if you postulate an eternal universe, the eternal existence (and/or the eternal nature) of this universe IS your uncaused cause.
it is more than enough for atheists. (and pantheists either).
theists have more work to do after postulating an “uncaused cause”.
they have to postulate that the universe itself is not an uncaused caused, but is caused.
they have to postulate that the universe was caused by something else, something that is absolutely not part of the universe, like a transcendant God.
then they have to demonstrate that the transcendant God that caused the universe is actually their God. (a specific personnal God with all his “additionnal features”, omniscience, omnipotence, etc).
more to postulate, more to demonstrate.
[/quote]
Postulating an eternal universe is not a logical possibility following a causal chain. You cannot endlessly break apart existence and arrive at total existence. Causes and their resultant effects are not equals.
It’s beyond postulation, it is a fact of pure logic. Nothing that defies logic exists. If something appears to defy logic, you simply don’t understand it.[/quote]
Did I not post Kants proof that the universe is indeed eternal?
And his proof that it isnt?
So logic does not help you here.
[/quote]
Kant wasn’t arguing about the universe he was discussing what can be known using his Copernican view of the universe as an example. “Critique of Pure Reason” is a book about epistemology, not metaphysics.[/quote]
Precisely, it is about what can or cannot be known.
You are way deep into the realm of what cannot be known.
I’ll take it. If he created it, he can take it away. Besides the fact that to us religious folks, death ends body’s role in life. Life goes beyond.
If I told you I could take you to a place where you can eat all the sushi you wanted, fuck who ever you wanted, live however you wanted and you will never be sad, mad, or otherwise unhappy ever again, would you go with me, if I could somehow prove I could do that for you? If it required my to plant an axe in your head would you still want to go?
It is his creation, he can do with it what he pleases. But for us Christian folk, God became man in order to subject himself to his own creation. One of the reasons, I can imagine he did it, was the he could say, “Yes, I can also obey and be subject to the same rules that my creation is subject to.”
He can play by the rules and subject himself to the rules. But that is theology, not logic or reason though some of that is present.
If you make something with your own two hands, do you feel you should be able to do what you want with it, or do you think what you made should dictate what you do?
[/quote]
…and yet, even after all we’ve talked about, you’re still not able to prove to me that this creator exists. Now, we shouldn’t go there again, that horse had been beaten to death sufficiently, but if i made a conscious vessel and gave it freewill i’d not get mad if that vessel does things i don’t approve of…
[/quote]
No but you’re curious, damn curious. Besides I can only lead you so far, I can’t make you do anything nor would I want to so long as there is mutual respect. no, I don’t want to go there again. We’ll end up in the same place. Cosmology in it’s various forms and all that it logically entails is my argument, no shock there. However, I divorce my self from the Kalam version, that one is so dumb, I don’t even believe it.
Would you not set up boundaries for the conscious vessel? What if you happened to like your other creations and your CV (concious vessel) was doing it’s level best to destroy it, would you allow it to do so?
I do a lot lot of work with my hands, when I build something or work for something, it is more valuable to me than something I have not. If something messes it up, like my kid, I get pissed at the kid, even though I love the kid more than my creation…[/quote]
…suppose you’re an allpowerful and ominscient creator, how cool is it if you create something that might do something unexpected? Think about it. Nothing holds any secret for you, but here you have a CV that might surprise you. And besides, nothing your creation does can ever affect you. If i get bored with this universe i let it run it’s course and try my luck with something else. And why not? I’m God, i can do anything i want…
Except when the abortion topic comes up it is always black and white in the eyes of the self proclaimed pro-lifers. Life is never that convenient.[/quote]
Either “it” is a human life or “it” is not. I am not familiar with a sort of human life, or a kinda human life.[/quote]
Yes, never mind those pesky real life situations like a child who will be born with a genetic condition that will leave them in agony and give them a life expectancy of a few short years. That is but one hypothetical example, but if the pro-lifers had it their way, this child would be subject to much pain and misery, without the opportunity to experience a long and healthy life.
