Thread: Can a truely all powerful being do anything immoral?

The basic idea is that immoral actions are generally those that cause pain and those that are irreversible. Murder is irreversibly ending someones life. Rape, while it will physically heal, causes mental and emotional pain that will likely never be forgotten. Assault is deliberately causing pain. If an all powerful being had the power to reverse and action done, would anything he does be immoral? He could murder someone, and then bring them back to life and erase anyone's memory of him ever being dead. He could rape someone, and then turn back time to a point where the woman was never raped. He could torture children and then erase any physical pain or memories of the action. He could even kick the planet into the sun for no reason, and then decide he wants it back and create it again in the exact place it was with no trace of death. Could any of these actions be reasonably considered immoral if there is ultimately no pain caused?

I started writing this with the idea that an all powerful being couldn't do anything immoral, but thinking while writing I instead think that he can choose to never reverse his actions, and if the pain was left then it would indeed be immoral. But if any and every pain caused is reversed, I don't see how the action could be considered immoral.

Zeus was well known for taking human form and sleeping with women, married and single, then going back to Olympus. This greatly annoyed his wife and im assuming the human women he did this with, but he never took the actions back. I dont think any god has power enough to undo such an action. If they could dont you think the Christian god (Jehova) would have said to Adam and Eve "hey if you meet a snake dont listen to him, hes a lying little prick." Or simply undone the creation of the snake?
In any case even if they could undo for example the immoral act, the victim would still have to endure it in the first place. No action can really be undone. Sure if the effects and pain were taken away the person would have no idea it happened but they still would have had to endure it.
Say for example i get really drunk and someone cuts me, knowing i wont remember in the morning, nor will it hurt in the morning, it was still an immoral thing that i had to endure even if i dont remember.

I know its probably not possible to ever completely undo an action, but this is just a hypothetical situation in which a being can. Your example of a person being too drunk to remember something, and then being harmed, but never remembering anything about it makes me confused. The situation seems the same as my hypothetical situation, but for some reason I feel a difference. I'm not sure why, but I feel like doing something to someone while they are unconscious is immoral, but turning back time to a point where the action never happened can't be seen as immoral. Maybe at the root of it is that I feel that the human is being sly and is just happening to avoid the consequences by taking advantage of an unconscious human who is just in a weakened mental state. On the other hand, the higher being who can create and destroy life, or turn back time, is messing with things that hold no more value to him than a rock. Its like a human crushing ants, except even less so because then the being could bring the ants back to life. Any thoughts? I'm still not exactly sure where I stand on this.

The all-powerful being could just change the world so that the immoral thing it did is, in fact, moral. Why rewind past the murder when you could just change things so that murder isn't an immoral act?

Yea that is a much better way to approach the topic than I have been trying. If the being can truely control everything, then he can make any situation moral. There is nothing the being could ever do that could be considered wrong.

A Truly all-powerful being does not need to do anything. If it needed to do something or required something outside itself, it is not all-powerful or omnipotent.

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

The basic idea is that immoral actions are generally those that cause pain and those that are irreversible. Murder is irreversibly ending someones life. Rape, while it will physically heal, causes mental and emotional pain that will likely never be forgotten. Assault is deliberately causing pain. If an all powerful being had the power to reverse and action done, would anything he does be immoral? He could murder someone, and then bring them back to life and erase anyone's memory of him ever being dead. He could rape someone, and then turn back time to a point where the woman was never raped. He could torture children and then erase any physical pain or memories of the action. He could even kick the planet into the sun for no reason, and then decide he wants it back and create it again in the exact place it was with no trace of death. Could any of these actions be reasonably considered immoral if there is ultimately no pain caused?

I started writing this with the idea that an all powerful being couldn't do anything immoral, but thinking while writing I instead think that he can choose to never reverse his actions, and if the pain was left then it would indeed be immoral. But if any and every pain caused is reversed, I don't see how the action could be considered immoral.

they cant

Originally Posted by shroom

Zeus was well known for taking human form and sleeping with women, married and single, then going back to Olympus. This greatly annoyed his wife and im assuming the human women he did this with, but he never took the actions back. I dont think any god has power enough to undo such an action. If they could dont you think the Christian god (Jehova) would have said to Adam and Eve "hey if you meet a snake dont listen to him, hes a lying little prick." Or simply undone the creation of the snake?
In any case even if they could undo for example the immoral act, the victim would still have to endure it in the first place. No action can really be undone. Sure if the effects and pain were taken away the person would have no idea it happened but they still would have had to endure it.
Say for example i get really drunk and someone cuts me, knowing i wont remember in the morning, nor will it hurt in the morning, it was still an immoral thing that i had to endure even if i dont remember.

there is no god

you can erase all traces of it ever happening, but will you (assuming you're playing the role of the god) still remember it? would it still sting at your conscience?

