Joe Stoutenburg : “But relying upon monopoly institutions to police against fraud is horribly naive because it compounds the information assymetry problem.”

Excellent argument against regulation. People assume, against all reason and evidence, that state employees have pure motives. I had a class in regulation at a state school in which the general conclusion of the text and the prof was that the largest businesses in the industry being regulated take over the regulatory agency and use it to promote their own interests. Particularly, they use regulation to keep out small competitors and reduce competition against their larger rivals.

Mark Knutson: “Morality and the nature and will of god are kid of vague and problemmatic when it comes to determining the best financial policy.”

The most basic level of morality where the state is concerned is to protect life, liberty and property. The state does a very poor job at all three. As for financial policy, the state can’t prevent fraud any more than policemen can prevent crime. Both are impossible. All the state can do is punish fraudulent behavior after the fact. However, the state contributes to fraudulent behavior in a couple of ways. By keeping interest rates artificially low, it creates an atmosphere of irrational exuberance in which con men flourish. Then the state deludes people into think its regulatory agencies will protect them from con men when it never has a never will.

If the “great” philosophers of the 20th century meant nonsense like the categorical imperative, then sure. But that has nothing to do with objective forms of morality. It is but one amongst many.

“All the state can do is punish fraudulent behavior after the fact.”

…which, if Austrian assumptions are correct, would itself “prevent crime”. And even for the hopelessly irrational sociopaths who are so attracted to the world of high finance, there is a measure: stoppage of crime-in-progress.

“People assume, against all reason and evidence, that state employees have pure motives.” Evidently though, people don’t; for we only have to read on to immediately notice this: “I had a class in regulation at a state school in which the general conclusion of the text and the prof was that the largest businesses in the industry being regulated take over the regulatory agency and use it to promote their own interests.” And one need not go to university to find such skepticism. Opinion polls show that a great majority think the state is hopelessly corrupt. The media, whose more direct overseers are the business class, doesn’t typically ask such questions regarding the latter. But we can assume, given the amount of money spent on public relations, that the private sector finds it necessary and profitable to convince people of similarly benevolent motives. If not for taxes’ resultant lack of resources, we could expect even greater use of such propaganda.

Here is my final post to this subject. Never and I repeat never let you faith influence your investment decision. Looking at the list of investors, it is clear they did not take this warning!

Here are the fifteen axioms of the ethics of the divine economy (a positive ethical theory) that I have identified.

1. Humans carry their thoughts into the realm of action.
2. Being a seeker after truth is part of the human operating system.
3. The definition of praxeology used in the divine economy theory is ‘purposeful action by spiritual beings’ and it is interwoven with ethics.
4. Every human being decides what is best for himself (herself) and this decision is referred to as ‘subjective’ rather than as ‘selfish’ (a term which has too many biases associated with it).
5. What catches the attention of human beings is the appearance of the names and attributes of God.
6. The content of our actions is the conveyance of the names and attributes of God.
7. Humans are interested in the science and the art of existence.
8. Our human limit is the point where a higher kingdom is reached, one that is incomprehensible to the lower kingdom.
9. The Word of God extends our knowledge of spiritual concepts.
10. The first and foremost ethic for the divine economy is trust in God.
11. The ethics between the macro and the micro level is seamless.
12. Acquisition of virtues constitutes private property.
13. Human rights are property rights and property rights are human rights.
14. Production is a human creation, emulating God, the Creator.
15. Pure entrepreneurship is the discovery of something from nothing.

Dear Brian,

Granted, my commentary has veered from the original article but sometimes people participating and commenting are in dialogue, of sorts. I assume you know this.

There was quite a bit of discussion about ethics in the comments and so I thought I would contribute to that discussion. That answers your question: “What does your “Divine Economy” have to do with the article?”

With regards your assessment: If you understood the divine economy theory you would see that your statements (“Most of your items have nothing to do with economics” and “idiosyncratic view of religion”) are incorrect.

The science of economics and the science of ethics are advancing and are able to be tested. You can test them or simply scorn them.

As the entrepreneurial spirit is encouraged and developed prejudices will wane.

Since humans are entrepreneurial in potential and since the study of human action is an essential approach to understanding entrepreneurship it follows that economics and ethics have roles to play in that transformation.

“No man-made system has authority over other men because no man has moral authority over other men.”

So a crime can’t be defined? Or people can’t sent to prison because others don’t have the right to judge others or use force to imprison someone else?

“murder may be considered wrong by many people . . .”

