God's Omniscience: Ends Justify Means?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Is Biblical morality actually an ends-justify-means morality, with the small caveat that you have to be absolutely certain of what the ends will be?

If so, this would explain God's special moral privilege. God, and only God, can do whatever he wants in service of his ends, not only because his goals are ultimately good, but because he alone can be absolutely certain he will achieve them. This would explain why mortals do not have the same moral privilege, and why we're not supposed to murder to achieve our ends. It's not because our ends are necessarily evil, but because, even if we have good goals, we can't be absolutely certain this act will actually achieve that goal. And isn't it inherent in the idea that "ends justify the means" that those ends must actually be achieved?

But here's a real doozy of a sub-question: Is it even logically possible for a being to know for certain if it is really omniscient? It knows everything it knows, but isn't the idea that this is all... fundamentally an assumption? Isn't it logically necessary that for any being, "I am omniscient," simply assumes nothing exists outside the breadth of its knowledge, when it always might? I exist in three spatial dimensions: Length, width, and breadth. I can't say there aren't four, or five, or twenty million dimensions of space, and critters flying around me in the "new upward" where I can't possibly crane my neck and look, but they can still reach down, and affect me. God exists in, what, 26 spatial dimensions? Can he say there aren't 27? It's possible to never have made a mistake. It's possible to never have got one thing wrong in your life. But is it possible to say this trend will necessarily, absolutely continue, with 100% certainty?

...And if it can't make that determination, that it is omniscient, with 100% certainty, doesn't that then cast its actions for the sake of its grand Plan, in the same light as any of our actions, when we do something horrid to try and achieve a better end?

[Purple Knight]

(In this example, he is saying that there is no justifying killing 5 or 10 people to save 100, when killing 1 person achieves the End.)

So what do you do, when you don't know for sure how many you need to kill? Kill as many as possible to as best as possible, ensure the good outcome, or lowball your estimate and potentially kill people for nothing?

Hence it should hold for human action as well. i.e., we too should kill if that is what is called for to achieve the goal. There is a time and place for every thing, right?

Well not according to God. God calls people never to commit murder. But he does it all the time as long as he's got a good reason. I was thinking, the only way this special privilege tracks as any kind of morality at all, and not just might-makes-right, is if the ends justify the means, but we're too stupid to figure out when we can achieve what ends, so we're just called to never hurt anybody no matter what.

But then we have the pesky question to answer about whether God can reliably do that, either, since nobody can guarantee that they themselves are omniscient.

[theophile]

Hence it should hold for human action as well. i.e., we too should kill if that is what is called for to achieve the goal. There is a time and place for every thing, right?

Well not according to God. God calls people never to commit murder. But he does it all the time as long as he's got a good reason. I was thinking, the only way this special privilege tracks as any kind of morality at all, and not just might-makes-right, is if the ends justify the means, but we're too stupid to figure out when we can achieve what ends, so we're just called to never hurt anybody no matter what.

But then we have the pesky question to answer about whether God can reliably do that, either, since nobody can guarantee that they themselves are omniscient.

I don't think your characterization of why the law was given is wrong per se, i.e., "we're too stupid to figure out when we can achieve what ends," but it does push the law (or our stupidity) too far. i.e., we may often be too stupid (hence the law is given), but we are nevertheless called to put off these training wheels and discern the way for ourselves, and to take the risks that come with it. We are expected to overcome our stupidity...

Hence why we see a man, Jesus, breaking the law even as he fulfills it, and calling us to follow him. He does this by doing what the law was always intended to achieve, by focusing on the goal that it points toward, even if it means going against what the law explicitly says. (Like working on the Sabbath, or forgiving the adulteress, all of which transgresses the law but also fulfills its intent, which is life. Same with killing -- this too may be the way in certain circumstances, even though the law tells us the general rule is not to do it.)

[TRANSPONDER]

I see this as the problem and downfall with Christian morality. Sure, human attempts at a workable morality have been makeshift at best, but does religious morality do any better? The appeal to be plaster saints may work as an ideal but fails in practice. Paul found that out quickly enough.

I find it's too easy; a built in cheat; to just say 'We must all be perfectly good' and then claim that as some superior moral code, not to mention some cosmic truth, especially when those who claim to follow, carry out and exemplify that ethos turn out no better than the human moralists and at times, worse.

[1213]

The question is "Is Biblical morality actually an ends-justify-means morality."

I would like to see example of morality, that can't be called "an ends-justify-means morality.

Utilitarianism.

I think that is a good example of an ends-justify-means morality, anything is good, if causes maximum amount of happiness. With that you could justify many evil things.

... even killing the babies and cattle - just to stop a few bad actors.

I don't think there is any good reason to think Bible says killing babies is just to stop a few bad actors.

Why does Evil still exist? Why does God allegedly allow evil to exist? How would you solve the Problem of Evil?

I don't think evil is a problem. In Biblical point of view people wanted to know evil and that is why people were expelled to this first death. This is just a short lesson where we can see what evil truly means. And those who are, or become righteous, can after this go back to life. Evil is not a problem, because it can't destroy our souls, which is the important thing.

