NationStates Jolt Archive

Just before she escaped from slavery, Harriet Tubman prayed to God that her master die. Slavery is the greatest scar on the United States' record to date. It was obvious that this woman of god would not have prayed for the death of another human being had there not been a good reason. Her master died the next day of a heart attack and she promptly escaped. It's a pretty inspiring story when you think about it, but I ask you, if its alright for Harriet Tubman to pray for the death of her master, is it right for me to pray for the death of Bin Laden? Althought its not like he's an oppressive master, he is a wickedly evil person.


(I'm pretty much being serious here so none of this "Why dont you pray for Bush to die?" kind of shit.)

Is it moral to desire the death of another person who is actively briinging ill upon you, that I cannot tell you. Is it justified to desire such, absolutely.

It was right for her, and it is right for you.

It is wrong, however, for you to pray for his death even if there are available alternatives that would neutralize the threat he poses.

Which is why one must be very careful in what they ask of God.

It's all relative in this circumstance. It all depends on your religion or personal moral viewpoints. Anything people post here will be irellivant.

Anything people post here will be irellivant.

So it's impossible to convince someone to change a moral opinion of theirs?

So it's impossible to convince someone to change a moral opinion of theirs?

Pretty much, yeah. Unless there is some intrinsic flaw or contradiction in their system of belief, it's virtually impossible for an individual to change their beliefs.

Is it right or justified in either of the cases you cite? I dont know, but it is certainly understandable.

Pretty much, yeah.

I have both convinced and been convinced.

Do I exist?

Unless there is some intrinsic flaw or contradiction in their system of belief

That's a pretty big "unless."

Almost no one has moral opinions perfectly consistent with each other or with their moral intuitions.

So it's impossible to convince someone to change a moral opinion of theirs?

Not unless he tells us what his moral beliefs are based upon.

Not unless he tells us what his moral beliefs are based upon.

Ask him, then.

Ask him, then.

Very well.

To the Op, what do you base your morals upon?

I have both convinced and been convinced.

Do I exist?



That's a pretty big "unless."

Almost no one has moral opinions perfectly consistent with each other or with their moral intuitions.

But many people are able to hold inconsistent moral views, unless the flaw is unmissably huge. Hence I'd agree moral changes are rare.

I imagine it all hinges on what you base your morals on. For example, if you believe that certain crimes deserve death, and that God is morally justified in directly killing a person themselves rather than through human agents, then it would be morally justified to pray for Bin Laden's death. Whether that prayer is granted would depend on whether God felt it fit in to his larger plan for humanity, whatever that might be.

God might kill people who deserve it, but whether or not that punishment is merited would depend on whether or not God felt it was. Ultimately, it would depend on whether or not it was just.

But many people are able to hold inconsistent moral views, unless the flaw is unmissably huge.

Point them out, then. Make them recognize the inconsistency.

Why would it be wrong?
Senario 1 There is no god so it doesn't do anything
Senerio 2 God decides if your request should be granted or not (God always knows best)

Why would it be wrong?

Because if it's wrong to pray for someone's death, not only will you not have your prayer granted but you will also possibly be punished for such a sinful request.

Because if it's wrong to pray for someone's death, not only will you not have your prayer granted but you will also possibly be punished for such a sinful request.

my dilemma exactly. I'm definately not the most religious person in the world, but ive got that "God has to exist mentality" so ive got the faith there. And praying for somebody's death is like murder. (not exactly but no other way to put it)

Maybe ask your priest? I think this is some thing that different Christians would disagree on

my dilemma exactly. I'm definately not the most religious person in the world, but ive got that "God has to exist mentality" so ive got the faith there. And praying for somebody's death is like murder. (not exactly but no other way to put it)

I'm afraid I can't help you there. I imagine it depends primarily on what religious tradition you adhere to, if you adhere to a particular one.

The best advice would be to either talk to a religious leader in your faith (if you have one) and/or to simply pray for guidance and study religious texts in order to find answers in regard to the issue. I imagine in this case it would not be an issue that could be answered in a logical way because it deals more with interpretation of God and morality rather than a strict "yes-no" answer.

The safest thing to do would be to not pray for something like that until you've discussed it and thought about it.

my dilemma exactly. I'm definately not the most religious person in the world, but ive got that "God has to exist mentality" so ive got the faith there. And praying for somebody's death is like murder. (not exactly but no other way to put it)

When do you think killing is justified?

When do you think killing is justified?

killing is never justified, unless it is response to a killing. i believe in capital punishment or else i wouldnt even have this problem

killing is never justified, unless it is response to a killing.

Osama Bin Laden has killed thousands of US citizens; does it not follow that praying for his death is justified?