I think you meant to write “some forms of killing may be considered acceptable by many people” – execution, self-defence, euthanasia, abortion, sacrifices, sports, etc. ‘Murder’ is a subset of killing that is alway considered wrong.

Clearly one needs a god, then, Inquisitor, whether he be the god of the Bible or the god Mises. These “imperatives” must come from somewhere.

“As the entrepreneurial spirit is encouraged and developed prejudices will wane.”

Is this addressed to me? Look, I have my own religious beliefs and frankly I don’t think you’d accept them. I wouldn’t however accuse you of prejudice just because you happen to disagree. Prejudice is too strong a word to apply to someone rejecting another’s personal religious beliefs.

If you want then I can criticize your beliefs on rational grounds. Prejudice will have nothing to do with it.

Much of your list is platitudes. That is, trite, meaningless, biased or prosaic statements that are presented as if it were significant and original.

“The science of economics and the science of ethics are advancing and are able to be tested. You can test them or simply scorn them.”

Believe me, you don’t want to be tested. Especially when your ethics is not based on scientific principles. If you were really thinking scientifically then at your age you still wouldn’t have this ancient notion that ethics is grounded in a deity. You would have wised up by now.

“But I sense that you were just waiting for an opportunity to attack.”

… and I sense that you’re selling something.

“Unjust because, after all, we seem to be discussing ethics and clearly justice is ethical and injustice is unethical. “

Another platitude? Do you always speak in platitudes?

Of course economics has to do with ethics. That’s a no-brainer. What’s dubious is whether ethics has anything to do with god.

“Are you still convinced that you understand ethics enough to criticize others?”

Says the guy who’s trying to sell, literally sell, masters degrees in “divine economy”. It seems to me you were looking for an opportunity to advertise here, and jumped at the chance.

You do understand that you cannot ground ethics in God right? First off, how do you know what god says? Second, if god told you to do something evil (and he often does in the bible) then does that make it good? Third, why should anyone take advice on ethics from a being who is so disproportionate in his punishments that he runs an eternal torture chamber?

Gil: “So a crime can’t be defined? Or people can’t sent to prison because others don’t have the right to judge others or use force to imprison someone else?”

Without God, morality that has authority over all men cannot be defined. Of course, people can make up any morality they want, but it has no authority over others. In other words, you have no right to impose it on others.

Inquisitor : “Fundamentalist, what “authority” is it that religion grants exactly? None.”

Exactly. And I never wrote that it does. Only God has the authority over mankind to determine what is right and wrong for all mankind. Religion is the search for what God has determined is right and wrong.

Inquisitor: “All morality has hypothetical (or perhaps assertoric, i.e. since… then) authority.”

Which, in plain English means no authority.

Inquisitor: “The point is to find the most general hypothetical imperatives from which to construct moral systems. One does not need god, nor does one “need” any compelling authority to do so.”

That’s what man without God does, and I have no problem with it. But as I wrote, you have no authority to impose your ethics on anyone who disagrees. Only those who voluntarily agree to your ethics are subject to them. If another group comes up with a different set of ethics, for example that all left-handed people should be killed, then you have no logical reason to say they are wrong. You can only say that you disagree.

Inquisitor: “One merely needs to find the right grounding principles to guide societial behaviour.”

Of course, the ethics you arrive at will depend upon your starting assumptions. If I start with a different set of assumptions, then I’ll arrive at a different set of ethics. For example, Hoppe starts with self-ownership and proceeds to property rights. Natural law theorists started with the right to life and came up with a different set of ethics. Nazis and Communists start with very different assumptions to arrive at their “ethics.”

Brian: “First off, how do you know what god says?”

That’s what theology is all about, determining what God says. It’s no more difficult than economics.

Brian: “Second, if god told you to do something evil (and he often does in the bible) then does that make it good?”

By definition, God can’t order people to do something evil. His morality issues from his nature and He won’t act against His own nature. Maybe you refer to instances in the Bible when God ordered the killing of large numbers of people. It’s clear from these stories that God communicated his morality to the people in question and they had refused to obey. As God, he has the authority to judge and punish such criminal behavior. Besides, on what authority do you sit in judgement of God?

Brian: “Third, why should anyone take advice on ethics from a being who is so disproportionate in his punishments that he runs an eternal torture chamber?”

How do you know the punishment is disproportionate and why is proportianality an ethical principle? All you’re saying is that you don’t like the God of Bible and His decisions. So should we all base our morality on what pleases and displeases you?

Without God, morality that has authority over all men cannot be defined.

I’m sorry to tell you this but all avenues to deriving morality from God were closed long ago. One can always question the validity of any of the many steps used to supposedly derive morality from God. In the end it is always a human mind that has to make the decision at each step. This by itself makes such claims non-universal.

