Reciprocity does not prove the rights of humans.
No, reciprocity is the only reason why one person empathises with another, and can place himself in the other person’s shoes, to view the situation in reversal, and decide what he ought to do. This is why this form of the Golden Rule, also called as the Silver Rule, applies over the other form which falls victim to flaws such as masochism:
"What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others."
Zi gong (a disciple of Confucius) asked:
"Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?"
The Master replied:
"How about 'shu' [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"
Analects XV.24, tr. David Hinton.
Consider, for instance a society such as the Taiwanese. What is their source of rights? They are atheistic about your god, so that cannot be the source of their rights (if you claim an “innate footprint” of your deity in them, this is a fallacious claim that they can, with equal authority, claim about your deity as well). Why are they not killing one-another into oblivion? The last time I checked, their crime rate was quite low, too. What is their source of morality? Remember, I only need to provide an exception to the claimant of an “absolute morality” rule, in order to disprove the universal aspect of it. If claiming that telling a lie is an absolute moral wrong, this should have no exception.
If an exception exists to a ‘universal moral rule’, it can no longer claim to be absolute.
Please remember this point well. This is the basis for my method of disproving your dogma by raising situations where an anomaly exists.
I require a logical, irrefutable argument that Person A is wrong for depriving Person B of life or liberty.
The Golden Rule is as close as anyone can get, to a universal moral code. Man is a social animal – one that MUST have to be part of a society to function as Man does. As a solitary individual, Man is at the utter mercy of the pangs of Nature, and cannot be near as successful as a species as Man is today, without that society giving Man a framework to develop.
Person A will be wrong for depriving Person B of life or liberty because there is no guarantee Person A (or his or her descendents, who are persons of interest for Person A, and likewise, the equivalent for person B) cannot have his or her situation exchanged with the one Person B faces in that threat to his or her life. By ignoring this, and depriving Person B the right to life or liberty of Person A, Person A destroys the foundation of trust that the society is glued together by. Without trust, Person A cannot take for granted the stability in his or her circumstances, and must devote considerable resources and attention to merely ensure survival, in place of being able to thrive, because without the trust that is harnessed from the allowing of the Principle of Reciprocity to function in his or her social grouping of concern, every other person within that social grouping becomes a potent threat to the life of Person A, and vice-versa. Without co-operation, Man is no longer Man. All rights come from this understanding.
This is also why it took so long for Man to table these rights. If a deity really was the source of morality, then it wouldn’t take society millennia to come to a conclusion on what universal rights should be. The transformation from uncivilised to civilised should be instant. If it takes a social evolutionary pace to achieve this, then this is not the work of a deity.
Question 1: “What is to stop you from committing the worst of atrocities, and then begging forgiveness after the fact?”
Answer: The repentance must be real or the forgiveness doesn’t apply. While humans might be fooled, God knows the heart.
The problem with this “reasoning” is that what is real is subject to time. What was once real, cannot always be so, in this matter. A good man can become bad, and a bad man can become good, over time, however many times as possible. Repentance does not guarantee the impossibility of relapsing into the prior state.
To give you an example, consider a person who murders, then repents, and is forgiven. Now consider the very real possibility of this person forgetting about his past repentance (let’s assume for the sake of argument, a stroke-induced memory loss in this person) and the person relapses into the pre-repentance state, and continues to murder again, and then repents for it. What becomes of such a person? Remember, I only need to give you an exception. You cannot dismiss this exception because this is very much within the realms of possibility in human experience. Even a 0.000000000001 % probability of such an exception being realisable thoroughly destroys any claim of a universal moral rule. In mathematics, while disproving the absoluteness of certain rules, the method used is to show an exception, no matter how minutely likely. The possibility of an exception destroys the absoluteness claim.
Question 2: “how is the purpose of justice served when an unbeliever is murdered by a believer who later seeks forgiveness?”
Civil justice is not deterred. Civil consequences remain. In terms of God’s justice, when real repentance is sought (as with the Apostle Paul), the justice of God has been satisfied by God’s decree that a perfect one could take the place of an imperfect one. The power of God to allow a champion to stand in the stead of a weaker warrior is somewhat reflected in a president’s ability to pardon or grant amnesty.
I am not talking about any “civil justice” here. I am talking about how justice is meted out. Person A whose child is murdered by Person B can cause such grief in Person A that his or her disillusionment destroys his or her faith in any real deity. If Person B seeks forgiveness from this deity (which, for the sake of argument we shall assume as true) and is “saved”. Person A, on the other hand, is condemned. How does justice flow in such a circumstance?
In the not too distant past, the use of a “second” was acceptable. The logic behind the use of a champion is the inability of the offender ever truly to be able to stand on his own. Thus, human total depravity requires a champion for the human can never stand on his own.
Vicarious atonement is a travesty of justice. Substitution cannot be justice.
Vicarious atonement is a travesty of justice. Substitution cannot be justice. In fact, it clashes with the Bible: no man can atone for another's sins. Now, the Christians will tell you that Jesus is God. yes, but he is also a man. God didn't suffer and die or atone for anyone. Rather, it was Jesus in his human nature who suffered and died (deity, i.e. divine nature, is not subject to suffering or death).
The Golden Rule is as close as anyone can get, to a universal moral code.
Hardly. It is valid only because it is an idea affirmed by God, and it has its source in the awareness of the Creator extant within us all.
God gives (and only God can give) a universal moral code.
Because He is the supreme Ruler, His rules are Supreme, non-negotiable, and True.
Any other rule is a situational human invention: As would the Golden Rule be if not affirmed by God.