I think it would for me if I abused my power like that.

but anyways....

I believe that morality is a limited phenomenon, not absolute, and that it's merely controlled by a judicial system where various levels of punishment are issued depending on the crime to maintain order.

Also depends on what your goal is. If your goal as a human being is to survive, than implementing such a system is ideal. Thus, the necessity of indoctrinating your citizens with the idea of "morality."

If you're a god...then what the hell, have fun, it's pretty much all a videogame....BUT....entertaining such thoughts as a human (which you currently cannot change) is what makes you look questionable.

All powerful means the ability to do anything.

If an all powerful being could not do something immoral, he would not be able to do anything, hence he would not be all powerful, which gives a contradiction.

Therefore by contradiction an all powerful being must be able to do something immoral.

Is my pure logic wrong? :l

Originally Posted by Xei

All powerful means the ability to do anything.

If an all powerful being could not do something immoral, he would not be able to do anything, hence he would not be all powerful, which gives a contradiction.

Therefore by contradiction an all powerful being must be able to do something immoral.

Is my pure logic wrong? :l

Yes the definition is wrong. What is the purpose to "do" anything if one is Omnipotent?

Immorality is a relative judgment, and is not actually real. That is the main issue at hand.

Could an omnipotent being do anything immoral

If things were just put like they were, and memories erased, it would still be immoral. A lot of people forget their dreams completely, yet they still happened in that time when we were asleep, and we still experienced them, no? It's why lucid dreams would be worthwhile even if we did not remember them...
But if god actually went back in time to before the immoral action and didn't do it, there would be no problem - because it had never happened in the first place, by definition of "going back in time".

But going back in time causes paradoxes and shit that makes my head hurt. :/

Originally Posted by Xei

All powerful means the ability to do anything.

If an all powerful being could not do something immoral, he would not be able to do anything, hence he would not be all powerful, which gives a contradiction.

Therefore by contradiction an all powerful being must be able to do something immoral.

Is my pure logic wrong? :l

zeus with a lightning bolt. he can smite you down to ash, but the question is would (not can) he do it.

omnipotent and immoral sounds not only plausible but likely. there is another aspect that relates more closely to moral/immoral, it's omniscience or all-knowing. all kinds of questions can be asked if you think a god is being cruel, maybe even indifferent, and at the same time all-knowing. it's better to play with this idea without bringing up the notion of our lives and experiences as meaningless for whatever reason (a certain trump card). it's greek philosophy of some kind. it's explained well in books. sorry, im not well read.

Morality is in the eye of the beholder.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Morality is in the eye of the beholder.

can we make a distinction between a morality that considers, and is shared by, other beholders from one that is only for you? what's the point of morality and what are it's benefits? if there are benefits, are they shared, and if so why? if we assume that humans (monkeys) are communal and thus cooperative creatures, there must be some code of conduct that is meant to maintain the community and make it thrive. maybe individuals don't agree, but they follow anyway. what are the consequences of open dissent (following your own eye)?

An all-powerful being would "live" outside of the realm of logic. Our puney human sense-organs may not be able to fathom any type of higher consciousness outside of our ability to process it logically. (if this is that, and that is thus, then this must also be thus....etc.) For all we know, logic to a soul/pure consciousness could be like ingesting mercury to a biological animal.
An all-powerful being would not follow the human perception of morality or logic imo.

I don't think an omnipotent being's actions can be considered moral or immoral. Morals are merely social constructs. They make it possible for humans to exist socially and cohesively. They are the backbone of human interaction, of government and law, and thus change from region to region. There is no inborn morality, no sense of right and wrong that beings innately possess. An omnipotent being is capable of doing anything, and so is beyond the idea of morals. Morality no longer applies. At least, that's my take on it.

Originally Posted by KingCarnie

There is no inborn morality, no sense of right and wrong that beings innately possess.

i think if humans are innately communal, they are born with the innate sense of community. i equate this with shared morals. but i have no science to back up this notion. it's just my idea.

An omnipotent being is capable of doing anything, and so is beyond the idea of morals. Morality no longer applies. At least, that's my take on it.

i heard it was like this; people try to come up with the best way, or the right way, that society can/should operate or they best/right way that they themselves should operate. they may be really misguided in this, to the point of hurting people and, more importantly, themselves. for this argument it doesn't particularly matter if they're doing it for society or themselves, because this ultimately leads to a single notion that must be shared at the end. we are all doing this with some kind of reasoning or belief behind our actions, even if it's 'evil' (insanity aside). some can go to such extremes as to think it's the only way and that all others are inferior for some reason. my point is, they are all claiming to possess some kind of knowledge. now, i have a problem with the word 'omnipotent' for this argument, but we can go with all powerfull or encompassing or whatever, some god model of super awesomeness, but more importantly, all knowing. so with this i think that knowledge equals morality. but it's not simple like; with knowledge comes morality, but more like; with all knowledge must come morality. with this i've based my belief that ignorance is what leads to bad things. you would not do something knowing that the consequences would ultimately cause you harm, as you and everyone else seek only happiness. knowledge of how to achieve this happiness is what is needed, and knowledge itself is the only thing that's real (by definition), and what i call good. there is no such thing as evil, it's just the lack of knowledge (some or much). so i would equate knowledge with divinity and god, and this as the path of real happiness (but i dont know what that is) which would be the point of morality.

sorry for being so convoluted (and likely filled with holes), i don't remember it well anymore. but i do remember now that this is from Socrates. sorry, i lost the book on a train ride, right after his apology, and i havent read it since. please dont ask me to explain this, tho i would try, it's just gonna get worse. im sure someone else has heard of it.

Originally Posted by sleepingdog

i think if humans are innately communal, they are born with the innate sense of community. i equate this with shared morals. but i have no science to back up this notion. it's just my idea.

I agree that humans are by nature communal. So, I suppose, you can say that there are shared morals; the thing is, these morals are learned. They vary from culture to culture. Cannibalism, for example, is still, I believe, morally acceptable in some cultures; though the vast majority believe it to be an extremely heinous act.

I do see where you are coming from though, and it begins to make me reconsider my previous thoughts on an omnipotent being being beyond morals. I guess it would entirely depend on it's origins.

Originally Posted by sleepingdog

now, i have a problem with the word 'omnipotent' for this argument, but we can go with all powerfull or encompassing or whatever, some god model of super awesomeness, but more importantly, all knowing. so with this i think that knowledge equals morality. but it's not simple like; with knowledge comes morality, but more like; with all knowledge must come morality. with this i've based my belief that ignorance is what leads to bad things. you would not do something knowing that the consequences would ultimately cause you harm, as you and everyone else seek only happiness. knowledge of how to achieve this happiness is what is needed, and knowledge itself is the only thing that's real (by definition), and what i call good. there is no such thing as evil, it's just the lack of knowledge (some or much). so i would equate knowledge with divinity and god, and this as the path of real happiness (but i dont know what that is) which would be the point of morality.

Hmm, interesting thoughts, and I agree with them for the most part. However, I was under the impression wewere simply discussing an all-powerful being, in other words omnipotent. Making it omniscient as well adds a whole new dimension to the discussion. Faced with this being's unending knowledge, who are we to say what is and isn't morally right. Maybe the Nihilists are right and there are no such things as morals or even right and wrong? On the other hand, if there is some rigid moral system, surely an omniscient being would never do anything immoral. As you implied, they would know better. Or perhaps not.

Basically, you're arguing along Hedonistic lines. What is morally right is what's best for you in the long run. However, it seems all of our society's morals are based instead on what's best for society at large. The individual is overlooked. An omnipotent and omniscient being would be unique. A loner. What cares does it have for others? All of us, with the exceptions of psychopaths are burdened with the idea that 'we're all in this together.' That we should care about what happens to our fellow man. Why would an omnipotent being have any such qualms. I doubt that it would.

Yet, the question still remains. Would these actions be immoral?

good stuff. but im not arguing along hedonistic lines. im arguing along community lines. knowledge being universal and all that there is, god being that too, and us being part of each other, the environment etc. and the system, likely very simple, that must be followed in order for this all to go well. i hope i've cleared it up, maybe it'll make more sense now.