Student: “Why is it moral to slay the infidel?”
Imam: “Because Allah says to.”
Student: “But how do I know that Allah says this?”
Imam: “Because it is written in the Qur’an”
Student: “But how do I know that the Qur’an is not corrupted.”
Imam: “Because it was written by Allah at the beginning of time”
Student: “How do I know that is true?”
…
Student: “But it is obvious such a rule is immoral. Surely if Allah claimed such a rule as true then he his immoral. Why should I listen to him.”
…
Student: “What evidence do you have that such an evil being even exists.”
…

In fact, morality “derived from God” does not have authority over all men. Islamic morality certainly counts as morality that is derived from God. I don’t accept the authority of Islamic morality at all. Do you?

”Of course, people can make up any morality they want, but it has no authority over others.”
All religions and moralities are “made up.” What was placed in the bible was decided by committee. It is the job of the Pope to make up new rules, and new interpretations. One day it’s bad to believe the Earth goes round the Sun and the next day it isn’t. All such rulings on the supposed authority of God.

”In other words, you have no right to impose it on others.”
That’s where you are wrong. I can “make up” something that corresponds to reality.

I can make up the rule, “I won’t murder you if you don’t murder me.” Then you can abide by the rule or not. If you try to violate the rule and I prevent it then who are you to complain? On what grounds can you object to me killing you if you feel that you can kill me on a whim?

Reciprocity has a logical power that does not require any God to justify it.

”Exactly. And I never wrote that it [, religion,] does [have authority]. Only God has the authority over mankind to determine what is right and wrong for all mankind. Religion is the search for what God has determined is right and wrong.”

That’s just a bald assertion of the incorrect assumptions you’ve already accepted. You assume God exists, and you assume that if he exists that the determined right from wrong. It’s perfectly plausible that he doesn’t exist, and that if he does that morality is external to him, and/or that he is amoral or immoral.

”That’s what man without God does, and I have no problem with it. But as I wrote, you have no authority to impose your ethics on anyone who disagrees.”

That depends on what my ethics say. Some moralities have no logical power. Like your example of the moral rule “Kill all left handed people”.

”Only those who voluntarily agree to your ethics are subject to them.”
Again, that depends on the ethical rule. Everyone is subject to the rule “do not murder others lest they murder you.” unless they wish to be murdered. Now they can certainly say, “I do not abide by this rule.” but perhaps we don’t believe them till they try something. At which point we are perfectly justified in killing them to enforce the rule, because without it there is no grounds upon which to complain.

” If another group comes up with a different set of ethics, for example that all left-handed people should be killed, then you have no logical reason to say they are wrong.

Sure I do. It’s illogical to kill left handed people. That’s logical grounds. Furthermore, there is no reason for left handed people and friends of left handed people to assent to such a rule. There is no benefit what-so-ever to them, so it can’t be reciprocal.

Lacking reciprocality is a perfectly good reason not to assent to a rule. Would you accept a game of chess with someone else where they are allowed to move onto whatever square they please but you are not?

You can only say that you disagree.”

I can do more than disagree. I can prevent those who wish to kill left handed people on the basis of their morality. On what ethical grounds are they going to stop me? They can’t claim the rule was to my benefit in the first place.

”That’s what theology is all about, determining what God says. It’s no more difficult than economics.”

Says the guy who can’t figure out why killing left people is not perfectly logical. If theology is such a snap then why have theologist throughout history been so factionalized, often having literally bloody conflicts with their closest rival sects?

” By definition, God can’t order people to do something evil.”
Yet, he (and his representatives) do order evil according to the various religions. Don’t tell me you are that ignorant of religious literature. The Deists were so repulsed by much of the bible that they claimed that it was a defamation of his nature. Yet others, fundamentalists, your namesake, take the bible literally.

” His morality issues from his nature and He won’t act against His own nature.”
You are just making tautological claims. Yet, it is quite clear that God not only commands evil in the bible, such as slavery, but actively participates. This is the danger with such thinking. It gets to the point with some idiots that they try to work out the logic of this and decide that God really wants people stoned for being gay.

” Maybe you refer to instances in the Bible when God ordered the killing of large numbers of people.”
Yes, he’s commanded many an atrocity. Essentially saying to invade a neighboring city and slaughter every living being inside.

Worse, he supposedly had every man, woman, and child on the planet murdered except for the few on Noah’s ark.

” It’s clear from these stories that God communicated his morality to the people in question and they had refused to obey.”