Except when the abortion topic comes up it is always black and white in the eyes of the self proclaimed pro-lifers. Life is never that convenient.[/quote]
Either “it” is a human life or “it” is not. I am not familiar with a sort of human life, or a kinda human life.[/quote]
Yes, never mind those pesky real life situations like a child who will be born with a genetic condition that will leave them in agony and give them a life expectancy of a few short years. That is but one hypothetical example, but if the pro-lifers had it their way, this child would be subject to much pain and misery, without the opportunity to experience a long and healthy life.[/quote]
One more example of you not knowing what the hell you’re talking about. Well over 90% of abortions are for convenience more or less a brutal form of birth control -get the facts before you try to argue a point you look like a stooge for the godless left, oh wait…you are.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
There’s some misunderstanding of what “relativism” means here.
I will never throw a baby off a cliff, under any conceivable circumstances. It goes against my code.
Someone else might think it’s all right to throw a baby off a cliff, and it might be impossible for me to convince that person that he’s doing wrong. I could say, “But you’re hurting a defenseless human who never harmed you!” And he’d say, “And what’s wrong with that?” I couldn’t prove objectively that there’s something wrong with throwing babies off cliffs, unless you start by accepting certain values as axiomatic. You can’t derive morality from first principles.
That doesn’t mean that I, personally, will occasionally throw a baby off a cliff. It doesn’t mean that I won’t do what I can to stop baby-throwers. I am an anti-baby-thrower. But a pro-baby-thrower could be just as logically consistent as I am; I happen to be his enemy, that’s all.
This is a ridiculous example, but there are real creeds and real belief systems that are, by my lights, immoral and repugnant, and yet I can’t prove that my own beliefs are better. Eventually I hit a wall, and I have to say, “I value this; clearly, you don’t.”
There are two ways you can deal with someone who starts with fundamentally different moral values than yourself. One, you can tolerate him (it doesn’t mean you approve, it just means you let him be), or two, you can make war on him, using force to stop him from acting on those different moral values. I personally would choose to tolerate in most cases, but to make war in a few (mainly, when the other person initiates aggression.) There are things I wouldn’t tolerate. What I do think is that it isn’t wise to NEVER choose tolerance. You cannot hope to force everyone to follow the moral values you hold; if you try to do it by verbal guilt-tripping, you’ll be friendless and ignored, and if you try to do it by literal force, you’ll make a dictator of yourself.[/quote]
This is the most wishy washy thing I have read from you. Throwing a baby off a cliff, even if it would save the world, is always wrong. Because murder is never just.[/quote]
…except when it’s your god who does the murdering, right?
[/quote]
But is it wrong? Its not “just” to kill an innocent baby but if killing one baby saved 6 billion people…
IE. If you DONT throw the baby, you’re killing 6 billion people instead? MURDER!
So something can be unjust, but still the right thing to do? thats pretty interesting.
[/quote]
Where I come from, killing babies is wrong no matter what your justification for it.
Just because an act contains some perceived benefit does not justify the act itself. Morals are not suddenly transformed by situations. They inform our response to situations. They remain, despite all our justifications.
If you disagree, then tell me honestly, if you had to look a baby in the face and then crush its head to save six billion people, which part would stick with you afterward, the fact that you had purportedly saved six billion people, or that you had crushed the life out of an innocent child?
[/quote]
Basically youre saying you’d let the human race be wiped out to save your guilt of killing one baby? Imo (in an obviously unreal scenario)- if you had the choice to save six billion people, or lose one child, you could absolutely justify your decision to save the larger amount of people, which would include other babies.
If this is not the logical choice well Im just flabbergasted… Im not saying anyone would enjoy it or remember it with fond memories but surely for the greater good ?
Also, i understand what you’re trying to say about any one act being right or wrong(perceived benefit) and whether it is justifiable, but like most things, surely there is circumstantial change to what would be “morally” the right to do. In this case, obviously saving the entire population.
And to answer your (silly) question, I think most people would choose to off the baby to save the entire earth’s population. Because not killing that one baby would be killing MANY MANY other babies(and everyone else). So that is justifiable.
[/quote]
Killing babies is NOT MORAL! It does not BECOME MORAL because suddenly you are Jack Bauer!
