Moral Responsibility

Just posted a paper on my site critiquing Galen Strawson's argument. He argues that moral responsibility is impossible. Here's an excerpt:

"In order to be responsible for the way you are, say at a given time T3, you had to at an earlier time, say T2, choose how you were going to be. However, at T2, the choice of how to be would be dependent on who you were. Your beliefs, desires, emotions, etc. would determine that choice. So, there would have to be an earlier time, T1, where you choose to have the character that you had at T2. But then, at T1, your character would cause you to make a certain choice. And so on.

You never get to a time where you chose how you would be that didn't depend on an earlier choosing of yours. If you do get to such a point, say when you were born, you cannot be held responsible for how you were at that point. You can only be held responsible for what you choose, and when you were born, you were "given" your desires. They weren't the result of any choice. So, since who we were initially caused us to choose our character again and again, it follows that to blame someone for their current character is equivalent to blaming someone for their initial character. However, since one isn't responsible for their initial character, one can't be responsible for their character at any other time, and hence cannot be held responsible for any act that they commit (given (1)).

...

I think the infinite regress can be stopped when we take into account the fact that praise, blame, reward, and punishment are to be used to change people's desires. These tools work just as well regardless of how those desires got there. It is also important to note that when we blame someone for their present desires, we are blaming them because they are, in part, their present desires. When one says, "You are responsible for your actions" I think it means no more than, "Your character, which can be changed, is the cause of your actions." The infinite regress fails because it attempts to make a distinction between a person and their character. Strawson does this when he says that a person, at a given time, must choose their character. I think there is no distinction to be made and a person is constituted by their character. A person having a bad character is equivalent to the person being bad.

For the paper, go here.

The Divine Tight-Rope Walker

Faith, Hope and Doubt
Louis Pojman

"Suppose you are fleeing a murderous gang of desperados, say the Mafia, who are bent on your annihilation. You come to the edge of a cliff which overlooks a yawning gorge. However, there is a rope spanning the gorge, tied to a tree on the cliff on the opposite side of the gorge. A man announces that he is a tight-rope walker who can carry you on the rope over the gorge. He doesn’t look like he can do it, so you wonder whether he is insane or simply overconfident. He takes a few steps on the rope to assure you that he can balance himself. You agree that it’s possible that he can navigate the rope across the gorge, but you have doubts whether he can carry you. But your options are limited. Soon your pursuers will be upon you. You must decide. While you still don’t believe that the “tight-rope walker” can save you, you decide to trust him. You place your faith in his ability, climb on his back, close your eyes (so as not to look down into the yawning gorge) and do your best to relax and obey his commands in adjusting your body as he steps onto the rope. You have a profound, even desperate, hope that he will be successful.
"This is how I see religious hope functioning in the midst of doubt. The verific person recognizes the tragedy of existence, that unless there is a God and life after death, the meaning of life is less than glorious, but if there is a God and life after death, that meaning is glorious. There is just enough evidence to whet his or her appetite, to inspire hope, a decision to live according to Theism or Christianity as an experimental hypothesis, but not enough evidence to cause belief. So keeping one’s mind open, the hoper plumbs for the better story, gets on the back of what may be the Divine Tight-Rope Walker and commits oneself to the pilgrimage. Perhaps the analogy is imperfect, for it may be possible to get off the tight-rope walker’s back in actual existence and to get back to the cliff. Perhaps the Mafia will make a wrong turn or take their time searching for you. Still the alternative to the Tight Rope Walker is not exactly welcoming: death and the extinction of all life in a solar system that will one day be extinguished. We may still learn to enjoy the fruits of finite love and resign ourselves to a final, cold fate.
...
"But if there is some evidence for something better, something eternal, someone benevolent who rules the universe and will redeem the world from evil and despair, isn’t it worth betting on this world view? Shouldn’t we, at least, consider getting on the back of the Tight-Rope Walker and letting him guide us across the gorge?"

I'm not saying I buy this argument, but it does seem interesting (of course, presuming that there is some evidence for the existence of God).

Louis Pojman

Louis Pojman is a well-known ethicist who has written many good books on the topic. He taught at WestPoint Academy for 9 years before his death. I have read one of his books and found it to be the best introduction to ethics I have read. That being Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 5th Edition. He died on October 15th of last year of liver cancer, cirrhosis, and hepatitis C. More on his life and death can be seen here.

He has taught me many things about ethics as I'm sure others would say who have read his work. It is fortunate that he existed and it seems left the world a better place than it otherwise would have been.

