For those who still do not understand morality, let me give you a classic problem for which I owe Professor Ralph Byrns of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill the credit for developing. My retelling of it will undoubtedly suffer in comparison to his exceptional original but I shall endeavor in any case:
"How many of you would not kill your mothers for any price?"
I go on to explain that I am actually Vlad the Impaler and if you do not kill your mother (via lethal injection--your mother will simply fall asleep and never wake up), I will kill her by this magificent torture device that slowly separates her limbs from her body with the most excrutiating pain imaginable and turns her into hamburger for my dogs.
You further know that not only am I capable of doing it and that I will do it but that there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it. Oh, and I will not stop at her. However, BEFORE I kill her, I will also kill your father, your sister, your brother, your spouse, your children and even your dog by the same device, all in front of you AND YOUR MOTHER AND I will force you both to watch. Then I will kill you with the same device and force her to watch. Then, and only then, will I kill her (using the same device).
How many of you will kill your mother?
The point is not to actually have you go kill your mother but to illustrate the powerful aspect of incentives and prices and I again thank Professor Byrns for this excellent example. All of us have a price we are willing to pay and it is rational to pay that price. This is, however, not a sacrifice.
Just as Jesus agreed to die on the cross, so too are you willing to die (or kill) to avoid certain consequences that you find more distasteful.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
If Sacrifice is Morally Wrong, Is Christianity Evil?
In the previous post, I proved that Sacrifice was evil. But it comes at a cost since some may think that it implies that Christianity is evil. But it does not.
Even though me eating a hamburger is more important than your life that does not mean that I should not save your life. The point is that I should not be COMPELLED to save your life. Under ANY circumstances. You cannot point a gun to my head and demand money for your sick child and expect me to condone such behavior as moral. It is not. Your intentions or desires are immaterial to me. You must operate on the "trader principle", giving value for value. You work for me and I will pay you and, therefore, your work will save your own life. Notice what Paul said, "Those who do not work shall not eat." (2 Thess 3:10)
Giving value for value means that I will give you what you need willingly IN EXCHANGE FOR something I value. I will not sacrifice for you even my hamburger but I will trade you my $1 for your labor power and then you can go and get iodine for your child (or someone else's child).
Similarly, I may feel willing to give you the dollar out of compassion but this is a selfish motive that makes me feel better. Thus, I am giving you a dollar and IN EXCHANGE I am feeling better for myself for doing it.
Immorality comes from the theft. God Himself commands, "Thou shalt not steal". Yet, government taxation is theft when it is used to redistribute income. It is no different when the government takes my money to give to some poor person than if the poor person were to rob me directly. All involuntary income redistribution is similar and is immoral. Yet socialism and government funding of programs for the poor in society are nothing more than legalized theft.
Does this mean that the poor should not be assisted? Not at all! It merely means that forcing one group to pay for another is tantamount to theft. When they give it willingly, that is another story.
Christianity (and other great religions) tell us that we should help the poor. The emphasis, however, is that WE should do it. Not that we should DICTATE to others to do it. The problem with most Christians is that they forget that. They go beyond merely suggesting that it is a nice thing to assist the poor or that we ought to be PERSONALLY liable to help the poor and instead suggest that it is the GOVERNMENT'S reponsibility or SOCIETY'S responsibility to do it.
This is nonsensical. When government takes responsibility for something, it negates my personal responsibility. "I gave at the office" or "with my tax dollars" is a legitimate dodge to the question of giving charity. Indeed, the concept of charitable deductions is based on the notion that I can FORCE you to help contribute to the causes that I deem appropriate. Just as taxation is theft when it is used to redistribute income, so are tax deductible donations when they are used for charity. You are forcing ME to support your causes.
Since I do not support many of the causes that you support, your taking of tax deductions is theft. Yet it is legalized theft by the government. Just because it is made legal by government fiat, however, does not make it morally correct. The misuse in Christendom to justify such intervention is a wholesale repudiation of core Christian principles. Thus, it is not Christianity that is evil--it is those who seek to impose obligations on others who are.
Finally, let us deal with the notion of objective truth, for this is something that will no doubt arise. Surely there are things which are objectively better than others, you may ask.
There are. However, those things that are objectively better are always objectively better from the standpoint of the observer. Nothing else. It is objectively better for me to have a hamburger than not. It is objectively better for you to have a hamburger than not (assuming that you like hamburgers). Therefore, from my perspective, if there is only one hamburger, it is better for me to have it than you and better from your perspective to have it than me (assuming that neither of us are starving or otherwise have reason to pull on the heartstrings of the other). Notice that objectivity cannot dictate to whom the hamburger will be placed.
We can also the analogy for morality. If both of us need the hamburger to survive and only one can have it and the hamburger (for some unknown reason) cannot be divided, it is impossible to determine objectively with whom the hamburger should be placed, since both parties have an objective claim on it. This is different from moral relativism. I am not stating that morality differs from individual to individual. I am stating that morality is somewhat referential. The sole basis to settle this is to add another principle to the mix that most religions (including Christianity) support: the no theft rule.
Essentially, the "no theft rule" states that no one can use deception or force to take from another. All activities must occur based on the trader principle. The way we determine who gets the hamburger is not by violence or an impartial third party observer but rather by negotiation. There are actually some things for which I would be willing to give up my life and let you have the hamburger but if you fail to give those things to me, I am sorry, but there is no way I'm letting you eat (in this example). Now you may rightly argue that this means both of us will die if we do not negotiate to a solution. To that I would say, "So what?" There are some principles worth dying for including the one that you have no right to use force to take from me. I would rather die (provided I can ensure your death as well) than accept this as a principle (that does not mean that facing a gun I would not retreat from the position: I am not a fool since at that point I lose my life and the principle being defended is not upheld [and I can always get back at you later for your immorality through the jusdicial system--and I will]).
You would be incorrect, however, in suggesting that I would somehow not receive the benefits since, after all, I would be dead after giving you the hamburger. There are many things that would definitely outlive me that, if I could guarantee their outcome (perhaps by requiring you to transfer funds to my wife and children to ensure their longevity PRIOR to my allowing you to solely eat the hamburger) that would be sufficient for me to give up the hamburger.
However, as of right now, I do not see anyone making such an offer. So I will go and eat my hamburger now. Class dismissed.
Even though me eating a hamburger is more important than your life that does not mean that I should not save your life. The point is that I should not be COMPELLED to save your life. Under ANY circumstances. You cannot point a gun to my head and demand money for your sick child and expect me to condone such behavior as moral. It is not. Your intentions or desires are immaterial to me. You must operate on the "trader principle", giving value for value. You work for me and I will pay you and, therefore, your work will save your own life. Notice what Paul said, "Those who do not work shall not eat." (2 Thess 3:10)
Giving value for value means that I will give you what you need willingly IN EXCHANGE FOR something I value. I will not sacrifice for you even my hamburger but I will trade you my $1 for your labor power and then you can go and get iodine for your child (or someone else's child).
Similarly, I may feel willing to give you the dollar out of compassion but this is a selfish motive that makes me feel better. Thus, I am giving you a dollar and IN EXCHANGE I am feeling better for myself for doing it.
Immorality comes from the theft. God Himself commands, "Thou shalt not steal". Yet, government taxation is theft when it is used to redistribute income. It is no different when the government takes my money to give to some poor person than if the poor person were to rob me directly. All involuntary income redistribution is similar and is immoral. Yet socialism and government funding of programs for the poor in society are nothing more than legalized theft.
Does this mean that the poor should not be assisted? Not at all! It merely means that forcing one group to pay for another is tantamount to theft. When they give it willingly, that is another story.
Christianity (and other great religions) tell us that we should help the poor. The emphasis, however, is that WE should do it. Not that we should DICTATE to others to do it. The problem with most Christians is that they forget that. They go beyond merely suggesting that it is a nice thing to assist the poor or that we ought to be PERSONALLY liable to help the poor and instead suggest that it is the GOVERNMENT'S reponsibility or SOCIETY'S responsibility to do it.
This is nonsensical. When government takes responsibility for something, it negates my personal responsibility. "I gave at the office" or "with my tax dollars" is a legitimate dodge to the question of giving charity. Indeed, the concept of charitable deductions is based on the notion that I can FORCE you to help contribute to the causes that I deem appropriate. Just as taxation is theft when it is used to redistribute income, so are tax deductible donations when they are used for charity. You are forcing ME to support your causes.