[/quote]
Mate you’re just a flat out retard or something - your quote above, was CLEARLY alluded to in what I wrote.
Killing an innocent child, is not “moral”, i agree. But given the choice to KILL 6 BILLION PEOPLE, or ONE CHILD. It would be immoral to save the baby. stupid fuck youre insufferably arrogant without the smarts to back it up…im over talking to you. pls do not reply.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
There’s some misunderstanding of what “relativism” means here.
I will never throw a baby off a cliff, under any conceivable circumstances. It goes against my code.
Someone else might think it’s all right to throw a baby off a cliff, and it might be impossible for me to convince that person that he’s doing wrong. I could say, “But you’re hurting a defenseless human who never harmed you!” And he’d say, “And what’s wrong with that?” I couldn’t prove objectively that there’s something wrong with throwing babies off cliffs, unless you start by accepting certain values as axiomatic. You can’t derive morality from first principles.
That doesn’t mean that I, personally, will occasionally throw a baby off a cliff. It doesn’t mean that I won’t do what I can to stop baby-throwers. I am an anti-baby-thrower. But a pro-baby-thrower could be just as logically consistent as I am; I happen to be his enemy, that’s all.
This is a ridiculous example, but there are real creeds and real belief systems that are, by my lights, immoral and repugnant, and yet I can’t prove that my own beliefs are better. Eventually I hit a wall, and I have to say, “I value this; clearly, you don’t.”
There are two ways you can deal with someone who starts with fundamentally different moral values than yourself. One, you can tolerate him (it doesn’t mean you approve, it just means you let him be), or two, you can make war on him, using force to stop him from acting on those different moral values. I personally would choose to tolerate in most cases, but to make war in a few (mainly, when the other person initiates aggression.) There are things I wouldn’t tolerate. What I do think is that it isn’t wise to NEVER choose tolerance. You cannot hope to force everyone to follow the moral values you hold; if you try to do it by verbal guilt-tripping, you’ll be friendless and ignored, and if you try to do it by literal force, you’ll make a dictator of yourself.[/quote]
This is the most wishy washy thing I have read from you. Throwing a baby off a cliff, even if it would save the world, is always wrong. Because murder is never just.[/quote]
…except when it’s your god who does the murdering, right?
[/quote]
But is it wrong? Its not “just” to kill an innocent baby but if killing one baby saved 6 billion people…
IE. If you DONT throw the baby, you’re killing 6 billion people instead? MURDER!
So something can be unjust, but still the right thing to do? thats pretty interesting.
[/quote]
You’re making a false dichotomy. It is never, one baby or 6 billion people. However, I’ll take the bait.
Killing anyone to save someone else, is never just. Let’s say you’re on an island with 20 people, and you’re number twenty. You don’t have any food available, and number one is the weakest. Is it moral to kill number one so that the other nineteen can live? No, it is not even moral to bring up the option (while on the Island) to kill a person so the rest can live.
And, no it can never be the right thing to and unjust at the same time. Right and wrong and directly correlated with moral and immoral. I have studied economics for a few years or eight, so I understand utilitarianism, but the fact of the matter is utilitarian morals are no morals at all.[/quote]
Maybe I shouldn’t link morality and common sense - But they probably do have some sort of cross-over?
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
A man rapes a young girl. As a result of the rape, the young girl stops believing in God. She wonders how God could let this happen to her and loses her faith. The man, who ends up in prison, becomes a Christian and asks for forgiveness of his sins. When both these people die, the rapist will end up in heaven (given he has atoned for all other remaining sins) and the girl will end up in hell forever (for not believing in God).
How is this moral?[/quote]
How is what moral?[/quote]
The girl in hell and the rapist in heaven.[/quote]
Um…I maybe missing something here, but situations aren’t really classified as moral or immoral. Actions are. [/quote]
Okay dokey. How is it moral that the girl ended up in hell over an action that previously happened to her? Of course, one could say that the girl sent herself to hell by not believing in God. But if an all knowing God new this girls limits and did not prevent such an action, ultimately he is responsible for her going to hell.
Again, how is this moral? (her going to hell over an action God knew would make her a non-believer).
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
There’s some misunderstanding of what “relativism” means here.
I will never throw a baby off a cliff, under any conceivable circumstances. It goes against my code.
Someone else might think it’s all right to throw a baby off a cliff, and it might be impossible for me to convince that person that he’s doing wrong. I could say, “But you’re hurting a defenseless human who never harmed you!” And he’d say, “And what’s wrong with that?” I couldn’t prove objectively that there’s something wrong with throwing babies off cliffs, unless you start by accepting certain values as axiomatic. You can’t derive morality from first principles.
That doesn’t mean that I, personally, will occasionally throw a baby off a cliff. It doesn’t mean that I won’t do what I can to stop baby-throwers. I am an anti-baby-thrower. But a pro-baby-thrower could be just as logically consistent as I am; I happen to be his enemy, that’s all.
This is a ridiculous example, but there are real creeds and real belief systems that are, by my lights, immoral and repugnant, and yet I can’t prove that my own beliefs are better. Eventually I hit a wall, and I have to say, “I value this; clearly, you don’t.”
There are two ways you can deal with someone who starts with fundamentally different moral values than yourself. One, you can tolerate him (it doesn’t mean you approve, it just means you let him be), or two, you can make war on him, using force to stop him from acting on those different moral values. I personally would choose to tolerate in most cases, but to make war in a few (mainly, when the other person initiates aggression.) There are things I wouldn’t tolerate. What I do think is that it isn’t wise to NEVER choose tolerance. You cannot hope to force everyone to follow the moral values you hold; if you try to do it by verbal guilt-tripping, you’ll be friendless and ignored, and if you try to do it by literal force, you’ll make a dictator of yourself.[/quote]
This is the most wishy washy thing I have read from you. Throwing a baby off a cliff, even if it would save the world, is always wrong. Because murder is never just.[/quote]
…except when it’s your god who does the murdering, right?
[/quote]
But is it wrong? Its not “just” to kill an innocent baby but if killing one baby saved 6 billion people…
IE. If you DONT throw the baby, you’re killing 6 billion people instead? MURDER!
So something can be unjust, but still the right thing to do? thats pretty interesting.
[/quote]
Where I come from, killing babies is wrong no matter what your justification for it.
Just because an act contains some perceived benefit does not justify the act itself. Morals are not suddenly transformed by situations. They inform our response to situations. They remain, despite all our justifications.
If you disagree, then tell me honestly, if you had to look a baby in the face and then crush its head to save six billion people, which part would stick with you afterward, the fact that you had purportedly saved six billion people, or that you had crushed the life out of an innocent child?
[/quote]
Basically youre saying you’d let the human race be wiped out to save your guilt of killing one baby? Imo (in an obviously unreal scenario)- if you had the choice to save six billion people, or lose one child, you could absolutely justify your decision to save the larger amount of people, which would include other babies.
If this is not the logical choice well Im just flabbergasted… Im not saying anyone would enjoy it or remember it with fond memories but surely for the greater good ?
Also, i understand what you’re trying to say about any one act being right or wrong(perceived benefit) and whether it is justifiable, but like most things, surely there is circumstantial change to what would be “morally” the right to do. In this case, obviously saving the entire population.
And to answer your (silly) question, I think most people would choose to off the baby to save the entire earth’s population. Because not killing that one baby would be killing MANY MANY other babies(and everyone else). So that is justifiable.
[/quote]
Killing babies is NOT MORAL! It does not BECOME MORAL because suddenly you are Jack Bauer!
[/quote]
Mate you’re just a flat out retard or something - your quote above, was CLEARLY alluded to in what I wrote.
Killing an innocent child, is not “moral”, i agree. But given the choice to KILL 6 BILLION PEOPLE, or ONE CHILD. It would be immoral to save the baby. stupid fuck youre insufferably arrogant without the smarts to back it up…im over talking to you. pls do not reply.
[/quote]
Sorry, you don’t get to say when I stop talking.
Now you are trying to escape the discussion because I pointed out what is obvious to everyone here but you: You were wrong. Clearly wrong.