"I don't want it, therefore they should stop it."

Many people use this argument when it comes to things that will inconvenience them. They shouldn't raise taxes because I don't want to pay them. They shouldn't raise tuition because I don't want to pay it. They shouldn't put a dump in our town because I don't want it. They shouldn't start mining in Sand Canyon because it'll create more traffic (trucks in the mining company) on the freeway and I don't want that. They should stop building more houses in my town because then more people will be here which will cause more traffic. They should lower gas prices because I don't want to pay them. And so on.

However, simply because people or a group of people don't want higher taxes, that doesn't imply that higher taxes aren't necessary. The same goes for dumps. Dumps are a necessary thing and they have to be put somewhere. If they're not put in your town, they will simply be put in another town where the people don't speak up (and of course, it might cost you more taxes because your trash will have to get shipped out further).

It amazes me how people don't bother looking into whether the tax, raise in tuition, dump, or mining, is actually necessary. They don't care if it's done for a good reason. They automatically assume that it's done for a bad reason and therefore, they don't want it to happen.

I would suggest that anyone who is against something because it will inconvenience them to actually look into the issue and see if the measure is necessary (i.e., done for a good reason). If (and only if) it is done for a bad reason (technically, if it's a measure a good person would be against), then one should be against it. Whether or not it inconveniences you or the general public is something of relevance, but is something that (given a good enough reason) can be overridden.

"At a single stroke, Buffett has given purpose to his life"

On Happiness, Money and Giving it Away
Peter Singer
Project Syndicate, July, 2006

Would you be happier if you were richer? Many people believe that they would be. But research conducted over many years suggests that greater wealth implies greater happiness only at quite low levels of income.

People in the United States, for example, are, on average, richer than New Zealanders, but they are not happier.

...

Consider, in this light, the life of the American investor Warren Buffett. For 50 years, Buffett, now 75, has worked at accumulating a vast fortune. According to Forbes magazine, he is the second wealthiest person in the world, after Bill Gates, with assets of US$42 billion. Yet his frugal lifestyle shows that he does not particularly enjoy spending large amounts of money. Even if his tastes were more lavish, he would be hard-pressed to spend more than a tiny fraction of his wealth.

From this perspective, once Buffett earned his first few millions in the 1960s, his efforts to accumulate more money can easily seem completely pointless... Coincidentally, Kahneman’s article appeared the same week that Buffett announced the largest philanthropic donation in US history — US$30 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and another US$7 billion to other charitable foundations. Even when the donations made by Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller are adjusted for inflation, Buffett’s is greater. At a single stroke, Buffett has given purpose to his life.

Introductory works on ethics

I want to list a couple of good resources for the person who would like to study ethics. Ethics is a subject I think everyone should devote much time and effort to. Deciding what is right or wrong is probably the most important decision to decide. It is not something people should take lightly and just "go with their gut" or "go with what their parents believe" or "go with what their religion teaches" or "go with what most of society believes." However, our gut, religion, parents, and society, are not as reliable as sound argument.

One might say that studying ethics is pointless. Why read papers on abortion or capital punishment? There's always a way out of every argument and there's always an excuse to give on why one won't accept a given argument. What makes little sense is even if studying ethics was pointless, these people will simply resort to one of the above ways of deciding what is right or wrong. I'll use my gut or what a thousand-year-old text says or what my parents/society has taught me, etc.

I also see little merit in the idea that "there is always a way out of every argument. Therefore, there is no point to looking at both sides of the issue because in the end, you just believe what you want anways." I have a hard time believing this because I have found it to be false time and time again. I have had my mind changed by arguments that people have given. I have been able to recognize my mistakes by looking into the issue. I have also been able to strengthen my beliefs by doing the same. It is often the people who have never looked into ethical issues substantially who say this. This shows that they are simply not concerned with the truth and are to blame for it.

So, it is true that there may be a response one can always give to an argument. The question, however, is whether it is a good or bad response. The question is not whether there exists arguments, but whether they are good or bad arguments. If you look at people debating issues and say, "Oh no this is too hard for me, everyone is arguing. There can't be any use in looking into this anymore," then you have given up on the truth.

It is good to study ethics mainly because of the danger of living a lie. I would hate to have lived my life during the Civil War fighting for slavery, believing with all my heart that it was my duty. I would hate to have been an accomplice in the Holocaust, believing that God really did command me to kill the Jews. I would hate to have ruined innocent lives simply because I was too blind to see the truth.

