for example) God has told us what to do in no indefinite terms. There are many grey areas (abortion, for example)but somethings there is no need to argue about: killing someone, whatever the reason, is wrong and sinful in God's eyes.
On the other hand, in trying to do what's right we, as chrisians or as members of society (though the former moreso), are called to adhere to a code of conduct. This means that "good" and "bad" behaviour are proscribed by faith and/or laws. In the christian faith, at least, but also relatively entrenched into western society, is the concept that doing evil to eradicate evil doesn't change the fact that you did evil: two wrongs don't make a right. There are exceptions to this rule - abused women who kill their husbands, for example, and, I suppose, capital punishment - but even here the actions aren't seen as "good" or "right" but as "a necessary evil" (a concept I find despicable in all it's forms, as I do capital punishment).
I had a point. I know, no, one doesn't kill the baby. You do what the situation merits because you don';t know the future and because God gave us instincts (in this case a gut revulsion against letting a creature die) and a conscience for a reason and because He has a plan and knows all things and because He says that human life is precious and we should cherish and protect it. Is it a loving act to allow the child to be savaged and torn apart?
As for sinking to the level of evil in order to stop it, no. Just no. You are responsible for your own actions and if you do evil there are consequences, no matter what your reasons were. It may be a very black and white view, The Wrong Thing is The Wrong Thing and when it comes to big things like this (like murder, for example) God has told us what to do in no indefinite terms. There are many grey areas (abortion, for example)but somethings there is no need to argue about: killing someone, whatever the reason, is wrong and sinful in God's eyes.
I think thats pretty much both the points I was trying to make, made by LL. So I dont really have much more to say here 8-)
Post a Comment
<< Home