If not, then SHOW ME where I stated any kind of imperative that the choice was to kill one or the other.
Anyone with the slightest grasp of the English language, no offense, can see that the statement involves one’s emotions AFTER having ALREADY taken the action. Not choosing one over the other.
You have shown yourself to be either a cretin or a liar, perhaps both. I tried to give you the out of admitting you were drunk, which would have been the more honorable of the three. You probably should have taken it when you had the chance.
I know you were implying there are no absolutes. My post was addressing exactly this, and pointing out that your position is not logically sound, unless you are willing to excuse all manner, and I mean absolutely (wink wink) all manner of heinous behavior.
But you won’t, because there are certain things that you know are always going to be wrong. And if you won’t admit it you will tie yourself into gordian knots trying to prove your point.
[/quote]
I’m paying attention, I just need you to spell your argument out a little better, because apparently you’re making a leap that I’m not seeing. I don’t see where I’m excusing any behavior in particular, or making a judgment as to whether or not it’s heinous.
I’m saying that a society should choose some basic goal or goals and define them explicitly. I think a simple, self-evident example is the preservation of society itself. We can choose to place the lives and freedoms of the people who make up society above all else. Relative to that goal, we can say what’s good or bad. In this society, you can freely do anything except murder or otherwise interfere with the freedom of anyone else. Again, I’m speaking very basically here. And yes, this excuses a lot of things that you may find distasteful. We can’t abolish everything we don’t “like.”
You seem to be supposing that I would twist logic to make arguments based on preexisting moral tenets. This is not the case. I’m glad to live in a society where murder is morally wrong. But no part of me believes that anything is absolutely wrong.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
There’s some misunderstanding of what “relativism” means here.
I will never throw a baby off a cliff, under any conceivable circumstances. It goes against my code.
Someone else might think it’s all right to throw a baby off a cliff, and it might be impossible for me to convince that person that he’s doing wrong. I could say, “But you’re hurting a defenseless human who never harmed you!” And he’d say, “And what’s wrong with that?” I couldn’t prove objectively that there’s something wrong with throwing babies off cliffs, unless you start by accepting certain values as axiomatic. You can’t derive morality from first principles.
That doesn’t mean that I, personally, will occasionally throw a baby off a cliff. It doesn’t mean that I won’t do what I can to stop baby-throwers. I am an anti-baby-thrower. But a pro-baby-thrower could be just as logically consistent as I am; I happen to be his enemy, that’s all.
This is a ridiculous example, but there are real creeds and real belief systems that are, by my lights, immoral and repugnant, and yet I can’t prove that my own beliefs are better. Eventually I hit a wall, and I have to say, “I value this; clearly, you don’t.”
There are two ways you can deal with someone who starts with fundamentally different moral values than yourself. One, you can tolerate him (it doesn’t mean you approve, it just means you let him be), or two, you can make war on him, using force to stop him from acting on those different moral values. I personally would choose to tolerate in most cases, but to make war in a few (mainly, when the other person initiates aggression.) There are things I wouldn’t tolerate. What I do think is that it isn’t wise to NEVER choose tolerance. You cannot hope to force everyone to follow the moral values you hold; if you try to do it by verbal guilt-tripping, you’ll be friendless and ignored, and if you try to do it by literal force, you’ll make a dictator of yourself.[/quote]
This is the most wishy washy thing I have read from you. Throwing a baby off a cliff, even if it would save the world, is always wrong. Because murder is never just.[/quote]
…except when it’s your god who does the murdering, right?
[/quote]
But is it wrong? Its not “just” to kill an innocent baby but if killing one baby saved 6 billion people…
IE. If you DONT throw the baby, you’re killing 6 billion people instead? MURDER!
So something can be unjust, but still the right thing to do? thats pretty interesting.
[/quote]
Where I come from, killing babies is wrong no matter what your justification for it.
Just because an act contains some perceived benefit does not justify the act itself. Morals are not suddenly transformed by situations. They inform our response to situations. They remain, despite all our justifications.