So, I do not want to cause any undue harm to others or to myself. In being concerned with this, as I imagine most others are as well, this gives me good reason to study ethics and to, as honestly as I can, look at both sides of any given issue. I encourage you to do the same.

Now for the list of good introductory works.

Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong ,Fifth Edition by Pojman is my favorite introduction. A cheaper version of the book, the fourth edition, is available here.

Alonzo Fyfe's online introduction can be viewed here, his is extremely good as well.

For a good set of introductory ethical readings, Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life, Seventh Edition is recommended. Here is a link to the cheaper sixth edition. Here is a link to the fifth edition, which seems to be selling for about ten bucks cheaper.

On a sidenote, I really want to get some philosophy t-shirts. I would like them to be fairly nice and say things like "Aristotle" on the front and perhaps a quote on the back. Then, I could find the philosopher's birthdays and wear the shirt on that day and it would be Aristotle Day or Kant Day. Wouldn't that be neat?

"You can't be pro-war and pro-life"

Yesterday, I noticed one of my co-workers had a sticker on her car proclaiming this statement. It was most likely against political conservatives who are generally against abortion (pro-life) and also for some wars (pro-war). Whether either of these positions is tenable is not something that will be addressed. What will be addressed is whether someone can hold both positions and be consistent.

Definitions

There is a definition of each term that, when it is used, creates a contradiction. However, these definitions are ones that no one would use in normal discourse. If by "pro-life", one meant, "It is always wrong to kill any human being," then that would clearly contradict with the statement that it is sometimes permissible (or obligatory) to kill a human being (as it is in some wars).

However, when someone is pro-life, they do not need to agree that all killing is morally prohibited. They only need to agree that killing a fetus (in general) is morally prohibited. They may base this on the judgment that in general, it is wrong to kill an innocent person (and of course stating that fetuses are persons).

If someone is "pro-war", they do not need to agree with any and all wars that may occur. One can (if I understand the term correctly) be pro-war and agree that some wars shouldn't have taken place and some are inevitable. This would be better characterized by the term "pro-some-wars."

Reconciliation

So, if one believes that in general it is wrong to kill an innocent person and one also thinks that some wars are necessary, how does one reconcile the two statements? One way they can do so is to claim that in the wars that are justified, the people who are to be killed are not innocent. They may give an example of the people who committed the Holocaust (or were fighting to defend the Holocaust). Were they innocent people? Clearly not.

However, that is not the only way the two statements can be reconciled. Many wars cause innocent bystanders to die (wives, children, good soldiers, etc.) who had nothing to do with the crimes committed. In this case, one can still respond that, sure some innocent people had to die but that there was an overriding reason to go ahead with the war. To bring back the example of the Holocaust, one may say that some US soldiers and perhaps some German (and other nationality) children died that shouldn't have. However, in sacrificing their lives, we have stopped and punished those who have killed many more lives. We also stopped them from killing even more people.

Most people are best characterized as "anti-war." They agree that war is something that is bad and in general, should be avoided. However, they would agree that some wars are necessary. They are best characterized as "pro-some-wars." Some of the people who are "pro-some-wars" are also "pro-life."

Killing the Innocent

The majority of people are against killing the innocent in most cases. If this were coupled with the belief that a fetus is an innocent person, then one would have to be against most instances of killing fetuses. Where the battle comes down to in the abortion debate is whether the fetus is a person or not. If one agrees that the fetus is an innocent person, and is against killing innocent people, then one would have to be pro-life.

If one is against killing innocent people, they will not be against all wars. Some wars occur (or can occur) at too great a cost. If too many innocent people die and not enough good comes of it, then the war is not worth it. They will then be "pro-war" in the sense that they believe some wars are (overall) good and some wars are (overall) bad.

Conclusion

So, there is no necessary contradiction between the two positions of being "pro-life" and "pro-war" given that both terms are used in the way that most people use them. If someone believes that, in general, killing innocent people is wrong, they can be pro-life and pro-war given that "pro-war" doesn't mean "for any and all wars that are (and can be) committed."

The statement, "You can't be pro-war and pro-life" is only true if one defines "pro-war" in a way that characterizes nobody. No person is for any and all wars that can happen. Given this, it is possible to be both pro-war and pro-life.

Subjectivism and Ted Bundy on rape

"In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure that I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you."



