Killing Innocent Children: Yes or No?

_{Barry Arrington

June 7, 2018

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

To all of our materialist friends who say that morality is subjective and determined by society:

John Davidson brings this to our attention:

A post at Get Religion caught my eye yesterday with the title, “Should Amazon tribes be allowed to kill their young? Foreign Policy editors aren’t sure.” It linked to a story in Foreign Policy magazine from April 9 about a handful of indigenous tribes in Brazil that engage in the ritual killing of infants and children—namely, those with a disability, twins, and the children of single mothers, all of whom are considered to be a bad omen—and the legal efforts underway to end the practice.

Now, our subjectivist friends have argued repeatedly that morality is determined by society. These tribes have determined that killing innocent children is an affirmatively good thing. I assume you agree that — for these tribes at least — killing innocent children is indeed an affirmatively good thing. If that is not what you think, please explain why.

Comments

@89 - excellent summary. Christ brought a much higher standard of morality. Greater demands. To love one's enemies. Do good to those who hate you. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. It is not enough to avoid the physical act of adultery - but if a man looks at a woman lustfully he has committed adultery in his heart, and in that case, it would be better to tear one's eyes out, than to sin like that and have "your whole body thrown into hell".Silver Asiatic_{June 9, 2018
June
06
Jun
9
09
2018
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

Seversky @80, There is either a Supreme Being that brought the Universe into being, or there isn't. Your arguments make no sense if there is, so it seems to me that I must start with demonstrating the existence of God. There are now several lines of scientific evidence that corroborate each other that together indicate that the natural Universe (time, space, matter and energy) had a beginning. So compelling scientific evidence can be added to Aquinas' “five ways” of demonstrating the logical necessity of the existence of an uncreated, uncaused first cause, a “first mover,” the essence of which is “to be.” (It is telling that the writings of a primitive tribe known as the Hebrews somehow had the philosophical sophistication to identify their god as “I AM WHO AM.” Or maybe they weren't capable of coming up with that themselves, but it was revealed to them by the true God.) It is very unscientific, not to mention irrational, to posit that the natural Universe popped into existence, uncaused, from nothingness (nothingness in terms of the absence of time, space, matter and energy). Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. Yet from nothing, nothing comes. The only rational conclusion to this dilemma is that the natural Universe had a cause that transcends the natural, a supernatural reality – which is commonly referred to as God. So how do we get from this necessarily existing supernatural being to His revelation of what is moral and what is evil? How do we know that He has revealed Himself and His standard of morality to humanity? Many of the rational thinkers of the Greco-Roman world Christianity was born into – and they prided themselves on their rationality – came to believe that the already ancient Hebrew Scriptures so perfectly foretold the coming of Christ that He must have been Who He claimed to be: The incarnation of that supernatural being. Think about it. No other religious leader was foretold thousands of years before his arrival. The books of the Hebrew Scriptures were written by human authors separated from each other by centuries. That rules out any kind of collusion or conspiracy to deceive others. There is no natural explanation for the perfection of Christ's fulfillment in detail of the prophecies of the ancient Hebrew Scriptures. Their human authors must have been inspired by a being Who transcends time, Who sees past and future as clearly as the present is seen. Augustine – whose immense mind had the insight to realize that time, too, began with creation of the Universe, and figured that out 1,700 years before modern science did – eventually converted to Christianity, and insisted that the New Testament was hidden in the Old and Old was revealed by the New, so perfectly had the ancient Hebrew Scriptures foretold Christ. So, if there is a God – and there most certainly is – and if He calls human life into being and calls it back to Himself when He is good and ready to do so, then He had every right to command His people to kill others. Keep in mind though, that at the time He did that His revelation of Himself wasn't complete, nor was His revelation of His standards of morality. They weren't complete until they were revealed in the person of Christ, Who commanded us to love our enemies and to turn the other cheek. The Old Testament morality was an incomplete revelation. While “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” was an improvement over killing everybody connected to the guy who stole your goat, it wasn't yet “love your enemy.” You seem to be oblivious to the fact the Old Covenant morality was completed and fulfilled by Christ, the fulfillment of which was to love one another as Christ has loved us, to love our neighbor as ourselves.harry_{June 9, 2018
June
06
Jun
9
09
2018
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

bb
Isn’t using that which you deny exists to support the value of its opposite an obvious of example of incoherence?
Absolutely.StephenB_{June 9, 2018
June
06
Jun
9
09
2018
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
subjectivists always appeal to objective morality every time they argue for subjective morality
Spot on. Isn't using that which you deny exists to support the value of its opposite an obvious of example of incoherence?bb_{June 9, 2018
June
06
Jun
9
09
2018
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