And you should not fear the ones killing the body, but not being able to kill the soul. But rather fear Him being able to destroy both soul and body in Hell.
Matt. 10:28

What was achieved by the Flood? What End?

Evil beings were destroyed so that they could not continue in doing evil.

When has he stopped evil? Seems it's still here. Just millions dead because he thought it would work - then he thought the sacrifice of one person would work.

Those evil beings were stopped. Now, if after that other beings choose evil, the same end is waiting also for them. Bible doesn't say the goal was to make it impossible for anyone to become evil ever.

Did he try softening hearts, instead of hardening them? Has he really exhausted all options? For example, invite each of us up to Heaven to see what it's like and let us decide? Why is his method the same as every other religion's method: you are born into a religion and have to promise fidelity to the story your parents sell you?

I that would work, I think God would do so.

Also, softening hearts may sound good, but the way how it is achieved is not necessary good. For example in the case of pharaoh, his heart was softened when there was calamities. I believe also hearts of modern people could soften, when situation is bad, but do you really hope that God sends calamities for people just to soften their hearts?

I mentioned one. I could expand. Like, simply having Jesus come to Earth for generations, never age, do legitimate miracles, etc. He could be present - not a character in a book.

Many others, too. Send angels. Use ESP. I'm sure God could be even more creative.

I don't think that would cause any good change.

[boatsnguitars]

The question is "Is Biblical morality actually an ends-justify-means morality."

I would like to see example of morality, that can't be called "an ends-justify-means morality.

Utilitarianism.

I think that is a good example of an ends-justify-means morality, anything is good, if causes maximum amount of happiness. With that you could justify many evil things.

No, because the negative impact to others is part of the equation. Cutting off ones arm to cure a hangnail isn't justified under utilitarianism since it not having an arm is worse Utility than having a hangnail.
Would you like to argue otherwise?

Consider:
Matthew 18:9 NIV
And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

While it might be true that gouging out your own eye might stop you from sinning (scientifically, this is absurd), there is a question as whether this is the best solution to avoid Hell (which doesn't exist).

Clearly, a Utilitarian might decide this is the best solution, but it wouldn't include chopping off all other body parts, or plucking out the eyes of others, etc.

That is, the means aren't justified to meet the End, under Utilitarianism. The means are proportional to the ends.

... even killing the babies and cattle - just to stop a few bad actors.

I don't think there is any good reason to think Bible says killing babies is just to stop a few bad actors.

Why does Evil still exist? Why does God allegedly allow evil to exist? How would you solve the Problem of Evil?

I don't think evil is a problem. In Biblical point of view people wanted to know evil and that is why people were expelled to this first death. This is just a short lesson where we can see what evil truly means. And those who are, or become righteous, can after this go back to life. Evil is not a problem, because it can't destroy our souls, which is the important thing.

And you should not fear the ones killing the body, but not being able to kill the soul. But rather fear Him being able to destroy both soul and body in Hell.
Matt. 10:28

What was achieved by the Flood? What End?

Evil beings were destroyed so that they could not continue in doing evil.

When has he stopped evil? Seems it's still here. Just millions dead because he thought it would work - then he thought the sacrifice of one person would work.

Those evil beings were stopped. Now, if after that other beings choose evil, the same end is waiting also for them. Bible doesn't say the goal was to make it impossible for anyone to become evil ever.

Did he try softening hearts, instead of hardening them? Has he really exhausted all options? For example, invite each of us up to Heaven to see what it's like and let us decide? Why is his method the same as every other religion's method: you are born into a religion and have to promise fidelity to the story your parents sell you?

I that would work, I think God would do so.

Also, softening hearts may sound good, but the way how it is achieved is not necessary good. For example in the case of pharaoh, his heart was softened when there was calamities. I believe also hearts of modern people could soften, when situation is bad, but do you really hope that God sends calamities for people just to soften their hearts?

I mentioned one. I could expand. Like, simply having Jesus come to Earth for generations, never age, do legitimate miracles, etc. He could be present - not a character in a book.

Many others, too. Send angels. Use ESP. I'm sure God could be even more creative.

I don't think that would cause any good change.

Why not? What does God do in Heaven to keep people from sinning?

[TRANSPONDER]

The problem is that in the OT God sends evils, not to make people more moral but to make them more obedient. The NT seems to want people to be more Moral because, Frankly, God is not on the side of the Authorities, because the people who write the Bible were not popular with the authorities.

In other words, the God of the Bible, OT and New are gods created and re - created in the own image of the writers.

The Bible may have once looked like a handy moral guide, but not any more. I was watching a vid on decline of religion, because the old PEW figures came up in a post recently, and the online discussion got onto philosophy and morals and ethics, and I lost interest, especially when the speaker got onto Socrates and Plato, because frankly, while those bods were to be praised in their their initial efforts to reason, the problem was, ihey truly did not know what they were talking about. They did not understand what things were and how they worked. They struggled with Euthyphro because they did not know what morality was. A cosmic law that stood on its'own merits? Then Gods were irrelevant or should be judged according to Cosmic moral law (and doesn't that apply to OT god, just?) or morals was the opinion of a god, in which case it has no intrinsic merit.