If you disagree, then tell me honestly, if you had to look a baby in the face and then crush its head to save six billion people, which part would stick with you afterward, the fact that you had purportedly saved six billion people, or that you had crushed the life out of an innocent child?
[/quote]
Basically youre saying you’d let the human race be wiped out to save your guilt of killing one baby? Imo (in an obviously unreal scenario)- if you had the choice to save six billion people, or lose one child, you could absolutely justify your decision to save the larger amount of people, which would include other babies.
If this is not the logical choice well Im just flabbergasted… Im not saying anyone would enjoy it or remember it with fond memories but surely for the greater good ?
Also, i understand what you’re trying to say about any one act being right or wrong(perceived benefit) and whether it is justifiable, but like most things, surely there is circumstantial change to what would be “morally” the right to do. In this case, obviously saving the entire population.
And to answer your (silly) question, I think most people would choose to off the baby to save the entire earth’s population. Because not killing that one baby would be killing MANY MANY other babies(and everyone else). So that is justifiable.
[/quote]
Killing babies is NOT MORAL! It does not BECOME MORAL because suddenly you are Jack Bauer!
[/quote]
Mate you’re just a flat out retard or something - your quote above, was CLEARLY alluded to in what I wrote.
Killing an innocent child, is not “moral”, i agree. But given the choice to KILL 6 BILLION PEOPLE, or ONE CHILD. It would be immoral to save the baby. stupid fuck youre insufferably arrogant without the smarts to back it up…im over talking to you. pls do not reply.
[/quote]
Sorry, you don’t get to say when I stop talking.
Now you are trying to escape the discussion because I pointed out what is obvious to everyone here but you: You were wrong. Clearly wrong.
If not, then SHOW ME where I stated any kind of imperative that the choice was to kill one or the other.
Anyone with the slightest grasp of the English language, no offense, can see that the statement involves one’s emotions AFTER having ALREADY taken the action. Not choosing one over the other.
You have shown yourself to be either a cretin or a liar, perhaps both. I tried to give you the out of admitting you were drunk, which would have been the more honorable of the three. You probably should have taken it when you had the chance.
[/quote]
I agreed with your point of view then (wait for it) made a NEW point about how morals can differ, given circumstantial changes. Whether you agree with it or not is not my problem. Maybe read it again…
I like this topic but I dont have the time to argue with borderline retards. Youve proven twice now that you’re a arrogant douche. Go clean yourself up, you’re a disgrace.
I know you were implying there are no absolutes. My post was addressing exactly this, and pointing out that your position is not logically sound, unless you are willing to excuse all manner, and I mean absolutely (wink wink) all manner of heinous behavior.
But you won’t, because there are certain things that you know are always going to be wrong. And if you won’t admit it you will tie yourself into gordian knots trying to prove your point.
[/quote]
I’m paying attention, I just need you to spell your argument out a little better, because apparently you’re making a leap that I’m not seeing. I don’t see where I’m excusing any behavior in particular, or making a judgment as to whether or not it’s heinous.
I’m saying that a society should choose some basic goal or goals and define them explicitly. I think a simple, self-evident example is the preservation of society itself. We can choose to place the lives and freedoms of the people who make up society above all else. Relative to that goal, we can say what’s good or bad. In this society, you can freely do anything except murder or otherwise interfere with the freedom of anyone else. Again, I’m speaking very basically here. And yes, this excuses a lot of things that you may find distasteful. We can’t abolish everything we don’t “like.”
You seem to be supposing that I would twist logic to make arguments based on preexisting moral tenets. This is not the case. I’m glad to live in a society where murder is morally wrong. But no part of me believes that anything is absolutely wrong. [/quote]
I don’t believe that you intend to twist logic. But you’ll have to, if you intend to follow your line of reasoning to its eventual conclusions.
I’m already following this exact line of thinking with Fletch, so I’m not really inclined to have the same argument with two people at the same time. You are welcome to jump in on our dialogue, however.
One thing for you to think about in the meantime, though. You twice mention murder. How do you feel about the German society that arose in the '30s and '40s?
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
There’s some misunderstanding of what “relativism” means here.
I will never throw a baby off a cliff, under any conceivable circumstances. It goes against my code.