Osama Bin Laden has killed thousands of US citizens; does it not follow that praying for his death is justified?

your right.

Whether it is right or wrong to kill a person depends on whether killing them will have a net benefit on society. Whether it is the correct course of action or not to kill them depends on whether you have other plausible alternatives.

Whether it is right or wrong to kill a person depends on whether killing them will have a net benefit on society. Whether it is the correct course of action or not to kill them depends on whether you have other plausible alternatives.

Of course, that's difficult to decide. Killing Bin Laden might not do anything to the functioning of Al-Qaeda; it might even have a negative effect by allowing a new generation of leaders to rise to power who might be even more effective than him at organizing attacks and recruiting new members.

Whether it is right or wrong to kill a person depends on whether killing them will have a net benefit on society.

What is "society," what constitutes a "benefit," and how do you quantify that "benefit"?

What is "society," what constitutes a "benefit," and how do you quantify that "benefit"?

Society is the entity which is composed of all living human beings, now and in the future. While there is an objective way to determine what a benefit is, no human being is intelligent enough to comprehend so grandiose an idea and thus must judge subjectively.

While there is an objective way to determine what a benefit is

Why do you think so?

Why do you think so?

Because there is a finite set of emotions human beings can experience, which can either be classified as "good" or "bad." Also, there is a particular level of "goodness" or "badness" associated with each feeling (for example, a kick in the balls is worse than a small paper cut). Since they can be concretely measured, there is a method by which to assess the sum total of all those feelings and represent it in a quantitative manner. This procedure can be applied to all members of society to determine the total benefit.

Because there is a finite set of emotions human beings can experience, which can either be classified as "good" or "bad."

Really? What if we disagree on how certain emotions, when felt by certain people, should constitute "good" or "bad"? What if we disagree on whether "benefit" is emotional at all?

Really? What if we disagree on how certain emotions, when felt by certain people, should constitute "good" or "bad"?

It does depend on the person, yes.

What if we disagree on whether "benefit" is emotional at all?

What else can it be? Our perception of the world is based solely on emotions.

Of course, that's difficult to decide. Killing Bin Laden might not do anything to the functioning of Al-Qaeda; it might even have a negative effect by allowing a new generation of leaders to rise to power who might be even more effective than him at organizing attacks and recruiting new members.

Only god knows, I guess.

It does depend on the person, yes.

Then "benefit" is subjective.

What else can it be?

Some notion of "human flourishing," liberty, moral decency, adherence to some metaphysical purpose... there are lots of other answers.

Our perception of the world is based solely on emotions.

Perhaps yours is. The rest of us have other options.

Point them out, then. Make them recognize the inconsistency.

But just because it is in inconsistincey in your opinion doesn't mean it will be in their's. Its pretty difficult to change someone's moral sense. It can take place over a long period of time however, in which the person's life expeiriences tell them differently about the thing they once believed but in order for an immediate change to occur, that person must sense that their belief system is flawed.

But just because it is in inconsistincey in your opinion doesn't mean it will be in their's.

Inconsistency is not subjective.

Inconsistency is not subjective.

In a belief system it is.

In a belief system it is.

So someone who believes that Object A is both blue and not blue is just subjectively inconsistent?

Only god knows, I guess.

Maybe that's the point. ;)

Then "benefit" is subjective.

No, it's. I may like apples and you may like oranges -- that doesn't mean that there is no way to objectively determine our subjective preferences. While some things may vary from person to person, they can be objectively assessed. Jupiter is bigger than Saturn, but that doesn't mean that size is subjective.

Some notion of "human flourishing," liberty, moral decency, adherence to some metaphysical purpose... there are lots of other answers.

Those are abstract concepts which are irrelevant if you are discussing the practical merits of a particular situation. Those ideas help nobody; they are not concrete; they cannot be absolutely measured. They are worthless.

Perhaps yours is. The rest of us have other options.

The way we feel and interpret things is based, by definition, on our emotions. That's true for everybody. We perceive a slap in the face to be bad or ice cream to be good based on chemical reactions which occur in our brains. That's a universal truth.

I may like apples and you may like oranges -- that doesn't mean that there is no way to objectively determine our subjective preferences.

Yes, but it does mean that in a choice between apples and oranges, there is no objective way to decide which should be given priority.

Those are abstract concepts which are irrelevant if you are discussing the practical merits of a particular situation.

They are not at all abstract, though they are vague (not that that should bother you, since utilitarianism is the same way.) As for "irrelevant," you would obviously say so, because you disagree with them. It proves nothing.

Those ideas help nobody;

Presupposing your notion of "benefit", I see.

they are not concrete;

How not?

they cannot be absolutely measured.

At least as well as happiness can be.