As a matter of fact that is not clear at all. The whole point of these kinds of stories is not that God wasn’t listened to but that his prophets weren’t. That is, those claiming to speak for god. Furthermore, it wasn’t like all the small children and babies that were drown in the Noahian flood actually were competent to make such judgements.

Do you find drowning an acceptable preemptive punishment for non-believers. If so then why aren’t you advocating that we drown all the people in Hindu, and Buddhist societies? Why aren’t you advocating drowning them down to the last baby?

Perhaps because it’s an unspeakably evil act?

It’s worse yet for God since he could have spoken to each and every person individually with no need for a middleman. Easier than you lifting your pinky.

No, these stories were designed to fool the gullible, to strike fear into them and make them obey the priests. Unfortunately, or fortunately they make God look like and evil bastard instead.

” As God, he has the authority to judge and punish such criminal behavior.”
It is clear from the wanton nature of the punishments that the innocent as well as the guilt were rounded up punishment. Lest you are so evil as to think babies should be judged and punished.

” Besides, on what authority do you sit in judgement of God?”

What a silly question. On what authority do you sit in judgment of Allah, of Zeus, of Santa? On what authority do you sit in judgment of anything?

I sit in judgment of these fictional stories on the basis of rationality, that’s what. It’s irrational to execute babies for supposed disobedience to what are obviously poorly communicated rules. This is especially true if the baby hasn’t broken any of the rules.

” How do you know the punishment is disproportionate and why is proportianality an ethical principle?

I know what is disproportionate because I have a brain. Slaughtering babies and sending them to hell to burn for eternity is the definition of disproportionate. Flooding the entire earth is the very definition of disproportion.

Taking someone who has lived a good life and never harmed another and roasting them in fire for eternity merely for lacking a belief in your existence is the height of disproportion. Especially if you have the power to show your existence but instead hide to the point where people wonder “Is God Dead.” Especially if you wrap the supposed evidence for your existence with absurdities, like virgin births, following stars, worldwide floods, and walking on water.

All you’re saying is that you don’t like the God of Bible and His decisions.”
That’s just what you want to believe. I’m saying much more than that. I’m laughing because it is precisely this kind of reasoning that Mohammed took advantage of. After using this incredibly weak assertion it leaves me wondering what your response would be to a Muslim who said the same to you, after you objected to Allah’s decisions as written by Mohammed.

Suppose you were arguing that the Qur’an is obviously not the work of a moral being on the basis of the quite obviously evil directives and actions therein. Now suppose in response they said, “All you’re saying is that you don’t like the Allah of the Qur’an and His decisions.” Would that have any weight in your mind as a valid response. Of course not.

So should we all base our morality on what pleases and displeases you?
I retort the same to you. Should we all base our morality on your credulous belief in the imaginary, merely on the basis that it pleases you? I don’t think so.

So when your God (or gods) tells me to hate cripples, stone my children, or dress a certain way I’ll take a pass. I’ll interpret them as your cultural preferences and not any objective morality.

“… why is proportianality an ethical principle?”

You don’t know why proportionality is an ethical principle? Do you know what the purpose of punishment is? I bet you don’t. Right about now I’m wondering if you know anything about ethics at all. Not surprising since you don’t think ethics is about principles, but instead about what a deity says or doesn’t. I guess, using that metric, morality could be just anything.

Do you object to chopping off the hands of thieves? I object on the grounds of proportionality, among other reasons.

One of the objections to an eternal hell as a punishment is that punishment is mean to correct behavior. We don’t punish the insane precisely because to do so would not serve the purpose of changing their behavior. They are not in control of their behavior by definition. Punishing the insane and the mentally incompetent serves only to torture and nothing else.

The same goes for punishing the damned for eternity. Someone who is being burnt for eternity has no future opportunity to act. He cannot change his behavior. Thus the punishment cannot serve the purpose of changing behavior. It thus becomes purely torture.

That’s a few of the grounds upon which I sit in judgment of YOUR conception of YOUR god.

Brian: “In fact, morality “derived from God” does not have authority over all men.”

You’re confusing the application of God’s law with the logical basis for it. All philosophers have claimed is that without God there is no logical basis for a universal morality. As a result, their attitude was “why bother?” No one has ever claimed that everyone on the planet would submit to God’s will even if they knew exactly what it was. But that is different from having a logical defense of morality.

Brian: “I can make up the rule, “I won’t murder you if you don’t murder me.” Then you can abide by the rule or not. If you try to violate the rule and I prevent it then who are you to complain? On what grounds can you object to me killing you if you feel that you can kill me on a whim?”