Someone else might think it’s all right to throw a baby off a cliff, and it might be impossible for me to convince that person that he’s doing wrong. I could say, “But you’re hurting a defenseless human who never harmed you!” And he’d say, “And what’s wrong with that?” I couldn’t prove objectively that there’s something wrong with throwing babies off cliffs, unless you start by accepting certain values as axiomatic. You can’t derive morality from first principles.
That doesn’t mean that I, personally, will occasionally throw a baby off a cliff. It doesn’t mean that I won’t do what I can to stop baby-throwers. I am an anti-baby-thrower. But a pro-baby-thrower could be just as logically consistent as I am; I happen to be his enemy, that’s all.
This is a ridiculous example, but there are real creeds and real belief systems that are, by my lights, immoral and repugnant, and yet I can’t prove that my own beliefs are better. Eventually I hit a wall, and I have to say, “I value this; clearly, you don’t.”
There are two ways you can deal with someone who starts with fundamentally different moral values than yourself. One, you can tolerate him (it doesn’t mean you approve, it just means you let him be), or two, you can make war on him, using force to stop him from acting on those different moral values. I personally would choose to tolerate in most cases, but to make war in a few (mainly, when the other person initiates aggression.) There are things I wouldn’t tolerate. What I do think is that it isn’t wise to NEVER choose tolerance. You cannot hope to force everyone to follow the moral values you hold; if you try to do it by verbal guilt-tripping, you’ll be friendless and ignored, and if you try to do it by literal force, you’ll make a dictator of yourself.[/quote]
This is the most wishy washy thing I have read from you. Throwing a baby off a cliff, even if it would save the world, is always wrong. Because murder is never just.[/quote]
…except when it’s your god who does the murdering, right?
[/quote]
But is it wrong? Its not “just” to kill an innocent baby but if killing one baby saved 6 billion people…
IE. If you DONT throw the baby, you’re killing 6 billion people instead? MURDER!
So something can be unjust, but still the right thing to do? thats pretty interesting.
[/quote]
Where I come from, killing babies is wrong no matter what your justification for it.
Just because an act contains some perceived benefit does not justify the act itself. Morals are not suddenly transformed by situations. They inform our response to situations. They remain, despite all our justifications.
If you disagree, then tell me honestly, if you had to look a baby in the face and then crush its head to save six billion people, which part would stick with you afterward, the fact that you had purportedly saved six billion people, or that you had crushed the life out of an innocent child?
[/quote]
Basically youre saying you’d let the human race be wiped out to save your guilt of killing one baby? Imo (in an obviously unreal scenario)- if you had the choice to save six billion people, or lose one child, you could absolutely justify your decision to save the larger amount of people, which would include other babies.
If this is not the logical choice well Im just flabbergasted… Im not saying anyone would enjoy it or remember it with fond memories but surely for the greater good ?
Also, i understand what you’re trying to say about any one act being right or wrong(perceived benefit) and whether it is justifiable, but like most things, surely there is circumstantial change to what would be “morally” the right to do. In this case, obviously saving the entire population.
And to answer your (silly) question, I think most people would choose to off the baby to save the entire earth’s population. Because not killing that one baby would be killing MANY MANY other babies(and everyone else). So that is justifiable.
[/quote]
Killing babies is NOT MORAL! It does not BECOME MORAL because suddenly you are Jack Bauer!
[/quote]
Mate you’re just a flat out retard or something - your quote above, was CLEARLY alluded to in what I wrote.
Killing an innocent child, is not “moral”, i agree. But given the choice to KILL 6 BILLION PEOPLE, or ONE CHILD. It would be immoral to save the baby. stupid fuck youre insufferably arrogant without the smarts to back it up…im over talking to you. pls do not reply.
[/quote]
Sorry, you don’t get to say when I stop talking.
Now you are trying to escape the discussion because I pointed out what is obvious to everyone here but you: You were wrong. Clearly wrong.
If not, then SHOW ME where I stated any kind of imperative that the choice was to kill one or the other.
Anyone with the slightest grasp of the English language, no offense, can see that the statement involves one’s emotions AFTER having ALREADY taken the action. Not choosing one over the other.
You have shown yourself to be either a cretin or a liar, perhaps both. I tried to give you the out of admitting you were drunk, which would have been the more honorable of the three. You probably should have taken it when you had the chance.
[/quote]
I agreed with your point of view then (wait for it) made a NEW point about how morals can differ, given circumstantial changes. Whether you agree with it or not is not my problem. Maybe read it again…
I like this topic but I dont have the time to argue with borderline retards. Youve proven twice now that you’re a arrogant douche. Go clean yourself up, you’re a disgrace.[/quote]
Oh, I see, you made a NEW point! Well, I can see I’d better have had my Wheaties before coming to the debate with you.
One final word of advice for you though, that I’m just certain you won’t be able to resist replying to even though you’ve said you “dont[sic] have the time to”:
In real life, you can sometimes pull off whatever it is you are embarrassingly attempting here, because people’s memories are fallible. On the internet, however, the stuff you already said is still sitting there to compare your present statements to. All people have to do is scroll up.
…saving 6 billion people by killing a baby doesn’t make the killing less immoral, but you wouldn’t let 6 billion people perish in order to save one baby either because that would be more immoral?
…so are there levels of immorality or is any immoral act equal to another immoral act?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…saving 6 billion people by killing a baby doesn’t make the killing less immoral, but you wouldn’t let 6 billion people perish in order to save one baby either because that would be more immoral?
…so are there levels of immorality or is any immoral act equal to another immoral act?[/quote]
No. It’s just a shitty choice to have to make.
As far as I know, there are not degrees of murder. Dead is dead.
This makes me think of somebody who’s “a little honest.”
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…saving 6 billion people by killing a baby doesn’t make the killing less immoral, but you wouldn’t let 6 billion people perish in order to save one baby either because that would be more immoral?
…so are there levels of immorality or is any immoral act equal to another immoral act?[/quote]
No. It’s just a shitty choice to have to make.
As far as I know, there are not degrees of murder. Dead is dead.
This makes me think of somebody who’s “a little honest.” [/quote]
…stealing a bread to feed your family, or swindling old people out of their money to feed your coke addiction. Surely there’s some difference?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
One more example of you not knowing what the hell you’re talking about. Well over 90% of abortions are for convenience more or less a brutal form of birth control -get the facts before you try to argue a point you look like a stooge for the godless left, oh wait…you are.
[/quote]
Except when the abortion topic comes up it is always black and white in the eyes of the self proclaimed pro-lifers. Life is never that convenient.[/quote]
Either “it” is a human life or “it” is not. I am not familiar with a sort of human life, or a kinda human life.[/quote]
Yes, never mind those pesky real life situations like a child who will be born with a genetic condition that will leave them in agony and give them a life expectancy of a few short years. That is but one hypothetical example, but if the pro-lifers had it their way, this child would be subject to much pain and misery, without the opportunity to experience a long and healthy life.[/quote]
So you ok with killing people who do not have a good quality of life? At least you agree you’re killing a human. I guess we should do away with all folks who have poor quality of life.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…saving 6 billion people by killing a baby doesn’t make the killing less immoral, but you wouldn’t let 6 billion people perish in order to save one baby either because that would be more immoral?
…so are there levels of immorality or is any immoral act equal to another immoral act?[/quote]
If the 6 billion all looked like Janet Reno, I’d save the baby.
Except when the abortion topic comes up it is always black and white in the eyes of the self proclaimed pro-lifers. Life is never that convenient.[/quote]
Either “it” is a human life or “it” is not. I am not familiar with a sort of human life, or a kinda human life.[/quote]
Yes, never mind those pesky real life situations like a child who will be born with a genetic condition that will leave them in agony and give them a life expectancy of a few short years. That is but one hypothetical example, but if the pro-lifers had it their way, this child would be subject to much pain and misery, without the opportunity to experience a long and healthy life.[/quote]
So you ok with killing people who do not have a good quality of life? At least you agree you’re killing a human. I guess we should do away with all folks who have poor quality of life.[/quote]
