In, my article “Tooley Plantinga and the Deontological Argument from Evil”, I argued that Tooley’s specifically deontological version of the argument from evil fails. To summarise very briefly, Tooley’s version of the argument assumes that God has moral obligations. However, according to a fairly mainstream theistic position on the relationship between God and morality, the wrongness of an action consists in its being forbidden by God. Given that God does not issue commands to himself, it follows that he has no obligations. Tooley’s argument, therefore, contrary to his own protestation, relies on controversial substantive moral assumptions, which many theists reject.
In this post I want to respond to two objections to this line of argument. The first contends my position is contradictory or incoherent; one cannot coherently deny that God is subject to the commands he issues to human beings. The second contends my argument makes God a cosmic hypocrite. Human morality consists of God saying to us, “do as I say not as I do”.
Let us look first at the accusation of incoherence. Central to theism is the notion that God is essentially good. In my paper I set this out in terms of God possessing certain character traits: God is loving, just, impartial, omniscient, and so on. God’s possession of these traits, however, limits the kind of commands one can coherently attribute to God. Specifically, his commands must express these traits in some sense, or in the very least not contradict them. To say God is just, for example, and impartial and loving but then attribute to him commands that are unjust, hateful and partial would be incoherent.
So far so good, here is the alleged problem. If God’s commands express (or are consistent with) his essential character, then how can it be consistent with his character to not act in accord with those same commands? If God commands us to refrain from performing some action then it would be a contradiction of his character if he himself does not refrain from that action.
This objection contains a false premise. It assumes that if one person’s commands to another person reflects certain character traits then consistency with those character traits means the first person must, themselves, follow that command. This is false. Consider an example. A loving parent sets their 9 year old daughter a bedtime of 8:30 pm. This parent’s command reflects their loving character, it does not follow, however, that being loving requires that the parent herself must go to bed at 8:30 pm. Or consider an experienced surgeon. Out of concern for his patients he prohibits inexperienced junior surgeons from performing certain operations without supervision. This does not mean his concern leads him to refrain from doing this surgery himself.
This also provides an answer to the second objection that human morality consists of God saying “do as I say, not as I do”. While the sarcastic slogan may have an effective use in certain contexts to show up a person’s hypocrisy, the idea that you cannot legitimately counsel or command another to not do something that you, yourself, do is false. Parents tell children to go to bed at 9:00 pm without themselves being morally required to go to bed at 9:00 pm. Governments prohibit private citizens from punishing people for crimes yet that does not entail governments cannot punish crime. Stunt-men warn those who watch their stunts to “not try this at home”. Husbands object to other men attempting to make love to their wives, it does not follow they themselves do not make love to their wives, and so on. The point is that in many contexts the difference between people’s knowledge, character, abilities, relationship, and authority mean it is perfectly appropriate for one to tell the other to do something that she herself would not do.
It does not follow, therefore, from the fact that a God commands us to refrain from a certain action, that that God himself could never do that action.
Tags: God and Morality · Hypocrisy · Problem of Evil8 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Matt, I think that you offer a promising response to Tooley’s critique. I find myself a bit unconvinced by your analogies, however, because the examples that you offer are arbitrary from a moral point of view. It would seem that God’s command, “Thou shalt not kill” is in a different category of imperative statements than “Go to bed at 9:00.” If a child broke his parent’s command on this point, the wrongness of his action stems not from his failure to go to bed at a certain time, but a failure to obey his parents commands. So I don’t see the force of the analogy here, as there is nothing morally (at least on a traditional sense of morality) at stake in a particular bedtime.
Jeremy, let me offer two lines of response to this.
First, you focus on one example of a child going to bed, but that was not the only example, for example in the experienced surgeon case the action the issue it stake is not just the command of the surgeon but danger of harm to the patient. In the case of the judge, the issue is the distinction between justice and vigilantism, and in the husband case the difference between martial sex and adultery.
Second, seeing my response to Tooley involves an appeal to a divine command theory, there is an important sense in which the wrongness of the action does stem from the command of God and so the disanalogy who draw does not hold. Prior to the parents demand there are good reasons for the child not to go to bed before 9 pm, lack of sleep and late nights are not good for the child, detrimental to its welfare, and likely to contribute or motivate the child to behave in appalling ways the next day, however after the parent issues the command the action becomes wrong as it defies the parent.
The same sort of structure occurs in a divine command theory, with all actions it will be such that prior to God’s commands they will not be morally wrong, though they may be detrimental to ones own or others welfare, however only after God commands it do they become morally wrong, this is because on a divine command theory moral requirements are demands made on our conduct by a person and until such a demand is made the action is not required though there may be other reasons for not doing it.
“The point is that in many contexts the difference between people’s knowledge, character, abilities, relationship, and authority mean it is perfectly appropriate for one to tell the other to do something that she herself would not do.”
Again! with the leftism!
Well, that (the “again”) was real clear, wasn’t it? Here’s my previous comment
“A loving parent sets their 9 year old daughter a bedtime of 8:30 pm. This parent’s command reflects their loving character, it does not follow, however, that being loving requires that the parent herself must go to bed at 8:30 pm.”
I *do* wish people who are not leftists would check themselves before using leftist-political language. If you’re talking about “a loving parent”, then the correct pronoun to use is neither “their” nor “she/her/her”, it’s “he/his/him” If you’re talking about a her, them you’re not talking about a mere “parent”, you’re talking about a mother.
How often do you use that damnable leftist “gender-inclusive language” to refer to a generic/non-specific murderer … or plumber … as “she”? Never, of course.
Ilion, I was educated in NZ universities, in some subjects its actually required that you use language like that as part of the style guide. I don’t agree with this but I chose to pick my battles. Its become habit
The same is true with my readers, I am aware what I say is going to be controverted by some people so again I pick my battles and try and give people less to complain about.
Matt,
You’re a Christian — you don’t have to option of surrendering to lies, and using leftist politicized language is exactly that.
Look, I cannot take seriously, in any regard, anyone who uses “gender-inclusive language” (unless he’s using it to mock it), for it is an instance of intellectual dishonesty. And I don’t want relegate you to the not-to-be-taken-seriously category. Generally, I *immediately* stop reading a person when he uses “gender-inclusive language” non-ironically (*).
If you were speaking/writing in, say, Spanish to a Spanish-speaking audience, would you not carefully use proper Spanish gendered pronouns in the way that the rules of Spanish require? Or if you were merely speaking/writing to fellow English speakers and refering to Spahish persons, would you not carefully distinguish “Latinos” from “Latinas”? Or, given that you are a New Zealander, if you were seeking to speak/write Maori, would you not do you best to learn and observe all the rules of that language?
Yet, when it comes to your own native language, you choose intentionally to use the corrupt, and corrupting, language of leftist anti-masculine politics.
What? Do you really think that the leftists are going to overlook you, when it’s your torn to be broken to the briddle, just because you’re already using leftist language to signal your coolness? Not in the least. Your choice to use leftist politicized language tells them that you’re already half-broken, that the battle for your soul, and your balls, is already half-won.
(*) From my point of view, I’m bending over backwards to give you a chance to stop behaving like an man-hating leftist. So far, what you’ve done is make excuses: but, if you don’t agree with man-hating leftism, then stop speaking/writing — and thus, thinking — as though you do.
Please be patient with one more comment from me on the matter —
When you use “gender inclusive language”, you are not honoring your wife’s femininity; you are denegrating your own masculinity.
“Have you not heard that in the beginning God created them male and female?”
The point of “gender inclusive language” is to deny this fundamental truth, and to make the thinking of it into a thought-crime, and ultimately to make it unthinkable. Using “gender inclusive language” isn’t a minor foible, it is active collaboration with the Adversary.
When you use “gender inclusive language”, it is not *simply* that you are not honoring your wife’s femininity and denegrating your own masculinity, but that your are *also* denegrating her femininity