"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.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
"You cannot punish me because you are not perfect"
Rationalizations: The Perfection Argument
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.
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.)
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?"
...
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.
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.Tuesday, March 28, 2006
"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.
"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.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Using Biblical Inerrancy to Prove God
Hello there. Today's bad argument is that used by Biblical Inerrantists. They argue that since the Bible has no errors, contradictions, etc. that it must be the written word of God. Hence, God must exist.
Circular Reasoning
The argument goes like this: "These books were written by dozens of people in different locations in different eras. Since it contains no errors or contradictions, it must be from God."
However, doesn't the Bible claim that God exists in the first place?
If the Bible has no errors and it claims that God exists, then it would follow that God exists. There need be no appeal to dozens of people in different locations who wrote the book. In order to claim that "The bible has no errors" one must assume that the statement that "God exists" is not in error. So, to use the fact that the bible has no errors to conclude that God exists is to use circular reasoning. One must presuppose God exists in order for the argument to get off the ground.
So, any argument that "the bible has no errors" to conclude that "God exists" is question-begging.
Lack of Contradiction is not so Spectacular
Even if it was proven that there were no contradictions in the Bible, would that really matter? Well maybe if they were randomly choosen books that were thrown together into one. However, they were not. The Council of Nicea in around A.D. 300 (something like that) decided what books would be in it. People figured out what books would be in it by vote. So, they probably had read them before and therefore, any large doctrinal disuptes could be taken care of. So, even if the Inerrantist were to prove that the Bible has no contradictions, that would be easy to account for given the fact that the books were chosen to be in the Bible. If they contradicted each other to a large degree, then they probably wouldn't have chosen them to be in the Bible in the first place.
Conclusion
Biblical Inerrancy is a belief that is difficult to uphold. There are many bad arguments that they use in defense of their position. I don't really care too much about this topic either. Even if there were some errors in the Bible, that wouldn't prove Christianity false. At most, it would just prove that God didn't write those parts.
Circular Reasoning
The argument goes like this: "These books were written by dozens of people in different locations in different eras. Since it contains no errors or contradictions, it must be from God."
However, doesn't the Bible claim that God exists in the first place?
If the Bible has no errors and it claims that God exists, then it would follow that God exists. There need be no appeal to dozens of people in different locations who wrote the book. In order to claim that "The bible has no errors" one must assume that the statement that "God exists" is not in error. So, to use the fact that the bible has no errors to conclude that God exists is to use circular reasoning. One must presuppose God exists in order for the argument to get off the ground.
So, any argument that "the bible has no errors" to conclude that "God exists" is question-begging.
Lack of Contradiction is not so Spectacular
Even if it was proven that there were no contradictions in the Bible, would that really matter? Well maybe if they were randomly choosen books that were thrown together into one. However, they were not. The Council of Nicea in around A.D. 300 (something like that) decided what books would be in it. People figured out what books would be in it by vote. So, they probably had read them before and therefore, any large doctrinal disuptes could be taken care of. So, even if the Inerrantist were to prove that the Bible has no contradictions, that would be easy to account for given the fact that the books were chosen to be in the Bible. If they contradicted each other to a large degree, then they probably wouldn't have chosen them to be in the Bible in the first place.
Conclusion
Biblical Inerrancy is a belief that is difficult to uphold. There are many bad arguments that they use in defense of their position. I don't really care too much about this topic either. Even if there were some errors in the Bible, that wouldn't prove Christianity false. At most, it would just prove that God didn't write those parts.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
One of the many bad abortion arguments
Here's a bad argument people who are for abortion tend to use.
"If we make abortion illegal, some people are going to do it anyways. The law will not stop them. Therefore, we should legalize abortion."
This argument has the form of: "If we make act X illegal, people will not obey the law. Therefore, we should make act X legal."
This argument makes as much sense as the following arguments:
"If we make murder illegal, some people are going to do it anyways. The law will not stop them. Therefore, we should legalize murder."
"If we make stealing illegal, some people are still going to do it anyways. The law will not stop them. Therefore, we should legalize stealing."
And so on.
So, simply because a certain law will be broken does not give us good reason to not make that law. This is seen with stealing, murdering, raping, etc. This argument does not work in these cases, therefore it does not work in the case of making a law concerning abortion.