The way we feel and interpret things is based, by definition, on our emotions.

"The way we feel" is indeed emotional; that is definitionally true, and useless to point out.

"The way we interpret things" need not be emotional at all. Reason serves just as well.

We perceive a slap in the face to be bad or ice cream to be good based on chemical reactions which occur in our brains. That's a universal truth.

That we perceive them, when they happen to us, as bad... not that they actually are bad, in the moral sense.

So someone who believes that Object A is both blue and not blue is just subjectively inconsistent?

If that makes sense in their mind, whose to say its not both blue and not blue? Its all about perception.

Yes, but it does mean that in a choice between apples and oranges, there is no objective way to decide which should be given priority.



They are not at all abstract, though they are vague (not that that should bother you, since utilitarianism is the same way.) As for "irrelevant," you would obviously say so, because you disagree with them. It proves nothing.



Presupposing your notion of "benefit", I see.



How not?



At least as well as happiness can be.



"The way we feel" is indeed emotional; that is definitionally true, and useless to point out.

"The way we interpret things" need not be emotional at all. Reason serves just as well.



That we perceive them, when they happen to us, as bad... not that they actually are bad, in the moral sense.

The problem with that is that people reason differently. What makes sense to one person may not make sense to another.

(I'm pretty much being serious here so none of this "Why dont you pray for Bush to die?" kind of shit.)

but why don't you?

Praying is just wishing, with no more hope of your prayer being granted than you have of birthday wishes or shooting star wishes coming true, so the actual EFFECT of such wishes doesn't enter into whether the wish itself is good or bad; there IS no effect.

Personally, I think wishing anyone dead is a bad thing. It will not happen because you express a wish or prayer, no matter how hard you wish, unless you then go out and DO something about it, but the wish itself gets your soul all sticky... so I would say don't go there. As the OP has expressed a concern about it, obviously the prayer itself is upsetting, so I would have to say the answer is DON'T pray it. And people who are soulless enough not to feel uncomfortable about wishing another dead and really meaning it, well... that is just a sad thing.

It is a sin for a Christian to pray for someone’s death - it does not matter who that person is or what they have done. You do not wish harm on someone else for any reason.
You are supposed to turn the other cheek and love them all the same; suffering brings you closer to Christ and the church was built upon the corpses of martyrs. You do not wish ill upon anyone, ever, for any reason.

You are fully encouraged to pray for their salvation (to save that person, not to end your own suffering), pray that they see the error of their ways, but you do not ever wish them harm.

Why bother praying? If God wanted somebody dead then one assumes God would have killed them by now.

Just before she escaped from slavery, Harriet Tubman prayed to God that her master die. Slavery is the greatest scar on the United States' record to date. It was obvious that this woman of god would not have prayed for the death of another human being had there not been a good reason. Her master died the next day of a heart attack and she promptly escaped. It's a pretty inspiring story when you think about it, but I ask you, if its alright for Harriet Tubman to pray for the death of her master, is it right for me to pray for the death of Bin Laden? Althought its not like he's an oppressive master, he is a wickedly evil person.


(I'm pretty much being serious here so none of this "Why dont you pray for Bush to die?" kind of shit.)
No, it wasn't. I know it's hard for her to not hate her enemy, but Jesus commanded it. The challenge is to overcome the desire.

No, try to pray for the death of people you should hate. Such as President Bush. In fact, french intel has found that Bin Laden may not even be alive. Dead of TB. So at this point, Bin Laden is sort of the doubleplusungood who the US feeds to us.

Plus, if god does exist, he obviously doesn't give a damn what happens on earth, so that's fine.

There is nothing wrong with praying for death. Although it may not be right for a man to take another's life, certainly the Lord can do it if he wants to. We could all use a whole bunch of death because of overpopulation. It would be wrong for you and I to decide to do our share in the fight against overpopulation and harvest a few people because it is sinful to kill a man in cold blood. However, there is nothing wrong with the Lord giving us wars, disasters, plagues, etc., in order to thin our numbers.

If you pray for the death of another, you are merely requesting the Lord to do something. Prayer does not force the Lord to do anything. How can someone as wretched as us command the perfect Creator to do anything?

We could all use a whole bunch of death because of overpopulation.
How about you take your gun and lead by example?

I know it's hard for her to not hate her enemy, but Jesus commanded it.

Where's the hate?

I see a desire for freedom, merely.

How about you take your gun and lead by example?

No. That is the point. It is sinful for us to go out and murder. It is not sinful for us to pray for the Lord to intervene in the world using death as a tool for his will.

There is nothing wrong with a prayer to deliver your enemies into your hand or into the hand of whatever nation you believe should triumph over its enemies.

If praying made it so, wouldn't we all have been dead long ago?