Some animal rights people and the adherents of some religions certainly judge other people who kill, butcher, and eat animals. But most other people see nothing wrong with the mass slaughter of animals for human consumption–even entire herds—such as in beef processing facilities.
So although the word genocide can be and is applied at times to humans who slaughter other humans, we don’t usually apply it “outside” the human species. Somewhat similarly, is it truly “genocide” when God destroys an entire group of people, such as Noah’s contemporaries?
Just wondering what readers think about the assumed “rules” of what types of killing are justified.
It’s implicit in your analogy. Why can’t the prisoner judge the judge? Well of course he can, but his judgment has no effect, while the judge, having the power, can sentence him to death or whatever lesser punishment he deems appropriate. If the judge acts arbitrarily and immorally in carrying out his judgment, the prisoner still has no power to judge him, though he clearly would have moral right. The analogy is all about power.
Yes, since genocide applies to humans. I’d say it also applies only to willful acts by agents capable of moral action. If God isn’t slaughtering all of humanity willfully, then it isn’t genocide. But he is, so it is. If genocide isn’t justifiable for humans to do, I don’t see how it can be justifiable for God. Again, Euthyphro.
Actually judges have a right to judge because of the laws imposed by a sovereign state. The concept behind this is that people have the right to claim sovereign power over some geographical regions called states, come up with rules that need to be followed and punish those who violate the rules and appoint people to make judgements regarding said punishment.
The authority to Judge in this case comes from the people of the nation and the constitution (in case of a democracy). The power to execute those judgements also come from the people.
In God’s case, the authority to Judge exists because God is the creator and sustainer of all things. It’s not just power (though God has it), but about right.
Why should Genovide apply only to Humans? Isnt that an arbitrary rule based on the idea that "might is right?
Let me ask you a counter question. Human beings have been taking over large parts of the earth’s geography, claiming exclusive ownership of the same and changing the ecosystem by building roads, canals, dams, cities etc. This has lead to large loss of animal life. By what right do we do this? Isn’t this something far worse than Genocide?
Do you think Genocide is more terrible than the mass extinctions caused by human beings? In which case, aren’t you part of this terrible crime?
By no right, just power. No, it’s not worse than genocide, but if we do enough of it the result would be bad enough.
Yes, but mass extinction is still pretty bad. I note that God, in the flood, is also responsible for a mass extinction. Are you sure you’re defending God here? You seem to be indicting him instead.
And that lets you evade the question why, exactly?
No need, as nobody had claimed we were.
Yes, by power. Exactly.
You haven’t explained how that gives him the right. You have merely ignored the question.
My point is that human beings do these thing through our power, while God owns all the land and all the people and everything in the universe because of being the creator and sustainer.
Hence He has a right in addition to the power.
I am not evading the question. I am pointing out that God sustains all creation in a way that is very different from how a human being supports another.
Basic idea is that creation exists and continues to exist because God continually holds it together.
Where I disagree to your comment about God commanding excesses is that often God’s perfect righteousness is not clearly evident to us, He is God and has all knowledge, we are not and don’t understand His wrath as part of justification.
Statements of God’s Ineffability simply render claims of his Omnibenevolence into statements of blind faith.
A less ardently zealous observer would probably see in the Midianite example a savage tribal god willing to commit disproportionate atrocities in order to maintain their chosen tribe’s isolation and identity, even from such a minor infraction as a single member sleeping with a woman of another tribe (and even when the ‘transgressors’ had already been killed).
As I said before, “I’m sure that, taking a cast iron starting assumption that God is omnibenevolent, and some gymnastics of Theodicy, that a truly determined Christian Apologist can claim that it really was all alright. I’m not really sure however that such justifications are of much interest to anybody who is not already a Christian.” Non-Christians do not share this bedrock assumption, and so are likely to be less than impressed at contortions to preserve it, particularly when taken in conjunction with ineffability claims used as a ‘get out of jail free card’ for scrutinising the morality of God’s actions.
If you think that you can justify God’s actions without either assuming omnibenevolence or invoking ineffability, you are welcome to try. I would however point out that this further analysis was your idea. I have nothing invested in it.
The problem with that is that we don’t have the right to cause mass extinctions, only the power. Also, we’re doing it by accident, not by choice. Your analogy shows exactly the opposite of what you intend.
Incidentally, owning people is generally frowned upon these days. You’re in favor of slavery as well as genocide?
So? Why is the difference important to granting a right?
I doubt that claim. But even if it’s true, why does that give him the right to commit genocide?
People owning dogs is ok… so why not talk about God owning all creation. God has legitimacy as the owner of all creation (being the creator and sustainer) as opposed to human beings as owners of land, cities,animals etc.
This is a point you dont seem to get.
Because He is sustaining you and me. We owe Him our very existence on a second by second basis.
Most western countries have laws regarding the treatment of pets.
I don’t agree that the act of creation gives the creator full rights over what they create, when that creation is sentient. (I seem to remember Lois McMaster Bujold’s science fiction novel Falling Free exploring such issues and I’m sure other authors have done so as well.)
It could in fact be argued that the act of creating sentience bestows responsibilities rather than rights.
It’s a point you don’t seem to make. People aren’t dogs.
You’re just repeating your claim. Assuming that he actually is sustaining us, which is not actually in evidence, why should that grant him the right to do whatever he likes with us?
(The definition is rather vague and abstract, but seemed to be the closest to what I had in mind. Somewhere along the lines of self-conscious, self-aware & so forth.)