This are both broadly similar enough that I am responding to them together.
I know both of the things you said and still said them the way I did on purpose. Because linkhyrule5's standard of responsibility is that bad.
Because even with the line about utilitarian calculation it was never formulated with that cutout.
Because linkhyrule agreed with that line Lioness quoted which means they do take it to apply to religions with different sorts of gods and different conceptions of evil.
I had a rather long respons to him written up, and posted, which I deleted because I didn't want to give the appearance of being the unpleasant dog-with-a-bone. (again) It is in the spoilers below if you care to look.
To get the examples out of the way:
Pelor, and any god since at least 2E, can make avatars who are free to go around doing what they like. There was a whole thing about it in FR where divine avatars fought a war with a mortal empire and ruled the successor states. However, Pelor also isn't taking the fight to Vecna or whomever with the various other magically-identified-as-objectively-good forces. Most assuredly they would suffer tremendous losses, but by your standard of responsibility, utilitarian calculations don't actually absolve anyone of anything. He knowing lets any sort of bad thing happen anywhere when he manifestly has the power to send an avatar to go deal with it. That makes him just as responsible as the perpetrator. That is your standard.
The Maiar may have been vulnerable to the temptation of the ring, but its power was the power of Sauron and he was of a lesser order than the Valar (who I specifically mentioned). However, I had more in mind Numenor, which turned into a cruel, imperialistic, human-sacrificing, slave-taking empire ere it fell. The Valar, being neither blind nor stupid, saw it coming and... sent vague warnings? Until the fleet of Ar-Pharazon was literally at their doorstep when they had God deal with it. Before that, they left Middle Earth to suffer under Morgoth basically to punish the Elves for the kinslaying and leaving Valinor (before commanding them to return). The argument about not tearing up the world again loses its force when they proceeded to do exactly that when the rather arcane conditions they set for intervention (a representative of elves and men showing up to ask) were met.
As for the Greek gods (and numerous others), the point is that human standards of morality do not matter to them. Morality exists for a reason, it was created by people for a particular end which the gods have no use for. To use the Greek example, valor is a uniquely human virtue because humans die. When humans die the only thing that survives them (besides the shade which is apparently mindless most of the time) is what people say about you. So to be a good human you do impressive things so people talk about you forever. That is the closest to immortality a mortal can get. The gods, who do not die, do not need to win glory because they already have their own immortality.
The Maiar may have been vulnerable to the temptation of the ring, but its power was the power of Sauron and he was of a lesser order than the Valar (who I specifically mentioned). However, I had more in mind Numenor, which turned into a cruel, imperialistic, human-sacrificing, slave-taking empire ere it fell. The Valar, being neither blind nor stupid, saw it coming and... sent vague warnings? Until the fleet of Ar-Pharazon was literally at their doorstep when they had God deal with it. Before that, they left Middle Earth to suffer under Morgoth basically to punish the Elves for the kinslaying and leaving Valinor (before commanding them to return). The argument about not tearing up the world again loses its force when they proceeded to do exactly that when the rather arcane conditions they set for intervention (a representative of elves and men showing up to ask) were met.
As for the Greek gods (and numerous others), the point is that human standards of morality do not matter to them. Morality exists for a reason, it was created by people for a particular end which the gods have no use for. To use the Greek example, valor is a uniquely human virtue because humans die. When humans die the only thing that survives them (besides the shade which is apparently mindless most of the time) is what people say about you. So to be a good human you do impressive things so people talk about you forever. That is the closest to immortality a mortal can get. The gods, who do not die, do not need to win glory because they already have their own immortality.
Your assertion that the problem of evil making all gods evil
First, while you may not have said so in as many words it is a necessary consequence of your position. The gods can't be exactly as responsible for evil as the perpetrator without being just as evil. I will grant you are free to define evil in a specific way to avoid this, but you seriously risk your definition of responsibility becoming amoral.
As for finding basically every real and fictional god ever responsible for evil in their various worlds, you are certainly free to be whatever species of contingent misotheist you like (contingent on the existence of god(s) of course), but the problem of evil existing at all is not a slam dunk rebuttal of either the existences of god/gods or their goodness. People resolve the problem to their satisfaction every day, in numerous ways. However, it is rather difficult to have any sort of nuanced discussion about religion when your starting position is that gods are evil by virtue of existing in a world where evil exists.
As for finding basically every real and fictional god ever responsible for evil in their various worlds, you are certainly free to be whatever species of contingent misotheist you like (contingent on the existence of god(s) of course), but the problem of evil existing at all is not a slam dunk rebuttal of either the existences of god/gods or their goodness. People resolve the problem to their satisfaction every day, in numerous ways. However, it is rather difficult to have any sort of nuanced discussion about religion when your starting position is that gods are evil by virtue of existing in a world where evil exists.
As regards your "knowingly permit to occur" standard of responsibility and why it is so bad
Your standard of responsibility is also aggressively unhelpful for morality. By the "knowingly permit to occur" standard, you are personally responsible for every human rights abuse in the world you are aware of because you don't immediately drop what you are doing and go do something about it. It demands that every nation in the world with at least one soldier get involved in every single incident that makes the news. It has no provision for not being able to effectively stop the thing in question, no possibility of degrees of guilt, and perhaps worse gives no guide for action.
By your own admission, it also means that people are evil even if they are doing the best they can.
Under that standard victims are as responsible as perpetrators if they could have stopped what was done.
In my estimation it is worse than useless when it produces the two above non-sensical outcomes. Unless you have watered down responsibility to the shallowed possible meaning that makes a butterfly responsible for a hurricane.
By your own admission, it also means that people are evil even if they are doing the best they can.
Under that standard victims are as responsible as perpetrators if they could have stopped what was done.
In my estimation it is worse than useless when it produces the two above non-sensical outcomes. Unless you have watered down responsibility to the shallowed possible meaning that makes a butterfly responsible for a hurricane.
On the actual topic of Sol
So what? Why is he obligated to lift a finger? You haven't established that he has any positive duty. The deal was gods don't interfere in Creation. He is keeping up his end. He didn't make any sort of guaranteed employment promise to Heaven, and they screwed it up themselves. The Celestial Bureacracy exists to do a job, to the extent Creation is still around they are doing it, and he pays all their salaries and rubber stamps the things that require his direct authorization.
Sol has held up to his end of all his agreements. The only next step is that being powerful and competent obligates you to do something nice. Since I am reasonably sure you don't open your home and pantry to all the poor cold and hungry stray animals in the area, or the homeless people if you want to make the claim that this responsibility only extends to other moral agents, you appear to be holding him to a standard you don't even try to meet.
Sol has held up to his end of all his agreements. The only next step is that being powerful and competent obligates you to do something nice. Since I am reasonably sure you don't open your home and pantry to all the poor cold and hungry stray animals in the area, or the homeless people if you want to make the claim that this responsibility only extends to other moral agents, you appear to be holding him to a standard you don't even try to meet.
Last edited:
