Can Divine Right be justified with a divine ruler?

Only if you do not believe in free will. Sadly, as Beholderess pointed out, this does not eliminate tragedy and the suffering of the innocent, but the notion that God would not micromanage in order to save specific people simply indicates that he does not interfere with human free will.

Free will is a horrible answer to the problem of evil. Much if not most of the suffering on earth is and has been caused by things beyond human control. Like tornados. Supposing he exists, he could stop the weather conditions that cause tornados infinitely easily and to great benefit, but he doesn't.

And I think for a God that claims itself infinitely powerful and infinitely good, the expectation that it will use its powers to avoid human suffering is only fair.

This is, also, a matter of personal interpretation, but the common belief is that Jesus and God are the same. The sacrifice seems more potent to me if you view Jesus as God in flesh. Even if you believe them separate, however, Christ is a figure who represents God on earth, so his benevolent actions are in accordance with God's wishes directly.

If Jesus is God, Jesus is also a dick; I only meant that he's a nice person as Jesus.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

"And I think for a God that claims itself infinitely powerful and infinitely good, the expectation that it will use its powers to avoid human suffering is only fair."

No, that's only anthropocentric. "Human good" is not objective good.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Well, the whole universe is thought to have fallen alongside humanity, and this as a consequence of something that was, ultimately, humankind's own fault — at least, that's the way the beginning of the Genesis and the other relevant passages were always explained to me. The whole "tree of knowledge" thing is an allegory, of course, but it is an allegory for something.*

^{This "something" does not need to be understandable through the notions of time, space and reality as we understand them now, though.}

So, in this framework, free will takes care of the problem of the existence of cholera just as it takes care of the problem of the existence of more direct forms of evil.

But perhaps this is a little offtopic.

Returning to the main issue, if an entity has created the universe out of nothing then, from my point of view, this entity has the right to rule it. To go against it would be to go against our very nature, against the very purpose for which we were created. This would be unthinkable, unjust, and most of all futile — after all, what is fulfillment if not doing what we are meant to do?

edited 22nd Jun '11 1:31:35 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

"Returning to the main issue, if an entity has created the universe out of nothing then, from my point of view, this entity has the right to rule it."

Seconded.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

It's a part of objective good. If there's such a thing as objective good, which I'm not convinced there is.

Why would it? George Washington and John Adams didn't have the right to rule the United States. We elected one president, and then reelected him because he was a good president, and not because he was responsible for creating the United States. And then we elected the other, but failed to reelect him because he wasn't a very good president, regardless of the fact that he was also responsible for creating the United States.

And honestly, the idea of the purpose of humanity being to serve another being is abhorrent to me. That seems like the kind of thing Azathoth would pull, not a God that's even slightly good, never mind infinitely good.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

And if the purpose for which it was created is to suffer and entertain the creator with it? Would it still be just?

Exactly. Seriously, at least Azathoth has the decency to simply not care.

edited 22nd Jun '11 8:52:37 PM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

If you think in those scales, I'm on the boat that justice, goodness and things like that fall into tatters.

Fulfillment is a feeling.

If the only alternative to free will and suffering is nonexistence, then in allowing us to exist, this hypothetical deity has earned my contempt.

I don't know what "make the best of what we're given" means in the context of the hypothetical situation under discussion, but if it entails regarding this deity with any amount of gratitude or piety, trusting it to rule well, or accepting its rule as legitimate, then it is something I definitely could not and would not do. If making the best of what we're given does not entail any of these things, then it appears you have changed the subject to one about which I have no particular disagreement with you.

"It's a part of objective good."

Is it, though? I agree with you that "objective good" is very difficult, if at all possible, to define, but I think it's safe to say that humans have fucked both the environment and the well-being of myriad of other species to conclude that human death is pretty damn good for the rest of the earth.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Nobody has or can ever have a legitimate right to rule over other sentient, thinking beings. Sentient and thinking beings are irrevocably and invariably entitled to absolute self-ownership.

However, if a ruler were to generally leave people the Hell alone, it would be an improvement over what we have now. That's not to say that such a rule would be legitimate, but it might well be tolerable and not worth getting up in arms over.

edited 23rd Jun '11 8:11:23 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Well, humans weren't the first to do that and certainly won't be last. Humans (among with most of today's flora and fauna) exist because some bacteria in the past had seriously messed up the environment.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Unless the other beings consent to it, of course. Then they have that right, whether wastrel, drop-out fringe types like it or not.

'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'

"Nobody has or can ever have a legitimate right to rule over other sentient beings."

I take it you're a vegan, then.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Only if you believe that majorities give legitimacy, which is a far-fetched assumption to make. Nobody can delegate an authority that he/she does not have, that's why democracy is a farce.

In short, for a rule to be legitimate, consent would have to be unanimous, or those that don't consent should be awarded self-determination and the right to make their own fork (if you'll excuse the coding term) of society.

I said sentient thinking beings.

edited 23rd Jun '11 8:14:54 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Animals are sentient.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

You know what I mean.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I have no idea what you mean, frankly. Animals are sentient. You are against owning and dominating sentient beings. Don't eat meat and don't support factory farming. It's a fairly straightforward thought process.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

I was using sentient interchangeably with intelligent life. People. Apes. Monkeys, corvids, cetaceans. Intelligent aliens, if we ever butt heads with them.

edited 23rd Jun '11 8:54:01 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

The word you're looking for is sapient, then. Sentient means able to perceive.

Sapience, for the purpose of this discussion, has not been conclusively proven as unique to those few animals you've listed.

edited 23rd Jun '11 8:49:54 AM by kashchei

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

This one thinks that the word you are looking for is sapient. But it is semantics, as most people understand quite well exactly what "sentient" as supposed to mean in such circumstances.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Yup. All sapient beings are inherently entitled to 100% self-ownership.

Nobody can legitimately own other people. Thus, nobody has any claim to force others to live according to their wishes.

I do not think people can validly delegate (say, into a government) an authority that they didn't have on the first place.

A divine ruler would be as illegitimate as any other ruler. However, if that being was free from authoritarianism, nosiness and greediness, its (still illegitimate) rule might well be tolerable.

edited 23rd Jun '11 8:53:37 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

"All sapient beings are inherently entitled to 100% self-ownership."

Well, that sounds like a swell idea, but we don't actually know who exactly classifies as sapient.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Capable of solving relatively complex problems using tools? Capable of meaningful, symbolic communication via language? Self-aware? Capable of making plans and strategies? Having a notion of time and/or death?

Two or more, you've got a fair bet on saying it's sapient. Since it's self-ownership we're talking about, better to err on the side of caution and grant it to what appears sentient.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

All we really need to know for the purposes of this discussion is whether humans are sapient.

"All we really need to know for the purposes of this discussion is whether humans are sapient."

If you're weighing global good against human good, the sapience of others is an inherent part of the discussion.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?