Monthly Archives: March 2016

God cannot destroy Satan

This is an exercise is philosophical theology. Using concepts from logic including the logical concepts of moral language arguments are constructed to show, at a very abstract level, that there must be some kind of being of religious interest that some being of religious interest must have certain features. The most well-know, or notorious, is the so-called ontological argument of St. Anselm. This is apriori conceptual play. However, if the order thought is the order of reality, this conceptual play uncovers fundamental features of religiously reality apart from thought.

I present the argument in a brief syllogism and then argue in support of only the second premise since I think apriori considerations about God’s goodness would easily support premise (1)
1. God cannot do what God ought not do.
2.God ought not destroy Satan
So
(3) God cannot destroy Satan

Why accept premise (2)?
Suppose God created an intelligence with a will free to choose as God wills it to act and to be or choose not to act and to be as God wills. Suppose this being is almost equal to God in intelligence and creative power. Suppose further that this being chooses not to act and be as God wills. Such a being could plausibly be described as Satan.

Even if Satan is not as he ought to be there is still a way he ought to be out there to be realized if Satan so chooses. If God were to destroy Satan, God would bring it about that Satan ceases to be. However, if Satan ceases to be, he cannot be as he ought to be. No being ought to stop the possibility of what ought to be from coming about. So, not even God ought to stop the possibility of Satan becoming as he ought to be.
Some corollaries which I think can be established are as follows.
A. God cannot bring it about that there is no time. For Satan is a moral being and a moral being needs a temporal framework to choose. Destruction of time would bring it about that Satan does not exist.
B. God cannot allow Satan to bring it about that he, Satan, does not exist. (Satanic suicide ). If Satan were to choose not to be, without revoking his choice contrary to God’s will, he would be irrevocably ruling out the possibility of being as he ought to be. An all good being cannot allow a being to irrevocably block the possibility of being as it ought to be.

I have written a book in which defending traditional sexual morality using as a crucial premise that we have a moral obligation to be morally correct people. Of course, the case for traditional sexual morality cannot be at the highly abstract level of the above conceptual play. However, I find that there is a phase of any serious philosophical argument where we confront the challenge starkly facing these apriori arguments. The challenge is what justifies us in assuming that the order of our thinking uncovers the order of reality apart from our thinking. I confront that high level challenge in my ” down to earth” book on sexual morality.

My book arguing that sexual neutrality leads to nihilism is Confronting Sexual Nihilism: Traditional Sexual Morality as an Antidote to Nihilism was released by Tate Publishing on March 11, 2014. See Book Web Page for information about the book. The publisher’s listed price is $26.99. Printed copies can be purchased here by credit card for $12.99, plus $3.71 for shipping and handling.





To purchase the printed book by check, send check of $16.70 per copy. Send to:
Charles F. Kielkopf
45 W. Kenworth Rd.
Columbus, Ohio 43214
Include your shipping address.

Immorality of Suicide and Physician Assisted Suicide

In this post, I lay out a moral objection to physician assisted suicide. Do not be “put-off” by the academic style of presenting a series of numbered claims linked together to draw conclusions. The numbered claims highlight crucial assumptions. This highlighting facilitates focusing on what needs to be discussed in evaluation of this moral condemnation of suicide. A full examination of the assumptions is not undertaken in this post. I make only a few supporting remarks below the argument.

1. I have a moral obligation to be morally correct human beings under any conditions.
By re-expressing (1) negatively, we get:
2. Under no conditions am I permitted to choose not to be a morally correct human being.
Now let us switch to applying the general moral law to my plans and choices.
3. If I plan to take, or have someone else take, my life I plan not to be under some conditions.
4. If I plan not to be under some conditions, then I plan not to be a morally correct human being under some conditions. (Being is a necessary condition for being morally correct.)
So, linking (3) and (4) we get:
5. If I plan to take, or have some take, my life , then I plan not to be a morally correct human being under some conditions.
Suppose
6. I plan to take, or have someone take, my life by making provisions for physician assisted suicide.
We get from 5) and (6)
7. I plan not to be a morally correct human being under some conditions.
Obviously, my plan expressed in (7) is in direct conflict with the moral law expressed in (2). This conflict is the moral condemnation of choosing suicide or physician assisted suicide.

Claim (1) brings out that my case starts from a moral claim. My argument is not based on only natural non-moral facts. I use first person singular, but the moral claim is for all people. If we do accept morality, it is quite plausible to accept an obligation to be moral, viz., a morally correct human being. A “Kantian” moral theory justifying (1) is developed in my book. If there is anything special in this condemnation of suicide it is expressed in (3). Choice of suicide is a choice not to be. It may seem that choice of suicide is a choice not to be in some miserable condition. However, a not to be is chosen as a means for not being in a miserable condition.

I have written a book in which defending traditional sexual morality using as a crucial premise that we have a moral obligation to be morally correct people. To get a sexual morality from that general moral principles, I show that there are specific ways men and women ought to exercise their sexuality. My book gets complicated because I argue that if we do not accept that there are specific ways men and women ought to exercise their sexuality – which I call the moral neutrality of sexuality- then there are no specific ways people ought to be. If there are now specific ways people ought to be, then there is no morality. Everything is permitted including suicide, of course. Nothing matters. That is nihilism.

My book arguing that sexual neutrality leads to nihilism is Confronting Sexual Nihilism: Traditional Sexual Morality as an Antidote to Nihilism was released by Tate Publishing on March 11, 2014. See Book Web Page for information about the book. The publisher’s listed price is $26.99. Printed copies can be purchased here by credit card for $12.99, plus $3.71 for shipping and handling.





To purchase the printed book by check, send check of $16.70 per copy. Send to:
Charles F. Kielkopf
45 W. Kenworth Rd.
Columbus, Ohio 43214
Include your shipping address.