Clearly, if we agree on something and I break the agreement, I am in the wrong. But you have no right to take any action beyond refusing to associate with me. Who authorized you to take another persons life?

Brian: “Reciprocity has a logical power that does not require any God to justify it.”

That doesn’t make it moral. It’s just your personal idea of right action, even if you used very sound reason to arrive at it. It doesn’t apply to anyone else. Besides, the morality of God, especially that developed by natural law, has far more logic to it, yet you would deny it the same power.

Brian: “You assume God exists, and you assume that if he exists that the determined right from wrong.”

No. I don’t assume God exists. I use reason and reality to determine the truth of God’s existence. The fact that mankind has a conscience and desperately seeks a universal morality is a small part of the evidence of God’s existence because natural selection could not have produced such a desire in mankind. Natural selection violates the principle of cause and effect by which the effect cannot be greater than the cause, the effect being the desire for morality.

Brian: “It’s perfectly plausible that he doesn’t exist, and that if he does that morality is external to him, and/or that he is amoral or immoral.”

If He doesn’t exist, then there is no such thing as universal morality. We are left with the preferences of each individual.

Brian: “That depends on what my ethics say. Some moralities have no logical power. Like your example of the moral rule “Kill all left handed people”.

Any moral principle can be rationalized if you start with the appropriate assumptions. Different assumptions will lead to different conclusion about morals even if the process in between is perfectly logical with no contradictions. Hoppe’s ethic demonstrates that very well.

Brian: “Everyone is subject to the rule “do not murder others lest they murder you.” unless they wish to be murdered.”

That’s not a rule. That’s a simple statement of fact. If you murder someone, it’s likely that someone close to the murdered person will try to murder you in response. That doesn’t mean that committing murder is immoral.

Brian: “At which point we are perfectly justified in killing them to enforce the rule, because without it there is no grounds upon which to complain.”

Justified on what grounds? If you can’t show that the first murder was immoral, then you can’t say that murdering the murderer is justified.

Brian: “It’s illogical to kill left handed people.”

Not if I assume that left handed people are evil and a danger to society. My example is easy to attack because it was purposely extreme. But take euthenasia as an example. Before WWII people thought that letting poor, dumb people to marry was an evil against humanity because it harmed the gene pool. They based their attitude on the “scientific” principle of evolution. Hitler took the next logical step to preserve the German race. Where is the flaw in Hitler’s logic?

Brian: “Lacking reciprocality is a perfectly good reason not to assent to a rule.”

What is this fetish you have for reciprocity? And who cares about assent? If left handed people don’t assent to my rule, which I think is logical, I can still kill them and not have committed an immoral act because my actions are moral within my logical system of morality.

Brian: “I can prevent those who wish to kill left handed people on the basis of their morality. On what ethical grounds are they going to stop me?”

On what ethical grounds are you going to stop them? You have your morals and they have theirs. Based on their ethical system, they have every ethical ground for stopping you.

Brian: “If theology is such a snap then why have theologist throughout history been so factionalized, often having literally bloody conflicts with their closest rival sects?”

I never said it was easy or that everyone would agree. Just as with your personal ethics; not everyone will agree with them.

Brian: “Yet, he (and his representatives) do order evil according to the various religions.”

That’t not logical. If God exists, then He has the authority to do anything He wishes and by definition it is not immoral or evil. Only God has that authority. In Christianity, morality comes from God’s nature, so He will not act against it. In Islam, morality is something Allah intended just for mankind and He is not bound by it. His representatives may deliberately disobey God’s morality and commit evil, but God can’t.

Brian: “The Deists were so repulsed by much of the bible that they claimed that it was a defamation of his nature.”

But that begs the question, how did the Deists know what God’s nature was like? If not revealed in the Bible, then they couldn’t possibly know what God was like. The Deists had created their own morality and used it to judge God, but clearly, without God no morality exists. The Deists were sadly confused people.

Brian: “Yet, it is quite clear that God not only commands evil in the bible, such as slavery, but actively participates.”

On what ground is slavery and the other “evils” that God commands in the Bible evil? Your personal opinion?

Brian: “Yes, he’s commanded many an atrocity. Essentially saying to invade a neighboring city and slaughter every living being inside.”

If God exists, does he not have the right to do what He wants with His creation? You think that murdering another person who committed murders is a good thing and moral, but you are neither the creator of that person you would murder, nor an authority over him. You place yourself in the role of God. But God does have authority over mankind and if he judges that an entire city of people are too evil to continue living, then what right do you have to judge Him? Are you God’s creator?

