Expert: Jeffrey Eldred - 3/22/2011

Question
Dear expert,

after the horrible disaster that happenned in Japan, i remember an old debate with a theist about God's goodness and Evil, his answer was nearly like this:

<< If you own something, you've the right to do anything you want with it (destroy it, paint it, burn it,...), and that doesn't undermine your morality.

So it's the same with God:
since everything and everyone in the Universe belongs to Him (by being their ultimate Creator),
then He has the right to do whatever He wants with people, whatever the consequences are for them.

Thus God's infinite goodness towards human isn't undermined, just as a guy who saws his own bike isn't neccesarly a tyrant. >>

I feel there is something stranger in his argument.
What about you? what do you think about it?



                                              Sincerely

Answer
The Ownership Theodicy:
Arguments that argue that the existence of evil is incompatible with God are called the Problem of Evil  and arguments that try to explain why the God seems to permit (or create) evil in the world are called theodicies. For a list of theodicies I've talked about in the past, see here [1]. The theodicy that you are introducing in your question I will call the “ownership” theodicy. The main problem with the “ownership” theodicy is that the “theist” is making legal claims about God and not moral claims.

In a legalistic sense, God controls all the power of the universe and in this sense he has “claim” to own it. If God came down and gave man a choice between having a Japan that would suffer through a tsunami or having no Japan at all, I think everyone would chose to have a Japan. We can say that God has done us more good than evil with respect the question of Japan and we are better off with God than without him (if this universe was created and sustained by God and he is removed, then there is no universe). We approve of God's governance and therefore recognize is continued right to rule (in the absence of any reasonable alternative). But this is actually how tyrants exist in the real world - their abhorrent behavior is only tolerated in so far as the population prefers it to anarchy or is powerless to bring about change.

We all know the option that God should have given us. If God had any kind of ethical conscience, let alone an “omni-benevolent” one, he would allow for there to be a Japan that does have to suffer through a tsunami (let along other tsunamis [2]). Comparing God with a hypothetical being with the same powers, we see that God is being irresponsible with his power and is morally culpable for the recent 8000 deaths in Japan.

Your theist friend may try to counter that it could be the case that God was forced to hit Japan with the tsunami or that the tsunami was good for Japan for reasons that we couldn't possibly understand as fallible humans. But those are a theodicies of their own and if you friend can prove those ideas are not only possible but plausible then he doesn't need to talk about God's ownership of us. So the ownership theodicy is at best a description useful for explaining the theistic point of view on the subject, but not useful for trying to persuade someone that it is correct.

But even if legal standards are used as a proxy for ethical considerations, the theist's criteria runs into more trouble. In our society we actually do put bounds on the level of destruction and individual is permitted to inflict on oneself and their property. Suicide is illegal (law enforcement will try to prevent a person from attempting suicide and it is illegal to assist someone in suicide). There are some drugs are banned on the grounds that they are too destructive even to people who chose to use them freely. There is an endless series of safety regulations that prevent people from putting themselves in danger (seat belt laws, barriers around dangerous areas, etc) or choosing to work in a dangerous place. When areas have to be evacuated due to a state of emergency, it is a criminal offense to stay behind. If an individual deliberately sets fire to their own house, the fire department will put it out no matter what they are told by the homeowner. It is illegal to intentionally destroy your own money.

There may be some Libertarians who think that it is not the role of the government to curtail self-destructive acts, but there is no question that there are some unnecessary self-destructive acts that should never be done. If self-destructive act is unnecessary than it serves no good purpose to do it while loses no value to ban it. There are some acts which entail a loss, (like sawing your bike,) but may serve a worthwhile purpose, (like using the pieces of the bike to build something else). Usually the government defers to individuals to decide whether the cost outweighs the benefit, but when the government is sure that there is only cost and no benefit then it only makes sense to intervene. So bringing the subject back to God, God is only a sane and ethical being when he damages his own possessions or his own self if the action is necessary to serve a beneficial purpose. If Jesus dying on the cross is necessary to complete the magical ritual for humans to enter heaven, than this action might be ethical. If on the other hand, the act of torturing Jesus (himself, his son, a holy man, whatever) on a cross is completely independent of God's policy on the afterlife, then no amount or people in heaven can make the gratuitous harm he did to himself the right. An omniscient and omni-benevolent being should know better.

The legal and ethical case against God gets worse, though, when one considers the question of whether God can ever have ownership over sentient human beings. Here is a link of an atheist debater and writer Christopher Hitchens making it clear that he does not recognize the right of God to own anyone [3]. Ownership of people as slaves or indentured servants is illegal because is considered inherently cruel even if you (attempt to) treat your slaves well. People who own animals have a legal responsibility for their pet, but are required to give their pet a certain quality of life. The government even puts limitations on what parents are allowed to do to their children or decide for their children and all legal powers that parents have over their children disappear when they reach a certain age. Parent-child relationships are probably the closest thing we have to one sentient being creating a lesser sentient being as would occur with God creating us [4]. Some political philosophers would argue that the rights that make up the entire basis of government is to restrict the ability of one individual to harm another that he (or she) has power over [5].

So I think no matter how you analyze it, it would be unethical for the God to knowingly inflict harm on sentient beings that he created.

Links:
[1] Introduction with to Problem of Evil as well as a discussion of several common theodicies: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Atheism-2724/2009/12/Best-best-1.htm
“Soul-making Theodicy: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Atheism-2724/2010/8/soul-making-theodicy-follow-1.htm
“Endurance” Theodicy: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Atheism-2724/2011/2/Theodicy-endurance.htm

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami_of_2004

[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZB0lLIcXIA (part 1) and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E01VPsdozSo (part 2)

[4] The Bible would appear to have an uncharacteristic consistency on this question, because Biblical standards of ethics consistently treat children as disposable property:
Abraham and Isaac: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2022:1-10&version=NIV
Job's children: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%201:1-20&version=NIV
Lott's daughters: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:1-8&version=NIV
Jephthah's daughter: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=judges%2011:29-39&version=NIV
I don't think I need to make a case why this standard of ethics is abhorrent.

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract