I read somewhere recently, "If I saw a man raping a young child I would try to stop him; that's the difference between me and your god."
My first emotional response is, "damn right I would!" Weeks later, I was pondering this again, in teh context of the novel 11-22-63 by Stephen King, in which our hero is presented with a time portal that allows him to right past wrongs. He starts by stopping a murder that resulted in an orphaning and a terrible injury to a man. He stops the murder and goes back forward only to find that the injury he prevented now resulted in the man being sent to Vietnam and killed. It goes on from there...
During down moments I thought about this again and played scenarios. I have always thought it would be incredible cool-awesome to be able to see/know "what if" historical changes. WHAT IF religions had lost their appeal early in the evolutionary process of humans. What would the world be like? WHAT IF a Monroe Doctrine-like solution had taken place after WWI; WHAT IF Colonists to various parts of the world arrived with more compassion and appreciation for the people already there.
But those ponderings are always in the context of just wanting to know, because I think about the unknown unknowns of what the change would create.
So, then, am I really different than the notion of an omni-god who does not interfere? I suppose if I'm omni then I can make constant subtle changes to eliminate much without allowing the bad side-effects to carry out.
So... morally, should the crimes be prevented? Can a moral being accept a future that somehow "depends" on the cruelty to small children? It might make a good novel... (oh, wait).
My first emotional response is, "damn right I would!" Weeks later, I was pondering this again, in teh context of the novel 11-22-63 by Stephen King, in which our hero is presented with a time portal that allows him to right past wrongs. He starts by stopping a murder that resulted in an orphaning and a terrible injury to a man. He stops the murder and goes back forward only to find that the injury he prevented now resulted in the man being sent to Vietnam and killed. It goes on from there...
During down moments I thought about this again and played scenarios. I have always thought it would be incredible cool-awesome to be able to see/know "what if" historical changes. WHAT IF religions had lost their appeal early in the evolutionary process of humans. What would the world be like? WHAT IF a Monroe Doctrine-like solution had taken place after WWI; WHAT IF Colonists to various parts of the world arrived with more compassion and appreciation for the people already there.
But those ponderings are always in the context of just wanting to know, because I think about the unknown unknowns of what the change would create.
So, then, am I really different than the notion of an omni-god who does not interfere? I suppose if I'm omni then I can make constant subtle changes to eliminate much without allowing the bad side-effects to carry out.
So... morally, should the crimes be prevented? Can a moral being accept a future that somehow "depends" on the cruelty to small children? It might make a good novel... (oh, wait).