Brian: “As a matter of fact that is not clear at all. The whole point of these kinds of stories is not that God wasn’t listened to but that his prophets weren’t. That is, those claiming to speak for god. Furthermore, it wasn’t like all the small children and babies that were drown in the Noahian flood actually were competent to make such judgements.”

Yes, it is clear. You just refuse to accept the truth. As for the small children and babies that drowned in the flood, you think it would be more human to allow them to live without adults to care for them? They would quickly starve to death.

Brian: “Do you find drowning an acceptable preemptive punishment for non-believers. If so then why aren’t you advocating that we drown all the people in Hindu, and Buddhist societies? Why aren’t you advocating drowning them down to the last baby?”

Because I’m not God. Besides, if you actually read the Bible, you’ll find that God never punished people preemptively. In fact, he rarely punished people for unbelief. God’s judgments generally fell on people for murder and human sacrifice they were committing.

Brian: “It’s worse yet for God since he could have spoken to each and every person individually with no need for a middleman. Easier than you lifting your pinky.”

Again, if you knew the Bible, you would realize that God does that with every person who has ever lived on this planet, and still does it. He sends the human representative after everything else has failed as one last warning.

Brian: “I sit in judgment of these fictional stories on the basis of rationality, that’s what.”

And here we come full circle: without God there is no rational basis for universal morality.

Brian: “I know what is disproportionate because I have a brain. Slaughtering babies and sending them to hell to burn for eternity is the definition of disproportionate.”

You think very highly of your brain. But as Hayek wrote, intelligence is highly overrated. Wisdom is far more important and wisdom begins with humility. Besides, if you actually read the Bible you would find that no babies or children go to hell because they have not reached the age of accountability.

Brian: “Taking someone who has lived a good life and never harmed another and roasting them in fire for eternity merely for lacking a belief in your existence is the height of disproportion.”

Again, you don’t know the Bible because you haven’t read it. Neither do you know the life that every person has lived. God, and only God, has the power to judge correctly the life that any person has lived. God would never send someone who has lived a good life to hell. But then, you want to determine the standard for what constitutes a good life. God reserves that right for Himself. According to God’s standard, every man and woman who has ever lived deserves to go to hell, because we have all violated His standards multiple times in our lives. So in God’s eyes, no one has lived a good life. Because of His love, He provided a way out through His son, who’s birth we commemorate this week.

Brian: “Especially if you have the power to show your existence but instead hide to the point where people wonder “Is God Dead.”

Evidence of God is everywhere. That doesn’t mean people will accept it. Again, if you had read the Bible you would know that God has distanced Himself from mankind because mankind rebelled against God and doesn’t want to have anything to do with Him. God will not force Himself on people the way you insist He should.

Brian; “Especially if you wrap the supposed evidence for your existence with absurdities, like virgin births, following stars, worldwide floods, and walking on water.”

So what would you propose that God do to prove His existence? The Bible claims that He speaks to every person who is born. He has appeared to many people, but most people are like you and doubt those experiences. So you think everyone would believe in God if He appeared in front of their eyes? How would they know He was God? Wouldn’t He have to perform some sort of miracle, which you already consider a stupid thing to do? What would prevent you from thinking it was a dream brought on by pepperoni pizza? My point is that God has already done everything you ask of Him, and most people like you reject any attempt by God to reveal Himself to you and rationalize the experience away.

Brian: “You don’t know why proportionality is an ethical principle? ”

No, I don’t know wy proportionality is an ethical principle. If God didn’t say it is one, then what makes it one?

Brian: “Do you object to chopping off the hands of thieves? I object on the grounds of proportionality, among other reasons.”

I don’t see why chopping off the hands of thieves violates proportionality. Proportionality is very subjective. You may think something lacks proportion when I don’t.

Brian: “One of the objections to an eternal hell as a punishment is that punishment is mean to correct behavior.”

That’s a very modern view of punishment and I don’t agree with it. Until very recently, punishment was to carry out justice, that is, to give criminals what they deserved for crimes committed and the victims what they deserve.

History is a part of human knowledge.

It is impossible to separate religion from history since it has been an important aspect of human life since the beginning of recorded time.

If some individual wants to exclude religion from the unfolding of human civilization that is their right but it is not their right to expect that everyone else is supposed to erase religion from history.

It is a fantasy, undefendable, that there is such a thing as history without the effects of religion. In contrast it would be scientific to recognize the importance and inseparability of religion and human history and then to find a way to understand it without trying to fit it into an atheistic box.