CancelStephenB_{June 9, 2018
June
06
Jun
9
09
2018
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

Allan Keith
For example, as a kid I thought that homosexuality was morally wrong and that anyone who got caught deserved the punishment they received. However, as I got older I realized that they are no different than the rest of us and *deserve* to find love and to have our respect, not our condemnation.
Notice the first reference to an objective morality that is universally binding and the attendant concept natural rights. (***deserve respect***)
So I changed from thinking homosexuality was morally wrong to thinking that those who Seek to restrict the services available to them (eg, marriage, hotel rooms, cakes, flowers) *are morally wrong.* I am sure that you have undergone similar shifts in your moral values
. Notice the second reference to an objective morality that is universally binding and the attendant concept of natural rights (are morally wrong) As I wrote in my post ("JDK argues against objective morality -- by assuming the truth of objective morality") subjectivists always appeal to objective morality every time they argue for subjective morality.StephenB_{June 9, 2018
June
06
Jun
9
09
2018
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

AK @ 82: So you appeal to natural law "written on the heart". I, too, believe in such. But, you refer to it and make judgements by it as if it weren't subject to preference or taste. You make claims about necessary, or at least superior, rational destinations when reasoning with it. In other words, you're appealing to an objective morality, in some part, even if you refuse to call it such.LocalMinimum_{June 9, 2018
June
06
Jun
9
09
2018
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

AK,
For centuries the church, for religious reasons, would not bury people who committed suicide in the church cemetery, telling family members that the suicide victim was going to hell. Was that good Barry?
You appear to believe the church did something wrong. Which is why you would would stab with a tu quoque. What was wrong with it Allan? editedbb_{June 9, 2018
June
06
Jun
9
09
2018
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

LM,
So, to what then do you appeal for your subjective choice in moral axioms?
The moral values we have in our early years are undoubtedly the result of our inherent need to please our parents. Racist kids usually have racist parents. These values are often reinforced by repetition, teaching, religion and peer interactions. However, as we mature, we may start questioning some of these values and changing them based on our own experiences. For example, as a kid I thought that homosexuality was morally wrong and that anyone who got caught deserved the punishment they received. However, as I got older I realized that they are no different than the rest of us and deserve to find love and to have our respect, not our condemnation. So I changed from thinking homosexuality was morally wrong to thinking that those who Seek to restrict the services available to them (eg, marriage, hotel rooms, cakes, flowers) are morally wrong. I am sure that you have undergone similar shifts in your moral values.Allan Keith_{June 9, 2018
June
06
Jun
9
09
2018
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

Sev, while this is not a thread of main focus for me, I cannot but note the failure to appreciate that we as individuals and as extended tribes called people-groups or nations, are morally governed, under binding moral duties of care that have significant roles in preventing unbounded chaos where there is an avalanche of ever growing evils. But then, in our day, our whole civilisation is caught up in carrying out or enabling the single worst holocaust in history: over 40+ years, 800+ millions of living posterity in the womb have been deliberately killed, mostly for reasons of inconvenience. This is being cast as an imagined "right" to "choose." The silence about just what is chosen and its robbing of an innocent of life, the first right, is studiously ducked. In that context, I have to see a pent up pool of suppressed blood guilt, and therefore read attempts to haul God into the dock and to drag in those who seek to serve him as accessories, as displacement and projection that therefore is a veiled self-indictment. We are in no position to point fingers as though we were without guilt, and admission of our guilt would be a first step to understanding the horror of a nation that becomes a plague of spreading chaos and evil on the earth. Ironically, Nazi Germany is a capital recent example and we know or should know the desperate measures -- such as air bombardment of cities to create firestorms and bombardment of research centres or deliberately breaching dams -- taken under the secret shadow that WW2 was a nuke threshold war with Germany the candidate to beat given its lead in science. The core elites would not surrender at a reasonable time, and they had subverted nationalism, wounded pride, courage, intellect and sense of honour in service to ultimate evil -- ponder the pledge-song Panzerlied to understand how this was done to the sacrificial men who would man the "honourable iron graves" of the critical weapon, the panzerwaffe. And as defeat was incrementally achieved at horrific cost, the crimes were discovered or proved. Now, let us hear your unrestrained condemnation of honourable statesmen who had to make terrible, heart-lurching decisions to try to defend what they could of Christian Civilisation as one of them, Churchill, termed it. Let us hear you utterly condemn Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman, and others as leading subservient followers in genocidal slaughter. Let us hear your condemnation of the admitted devil's bargain with a mass murdering scoundrel, Stalin. Then, let us hear your answer that would get us to a safe world not under the boot of nuke armed genocidal Nazis and Stalinists. Then, justify your moral outrage and expectation that we will understand ourselves to be under moral government of ought, bearing all sorts of duties. Then, show us how what you propose meets the bar of comparative difficulties, i/l/o the issues posed in the OP. KF PS: Those troubled by the many difficult issues may want to read here.kairosfocus_{June 9, 2018
June
06
Jun
9
09
2018
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT}

