On May 5, 5:17 pm, SM <[email protected]> wrote: > anti-capitalist comedian? Isn't that an oxymoron? :)
Here's a Bolshevik joke I read from a recent article in the New Statesman by Slavoj Zizek: '... the old Bolshevik joke about a communist propagandist who, after his death, finds himself in hell, where he quickly convinces the guards to let him leave and go to heaven. When the devil notices his absence, he pays a visit to God, demanding that He return to hell what belongs to Satan. However, as soon as he addresses God as "my Lord", God interrupts him: "First, I am not 'Lord', but a comrade. Second, are you crazy, talking to fictions? I don't exist! And third, be short -- otherwise, I'll miss my party cell meeting!" ' http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2010/04/god-order-wisdom-paul-love (Why am I reading the New Statesman? Because I work at a place that receives lots of extra magazines of all kinds, and some of them we throw away.) Not a very funny joke, but it sounds like I'm not the only anti- capitalist who tries to be funny. > I thought this might be a good example to work with since it's obviously > difficult for us to comprehend omniscience and omnipotence, but even if we > can't imagine ourselves amiably and placidly watching someone steal our > stuff in the way that Bridge describes, I believe we can still relate to > some degree. Again, I think it's helpful to use this story because we can > better relate to Bridge's position, than God's. Let's try to benefit from > it while we can. It's a nice position. I approve of Bridge's decision to consider the theft a donation. It just doesn't help us understand the responsibilities that an omniscient, omnipotent creator would have for the consequences of his creation. > I didn't mention the following because I thought it obvious, but at some > point, perhaps for only a brief moment or two before it happened, it > occurred to Bridge that the kid would possibly steal his basketball > (~omniscience). I don't know for certain that Bridge is an adult that can > 'take care of himself', but it doesn't seem a stretch to imagine that Bridge > probably could have stopped the kid if he wanted to, since he says that he > "allowed him to take it" (~omnipotence). Are you using the tilde symbol to mean "approximately equal to" or "not equal to"? The wikipedia entry about tilde is not clarifying it for me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilde > Once it became clear to Bridge that the kid was going to steal the > basketball, Bridge could have taken action but chose not to. This does not > make Bridge even a little bit morally responsible for the kid's decision, > and it doesn't reduce the kid's responsibility any either. Bridge retained > the full right and justification to pursue prosecution and the kid still > deserved the appropriate punishment. It's still different from perfect foreknowledge of a situation by a person who is capable of preventing the situation in the first place. For example, imagine if Bridge had a different attitude and felt that he should catch the kid or try to track him down and punish him. A person who felt that way might be kicking himself for leaving the basketball in a place where the kid could get it. Some of this depends on details that haven't been provided. Is this a ball lying in the gutter or on the sidewalk or front yard all day? Did Bridge turn for a moment and the child stole it from five feet in front of him? Or was the ball inside a locked fence which the kid had to scale to steal the ball? I left my snow shovel inside my fence by a busy sidewalk last winter, with a gate that I always leave open. It's a short fence that only goes around a few sides of my side lot, so there's no point in locking the gate. Anyone could climb it or hop it or walk around if they wanted to. Someone stole the shovel, and I still hold them responsible, but I was stupid to leave it right next to the sidewalk like that. I knew the risks of leaving it there, and these days I make sure to lock tools away when I'm done with them. Depending on details, it might have been a blatant "daylight robbery" that went out of the way to pick locks or evade Bridge's security precautions, or Bridge might have been so lax that anyone could expect it to get stolen. Sometimes my neighbors leave their basketball lying in the street by the curb overnight, right in front of their basketball hoop (which is set up so they can play in the street). If it wasn't right next to one of those mobile hoops on rollers, a person passing by might fairly wonder if it was an abandoned ball, which is a little different from stealing a ball that you know or suspect belongs to someone. Anyway, what I'm rambling about is that some people would hold themselves partly responsible even if they felt the kid had knowingly robbed them. "I shouldn't have left it out by the road. I shouldn't have left it on the porch where anyone could grab it. I should have locked it in the house. I should have put a better lock on the house." etc. If a jewel thief breaks in, "I should have hid my safe somewhere better than behind the painting, and I should have bought a more expensive one that was hard to break into." Sometimes people feel partly responsible for knowing the risks they take or the probabilities that their actions will result in some crime. It doesn't mean the thief or criminal is absolved of the crime. So even with humans using their limited knowledge, we sometimes know the risks and have expectations that our actions lead to a crime being more easily committed against us. Most people see some partial responsibility in those situations. It's only partial because our knowledge is limited and our power to stop things are limited. Even when we devise newer and better locks and security measures, other people are always devising ways around them. When the situation is an omniscient, omnipotent being who has perfect knowledge of everything that will result from his actions, when nothing other than him exists in the universe until he creates it, and he has perfect control over the full situation, then he is responsible for the consequences. He knows that they will happen. He designs and implements every aspect of the situation knowing what the result will be. If it matters when someone is unfairly killed or lied to or their property stolen, then God could have prevented it from happening. If it's part of some larger plan or test just to see whether individuals will kill or lie or steal, then it sounds like an arbitrary morality, one where the actual consequences don't matter to the victims, only to the perpetrators. Which goes against the whole idea of morality. Why is it important for anyone at any time to stick with a certain moral rule if it's acceptable for some people in some times to skip that rule? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A Civil Religious Debate" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en.