Since I do not support many of the causes that you support, your taking of tax deductions is theft. Yet it is legalized theft by the government. Just because it is made legal by government fiat, however, does not make it morally correct. The misuse in Christendom to justify such intervention is a wholesale repudiation of core Christian principles. Thus, it is not Christianity that is evil--it is those who seek to impose obligations on others who are.
Finally, let us deal with the notion of objective truth, for this is something that will no doubt arise. Surely there are things which are objectively better than others, you may ask.
There are. However, those things that are objectively better are always objectively better from the standpoint of the observer. Nothing else. It is objectively better for me to have a hamburger than not. It is objectively better for you to have a hamburger than not (assuming that you like hamburgers). Therefore, from my perspective, if there is only one hamburger, it is better for me to have it than you and better from your perspective to have it than me (assuming that neither of us are starving or otherwise have reason to pull on the heartstrings of the other). Notice that objectivity cannot dictate to whom the hamburger will be placed.
We can also the analogy for morality. If both of us need the hamburger to survive and only one can have it and the hamburger (for some unknown reason) cannot be divided, it is impossible to determine objectively with whom the hamburger should be placed, since both parties have an objective claim on it. This is different from moral relativism. I am not stating that morality differs from individual to individual. I am stating that morality is somewhat referential. The sole basis to settle this is to add another principle to the mix that most religions (including Christianity) support: the no theft rule.
Essentially, the "no theft rule" states that no one can use deception or force to take from another. All activities must occur based on the trader principle. The way we determine who gets the hamburger is not by violence or an impartial third party observer but rather by negotiation. There are actually some things for which I would be willing to give up my life and let you have the hamburger but if you fail to give those things to me, I am sorry, but there is no way I'm letting you eat (in this example). Now you may rightly argue that this means both of us will die if we do not negotiate to a solution. To that I would say, "So what?" There are some principles worth dying for including the one that you have no right to use force to take from me. I would rather die (provided I can ensure your death as well) than accept this as a principle (that does not mean that facing a gun I would not retreat from the position: I am not a fool since at that point I lose my life and the principle being defended is not upheld [and I can always get back at you later for your immorality through the jusdicial system--and I will]).
You would be incorrect, however, in suggesting that I would somehow not receive the benefits since, after all, I would be dead after giving you the hamburger. There are many things that would definitely outlive me that, if I could guarantee their outcome (perhaps by requiring you to transfer funds to my wife and children to ensure their longevity PRIOR to my allowing you to solely eat the hamburger) that would be sufficient for me to give up the hamburger.
However, as of right now, I do not see anyone making such an offer. So I will go and eat my hamburger now. Class dismissed.
Why Sacrifice is Evil
Let us discuss the logic of sacrifice and why sacrifice is evil.
Situation 1:
Suppose two children are drowning in a pool. You can save only one of them. Your child is 1 foot further out than your neighbor's child. Therefore, there is a slightly greater cost to saving your child's life than your neighbor's child. What do you do?
Do you save your child? Do you save your neighbor's child?
Situation 2:
You have a choice to give up $1 for a hamburger. Is this a sacrifice?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
My answer: in situation 1, I save my child.
My answer: in situation 2, yes, it is an extreme sacrifice even more so than situation 1.
Why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that most people would agree with me about situation 1. You would save your child. Yet you sacrificed the neighbor's child by your choice to do so. You were being SELFISH and definitely not altruistic. Jesus says in Mark 12:31, "Love thy neighbor as thyself. There is no greater commandment than these." These in this case refers to love of God and love of neighbor and the love of God part is irrelevant for this argument. Yet virtually all of us in Situation 1 would tell Jesus to go fly a kite. We are saving our child and it is the moral thing to do.