harry @ 58
They had a huge, irrational, blind faith in their own opinion about what was right and what was wrong. They were convinced that they had god-like knowledge of good and evil themselves (which is not a very original sin).
That's right. They held themselves to be in possession of some unassailable Absolute Truth which, in their minds, justified almost any act to further it. It's that unwarranted certainty which is the danger whether it be in political ideology or religious doctrine.
Modern history testifies to the fact that the murderous crimes of atheists in the last 100 years make the sum of the crimes of the religious over 2,000 years look like a petty misdemeanor. You are the naive victim of revisionist history.
On the basis of a simple body count, yes. But consider the fact that in the twentieth century there were many more people around to kill and there were weapons available that could kill people in larger numbers more quickly. A better comparison would be based on the percentage of the existing populations killed in wars in past centuries. The Crusades, for example, were bloody enough with the relatively crude weapons of the period. Imagine what the casualty lists would have been like if the combatants had had access to modern armaments. One final point, according to the Bible, in the Great Flood the God of Christianity wiped out almost the entire human population of the planet, let alone all the other animals that would have been drowned. That was genocide on a scale that a Hitler or a Stalin could only have dreamed of.
There are some women who are completely aware of the humanity of the child in the womb, but most women who abort, I think, are to a large extent victims along with their child.)
As I have said, I am opposed to abortion on the grounds that I believe the right to life should apply to the whole of an individual's lifespan. That said, I think women seek abortion for a variety of reasons and that simply banning it without addressing those reasons will drive those women back to back-street abortionists. There needs to be, at the least, proper sex education in schools, which should include explaining to the children that the blastocyst or embryo or fetus are all human beings albeit at a very early stage of development. There should be unrestricted access to the best methods of birth control and much better social and financial support for women in difficult circumstances. That should include better access to adoption procedures for those women who do not want to raise the child or are simply unable to raise it for various reasons. If society wants to stop abortions it needs to do a much better job of providing care and support for those women who are driven to seek one.
Wherever that was true, such Christian communities were not living up to the teachings of Christ. The fix wasn’t to pretend murder was “legal” to avoid those problems. The fix was for Christians to love sinners as Christ loved them.
That reference was prompted by what I read about how girls who became pregnant out of wedlock were treated in Catholic Ireland. I'm sure that the people who dealt with those girls thought they were doing their best for them, just as the people who ran the boarding or residential schools for Native American children in the US and Canada thought they were doing what was best for them. Many people today now think differently, however. How does that square with objective morality?
Again, that isn’t a very original sin. If there is a divine authority above our own then we ought to live according to His revealed standards, not our own. If there is no divine authority, then everyone becomes an authority unto themselves, which is exactly the same as no authority whatsoever. Militant atheists have demonstrated that this approach wreaks havoc upon innocent humanity.
And what alarms me is your assumption that this divine authority is that of a God so wise and powerful and benevolent that He is always right and utterly beyond question. I see that as no different in principle to the twentieth century dictators (and the would-be and actual twenty-first century dictators) who could be benevolent to their supporters but treat those who were perceived as opposing them with extreme cruelty and violence. I look at the various extreme right-wing factions in Christianity such as the reconstructionists and dominionists and it is not hard to imagine what would happen if they were ever to gain power. Last but not least there are the accounts in the Old Testament of how the unquestioning subservience of God's chosen people to his divine authority wrought havoc on the other peoples of that area who were unfortunate enough to find themselves in the way.Seversky_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