Ted Bundy, a man who raped and murdered many innocent women, is quoted from in the book: Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong by Pojman.

When people do wrong acts, they look for any way out that will justify what they are doing. "Everyone else is doing it," "No one is perfect," "It doesn't hurt that much," "Why not steal five dollars, they'll never know the difference," etc. I thought Ted Bundy's was especially interesting. It is also telling against the ethical theory called Subjectivism. Ethical subjectivism states that morality is a matter of taste like preferring vanilla ice cream to chocolate. If someone is against rape, it's simply a matter of taste and nothing more. If someone is for killing the Jews, it's no different from preferring ketchup on your hot dog.

I think this view is very wrong. One big reason is the absurd results that come of it. We don't punish people for matters of taste. We would never say, "I like vanilla ice cream, you don't like vanilla? Well then you should be in prison." However, there are certain wrong acts that we do and should punish people for.

It also makes it impossible to criticize others for their moral views. I would never write a paper arguing why someone should prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate or why they should enjoy mustard over ketchup on their hot dog. It would make no sense to attempt to change someone's preferences in these areas. However, it does make sense and there is good reason to attempt to justify your moral views and to show how other ones are unjustified.

In other words, if someone says to you, "I like coffee with no sugar," they don't have to give arguments and evidence for why. The simple fact that they like it is enough. However, if someone says, "I like killing 7 year olds on the weekends," then they must give evidence and argument to back it up (and so would the person who says they don't like killing 7 year olds on the weekends).

Alright enough of that. Now for some Ted Bundy.

"Then I learned that all moral judgments are 'value judgments,' that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either 'right' or 'wrong.' I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself--what apparently the Chief Justice couldn't figure out for himself--that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any 'reason' to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring--the strength of character--to throw off its shackles...I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable 'value judgment' that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these 'others?' Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more than a hog's life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as 'moral' or 'good' and others as 'immoral' or 'bad'? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure that I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me--after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and inhibited self."--Ted Bundy, Quoted from Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 5th edition, p.30

As a sidenote, I am also reminded of the statement of Frank T. J. Mackey (played by Tom Cruise) from the movie Magnolia. He is a motivational speaker in a sense but he motivates guys to (in his words) "tame the cunt." He teaches men how to get women to be all over them and to get them in bed. He justifies this by saying the following:

"I will not apologize for what I want. I will not apologize for what I need. I will not apologize for who I am."

I hope I have made it clear by now that there are some cases where one should apologize for who they are. I hope I have made it clear that ethical subjectivism is a bad position. I hope I have made it clear how important it is to be a good person and to study the subject of ethics so that you too will not fall into the trap of living a lie like Ted Bundy did.

"You cannot punish me because you are not perfect"

Rationalizations: The Perfection Argument

Your daughter is caught stealing. You go to confront her and tell her that she is to be punished. She responds that you cannot punish her because you have done bad things too. “Who are you to punish me?” She asks. Many people attempt to use the reasoning that you yourself are not perfect, therefore you are not justified in punishing me. Or, that the punisher has to be a better person than the person being punished.

This is however, fallacious reasoning.

Limited Application—Connection with hypocrisy

This objection does have a limited validity. Its fallaciousness can be seen once this validity is explained. If I were arguing that my daughter is to be punished for her crime and that I am not to be punished for my crimes, then that would be inconsistent. For example, let’s say I stole when I was a kid. As long as I admit that what I did was wrong, there is nothing inconsistent with punishing my daughter for stealing when she is a kid. If however, I do not believe that what I did was wrong and I punish her for performing a similar act, then I am being hypocritical. However, if I acknowledge that what I did was wrong and that punishment would have been justified, then I am not being inconsistent in punishing my daughter.

Limited Application—Connection with Character

There also may be another limited application of this principle. It is connected to the belief that bad people are not good discerners of what is right and wrong. If it were to be shown that I was a bad person, then perhaps what I am punishing someone for is not in fact wrong.

However, even with this belief, this does not salvage the principle. First, if the person deserving of punishment believes that what he did was wrong, then connecting it with the character of the punisher is irrelevant. His act is still wrong and deserving of punishment. Second, the objection could be turned on the one who is to receive punishment because he may be a worse person and therefore even worse at discerning moral truths.

Objection #1: No one is perfect.

If the principle was true, then no one would be justified in punishing anybody. The court system would be an immoral thing to set up. Jurors deciding people’s fate would be evil. It would be the case that we should just let everyone run wild. Since this is not the case, the reasoning is fallacious.

