3 reasons not to do wrong - a thought experiment

[Arthur King]

Let’s say you are out one morning to water the plants in your front yard, and you happen to see your next door neighbor, Steve, over the fence.

“Hello!” you say.

Steve gives a very slow “Hi.” back and you notice he is still in his pajamas, hair disheveled, huge bags under his eyes, doesn’t look like he got a wink of sleep.

“You doing okay?” You ask.

“Oh man,” Steve says, “the neighbor on the other side of me was playing such loud music all night. I couldn’t get any sleep. Did you hear that?”

“Oh no,” you say, “I heard it a little bit but it wasn’t enough to bother me. Did you go talk to him?”

“Yeah, several times, but he just laughed at me and told me not to tell him what to do.”

“Well,” you say, “I think you should maybe call someone and file a complaint. That’s messed up.”

Then suddenly, Steve pulls a gun out of his robe.

“Filing a complaint won’t do it. This will solve the problem.”

Okay, so here is the thought experiment: how are you going to convince Steve note to murder his neighbor? What forces can you appeal to in order to motivate him not to commit this horrible wrongdoing? You might say "That is wrong!" or "That is a violation of rights!" but what exactly are you threatening him with by those phrases? Why do you expect references to "wrongness" or "rights" to motivate Steve not to kill his neighbor?

I will argue that there are essentially 3 forces in the world that we can appeal to in order to influence moral behavior. For purposes of analysis, it is not important how effective or convincing the forces are in motivating Steve not to shoot his neighbor. What is important is whether or not such forces exist, and how they function.

1. Good and Evil is the first force you can appeal to. I am using Good and Evil synonymously with Morality, Natural Law, or Created Order. That is to say, certain behaviors are intrinsically destructive because they violate the created order, and certain behaviors are intrinsically beneficial because they harmonize with the created order. Certain behaviors produce universal goods such as the survival of all and the holistic long term pleasure (happiness) for all, and other behaviors do not. Certain behaviors are healthy, and certain behaviors are harmful. So you might say, “Steve, committing murder will be destructive towards your neighbor, destructive towards the community, destructive towards your own soul, and destructive towards your relationship to God!”

2. Divine Justice is the second force you can appeal to. Justice refers to that which is owed based on promises made by persons, mainly promises to reward good actions and punish evil actions. These individual promises are called “rights.” Divine Justice means that God has made promises to reward certain actions and punish other actions, and in Christianity we believe these promises are ultimately fulfilled in the afterlife. Specifically, God has promised Restitution for damages done to the innocent, and Retribution for the guilty. This means damages done to the innocent God will repair with surplus, and he will return the damages of the guilty upon their own heads. “Steve, committing murder will make you liable to God’s promises of punishment, both in this life and the next!”

3. Human Justice, or Civil Rights, is the third force you can appeal to. Civil Rights are promises made by human beings to promote good actions and deter evil actions. “Steve, committing murder will mean you go to jail!”

These are the three categories of consequence to which you can appeal. Notice the distinction I am making between Goodness and Justice. Goodness refers to purpose, based in the Created Order. Justice refers to promise, based on promises by God or by human beings. When we say “Don’t do X because it is evil,” we are saying that X is intrinsically destructive and self-destructive as a violation of God's created order. When we say “Don’t do X because it is unjust,” we are saying that X will bring punishments, from God or from human beings. It is popular in the history of our philosophy to define Justice as a type of order intrinsic to the created order, but this is false. The created order is what Goodness/Morality refers to. Justice is based on promises.

See the attached chart on the differences between Goodness and Justice.

 

[Van]

Sadly, I do not think any of the three would exert influence upon an Atheist. Tribalism allows atheists to treat themselves and those they see are among their "tribe" one way, and everyone else another way. This appears to also be consistent with "natural law" as for example think how lions of a pride treat lions outside the pride.

Next, Divine Justice would be a non-starter.

Fear of retribution, i.e. human law enforcement, can be gutted by a culture believing law enforcement is an arm of oppression from outside the tribe. Today we are seeing an increase in crime by those who have been taught their impoverished condition is due to oppression, rather than cultural depravity.

 

[Arthur King]

Sadly, I do not think any of the three would exert influence upon an Atheist. Tribalism allows atheists to treat themselves and those they see are among their "tribe" one way, and everyone else another way. This appears to also be consistent with "natural law" as for example think how lions of a pride treat lions outside the pride.

Next, Divine Justice would be a non-starter.

Fear of retribution, i.e. human law enforcement, can be gutted by a culture believing law enforcement is an arm of oppression from outside the tribe. Today we are seeing an increase in crime by those who have been taught their impoverished condition is due to oppression, rather than cultural depravity.

"Tribalism allows atheists to treat themselves and those they see are among their "tribe" one way, and everyone else another way."

This would be a form of Human Justice. I agree it is not a good manner of human justice, but it is still humans promising to punish and reward behaviors they deem good or evil.

"This appears to also be consistent with "natural law" as for example think how lions of a pride treat lions outside the pride."

That isn't what natural law is. Natural law does not mean that we look to plants or animals for morality. It means that we understand there is such a thing a human nature - that is, a definition of a human being and what it means for humans, objectively, to survive and be happy. Therefore, there are behaviors that violate those objective goods, and produce unhappiness and death. An atheist could certainly be a moral realist and recognize that certain behaviors are healthy or harmful.

Where an atheist will falter is in (1) explaining where the universe and humans came from, and (2) why humans are "Godward" creatures. That is, why are we do fundamentally driven by a desire for God, if God does not exist? In other words, God is not necessary for objective moral values to exist, but God is necessary to explain why the universe itself exists, and why we have the type of objective morality that we, in fact, do have.

 

[Van]

"This appears to also be consistent with "natural law" as for example think how lions of a pride treat lions outside the pride."

That isn't what natural law is. Natural law does not mean that we look to plants or animals for morality. It means that we understand there is such a thing a human nature - that is, a definition of a human being and what it means for humans, objectively, to survive and be happy. Therefore, SNIP

I have noticed that those who operate depraved organizations, socialist governments, BLM, Democrat Party get the "lion's share of the proceeds, which is according to human fallen nature. I believe being fallen has a deluding influence resulting in a "me first" justification. Who will set us free from the power of darkness?

Mine eyes have seen the glory....

 

[Arthur King]

I have noticed that those who operate depraved organizations, socialist governments, BLM, Democrat Party get the "lion's share of the proceeds, which is according to human fallen nature. I believe being fallen has a deluding influence resulting in a "me first" justification. Who will set us free from the power of darkness?

Mine eyes have seen the glory....

Yes, we are fallen. But that does not mean human nature itself, properly defined, is bad. That is impossible, as human nature was created by God. Human nature is the good thing corrupted by the fall.

Human nature simply means the definition of what it means to be human. The way God made us and intended us. Human nature is by definition good. When we sin, we behave contrary to human nature.

 

[JonC]

Yes, we are fallen. But that does not mean human nature itself, properly defined, is bad. That is impossible, as human nature was created by God. Human nature is the good thing corrupted by the fall.

Human nature simply means the definition of what it means to be human. The way God made us and intended us. Human nature is by definition good. When we sin, we behave contrary to human nature.

Good point.

When people sin they sometimes say "we're only human". The idea that to be human is to "miss the mark" is engrained in our vocabulary (there are songs by this title) and being human is associated with sin.

But the truth is when we sin we become less than human. That is the problem of man. Without Christ we are less than human.

 

[Van]

Yes, we are fallen. But that does not mean human nature itself, properly defined, is bad. That is impossible, as human nature was created by God. Human nature is the good thing corrupted by the fall.

Human nature simply means the definition of what it means to be human. The way God made us and intended us. Human nature is by definition good. When we sin, we behave contrary to human nature.

Scripture disagrees with this position. We, as fallen humans, were by "nature" children of wrath. That means in God's eyes we are bad, deserving punishment. We were made sinners. That means we are bad. Certainly scripture says we, as fallen humans could do both good deeds or bad deeds, but I see no way to avoid the conclusion as fallen sinners, we are by nature bad in God's eyes.

I have noticed that those who operate depraved organizations, socialist governments, BLM, Democrat Party get the "lion's share of the proceeds, which is according to human fallen nature. I believe being fallen has a deluding influence resulting in a "me first" justification. Who will set us free from the power of darkness?

As fallen, we have fleshly lusts, and they are not good.

Is God all powerful, or is He unable to make or allow bad stuff. Does He cause calamity? Did He make fallen humans sinners? The argument since God made us initially in His image, we could not be subsequently made into a corrupted image is without merit.

 

[JonC]

I think you may need to define "children of wrath" here.

I view the term as referring to the Judgment where the wicked are ultimately "cast into the outer darkness". But I am not sure that this is referring to human nature itself rather than sinfulness (sinful man).

Maybe I'm leaning too much on the idea of trees bearing fruit (the trees bearing bad fruit are uprooted and burned, as opposed to the trees bearing good fruit).

 

[Van]

I think you may need to define "children of wrath" here.

I view the term as referring to the Judgment where the wicked are ultimately "cast into the outer darkness". But I am not sure that this is referring to human nature itself rather than sinfulness (sinful man).

Maybe I'm leaning too much on the idea of trees bearing fruit (the trees bearing bad fruit are uprooted and burned, as opposed to the trees bearing good fruit).

Yes, you seem to be leaning on the fact fallen people can do good deeds, such as giving a good gift to their child, but we remain unless saved, by our fallen nature children of wrath, or children deserving punishment not because we never did anything good or bad, or never did anything good, but because of our condition of being made sinners, condemned already for unbelief.

To be "sold under sin" indicates a past transaction resulted in us, as fallen individuals, being in a condition required by the consequence of sin.

 

[JonC]

To be "sold under sin" indicates a past transaction resulted in us, as fallen individuals,

Yes, you seem to be leaning on the fact fallen people can do good deeds, such as giving a good gift to their child, but we remain unless saved, by our fallen nature children of wrath, or children deserving punishment not because we never did anything good or bad, or never did anything good, but because of our condition of being made sinners, condemned already for unbelief.

I was actually leaning the other way - that man (apart from Christ) is less than human and can only produce bad fruit.

I don't mean men are unable to do good in relation to other men (even evil men, for example, can love their children...an atheist may care for the poor). But in relation to God man cannot do good apart from Christ.

I am calling unnatural man (fallen man) the trees that bear bad fruit, already condemned, and in danger of God's wrath at Judgment.

 

[Van]

I was actually leaning the other way - that man (apart from Christ) is less than human and can only produce bad fruit.

I don't mean men are unable to do good in relation to other men (even evil men, for example, can love their children...an atheist may care for the poor). But in relation to God man cannot do good apart from Christ.

I am calling unnatural man (fallen man) the trees that bear bad fruit, already condemned, and in danger of God's wrath at Judgment.

Sorry, but I am unable to follow the logic, if fallen man by nature can only bear bad fruit, then how do they seek God and trust in Christ? As long as we are in the natural man condition, not indwelt, we have limited ability but it exists to bear "good fruit" i.e. faith sufficient such that God may credit it as righteousness. Now I am not saying our faith is anything but a dirty rag to God, but He can turn a sows ear into a silk purse. Thus we can bear the fruit of a sows ear...

As I said before He can free us (those still in a fallen state) from the power of darkness.

 

[Arthur King]

Scripture disagrees with this position. We, as fallen humans, were by "nature" children of wrath. That means in God's eyes we are bad, deserving punishment. We were made sinners. That means we are bad. Certainly scripture says we, as fallen humans could do both good deeds or bad deeds, but I see no way to avoid the conclusion as fallen sinners, we are by nature bad in God's eyes.

I have noticed that those who operate depraved organizations, socialist governments, BLM, Democrat Party get the "lion's share of the proceeds, which is according to human fallen nature. I believe being fallen has a deluding influence resulting in a "me first" justification. Who will set us free from the power of darkness?

As fallen, we have fleshly lusts, and they are not good.

Is God all powerful, or is He unable to make or allow bad stuff. Does He cause calamity? Did He make fallen humans sinners? The argument since God made us initially in His image, we could not be subsequently made into a corrupted image is without merit.

Distinction between human nature and sin nature.

Calling humans "good" or "bad" is too vague to be meaningful.

Humans were created good. Human nature is good. But humans have fallen, and so our nature is corrupted. We have a sin nature. We are dead in our transgressions and sins. We are born into a world that is under the judgments of God, being exiled from Paradise and His Presence, and therefore "children of wrath."

But human nature is still good. Human nature is the moral standard that humans ought to live up to, that we fail to live up to, and that we can have in Christ.

God cannot sin or author sin. Sin did not originate with God. God can ordain events in which sins and injustices take place, without himself being the author of sin.

 

[JonC]

Sorry, but I am unable to follow the logic, if fallen man by nature can only bear bad fruit, then how do they seek God and trust in Christ? As long as we are in the natural man condition, not indwelt, we have limited ability but it exists to bear "good fruit" i.e. faith sufficient such that God may credit it as righteousness. Now I am not saying our faith is anything but a dirty rag to God, but He can turn a sows ear into a silk purse. Thus we can bear the fruit of a sows ear...

As I said before He can free us (those still in a fallen state) from the power of darkness.

Actually, Arthur provided much of my answer. I'd add that I believe God calls man to Himself. We did not seek Him. He sought us.

I am actually not sure that we disagree, Van.

 

[Van]

Here again is my view of the OP assertion:
I do not think any of the three would exert influence upon an Atheist. Tribalism allows atheists to treat themselves and those they see are among their "tribe" one way, and everyone else another way. This appears to also be consistent with "natural law" as for example think how lions of a pride treat lions outside the pride.

Next, Divine Justice would be a non-starter.

Fear of retribution, i.e. human law enforcement, can be gutted by a culture believing law enforcement is an arm of oppression from outside the tribe. Today we are seeing an increase in crime by those who have been taught their impoverished condition is due to oppression, rather than cultural depravity.

I have noticed that those who operate depraved organizations, socialist governments, BLM, Democrat Party get the "lion's share of the proceeds, which is according to human fallen nature. I believe being fallen has a deluding influence resulting in a "me first" justification. Who will set us free from the power of darkness? Who will deny the power of darkness?