Critiquing: Was Moses Wrong for Giving a Law That Regulated Something God Hates?

January 1, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Divorce regulation—Moral compromises—Civil laws—Human imperfection—Divine guidance

---

Introduction

The content discusses whether Moses was wrong for giving laws that regulated practices God hates, particularly focusing on divorce. It examines the tension between ideal moral laws and practical governance, using divorce and abortion as examples to explore the necessity and implications of moral compromises in civil law.

Logical Inconsistencies

1. Conflicting Views on Moral Compromise

The content argues that moral compromises in law are sometimes necessary due to human imperfection:

“It’s a compromise that saves lives. It’s not a rigid non-compromising position that costs lives.”

However, it also implies that ideal moral laws should be upheld whenever possible:

“Civil laws should reflect God’s goodwill, divorce is not right, or take into account man’s brokenness.”

This creates a tension between advocating for ideal laws and accepting practical compromises, without clearly reconciling the two positions.

2. Inconsistent Application of Divine Authority

The content asserts that Moses’ laws, despite regulating undesirable practices, were divinely inspired:

“Moses was giving the law that God was giving him. So this is God’s idea, all right?”

Yet, it also acknowledges that these laws were concessions to human imperfection:

“Because of the hardness of your hearts… Moses made a provision.”

This duality raises questions about the consistency of attributing both divine authority and human accommodation to the same laws.

Cognitive Biases

1. Confirmation Bias

There is a tendency to validate the approach of moral compromise by selectively highlighting instances where it aligns with desired outcomes:

“And that’s the measure. That’s what we have to be deciding. What is the ultimate result of the laws that we’re passing?”

This approach overlooks counterexamples where compromises may not lead to the intended moral outcomes.

2. Attribution Bias

The content often attributes successful moral compromises to divine wisdom, while negative outcomes are seen as human failings:

“God’s acknowledgment of his standard and God’s acknowledgment of the hardness of the heart of the Pharisees.”

This bias can skew the interpretation of historical and contemporary legal decisions.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

1. Lack of Evidence for Divine Endorsement of Compromise

The content frequently assumes divine endorsement of moral compromises without providing substantial evidence:

“Moses was giving the law that God was giving him.”

The obligation to substantiate this claim is critical, particularly when it forms the basis for justifying legal compromises.

2. Vague Assertions About Human Hardness

The suggestion that laws should account for human hardness of heart is not clearly substantiated with empirical evidence:

“Because of the hardness of your hearts… Moses made a provision.”

This assertion requires more concrete examples or studies to support its validity.

Testing Alleged Promises

To evaluate claims about divine guidance in moral lawmaking, one could design studies comparing societies that implement strict moral laws versus those adopting incremental compromises. This would involve measuring social outcomes, such as crime rates and public health metrics, to assess the efficacy of each approach.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

A critical component of rational decision-making is aligning one’s beliefs with the available evidence. The content emphasizes the need to consider practical outcomes:

“What is the ultimate result of the laws that we’re passing?”

However, it often fails to provide sufficient evidence for its claims about divine endorsement and human nature. Ensuring that beliefs are proportionate to evidence helps in making more reliable and coherent decisions.

Conclusion

The content presents a mixed message on the role of moral compromises in law, leading to logical inconsistencies and potential cognitive biases. While acknowledging the need for practical considerations, it often attributes undue significance to divine guidance without robust evidence. A more rigorous approach, emphasizing substantiation and the alignment of beliefs with evidence, is essential for coherent and rational decision-making.

---

I invite you to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.