In situation 2, most people would argue that it is not a sacrifice. However, it is an even greater sacrifice than in situation 1! Why? $1 can save a child life (actually even far less than that can) by insuring that they do not suffer from iodine deficiency (total cost in a child's lifetime = 5 cents). So when you eat your hamburger instead of paying for a child to receive adequate iodine, you are effectively stating that the child's life is not worth as much as your hamburger.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So now you are going to take that $1 and send it to stop iodine deficiency. Good! Well, not exactly. Let's take it one step further. Since you agree that one should "Love thy neighbor as thyself" then your life is no more precious than my life and certainly your life is not worth as much as two lives. But if we kill you and take your money, we can save hundreds or even thousands of lives. So, logic dictates that we should kill you. Jesus commands it. After all, "There is no greater commandment than these." (love God and love thy neighbor) Surely if your life is worth my life, then two of my neighbor's lives are worth more than one of my neighbor's lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Logic further dictates that I should kill myself and allow the money to go to others but there is a problem with this. You see, if I kill you, I can GUARANTEE that your money will go to good causes. I cannot guarantee that for my own life. Therefore, since I know that you are not spending your money properly (since you are sitting there eating that hamburger), God commands me to kill you, take all your money, and spend it all on curing iodine deficiency (which killed 7,000 in 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait a minute! you say. God also commands, "Thou shall not kill." God also commands, "Thou shall not steal." Hmm... Okay, but God said with regard to love of God and love of neighbor, "There is no greater commandment than these." Therefore, your objection is noted and you will still die.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't anyone else see the utter EVIL in this line of reasoning? Yet it follows from the basic logic of altruism. If your life is more important (or even AS important) as mine, the logic is incontrovertable. You must die (from my perspective). I must die (from your perspective).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since this cannot be good, sacrifice must be evil. End of proof. Now let me go and eat my hamburger. Class dismissed.
Situation 1:
Suppose two children are drowning in a pool. You can save only one of them. Your child is 1 foot further out than your neighbor's child. Therefore, there is a slightly greater cost to saving your child's life than your neighbor's child. What do you do?
Do you save your child? Do you save your neighbor's child?
Situation 2:
You have a choice to give up $1 for a hamburger. Is this a sacrifice?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
My answer: in situation 1, I save my child.
My answer: in situation 2, yes, it is an extreme sacrifice even more so than situation 1.
Why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that most people would agree with me about situation 1. You would save your child. Yet you sacrificed the neighbor's child by your choice to do so. You were being SELFISH and definitely not altruistic. Jesus says in Mark 12:31, "Love thy neighbor as thyself. There is no greater commandment than these." These in this case refers to love of God and love of neighbor and the love of God part is irrelevant for this argument. Yet virtually all of us in Situation 1 would tell Jesus to go fly a kite. We are saving our child and it is the moral thing to do.
In situation 2, most people would argue that it is not a sacrifice. However, it is an even greater sacrifice than in situation 1! Why? $1 can save a child life (actually even far less than that can) by insuring that they do not suffer from iodine deficiency (total cost in a child's lifetime = 5 cents). So when you eat your hamburger instead of paying for a child to receive adequate iodine, you are effectively stating that the child's life is not worth as much as your hamburger.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So now you are going to take that $1 and send it to stop iodine deficiency. Good! Well, not exactly. Let's take it one step further. Since you agree that one should "Love thy neighbor as thyself" then your life is no more precious than my life and certainly your life is not worth as much as two lives. But if we kill you and take your money, we can save hundreds or even thousands of lives. So, logic dictates that we should kill you. Jesus commands it. After all, "There is no greater commandment than these." (love God and love thy neighbor) Surely if your life is worth my life, then two of my neighbor's lives are worth more than one of my neighbor's lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Logic further dictates that I should kill myself and allow the money to go to others but there is a problem with this. You see, if I kill you, I can GUARANTEE that your money will go to good causes. I cannot guarantee that for my own life. Therefore, since I know that you are not spending your money properly (since you are sitting there eating that hamburger), God commands me to kill you, take all your money, and spend it all on curing iodine deficiency (which killed 7,000 in 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait a minute! you say. God also commands, "Thou shall not kill." God also commands, "Thou shall not steal." Hmm... Okay, but God said with regard to love of God and love of neighbor, "There is no greater commandment than these." Therefore, your objection is noted and you will still die.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't anyone else see the utter EVIL in this line of reasoning? Yet it follows from the basic logic of altruism. If your life is more important (or even AS important) as mine, the logic is incontrovertable. You must die (from my perspective). I must die (from your perspective).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since this cannot be good, sacrifice must be evil. End of proof. Now let me go and eat my hamburger. Class dismissed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)