1. Is it justifiable to walk into a shop?
2. John Does walked into a shop and murdered all present. Was he justified in walking into the shop?
Answering yes to 1 and no to 2 is a contradiction in the same way. But, is it really valid to separate the action of walking into the shop with the murder of those present? Is it really valid to separate Sutcliffe's belief from his actions?
Condoning rape and murder only comes into play if you also answer that God is the source of all morality. In that case, doing God's will is by definition moral, and if he wants you to rape and murder, well, you bite the bullet.
1. Is it justifiable to speak freely?
2. John Doe announced that a crowded theatre was afire, and people died in a resulting stampede. Was he justified in speaking?
Nobody ever addresses the separability issue you describe.
Basically, a belief is justified if there are good reasons for believing it. What are "good" reasons? It depends on your philosophy. But presumably the reasons are separate from the belief its self. If you cite certain reasons for believing one thing, but then refuse to believe something else on the same basis, you're being inconsistent.
He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was
carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.
(I didn't get any wrong :-P)
Unless he believes in an evil God...
http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
-- Ayjay on Fedang
The question "do I think it is justified that he thought like that" has no semantic meaning to me. What is it supposed to mean?
"...But if you read the question carefully, you'll see that it is not talking about justifying the act of rape at all. It is talking about whether or not Peter Sutcliffe was justified in believing that he was doing the will of God. Mind you, having said that, I think we may have been a bit provocative in the wording of one of our analyses! Sorry!"
Looking back at the question, it does in fact ask: "The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions." Still, they could have worded it much better, maybe even to the point where they wouldn't have to explain it in the FAQ.
Logical Fail Here: "Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!"