No one is saying that a person cannot choose to be an atheist but trying to impose atheism on human history is unscientific. Those who try to impose atheism on human history and then claim that they are being scientific may be able to fool themselves and they may be able to fool some people but, like the Keynesians, they are unscientific.

Fundamentalist,

“Again, you don’t know the Bible because you haven’t read it.”

Unfortunately that is not true. I’ve read it and it’s full of nonsense. Besides anyone can write a book and claim God wrote it and you still have the same problem. It’s already been done.

I can see from your comments where you are coming from. In your mind God can commit any crime and it becomes moral. Meanwhile, any crime becomes moral if he instructs you to do it.

That’s extremely scary and is the kind of thinking that lead to 9/11. Morality is more than “What God says to do.”

Given your position it is impossible to defend against other peoples claims about what God is telling them to do.

If this is what early Christians believed then it’s no wonder that Islam took over the homeland of Christianity. The Muslims had their own instructions from God and Christians had no ready answer.

Hell, right now you couldn’t even defend against the claims of the terrorists. The most you could do is say, “That’s not what god told me to do”. You have however claimed that God speaks to everyone, so they can retort, “Well he told us to do something different.”

You can’t argue against that because, in fact, you claim that God can do whatever he pleases with the world, including the death and torture of innocent babies. Surely he can play the prank of telling you one thing and the Muslims another.

It’s certainly clear that in your conception he has no problem running an eternal torture chamber. Why not have a little sadistic fun here on earth while he’s at it too.

Heck, any murderer could claim that God had spoken to them and ordered the execution of his victim.

“”In your mind God can commit any crime and it becomes moral.”"

“No, that’s distorting what I wrote.”

Only by a rationalization did you write something that does not match what I said. You merely defined the issue away by equivocating on what crime is. You’ve given an alternate definition of crime that no normal person would assent to.

No normal person would assent to the idea that having their baby tortured, mauled, drowned, burned, etc. is “good” merely on the grounds that God is the sick SOB doing it.

“God cannot commit crimes by definition.”
That’s a convenient definition, and ridiculous.

“Just because you don’t like how God acts doesn’t mean those acts are criminal.”
It’s not because I don’t like them that they are criminal. It’s because they are crimes that they are criminal.

If God burns down a building with an innocent baby in it then he has committed murder. You can’t kill a baby just because you made it. In fact, he didn’t even make the baby, the parents actually did. It’s a product of their choice, not his, even in your fantasy metaphysics.

“To have moral authority over God you have have to be His creator. Only then could you judge his actions.”

Baloney. Just because you create something doesn’t mean you can do with it as you please. The fact that I create a baby does not mean that I get to do with it as I please. I can’t kill it on a whim, torture it, etc.

In fact, the obligation runs the other way round. I as the person who created the baby have an obligation to care for it while it is unable to do so itself. I know that when I created the baby that it would be helpless. Therefore it is I who put the baby in the position it is in. The baby is innocent in this regard.

When someone sets up a situation then they are responsible for the consequences of that situation. If I’m flying a plane I built over over a suburb I can’t just put on a parachute and jump out declaring, “I renounce ownership of this plane. I am the creator and therefore I get to decide what happens.”. My actions have put others in danger of no fault of their own, and I am responsible. It is my duty to make sure that plane lands safely.

Likewise bringing a baby into the world puts it in danger, and it is my duty to protect the baby against that danger.

So your imagined God has a responsibility to his creations even if you don’t recognize that.

Furthermore your claim is nonsense on further grounds. You implicitly claim that I can only judge Gods morality if I am his creator. This however leads to absurdities like the belief that I cannot judge the moral actions of others merely because I am not their creators.

I did not create the burglar who breaks into my house or the guy who tries to murder me. Yet I have full moral authority to stop either one of them. Furthermore, I am fully in my rights to use lethal force, should it come to that, to do so.

There are ethical reasons that I can’t jump directly to lethal force but that is not because I don’t have moral authority. The fact is that I can stop them because they are violating the principles of reciprocity that may me refrain from interfering with their actions in the first place.

There are no rules to ethics that allow God to be above moral reprimand. Ethics is a rational enterprise and even if God has the power to do as he likes he’s still the logic’s bitch. He still is a murderer when he murders.

To say otherwise is to abandon reason, which I see you have no problem doing. Just don’t pretend that you are being reasonable. You aren’t. You are only play acting at being reasonable.

Brian: “I’ve read it and it’s full of nonsense.”

You: If you have read it, you clearly didn’t undestand what you read.

No clearly, you haven’t understood it. If you did then you would renounce your Christianity, like I have.