Objection #2: It does not establish hypocrisy.

Simply because I got a tattoo as a kid or smoked cigarettes does not mean that I believe now that I was justified in performing those activities. One example of the use of this argument was in the show The Osbournes. Jack, who is Ozzy Osbourne's son, smokes and does drugs. Whenever Ozzy would yell at him for doing drugs, Jack would reply with, "You did drugs when you were younger. You are a hypocrite to tell me to not do any."

However, this response confuses the definition of “hypocrisy.” A hypocrite is one who says, “When I do X it is okay but when you do X, it is wrong.” Ozzy would be a hypocrite if he believed that when he did drugs as a young boy it was okay but wrong for his son. However, if he believes that it was wrong for him to do and wrong for his son to do, then he avoids hypocrisy. He can then tell his son to not do drugs and if he does them, he will be punished, despite the son’s sayings otherwise.

Conclusion

So, as is apparent, to argue that, “Person X cannot punish me because person X is not perfect” is fallacious reasoning. It is a rationalization that is used most likely because the wrongdoer will try whatever he can to avoid punishment. This is one of the ways of attempting to “neutralize” the person’s wrongdoing but it simply does not work. Despite its fallaciousness, people often yield to it like it is magically true. It is a false belief that has caused many wrongdoers to fail to get what they deserve.

Victimless Crimes

Yesterday, while I was finishing going pee in the bathroom, I realized something. The argument that a certain crime is victimless begs the question. Allow me to elaborate.

Let's take druge laws. A lot of time, people argue that with drug laws, when people break them, it is a victimless crime. It is a crime where there is no victim. No one is being wronged in the situation. Since no one is being wronged, there should be no law against it.

However, why not consider the person who is taking drugs to be a victim? Perhaps he is a victim of the big tobacco companies who just want him to get hooked because they want to be rich. Perhaps he is a victim of an alcohol company who wants the same.

But not only that, to say a crime is victimless is equivalent to saying that the crime is not wrong. There is only a "victim" in a certain situation when a wrong act was committed. So, starting from the statement "This crime is victimless" is just simply equivalent to saying, "This crime is not wrong." Therefore,one cannot use the claim, "This crime is victimless" to prove "This crime is not wrong." If someone already believes the crime to be wrong, they will not think it is victimless. Minimally, in the drug-taking situation, one could argue that the drug user is wronging himself. He could further argue that big companies are wronging him as well.

So, the argument that "X is a victimless crime" to prove that "This crime is not wrong" does not work.

(One could prove that there is no victim by saying that the person taking the drugs is harming himself but not wronging himself. I see this as a very impossible argument to make. If one did make that argument, however, they would not be begging the question.)

The Singer Solution to World Poverty--Something all humans need to really think about

The Singer Solution to World Poverty
Peter Singer
The New York Times Sunday Magazine, September 5, 1999, pp. 60-63

"In the Brazilian film "Central Station," Dora is a retired schoolteacher who makes ends meet by sitting at the station writing letters for illiterate people. Suddenly she has an opportunity to pocket $1,000. All she has to do is persuade a homeless 9-year-old boy to follow her to an address she has been given. (She is told he will be adopted by wealthy foreigners.) She delivers the boy, gets the money, spends some of it on a television set and settles down to enjoy her new acquisition. Her neighbor spoils the fun, however, by telling her that the boy was too old to be adopted —he will be killed and his organs sold for transplantation. Perhaps Dora knew this all along, but after her neighbor's plain speaking, she spends a troubled night. In the morning Dora resolves to take the boy back.

Suppose Dora had told her neighbor that it is a tough world, other people have nice new TV's too, and if selling the kid is the only way she can get one, well, he was only a street kid. She would then have become, in the eyes of the audience, a monster. She redeems herself only by being prepared to bear considerable risks to save the boy.

At the end of the movie, in cinemas in the affluent nations of the world, people who would have been quick to condemn Dora if she had not rescued the boy go home to places far more comfortable than her apartment. In fact, the average family in the United States spends almost one-third of its income on things that are no more necessary to them than Dora's new TV was to her. Going out to nice restaurants, buying new clothes because the old ones are no longer stylish, vacationing at beach resorts —so much of our income is spent on things not essential to the preservation of our lives and health. Donated to one of a number of charitable agencies, that money could mean the difference between life and death for children in need.

All of which raises a question: In the end, what is the ethical distinction between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American who already has a TV and upgrades to a better one —knowing that the money could be donated to an organization that would use it to save the lives of kids in need?"