AK @ 65:
No. Those are the words that you put into my mouth. But I guess doing so makes my views easier to refute.
I was actually trying to make sense of your view. Honest mistake? It almost feels as if you've actually got nothing to say, and are hoping for a pyhrric victory in refusing to confirm it. So, to what then do you appeal for your subjective choice in moral axioms? The natural Law written on your heart? A necessary consequence of fact and reason? Or are you invoking esoteric Darwinian wisdom, where things get better...pardon, "more fit"...by virtue of getting kicked around? Of course, if this were the case, then only the losers, the less fit, should be morally condemned; and not the winners, the proven fittest.LocalMinimum_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

O,
I understand why Barry asked you his question in #67 (to expose the incoherence of your position), but I do not understand the point of your question to Barry. Care to explain?
Just to point out that actions done in the name of religion are not always rational.
Given that subjective morality is true, can you provide an example of “objective evidence” which should validly impact someone’s subjective morality?
Yes. But it is concerning to me that you can’t.Allan Keith_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

SB: Why, then, would you presume to judge him [another subjectivist] for using the same rationale that you use to arrive at his personal moral code? Allan Keith
Obviously we wouldn’t be using the same rationale, otherwise we would come to an agreement.
On the contrary, every subjectivist uses the same rationale, according to which *every human being is entitled to create his own individual morality based on his own subjective experience.* That is your philosophy. Since each person’s subjective experience is *unique*, each person’s moral code will be *different*. Subjectivists can be like minded on some issues, but they need not be. The number of subjective moralities is almost infinite.
But I could argue that they are wrong based on objective evidence and subjective interpretation of that evidence. They may disagree, but that is life.
No, you could not. According to your subjective philosophy, every other subjectivist is entitled to interpret the evidence according to *his* own private understanding of morality, which means that you cannot justify judging him based on *your* private understanding of morality. He used the same rationale that you did: He created his own morality on the basis of his own understanding and experience. If you pass judgment on him for doing that, then you pass judgment on yourself for doing the same thing.StephenB_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

Allan Keith Two things:
AK: For centuries the church, for religious reasons, would not bury people who committed suicide in the church cemetery, telling family members that the suicide victim was going to hell. Was that good Barry?
I understand why Barry asked you his question in #67 (to expose the incoherence of your position), but I do not understand the point of your question to Barry. Care to explain?
AK: I could argue that they are wrong based on objective evidence and subjective interpretation of that evidence.
Given that subjective morality is true, can you provide an example of "objective evidence" which should validly impact someone's subjective morality? Let's say there is a guy who subjectively holds that killing children is a good thing, what kind of "objective evidence" would you confront that person with?Origenes_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Wow. A double post. How did that happen? Devine intervention?Allan Keith_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Barry,
For centuries the Aztecs ripped the still beating hearts from prisoners as part of their religious observances. Was that good Allan?
For centuries the church, for religious reasons, would not bury people who committed suicide in the church cemetery, telling family members that the suicide victim was going to hell. Was that good Barry?Allan Keith_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

For centuries the Aztecs ripped the still beating hearts from prisoners as part of their religious observances. Was that good Allan?
Several of the interesting answers to the question in the OP might be used to answer this one also: 1. I can't answer because I could be very confused about what your question actually says, I just don't understand. 2. You phrased that question poorly. Could you ask it again? 3. Ritual killing was good for the Aztecs. 4. It depends what you mean by 'good'. 5. I never met an atheist who wants to kill people. 6. I have my own morality. 7. Some people think it was evil. 8. It could be good or bad. Nazis thought it was good to kill Jews because it brought them a lot of money.Silver Asiatic_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
If subjectivism is true, then each individual may claim his own moral code just as you claim yours.
I agree. That would be rediculous. If that were true we would end up with some people thinking that early term abortions are morally acceptable and others not. Some would claim that birth control is morally acceptable and others would claim it’s not. Some would claim that same sex marriage is morally unacceptable and others would disagree.
Why, then, would you presume to judge him for using the same rationale that you use to arrive at his personal moral code?
Obviously we wouldn’t be using the same rationale, otherwise we would come to an agreement.
You can’t say that he is objectively wrong, because you don’t believe objective right and wrong exist.
Why would I want to say that someone is objectively wrong? But I could argue that they are wrong based on objective evidence and subjective interpretation of that evidence. They may disagree, but that is life.
So how could you justify passing judgment on anyone? Are you saying that they are wrong by your standards even though you have also said that they are responsible only for their standards, just as you are responsible only for yours? How do you make that work?
People can be held accountable for their actions even if they don’t believe they are wrong. That is how society works.Allan Keith_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