What is relevant is not whether the people in the town will follow the law. What is relevant is whether people in the town should follow the law. This goes for rape, murder, stealing, etc. If a town made a law against rape, perhaps people would not follow it. It still remains the case, however, that we should make a law against rape.
So, one would have to argue, not that people would disobey the law in question but that they should disobey the law in question. This is a different claim however and cannot be supported by the argument at the top. A new argument would have to be brought in to support this new claim.
"If we make abortion illegal, some people are going to do it anyways. The law will not stop them. Therefore, we should legalize abortion."
This argument has the form of: "If we make act X illegal, people will not obey the law. Therefore, we should make act X legal."
This argument makes as much sense as the following arguments:
"If we make murder illegal, some people are going to do it anyways. The law will not stop them. Therefore, we should legalize murder."
"If we make stealing illegal, some people are still going to do it anyways. The law will not stop them. Therefore, we should legalize stealing."
And so on.
So, simply because a certain law will be broken does not give us good reason to not make that law. This is seen with stealing, murdering, raping, etc. This argument does not work in these cases, therefore it does not work in the case of making a law concerning abortion.
What is relevant is not whether the people in the town will follow the law. What is relevant is whether people in the town should follow the law. This goes for rape, murder, stealing, etc. If a town made a law against rape, perhaps people would not follow it. It still remains the case, however, that we should make a law against rape.
So, one would have to argue, not that people would disobey the law in question but that they should disobey the law in question. This is a different claim however and cannot be supported by the argument at the top. A new argument would have to be brought in to support this new claim.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Playing God
Often, with many moral issues such as abortion, capital punishment, cloning, etc. people argue that the act would be wrong because committing the act is "Playing God." It is something that God and only God is allowed to do. If we were to perform the given act as well, that would be wrong. This argument suffers the most from not fulfilling its burden of proof. Once pressed for evidence, the argument will fall into a trap of circular reasoning.
Burden of Proof
If a person claims that something is true, then they have a responsibility to back it up with good arguments and/or evidence. This is called the "Burden of proof." If someone claims for example, that abortion is wrong, and is unwilling to offer up any argument in support, then their claim is unsupported. If a claim is left unsupported, then one does not have an obligation to "buy in" to that claim. One would be justified in not agreeing with that person.
Proof of Playing God
In order to prove that a given act is playing God, there are two things one must prove:
1. That God does the act.
2. That us doing the act is wrong.
Often times, people only prove statement 1 and act as if the truth of statement 1 implies the truth of statement 2. It however does not. There are many acts that God does that we are also allowed to do. God, for example, is merciful. Does that mean we shouldn't be merciful? God is truthful, does that mean we shouldn't be truthful? Would being truthful constitute playing God simply because it's something God does? No. So, one who wants to use the "Playing God" argument, they must prove both statements 1 and 2.
Here's an example: "God creates life. Therefore, if we were to create life, then we would be playing God. Hence, cloning is an example of playing God." When one asks, "Well what about sexual reproduction. Surely that creates life and is not playing God." The defender responds with, "Yes, but in that situation, nothing is forced. When you force life to exist, then you're playing God." Here's an example where the person is proving statement 1 to be true but hasn't proven statement 2 to be true. They are just simply assuming the truth of statement 2 or that statement 1 implies statement 2.
One cannot argue in the form of, "God does act X. Therefore, if we did act X that would be playing God." The person has to argue in the form of, "God does act X. It is wrong for us to do act X. Therefore, if we did act X, we would be playing God."
Begging the Question
An argument can be shown to beg the question when the person assumes the truth of the conclusion to support one of the premises in the argument.
Here's the argument in premise--conclusion form:
1. Cloning is playing God.
2. If an act is playing God, then that act is wrong.
3. Therefore, cloning is wrong.
The problem is, given what I have said above, in order to prove that one is "playing God," they must assume that the act is wrong in the first place. If you are assuming the act is wrong in order to prove the act to be wrong, then you are begging the question. The full argument, in premise-conclusion format, really looks like this:
1. God forces life to exist.
2. It is wrong for humans to force life to exist.
3. Therefore, if humans forced life to exist, they would be playing God.
4. Therefore, forcing life to exist is wrong for humans.
5. Hence, it is wrong for humans to clone.
But of course, it is obvious that begging the question has occurred. In order to prove that cloning is playing God, they must assume that it’s wrong in the first place. But of course, whether it’s wrong in the first place is what is up to debate and hence will be part of the conclusion of the argument. Hence, when pressed for its burden of proof, the "playing God" objection begs the question.
Conclusion
When people use the “playing God” objection, they often then say that people who don’t agree with them must believe that God does not exist. However, one can reasonably disagree with their argument and still be a theist (as what I have said shows). Notice how I never disputed God’s existence in order to make my argument.
The "playing God" objection can be shown to fail its burden of proof. Once pressed for evidence, it falls into the trap of circular reasoning. It must assume the act is wrong in order to prove that we are playing God. But of course, whether the act is wrong is what we are discussing in the first place.
The “playing God” objection does not work against cloning, it does not work against abortion, it does not work against any social issue that one would like to bring up. It is, like most of the arguments brought up in moral disputes, a bad argument that a critical thinker would not accept.
Burden of Proof
If a person claims that something is true, then they have a responsibility to back it up with good arguments and/or evidence. This is called the "Burden of proof." If someone claims for example, that abortion is wrong, and is unwilling to offer up any argument in support, then their claim is unsupported. If a claim is left unsupported, then one does not have an obligation to "buy in" to that claim. One would be justified in not agreeing with that person.
Proof of Playing God
In order to prove that a given act is playing God, there are two things one must prove:
1. That God does the act.
2. That us doing the act is wrong.
Often times, people only prove statement 1 and act as if the truth of statement 1 implies the truth of statement 2. It however does not. There are many acts that God does that we are also allowed to do. God, for example, is merciful. Does that mean we shouldn't be merciful? God is truthful, does that mean we shouldn't be truthful? Would being truthful constitute playing God simply because it's something God does? No. So, one who wants to use the "Playing God" argument, they must prove both statements 1 and 2.
Here's an example: "God creates life. Therefore, if we were to create life, then we would be playing God. Hence, cloning is an example of playing God." When one asks, "Well what about sexual reproduction. Surely that creates life and is not playing God." The defender responds with, "Yes, but in that situation, nothing is forced. When you force life to exist, then you're playing God." Here's an example where the person is proving statement 1 to be true but hasn't proven statement 2 to be true. They are just simply assuming the truth of statement 2 or that statement 1 implies statement 2.
One cannot argue in the form of, "God does act X. Therefore, if we did act X that would be playing God." The person has to argue in the form of, "God does act X. It is wrong for us to do act X. Therefore, if we did act X, we would be playing God."
Begging the Question
An argument can be shown to beg the question when the person assumes the truth of the conclusion to support one of the premises in the argument.
Here's the argument in premise--conclusion form:
1. Cloning is playing God.
2. If an act is playing God, then that act is wrong.
3. Therefore, cloning is wrong.
The problem is, given what I have said above, in order to prove that one is "playing God," they must assume that the act is wrong in the first place. If you are assuming the act is wrong in order to prove the act to be wrong, then you are begging the question. The full argument, in premise-conclusion format, really looks like this:
1. God forces life to exist.
2. It is wrong for humans to force life to exist.
3. Therefore, if humans forced life to exist, they would be playing God.
4. Therefore, forcing life to exist is wrong for humans.
5. Hence, it is wrong for humans to clone.
But of course, it is obvious that begging the question has occurred. In order to prove that cloning is playing God, they must assume that it’s wrong in the first place. But of course, whether it’s wrong in the first place is what is up to debate and hence will be part of the conclusion of the argument. Hence, when pressed for its burden of proof, the "playing God" objection begs the question.
Conclusion
When people use the “playing God” objection, they often then say that people who don’t agree with them must believe that God does not exist. However, one can reasonably disagree with their argument and still be a theist (as what I have said shows). Notice how I never disputed God’s existence in order to make my argument.
The "playing God" objection can be shown to fail its burden of proof. Once pressed for evidence, it falls into the trap of circular reasoning. It must assume the act is wrong in order to prove that we are playing God. But of course, whether the act is wrong is what we are discussing in the first place.
The “playing God” objection does not work against cloning, it does not work against abortion, it does not work against any social issue that one would like to bring up. It is, like most of the arguments brought up in moral disputes, a bad argument that a critical thinker would not accept.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Earlier posts
The posts before this were made on another blog, they were good posts so I thought I'd post them here as well.
"Jesus died for your sins"
Central to the idea of Protestant Christianity (and perhaps Catholics, I'm not sure) is that we are all sinners and were doomed to hell. Then, Jesus died on the cross and "paid the price" so we could have a chance at eternal life.
However, how could one person's suffering pay the price for someone else's sin?
If I murder someone, can I have my son go to jail for me? Or my parents even? No, if I commit a wrongdoing, then I am the one who has to pay. No one else can "pay the price" for my wrongdoing. If someone else is willing to suffer for me, that doesn't somehow magically get me off the hook.
Imagine if the judge would allow someone else to do my sentence for me. I get convicted and he says, "Okay, your mother can go to jail instead if she likes." If the judge accepted my mother going to jail instead of me for what I did wrong, that would make the judge a bad person. He would be saying, essentially, "I don't care who suffers for this wrong act, as long as someone does." Surely, this is not a good judge.
A good person would make sure that the person who suffers is the one who committed the crime. If someone else suffers, that does not somehow absolve the other person of their wrongdoing.
A good person would not accept stand-in justice. Stand-in justice is when person A does a wrong act but person B suffers because of person A's wrong act.
So, how is it that Jesus paid the price for my sins?
One may say that God decided that Jesus' suffering was sufficient to pay the price. However, that makes God evil. If the judge in my hypothetical story accepted my mother going to jail as sufficient, then that would make him a bad person. The same goes for God.
So, if God is good (and Christians say he is) then God would not accept Jesus' suffering as sufficient to pay for our sins. Only our own suffering would be sufficient.
One may say that God is being merciful to us because Jesus had to suffer. However, notice how that response doesn't work in my hypothetical scenario. If the judge saw my mom go to jail, he wouldn't be allowed to say, "Hey, okay she suffered so I can be merciful to you. If she didn't go to jail for you, then I couldn't be merciful to you." Surely, this does not work.
So, in conclusion, Jesus could not have paid the price for my sins. That is because only the person who commits the sin can pay the price for it. If someone accepts stand-in justice (like if someone accepted my mom going to jail for my wrongdoing) then that would make them a bad person. Since God is supposed to be a good person, he would not accept Jesus' suffering as sufficient for paying the price for my sins.
However, how could one person's suffering pay the price for someone else's sin?
If I murder someone, can I have my son go to jail for me? Or my parents even? No, if I commit a wrongdoing, then I am the one who has to pay. No one else can "pay the price" for my wrongdoing. If someone else is willing to suffer for me, that doesn't somehow magically get me off the hook.
Imagine if the judge would allow someone else to do my sentence for me. I get convicted and he says, "Okay, your mother can go to jail instead if she likes." If the judge accepted my mother going to jail instead of me for what I did wrong, that would make the judge a bad person. He would be saying, essentially, "I don't care who suffers for this wrong act, as long as someone does." Surely, this is not a good judge.
A good person would make sure that the person who suffers is the one who committed the crime. If someone else suffers, that does not somehow absolve the other person of their wrongdoing.
A good person would not accept stand-in justice. Stand-in justice is when person A does a wrong act but person B suffers because of person A's wrong act.
So, how is it that Jesus paid the price for my sins?
One may say that God decided that Jesus' suffering was sufficient to pay the price. However, that makes God evil. If the judge in my hypothetical story accepted my mother going to jail as sufficient, then that would make him a bad person. The same goes for God.
So, if God is good (and Christians say he is) then God would not accept Jesus' suffering as sufficient to pay for our sins. Only our own suffering would be sufficient.
One may say that God is being merciful to us because Jesus had to suffer. However, notice how that response doesn't work in my hypothetical scenario. If the judge saw my mom go to jail, he wouldn't be allowed to say, "Hey, okay she suffered so I can be merciful to you. If she didn't go to jail for you, then I couldn't be merciful to you." Surely, this does not work.
So, in conclusion, Jesus could not have paid the price for my sins. That is because only the person who commits the sin can pay the price for it. If someone accepts stand-in justice (like if someone accepted my mom going to jail for my wrongdoing) then that would make them a bad person. Since God is supposed to be a good person, he would not accept Jesus' suffering as sufficient for paying the price for my sins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