...

"In the world as it is now, I can see no escape from the conclusion that each one of us with wealth surplus to his or her essential needs should be giving most of it to help people suffering from poverty so dire as to be life-threatening. That's right: I'm saying that you shouldn't buy that new car, take that cruise, redecorate the house or get that pricey new suit. After all, a $1,000 suit could save five children's lives.

So how does my philosophy break down in dollars and cents? An American household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities, according to the Conference Board, a nonprofit economic research organization. Therefore, for a household bringing in $50,000 a year, donations to help the world's poor should be as close as possible to $20,000. The $30,000 required for necessities holds for higher incomes as well. So a household making $100,000 could cut a yearly check for $70,000. Again, the formula is simple: whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away."

Some may argue against his proposal. They might say that since the money is just being given away without any incentive, people will take what they wish and not do things like get a job or start to support themselves. These people will live longer and reproduce. Therefore, giving more aid would simply create more need, not less of it.

However, why think this will happen? There is no evidence that the people who are near death would just do nothing once they didn't have to worry about malnutrition and death of loved ones and sickness, etc. Imagine that we cured people of their sickness, gave them a sufficient amount of food, gave them a nice place to live, set up factories where they could work, and said, "Okay, if you want to keep what you have, you must work."

I think most people who are near death would agree to these conditions. I think most people who are suffering from malnutrition wouldn't mind working once they got enough food and water and shelter to do so.

There is no good reason why essentially all Americans cannot give aid to dying countries. The price of a new TV is not just a couple thousand dollars, it's a couple hundred lives.

See my paper on possible objections to giving aid here.

"God created life, therefore He has the right to take it away"

In the Bible, (1 Sam 15:3 to be exact) God orders the killing of infants. In defense of God's command, Norman L. Geisler, Ph. D., argues that since God is the originator of life, he has the right to take it away if he wishes. We, as humans, do not have this same right because we did not create life. The quote is as follows:

"An atheist once brought up this issue in a debate, and I responded by saying, 'God created life and he has the right to take it. If you can create life, then you can have the right to take it. But if you can't create it, you don't have that right.' And the audience applauded.
People assume that what's wrong for us is wrong for God. However, it's wrong for me to take your life, because I didn't make it and I don't own it. For example, it's wrong for me to go into your yard and pull up your bushes, cut them down, kill them, transplant them, move them around. I can do that in my yard, because I own the bushes in my yard.
"Well, God is sovereign over all of life and he has the right to take it if he wishes. In fact, we tend to forget that God takes the life of every human being. It's called death. The only question is when and how, which we leave up to him." (p. 119)

There are numerous problems with this. One main problem is that the premise "If a being creates life, then he has the right to destroy it" is false. Imagine there existed an evil being who created life. He tortures people for the fun of it and kills them for the same reason. Certainly, this being killing people for the fun of it is wrong. However, if it's the case that whoever creates life has the right to destroy it, then killing people for fun would be okay, given that you created them in the first place.

What matters is not whether the being created life. What matters is the reason(s) that one has for killing. This can be seen by noticing that humans have the right to take life in certain circumstances. There are cases where killing would be permissible and even obligatory (in times of war, to protect a loved one, etc.).

Another problem with this is how he talks about ownership. He makes an analogy between God owning human lives and us owning the bushes in our yard. The major, rather obvious problem with this is that humans cannot legitimately be owned. Person A cannot own person B legitimately. Sure, one may have a case where a slave is owned by his slaveowner, but that would be wrong. To say that slavery is wrong means that no person can own another person legitimately. Hence, the analogy fails to establish its point.

If God owns our lives in any sense, then he is evil. The same way that a slaveowner is evil. The same way that a person who created beings for the sole purpose of owning them would be evil. Only person A can legitimately "own" Person A's life. Certainly humans are not property.

So, those are the problems with the defense that since God created life, he has the right to take it away. Affirming this implies affirming the general principle that if a being creates life, then he has the right to take it away. This general principle has 2 main problems:

1. It fails to call evil a being who creates life for the sole purpose to enjoy destroying it.
2. It relies on the idea that a being can own a human. Only an evil being would attempt to own a human.

Therefore, the general principle fails to justify a God who would command the killing of infants. Norman L. Geisler, Ph.D., is wrong.

For a more thorough discussion of the killing of infants and various attempts by Christians to justify it, go here.