From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Superstitious Fantasies vs. Ethics
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:44:55 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> If "god" were to command you to kill a group of men, women, and 
rl> children, while refusing to explain his reasons, would you obey 
rl> his command?  Or, would you disobey?

Mike Linan writes:
jve> Does this serve any more purpose than your Space Invaders question?
jve> What makes you think that when "God" tells Mike to kill these people
jve> that "God" would not have a valid reason for doing so, such as these
jve> "men, women, and children" are all ax-murderers, in which case Mike
jve> might be justified in following "God's" orders?

rl> Perhaps.  On the other hand, let's suppose that these men, women, 
rl> and children were innocent human beings, and that "god" was 
rl> merely seeking to develop Mike Linan's faith, having decided that 
rl> the victims' lives were no longer productive in terms of his own 
rl> plans.  
rl> 
rl> In such a case, would the killing be justifiable, given the 
rl> commandment of "god"?  Or conversely, would it be more accurate 
rl> to say that "god" and Mike would be guilty of violating the 
rl> rights of these innocent people and unjustly depriving them of 
rl> their lives?  

From article <16rrjrINN8ss@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Justifiable or guilty in whose eyes?  Ultimately God is the one who 
ml> decides what is just or who is guilty of evil doings. Your judgments
ml> of such actions will make no difference other than perhaps on what hap-
ml> pens to the perpetrator's life here on earth.  Unless you do believe in
ml> God I don't expect you to believe or understand this concept.  

I still don't understand why you think your particular "god" 
could rightfully authorize you to kill men, women, and children, 
as well as animals, without explaining his reasons.  If it's 
acceptable for you to kill men, women, and children at the behest 
of your "god", it seems to me that it must also be acceptable for 
someone else to kill Mike Linan in the name of their "god"?  
Unless, of course, you're claiming some special priviledge that 
you're unwilling to extend to other gods and goddesses.  

It's also apparent that your concept of rights differs 
dramatically from the sort of personal rights that most americans 
claim to cherish.  To illustrate, I would value the personal 
right of any person, John Van Etten for instance, to use his own 
mind and body as he sees fit.  To my way of thinking John's mind 
is the owner John's body.  You, on the other hand, apparently 
believe that John's body belongs to your "god" and that your 
"god" can treat John any way he sees fit, if it suits his divine 
convenience.  The property rights of your god apparently superceed 
John's personal rights.  Is that not so?

Once again, let's consider the commandment, "Thou shalt not suffer
a witch to live".  If you agree that "god" has the right to issue
such a commandment (via spokespersons like yourself, of course),
how would this fit in with the concept of religious freedom?

rl> In both the "space invaders" question and the "god" question, I
rl> expect you and/or Mike to explain how/why it's reasonable to
rl> judge an action by examining the "status" of the perpetrator 
rl> rather than analyzing the practical consequences of the action
rl> on the affected individuals.  

ml> You ask for evidence of a belief.  That is why it's called faith.  If
ml> there were empirical facts to prove God existed and you were to do as
ml> he commanded, how much *faith* would that take.  You see a man standing
ml> in front of a train and when the train comes he is struck and killed. 
ml> How much faith does it take to realize that if you stand where he stood
ml> the train would do the same to you?  

You've implied that Mike Linan's "god" has a rightful claim on 
the lives of every thinking/feeling individual in the universe 
(both human and non-human), and hence, that Mike Linan's "god" 
can grant Mike Linan the authority to use or misuse all these 
individuals as he sees fit.  That's a pretty convenient setup.  
It's also convenient that the concept of "faith" relieves you of 
the necessity of proving that your "god" isn't merely a figment 
of someone's imagination.  

It's easy to see why your concept of "rights" would ultimately
depend on physical power rather than factual evidence and reasonable
arguments.  Sooner or later, you'd find yourself in a direct
confrontation with someone who would insist that you're the property
of _his_ god, while vehemently denying that your god is anything but
an impostor.  And, of course, he'd insist that this is a matter
of faith.

You'd be right at home in the early 17th century, Mike.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals