(December 23, 2015 at 4:06 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Given the above premises I would assert that we're not responsible for not doing the good we can't do, we are responsible for doing the bad that we can do.
What do you mean by the good we "can't do"? Stuff that's just beyond our abilities, or stuff where God isn't "allowing" it?
If it's the latter, wouldn't it be God's fault that more good isn't being done?
What is the difference between not doing a good and actively doing bad? In some cases I think it might be obvious. Stealing from someone is bad, giving to someone is good (generally speaking), and doing neither seems somewhat neutral.
But I don't think everything works quite that way. Obviously, killing someone is bad. I'd say that saving someone from dying at no (serious) cost to yourself is good. But, what about not saving someone, if there's no serious cost to you? That doesn't strike me as "neutral". The closest thing I could see to that would be to declare that saving people at no real cost is neutral (and failing to is bad), but saving someone at a considerable cost to yourself is good (and failing to is neutral).
What are your thoughts on this?
