There's a good chance that the crucifixion and the atonement would have happened, one way or another, regardless of what Judas did. On a practical level, Jesus made a lot of powerful enemies and he would have been caught and executed sooner or later. On a theological level, the crucifixion was the ultimate goal of Jesus coming to Earth in the first place, so we can be pretty sure God would have pulled strings to make it happen somehow. Given that it was a foregone conclusion, does that factor into the credit Judas gets for bringing it about?
I think that might be right, but I'm not sure that that changes very much. That just means that Jesus' death was overdetermined, and I don't think that changes the value of Judas' act much.
Suppose that both you and John shoot me at the same time. This means that my death is overdetermined, even if you had not shot me, I would still have died--and likewise for John. But it doesn't make sense here to say that neither acted wrongly because neither could have stopped me from dying by acting otherwise.
Likewise with Judas. Even if Jesus' death was overdetermined in the way you describe, he still presumably acted rightly (assuming the good side effects outweigh his betrayal and all that). For any particular person who had killed Jesus, it might be right that, had they acted differently, Jesus would still have been killed, but that doesn't mean that no one acted rightly or wrongly in killing him.
In ordinary language, the word "wrong" refers not to an action that is objectively bad, but to one that, given one's current state of knowledge, one has stronger reasons not to do than to do. Consider: We don't say that a serial killer acted rightly just because his killings caused a better result down the line due to the butterfly effect, nor do we say you acted wrongly for getting up this morning on the 50% chance that this has caused a bad outcome.
So, we should judge Judas by the expected utility of his actions. But, if you believe the Biblical account, he sold out his friend for money, which has strongly negative expected utility. Given how this is described, and given his guilt afterwards, it seems very unlikely that he had some belief that actually would make it right to betray Jesus.
Yeah, I guess I'm clickbaiting a little here, lol. I agree that the ordinary use of the term is more aligned with the perspectival sense outlined here. But for these purposes I'm interested in wrongness as a well-defined term that might be a part of our moral theory, and I don't think perspectival wrongness makes the cut here. Mostly due to the issue of inconsistent beliefs, but also because it seems like it's much better accounted for as describing an attitude of disapproval towards people, rather than an ascription of a property to their action (e.g. in the case of Larry and Mary, where Larry actually did what's best given his knowledge).
As for guilt, I think we sometimes feel guilty for actions where we couldn't have acted perspectivally better. E.g. if someone jumps in front of my car, I'll still feel guilty for killing them, or if I kill someone in what I think is self defense, but they're harmless. But yeah, it definitely makes his perspectival wrongness more likely!
I’ve often asked myself the same questions regarding the immorality of a person.
I think you correctly point out that the problem in the case you are considering are the beliefs of Judas at the time of acting that are betrayed by his guilt afterwards. Seems like he knew he was selling out his friends for money.
I never considered that Judas might have thought Jesus was a false messiah. The fact that he took money for the act implies he knew it was wrong, because he was doing it for selfish benefit, not for the sake of Israel.
Yeah, that cartainly counts in favor of that hypothesis, though I don't think the gospels explicitly say that he did it because of the money, just that he got money for it. Also John (I believe, I haven't googled it rn) says he was possessed by the devil, which I think lends credence to the hypothesis that it wasn't entirely for the money that he did it. But it's all very speculative.
The Groundwork doesn't, not even implicitly, say that you ought not pull the lever btw. In fact the majority of living Kantians think that, while you shouldn't push the fat man, you should pull the lever.
There's a good chance that the crucifixion and the atonement would have happened, one way or another, regardless of what Judas did. On a practical level, Jesus made a lot of powerful enemies and he would have been caught and executed sooner or later. On a theological level, the crucifixion was the ultimate goal of Jesus coming to Earth in the first place, so we can be pretty sure God would have pulled strings to make it happen somehow. Given that it was a foregone conclusion, does that factor into the credit Judas gets for bringing it about?
I think that might be right, but I'm not sure that that changes very much. That just means that Jesus' death was overdetermined, and I don't think that changes the value of Judas' act much.
Suppose that both you and John shoot me at the same time. This means that my death is overdetermined, even if you had not shot me, I would still have died--and likewise for John. But it doesn't make sense here to say that neither acted wrongly because neither could have stopped me from dying by acting otherwise.
Likewise with Judas. Even if Jesus' death was overdetermined in the way you describe, he still presumably acted rightly (assuming the good side effects outweigh his betrayal and all that). For any particular person who had killed Jesus, it might be right that, had they acted differently, Jesus would still have been killed, but that doesn't mean that no one acted rightly or wrongly in killing him.
In ordinary language, the word "wrong" refers not to an action that is objectively bad, but to one that, given one's current state of knowledge, one has stronger reasons not to do than to do. Consider: We don't say that a serial killer acted rightly just because his killings caused a better result down the line due to the butterfly effect, nor do we say you acted wrongly for getting up this morning on the 50% chance that this has caused a bad outcome.
So, we should judge Judas by the expected utility of his actions. But, if you believe the Biblical account, he sold out his friend for money, which has strongly negative expected utility. Given how this is described, and given his guilt afterwards, it seems very unlikely that he had some belief that actually would make it right to betray Jesus.
Yeah, I guess I'm clickbaiting a little here, lol. I agree that the ordinary use of the term is more aligned with the perspectival sense outlined here. But for these purposes I'm interested in wrongness as a well-defined term that might be a part of our moral theory, and I don't think perspectival wrongness makes the cut here. Mostly due to the issue of inconsistent beliefs, but also because it seems like it's much better accounted for as describing an attitude of disapproval towards people, rather than an ascription of a property to their action (e.g. in the case of Larry and Mary, where Larry actually did what's best given his knowledge).
As for guilt, I think we sometimes feel guilty for actions where we couldn't have acted perspectivally better. E.g. if someone jumps in front of my car, I'll still feel guilty for killing them, or if I kill someone in what I think is self defense, but they're harmless. But yeah, it definitely makes his perspectival wrongness more likely!
I’ve often asked myself the same questions regarding the immorality of a person.
I think you correctly point out that the problem in the case you are considering are the beliefs of Judas at the time of acting that are betrayed by his guilt afterwards. Seems like he knew he was selling out his friends for money.
I never considered that Judas might have thought Jesus was a false messiah. The fact that he took money for the act implies he knew it was wrong, because he was doing it for selfish benefit, not for the sake of Israel.
Yeah, that cartainly counts in favor of that hypothesis, though I don't think the gospels explicitly say that he did it because of the money, just that he got money for it. Also John (I believe, I haven't googled it rn) says he was possessed by the devil, which I think lends credence to the hypothesis that it wasn't entirely for the money that he did it. But it's all very speculative.
Maybe the Lord hardened his heart, as was done to Pharaoh and Saul.
The Groundwork doesn't, not even implicitly, say that you ought not pull the lever btw. In fact the majority of living Kantians think that, while you shouldn't push the fat man, you should pull the lever.
Yeah I know, it was just an exaggerated jab at Kantianism.