... Brazil’s National Indian Foundation, known as Funai, which refuses to collect data on child-killing among indigenous tribes, resists even acknowledging its existence in public, and said in a 2016 press release that raising the issue at all “is in many cases an attempt to incriminate and express prejudice against indigenous peoples.”
The murder of children is covered-up in order to prevent the expression of prejudice. In that moral universe, tolerance is the highest virtue. And tolerance is applied selectively. Indigenous people are permitted to kill children. But other people are not permitted that. Apparently, it is a race-based moral system. So, we are told what to tolerate and what not to tolerate, by people who reject the idea that there are binding moral norms or that a Supreme Arbiter of those norms even exists. That's the dictatorship of relativism on display.Silver Asiatic_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

How do you make that work?
He makes it "work" by invoking stupidity at all the critical points. Andrewasauber_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

Allan Keith
I can morally judge anyone I want.
If subjectivism is true, then each individual may claim his own moral code just as you claim yours. Why, then, would you presume to judge him for using the same rationale that you use to arrive at his personal moral code? You can't say that he is objectively wrong, because you don't believe objective right and wrong exist. So how could you justify passing judgment on anyone? Are you saying that they are wrong by your standards even though you have also said that they are responsible only for their standards, just as you are responsible only for yours? How do you make that work?StephenB_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Allan Keith:
There are several examples of remote communities where the elderly are killed, most times with the approval of the elderly.
True, but I did not know Holland counted as a remote community. You seem to think that because murdering old people happens, it follows that murdering old people is a good thing. Really, just because we can find examples of a practice being accepted in a community, that practice is therefore good? Let's test that. For centuries the Aztecs ripped the still beating hearts from prisoners as part of their religious observances. Was that good Allan?Barry Arrington_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

Allan Keith:
You clearly asked whether we thought that killing these children was good for the tribe.
Not quite, but close enough. You understand the general thrust of the issue. Bob claims is is indecipherable. Maybe you can help him out.Barry Arrington_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

LocalMinimum,
You’ve declared morality simply another source of gratification, subjective to one’s tastes.
No. Those are the words that you put into my mouth. But I guess doing so makes my views easier to refute.Allan Keith_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

AK @ 63:
Whether or not my moral judgment can withstand rational scrutiny is another thing. Just like anyone else’s moral judgment.
It's not even a thing, if your previous statements are to be believed. You've declared morality simply another source of gratification, subjective to one's tastes. The only rationality that needs to be withstood in your model are rationalizations that better gratify others in impeding your freedom of action in self-gratification.LocalMinimum_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

twsyf,
Since morality is subjective (and really just a delusion), an honest a/mat would not morally judge tribes that kill innocent children.
I haven't seen any a/mats who are morally judging these tribes. But that is irrelevant. I can morally judge anyone I want. Whether or not my moral judgment can withstand rational scrutiny is another thing. Just like anyone else's moral judgment.Allan Keith_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

Since morality is subjective (and really just a delusion), an honest a/mat would not morally judge tribes that kill innocent children. The real problem is finding honest a/mats.Truth Will Set You Free_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

Barry,
Everyone knew what the OP was asking. You are lying if you say you did not. I will not reward your lies.
This is the question from the OP:
I assume you agree that — for these tribes at least — killing innocent children is indeed an affirmatively good thing.
You clearly asked whether we thought that killing these children was good for the tribe. Not whether we thought that killing children was good. There are several examples of remote communities where the elderly are killed, most times with the approval of the elderly. From the perspective of modern society, this practice appears to be cruel and evil. But from the perspective of some of these communities, where food is scarce and survival requires stamina and physical exertion, expending energy on looking after the elderly puts the survival of the entire community at risk. For these communities, they believe that killing the elderly is good. For all I know, the Amazonian tribes may kill certain children for similar reasons. The same practice can be both good and bad, depending on perspective. From the perspective of the Nazi war effort, confiscating Jewish efforts was good because it brought funds to their treasury. From the perspective of the Jewish people, it was bad. And the fact that many countries closed their doors to Jewish refugees suggests that they did not think that the Nazi practice was bad. Or, at least, not bad enough for them to do anything about it.Allan Keith_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply