RELIGION AND MORALITY 305Argument 1
1 God is good is a necessary truth.
2 St Paul is good, even if true, is a contingent truth.
3 If “X” in “Y is X” is used in a sentence expressing a necessary truth,
and “X” in “Z is X” is used in a sentence expressing a contingent
truth, then “X” as used in the one sentence bears a different
meaning than does “X” as used in the other sentence. Hence:
4 “Good” as used in “God is good” has a different meaning than does
“good” in “St Paul is good.”The problem with this argument is that the principle expressed in
premise 3 is false. Consider the sentences “Three is odd” and “The
number of coins on the table is odd.” The proposition expressed by the
first of these sentences is a necessary truth, and the proposition
expressed by the second of these sentences is, if true at all, a contingent
truth. But “odd” means the same in both cases. Hence premise 3 is false.
The other line of reasoning is that if God is good, still God can do
things, and allow things, without ceasing to be good, that no human
being could do, or allow,^4 without ceasing to be good. Jill, if she allows a
person to suffer terribly when she could easily stop it, or causes
someone to die even though her family needs her desperately, is not a
good person. God, if God exists, at least allows such things all the time
without ceasing to be called good. So “good” must mean something else
in heaven than on earth.
This argument ignores the fact that ascriptions of goodness
ultimately rest on motives, intentions, ends, and – in the end –
character. Two persons, of equally good character, can act differently if
their knowledge and powers differ, and greatly differently if their
knowledge and powers differ greatly. A man on a train who is in sudden
need of a delicate operation will rightly react differently to the idea of a
skilled surgeon performing the operation immediately and a sincere
lawyer with a knife and good intentions attempting to perform the same
operation. Presumably the surgeon may, and perhaps ought, to operate;
the lawyer ought to go get help. The claim that God is good is the claim
that God’s motives, ends, intentions, and character resemble those of a
good human person, allowing for difference in knowledge and power.
The range of things that God can allow and bring good out of thus
vastly exceeds those available to any human being. Especially relevant
in this regard is the monotheistic view that while a person’s death ends
our ability to affect them, it makes no difference to God’s power to
affect them. So this argument too fails.