Is there moral or logical justification for a creator to wield capricious power of life and death..

[Fumesucker]

Over his creations?

I got this question from David Brin's blog and it certainly seems like a very good one to me..

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2011/05/could-our-universe-be-fake.html

Brin goes on to say this:

Humanity long ago replied with a resounding “no!”… at least when talking about parents and their offspring. (There have been a few exceptions, such as the principle of pater familias in Roman law, which permitted a father to kill even adult offspring, if they offended him.) In most cultures, the created—our kids—eventually get full authority and a right to make their own way. In some societies, they are even welcome to argue with their creators along the way.

And yet, without noticing any irony, we have implicitly answered the same question “yes” when it came to God! The Creator, it seemed, was owed unquestioning servitude, just because this creator made us.

The whole piece and the attendant discussion in the comments is quite interesting, Brin has a habit of looking at things from a rather different perspective than what many of us might consider normal or usual.

[RandomThoughts]

1. Actually in the teachings of some groups.

The creator requires the older and stronger to serve the weaker and those in hardship. Angels were asked to serve man, also there was the lesson of the washing of the feet, the whole concept that power is not to rule over people, but to help them.

The idea that the servant becomes the master fits that also.

If the top are brought low, and the humble and low are raised up, what do you have.

Everyone moving up together, removal of consolidations.



I think it is simplistic bias that gets people to think that religious authority would favor a few over many people.


Side note.

I am still due beer and travel money.

[Fumesucker]

2. I think authority always tends to favor the few over the many..

And that tendency only increases until any particular authority is kicked over by outside forces or unrest within or a combination of both.

[Ninjaneer]

6. I call BS on your "simplistic bias" line.

It may be that the creator requires the strong to serve the weak, but at the end of the day its all for his own benefit/amusement/ends. God's system favors a very few, in fact only one, himself.

Otherwise god would give the choice to people to say 'screw you, I want no part of your galactic pull the wings off a fly game'. Without that whole burning for eternity tid bit I mean.

[AlecBGreen]

3. Im the damn pater familias!

[Jim__]

4. There is some logical justification.

The "creator" holds this power. Whether or not it is exercised, or wielded, capriciously is at his/her discretion.

Take the case of human beings where the child is essentially helpless for a number of years. This helplessness gives the parents de facto power of life and death over the child for that time period - ignoring, for the sake of simplicity, societal complications. And, in a time of severe shortage where the parents decide that they cannot support the child, mercy killing is at least an option.

This dependence is far greater in the case of a simulated universe. If the simulation winds up with conscious beings, then these beings are totally dependent on the simulator (creator) for their continued existence - the simulator has the power of life and death over these beings.

[laconicsax]

7. Hume had something to say about your reasoning.

Something about "is" and "ought."

Good to know that you have no apparent issue with parents killing their children as a solution to hardship. It speaks volumes about your values.

[Jim__]

12. My post is only about what is - which is why I referred to it as logical justification. - n/t

[Ninjaneer]

5. There is no moral justification.

It is inexcusable to bring suffering onto "lesser" beings just because you can. I don't care how well you're going to reward them afterwards, you have no moral ground to stand on while peddling that garbage.

If there was a god, I would actively war against the son of a bitch. Winning may be another matter, but on principle, that fight would be more valid than any war in history where man took up arms against tyrants or oppressors.

[laconicsax]

8. There really isn't.

Of course that doesn't stop people from endorsing the idea that a celestial dictator can and should do so.

[Igel]

9. Brin's wrong.

Society didn't respond with a resounding "No!" It responded with a resounding, "It's *my* authority, not yours!"

When the family was the primary source of authority, then the family would enforce the law. Honor killings are still reflections of this.

When society took over, society was the primary source of authority and society would enforce the law. We have prisons. Some still have the death penalty. Is the law capricious? Well, yes. It's built less on some overarching set of principles and more on what a legislative body says. You don't pay your taxes and resist the marshalls that come after you, you get shot.

Do we still have the power of life and death over our offspring? Sure. We've just decided that denying life to a fetus that would almost certainly live is okay for any reason, by virtue of being the "creators." We even have defined "life" in such a way that we have the power of life and death over relatives if they're sufficiently incapacitated.

Nonetheless, the main problem is one of perspective, and not seeing that there are two: If you're a real theist then you've said that the locus of judgment as far as right and wrong is elsewhere, outside yourself; if you've declared that you're responsible for judging right and wrong, then you can't really be a loyal theist. This isn't a "true Scotsman" fallacy; it's a definition. (We'll leave aside those who decide they are the people who get to say what's right and wrong for everybody else; to the extent they have any real authority is the extent to which you have a despot.)

[laconicsax]

10. You've somewhat missed the point and are making liberal use of false equivalence.

But as long as you're happy with your response, whatever.

[Fumesucker]

11. Women don't have the power of life and death over fetuses because they are the creators..

They have life and death power over the fetus because they are the *host*..

And besides, women are only half of humanity and abortion is not legal everywhere on the planet either.

Oh, and the number of spontaneous miscarriages is high enough that it's not really accurate to say a particular fetus "would almost certainly survive".

[Deep13]

13. No, just circular reasoning.

If God does it, it isn't capricious.

[Fumesucker]

14. And besides, Satan does all the bad stuff entirely against God's wishes..

God has no responsibility for the bad things that happen but must be praised for anything good that happens.

[Ninjaneer]

15. The idea of god makes me think of a kid playing video games,

with us just being the characters. Only in video games have I seen the level of self imposed difficulties as god places on himself (the devil, inability to reveal himself, etc).