How can God allow someone that lies, cheats, steals, homosexual and/or other acts considered bad by ancient religious moral texts to become successful? Are the negative consequences of karma and sin severely delayed until the afterlife? Being rewarded by material gain from unethical behavior provides incentive to continue the same behavior. Wouldn't it be more beneficial for God to punish the person in some way shortly after the unethical behavior to prevent more of the same behavior or would the person not even recognize that their life events were reordered to punish them?

I thought it might help to provide some examples:

  1. A woman acting be a girlfriend with a man so the man will buy them an expensive car or luxury item, similarly a prostitute/escort can do the same thing.
  2. Subterfuge to get someone to send money for one thing when the original intention is to use it for another thing.
  3. Hacking and stealing money out of people's bank accounts.

If any of the above are successful, #1 and #2 most often are and without being charged, then the victim loses but the villain wins. When does the villain get punished for the unethical act?

  • 1
    Your premise is that material gain is a reward from God. But it isn't so. – Bread Apr 5 at 22:53
  • 2
    This life is fleeting and transient, God does not care as much about what happens during it as about the salvation of the immortal soul. Moral accomplishment isn't an accomplishment if one does not confront incentives and temptations. And God already knows who can recognize what, who can be helped by the earthly punishments, and who just needs the Hell afterwards. Generally, this is part of what is called The Problem of Evil - how is it that God allows this "evil world" to exist - and the answers are called theodicies. – Conifold Apr 5 at 23:04
  • 1
    Friedrich Hayek explored this question in The Road to Serfdom, in a chapter titled, "Why the Worst Get on Top."fee.org/articles/why-the-worst-humans-are-able-to-rise-to-power – user4894 Apr 6 at 0:26
  • 2
    There of course is another, much simpler answer. There is no God, and human society is flawed. – Richard Apr 6 at 0:48
  • 1
    You might equally ask, for it is a saying in Vedanta, why does Krishna deprive those he loves of everything? What you are calling success is not at all what a Perenialist would call success but is more like a millstone around our neck. – PeterJ Apr 6 at 8:02

How can God allow someone that is immoral to become highly successful?

God refuses to and/or cannot prevent immoral persons from succeeding.

You are assuming that God is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. But the Book of Job reflects the falsity of God's omnibenevolence, no matter how hard religious thinkers and theologians strive to sustain that God is indeed omnibenevolent.

Something that might be misinterpreted as Marxist is the proposition that doctrines of karma and the afterlife are significantly sought to encourage resignation in contexts of flagrant and unremedied injustice. That resignation distantiates or distracts us from inquiring and subsequently uncovering the inconsistencies of God's omnibenevolence with which we are indoctrinated.

The notion of God's omnipotence is likewise refutable. For instance, C.G. Jung in his "Answer to Job" posits that evil exists as a result of Satan having taken advantage of God's lack of full (self-)awareness or consciousness. If one subscribes to that theory, the falsity of God's omnipotence is a logical and direct consequence.

In this answer (more specifically, the pair of bullet points and the two paragraphs that follow it), I also argue that the notion of God's eternity strikes that of omnipotence. And of course, if God is not eternal, then omnipotence is stricken as well because of the resulting constraint to God's survival.

  • why is that a misinterpretation of humanist marxism? go on! doesn't marx subsume economic "injustice" under the sign of 'alienation', one that clearly builds on the young hegelians, and their ideas of it, without necessarily contradicting them, except in their political impotence – another_name Apr 7 at 6:16
  • @another_name "why is that a misinterpretation of humanist marxism?" Because Marxist dialectics is confined to a classist dichotomy based on economic status, thereby missing the more general and more profound problematic of perversity. Job was wealthy (which would subject him to Marxist criticism), and yet God's ultimate unease stemmed from His awareness of Job's moral superiority. God's lack of omnibenevolence is also evidenced wherever recurrent criminals keep getting exonerated and they resume their criminality, regardless of the criminal's and the victim's economic status. – Iñaki Viggers Apr 7 at 10:56
  • i'm not sure about that! maybe you if you assume some omnipresent God to exist then we're misrepresenting Marxism by saying it is even (just) about people. but, in reality, philosophers of Marxism surely do not proceed that way, and would not really ever come to a conclusion as such – another_name Apr 7 at 11:30
  • @another_name Your comment is altogether unclear and too ambiguous to address. In your statement that "we're misrepresenting Marxism by saying it is even (just) about people", what do you mean by "it"? With the language "about people", are you suggesting that the issue is about entities other than (and also not formed by) people? What is "that way" which Marxist philosophers "surely" do not proceed? What particular conclusion would they "not really ever" reach? – Iñaki Viggers Apr 7 at 13:36
  • i'm just confused about your reply, if mine is "unclear" etc.! :) – another_name Apr 7 at 13:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.