The bible is full of crazy and contradictory nonsense. If you didn’t realize that then you were not paying attention.

Books and articles pointing this out are freely available in our culture. I’m not going to write a bunch of examples here. Read some of the literature written by our Founding Father’s for examples. Thomas Paine’s book “The Age of Reason” would be a good starting point.

I have no problem with people being Christian if they want for traditional reasons, social reasons, cultural reasons, etc. Hell I celebrate Christmas. Just don’t try to tell me nonsense like the idea that morality can’t be based on anything other than the concept of a diety. That’s factually incorrect.

I know because I live by a code of morality that isn’t, and yes certain aspects of that morality does have moral authority over you. Like my belief that you are not allowed to murder me. Just try to murder me and you will find out how that moral authority is enforced. It’s recognized and enforced by men, not gods.

BTW, your beliefs about natural selection are also nonsense. Natural selection has no problem generating organisms that have morals. All that is require for morality to arise is that a) it needs to be a good strategy to survive, b) being moral is incrementally better in degrees, c) and that mutations happen to arise to walk you up the slope of morality. Nothing more. No creator, no plan.

It is clear from the evidence of other animals that morality can arise incrementally. We can see lower stages in the process.

It’s clear that you want the last word to feel victorious!

You recreated how the discussion unfolded but forgot that you initiated all of the conflicts and attacked every response.

Its in print and you can go back and read it if your memory fails you.

The Mises blog serves as a place for dialogue but you carry it further and use belligerent tactics. For what? You imply that you are ‘right’ but if that is the case then you would be peaceful. Even if the content of what you say is correct, if you hit other people with it in a deliberate manner then it is wrong.

The irony is that you act this way when you are speaking about ethics? Step back and contemplate.

Brian: “I’ve read at least 30 books on philosophy.”

Apparently you understood them as poorly as you understood the Bible.

I contributed to this Mises blog dialogue strand several times and then the third time I commented I submitted this comment because I thought it might be useful: “Here are the fifteen axioms of the ethics of the divine economy (a positive ethical theory) that I have identified.”

You then over several exchanges accused me of selling a Masters degree and then of selling books both of which are half-truths. So it would be proper for you to acknowledge that you spoke half-truths as part of your ‘argument’ and that would suffice as an apology.

As far as being peaceful, it will be evident.

“Or are you claiming that the book is not required, and that you are going to provide, free of charge, all information required for the course online?”

Yes.

“You haven’t even attempted to show why those items I identified as platitudes, are not platitudes.”

Brian, you claimed they were platitudes not me. I disagree with your assessment. I assume that if someone is interested in the divine economy theory and if they are interested in what I have contributed to that theory that they would simply correspond with me.

If a person is not interested that is fine with me. You have made it clear that you are not interested.

If you then make the assertion that your point of view is correct and mine is wrong then I counter that with an assertion that you are poorly informed about the divine economy theory.

If you make the assertion that your point of view is correct and that you are aware that my point of view is different than yours then we both know enough about the other to show respect for each other.

Apparently you are convinced that you have tested the divine economy theory and found it lacking. That is why you are not interested in it.

I have tested it and continue to test it and I have found it to be an original and significant contribution to the science of economics and the science of ethics. Our views are different.

I will start here: “BTW, are you accredited by some institution to offer a “Masters Degree”, or did you just make that up? Why do you think you are qualified to give out such degrees? Is it more that, “I made this stuff up so I’m the most knowledgeable.”

These are good questions. You may misunderstand my answers but here they are: No, there is not an institution accrediting this Masters Degree in divine economy theory. I am qualified because I am offering a rigorous program to study the divine economy theory. When a person is finished they will have mastered the divine economy theory as described in my first three books. Your last sentence appears to be a half-truth. I am the author of the subjective models that the theory uses to advance economic science and no one else has that knowledge as of yet. That is a fact but the motivation that you imply is incorrect.

The sixth axiom is: The content of our actions is the conveyance of the names and attributes of God.

You eventually used the words on the page to make it appear that logically you could arrive at: “Now let’s move on. The sentence now becomes, for this particular situation, “Murder is the conveyance of the names and attributes of God.”

I think my use of the phrase ‘the content of our actions’ caused the confusion. A better way of stating it is: ‘the motivation behind our actions.’ If someone commits murder or takes an action it is purposeful. Something is desired. The essence of what is desired fulfills the desire to acquire one of the attributes of God, like power, strength, justice, etc.

As I stated: “Not only are we attracted, mothlike, to the inherent names and attributes of God manifested by all things but we reciprocally express them.”