Omni-qualities and morality
December 31, 2011 at 2:17 am
(This post was last modified: December 31, 2011 at 2:47 am by Jackalope.)
Questions to ponder -
Consider a hypothetical omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity who is the creator of all of the cosmos and life within it, who is also the ultimate source of all morality. For the sake of argument, we'll call him Joe. Joe gives (some of) the life forms he created the ability to reason and the free will to decide for themselves what they believe. Joe does not unambiguously reveal himself or his moral code to the life forms he created.
Within the constraints of that definition....
Is it possible for Joe to make a mistake?
Is it possible for Joe to change his mind? Under what circumstances?
Under what circumstances might Joe alter his moral code?
Is Joe bound to any moral code? If so, could Joe perfom an act which would be against the moral code his creation is bound to? Could he instruct/require mortals to do so?
Is it moral for Joe to bind life forms to his moral code, and punish/reward them according to their (non-)belief and (non-)worship?
I recognize that this hypothetical exercise is problematic from the start - in that there's wiggle room with respect to the definition of certain terms used. It's a philosophical exercise that I've been noodling over for awhile and wanted to get written down. With the understanding that the exercise is flawed, I'm going to try and get my part of this mental exercise started...
As Joe is both omnibenevolent (all-good) and the ultimate source of morality, logically I believe that it's reasonable to conclude that Joe cannot perform an act that is not good and moral. By definition, whatever Joe does is good and moral, no matter how it may offend our mortal sensibilities.
Is it not then reasonable to conclude that if Joe performs an act, which by definition must be good and moral, that it is also good and moral for his mortal creations to perform the same act? Certainly if Joe were bound to the same definition of good and morality as his mortal creations, it would logically follow - provided that Joe's moral code is not subjective. It would seem that logically what is good for the goose, is good for the gander - if an objective standard for good exists.
Consider Joe's qualities of omnipotence and omniscience. Joe has the power to do whatever he wishes, and perfect knowledge of the future, past, and present. Is it logical to conclude that a being who has perfect information, and absolute power to do anything could not perform an act which had unintended consequences. Joe has the power to put any parameters on creation he wants, and the perfect knowledge of how it will turn out. I can only conclude that Joe cannot possibly make a mistake by performing an act which does not turn out exactly as he knows it will.
Under what circumstances might Joe change his mind? Keeping in mind the conclusion that Joe cannot make a mistake, I do not think that Joe would ever find it necessary to change his mind, given that he is acting with absolute power and perfect information - that is, unless he was acting without purpose and a plan. In other words, I think it would be necessary for Joe to be acting in an ad hoc fashion in order for him to consider changing his mind.
Consider a hypothetical omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity who is the creator of all of the cosmos and life within it, who is also the ultimate source of all morality. For the sake of argument, we'll call him Joe. Joe gives (some of) the life forms he created the ability to reason and the free will to decide for themselves what they believe. Joe does not unambiguously reveal himself or his moral code to the life forms he created.
Within the constraints of that definition....
Is it possible for Joe to make a mistake?
Is it possible for Joe to change his mind? Under what circumstances?
Under what circumstances might Joe alter his moral code?
Is Joe bound to any moral code? If so, could Joe perfom an act which would be against the moral code his creation is bound to? Could he instruct/require mortals to do so?
Is it moral for Joe to bind life forms to his moral code, and punish/reward them according to their (non-)belief and (non-)worship?
I recognize that this hypothetical exercise is problematic from the start - in that there's wiggle room with respect to the definition of certain terms used. It's a philosophical exercise that I've been noodling over for awhile and wanted to get written down. With the understanding that the exercise is flawed, I'm going to try and get my part of this mental exercise started...
As Joe is both omnibenevolent (all-good) and the ultimate source of morality, logically I believe that it's reasonable to conclude that Joe cannot perform an act that is not good and moral. By definition, whatever Joe does is good and moral, no matter how it may offend our mortal sensibilities.
Is it not then reasonable to conclude that if Joe performs an act, which by definition must be good and moral, that it is also good and moral for his mortal creations to perform the same act? Certainly if Joe were bound to the same definition of good and morality as his mortal creations, it would logically follow - provided that Joe's moral code is not subjective. It would seem that logically what is good for the goose, is good for the gander - if an objective standard for good exists.
Consider Joe's qualities of omnipotence and omniscience. Joe has the power to do whatever he wishes, and perfect knowledge of the future, past, and present. Is it logical to conclude that a being who has perfect information, and absolute power to do anything could not perform an act which had unintended consequences. Joe has the power to put any parameters on creation he wants, and the perfect knowledge of how it will turn out. I can only conclude that Joe cannot possibly make a mistake by performing an act which does not turn out exactly as he knows it will.
Under what circumstances might Joe change his mind? Keeping in mind the conclusion that Joe cannot make a mistake, I do not think that Joe would ever find it necessary to change his mind, given that he is acting with absolute power and perfect information - that is, unless he was acting without purpose and a plan. In other words, I think it would be necessary for Joe to be acting in an ad hoc fashion in order for him to consider changing his mind.