Now we understand better the relation of morals and ethics to biology, instinct, evolution and DNA. Gods have no relevance and Holy Books are no valid guide. It is not easy nor ever was, to have a good morality much less make it stick, but at least we can see what we are dealing with instead of trying to make an unworkable god - morality work, never mind using it to manipulate, control and exploit, peoples.

[Purple Knight]

A cosmic law that stood on its own merits? Then Gods were irrelevant or should be judged according to Cosmic moral law (and doesn't that apply to OT god, just?) or morals was the opinion of a god, in which case it has no intrinsic merit.

This is exactly the dilemma I have about religion, hence the OP. Exactly. If morality is simply what God wants, because he's powerful, then it is not morality at all, but might-makes-right. If morality stands on its own, then God may exist but at best we don't need him, and at worst he's sitting up there trying to confuse us about morality to win a bet because he's actually the Devil.

The only way this is solved is if it's ends-justify-means at the very top, and God's special knowledge is what provides his special moral privilege.

I still argue that this can't entirely solve the issue because no being can guarantee its own omniscience.

[theophile]

A cosmic law that stood on its own merits? Then Gods were irrelevant or should be judged according to Cosmic moral law (and doesn't that apply to OT god, just?) or morals was the opinion of a god, in which case it has no intrinsic merit.

This is exactly the dilemma I have about religion, hence the OP. Exactly. If morality is simply what God wants, because he's powerful, then it is not morality at all, but might-makes-right. If morality stands on its own, then God may exist but at best we don't need him, and at worst he's sitting up there trying to confuse us about morality to win a bet because he's actually the Devil.

The only way this is solved is if it's ends-justify-means at the very top, and God's special knowledge is what provides his special moral privilege.

I still argue that this can't entirely solve the issue because no being can guarantee its own omniscience.

What God wants is moral not because God says so (and because God is all powerful), but because the end that God seeks is one that we can stand behind, and join in on. It's more a path to objectivity through universal (subjective) acclaim, than it is anything intrinsic to the goal or ordained by God that makes it so.

[1213]

No, because the negative impact to others is part of the equation. Cutting off ones arm to cure a hangnail isn't justified under utilitarianism since it not having an arm is worse Utility than having a hangnail.
Would you like to argue otherwise?

I think it could be used to justify for example killing of a group of people that majority doesn't like. When the idea is to maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals, one could argue that it is achieved by killing for example people who annoy some people. It could be also used to limit freedom of people and for example to control number of population. However, in many cases it can become very arbitrary, because the idea of maximum happiness is very subjective.

Consider:
Matthew 18:9 NIV
And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

While it might be true that gouging out your own eye might stop you from sinning (scientifically, this is absurd), there is a question as whether this is the best solution to avoid Hell (which doesn't exist).

Clearly, a Utilitarian might decide this is the best solution, but it wouldn't include chopping off all other body parts, or plucking out the eyes of others, etc.

That is, the means aren't justified to meet the End, under Utilitarianism. The means are proportional to the ends.

So, you think amputation is not a good idea, it would be better to let person die than amputate? In some cases I think it really could maximize persons happiness and well-being, although I hope no one would have to make that decision. however, I think Bible is not recommending people to cut their body parts, only showing that consequences of sin can be more severe than losing eyes.

Why not? What does God do in Heaven to keep people from sinning?

It seems to me that you would like God to be similar tyrant as world leaders. I think God wanted people to be free. That means they can choose good or evil. But, God has sent people to teach how to live well. For some reason many people love evil more than good. I think it is nice that God allowed people to choose.

[TRANSPONDER]

A cosmic law that stood on its own merits? Then Gods were irrelevant or should be judged according to Cosmic moral law (and doesn't that apply to OT god, just?) or morals was the opinion of a god, in which case it has no intrinsic merit.

This is exactly the dilemma I have about religion, hence the OP. Exactly. If morality is simply what God wants, because he's powerful, then it is not morality at all, but might-makes-right. If morality stands on its own, then God may exist but at best we don't need him, and at worst he's sitting up there trying to confuse us about morality to win a bet because he's actually the Devil.

The only way this is solved is if it's ends-justify-means at the very top, and God's special knowledge is what provides his special moral privilege.

I still argue that this can't entirely solve the issue because no being can guarantee its own omniscience.

This is the God knows best apologetic. One debate I had ended with it is all good (even the bad) because Goid's plan is good in the end.The ultimate in end justifies the means. Something of the best of all possible worlds.

There is a mess of denial here as reason would ask 'this is the very best that God could come up with?' Never mind that God messed up in Genesis quite plainly (he should have begun with Noah or Abraham to have a Righteous person to produce a righteous human species) we only have a claim that God's plan is any good and he isn't working blind.

The apologetics are faithbased and demand falsification of the unfalsifiable (there is a divine plan and it is Good) and such apolgetics are defiance, denial and little more than thumbing the nose at atheist 'You can't disprove the undisprovable'. But it was never about disproving the believer which they will never accept even with compelling evidence, but about the case that can be made to Moe public.