Cortes, I see where you’re coming from on the baby example. Would you agree though that there is a sort of “macro morality” that says the overall good is sometimes best served by committing immoral acts with negative consequences on a smaller scale? In other words, sometimes the most moral action requires committing an immoral action, because ultimately it accomplishes a greater good.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes, I see where you’re coming from on the baby example. Would you agree though that there is a sort of “macro morality” that says the overall good is sometimes best served by committing immoral acts with negative consequences on a smaller scale? In other words, sometimes the most moral action requires committing an immoral action, because ultimately it accomplishes a greater good. [/quote]
I am interested in his response, but I can tell you that the Bible has instances where that is the case. Rahab lying being the first example that comes to mind.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes, I see where you’re coming from on the baby example. Would you agree though that there is a sort of “macro morality” that says the overall good is sometimes best served by committing immoral acts with negative consequences on a smaller scale? In other words, sometimes the most moral action requires committing an immoral action, because ultimately it accomplishes a greater good. [/quote]
I am no kind of idealist. I know full well that life often gives you the choice between a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich with a hair on it. In situations where there is no other choice, or where it amounts to as much because the consequences otherwise would be so dire, then of course we just have try and make the least bad choice we can (indeed, most of us do this every election season!).
However, I would certainly draw the line at proactively hunting out these choices and making them when there are possibly better options (easy example: the stupid pro-abortion argument that these kids are going to grow up unwanted to a miserable life. This argument is always made by an alive person capable of protesting if someone felt like his existence were so worthless it should be snubbed out).
In other words, I do NOT believe that might makes right, nor that you can get a good from a bad. But I also understand reality and realize that we really are sometimes forced into unfortunate decisions. In those cases, you do the best you can.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Even for those that don’t get caught, it usually does not create genuine joy for them.
[/quote]
Yes it does. If I can have sex with however many women I choose to, whenever I want, I will definitely be feeling some joy. And who are you to say that my long term lack of fulfillment is not equal to my present fulfillment of my every desire? I could get hit by a bus tomorrow and the end result will be just the same as if I had gone to Bangladesh and dedicated my life to helping the poor. I’m still worm food. At least this worm food gets to live it up before he goes.
[quote]
And I would say it’s not okay because it goes against evolutionary ethics.[/quote]
So what? What are “evolutionary ethics” and why am I in any way obligated to follow them? Perhaps I’m the next most important mutation. I am just following my instincts. Maybe I’d be violating “evolutionary ethics” if I did not do what my instincts tell me to do, which is to fuck every woman I see and take what I want.
[quote]
As a species capable of a high level of self-awareness, I believe it’s our responsibility to do our best to only commit to actions that raise the well-being and fitness of life as a whole.[/quote]
Why? [/quote]
Some people are hedonistic by nature and upbringing. But culture and biology keep people from behaving this way for the most part. There would be much greater collective unhappiness if people only went after their own hedonistic desires without concern for others. Over the millinea, cultures have learned this. In our biological and cultural evolution, people have moved towards cooperation. Most people are social to at least some extent and therefore feel compelled to work towards the greater common good in one way or another.
We can rise above our instincts to lead happier more fulfilling lives. At this point, since reproductive barriers have been all but eradicated and there aren’t really any isolated populations of humans anymore, it’s doubtful that we will see any speciation in mankind’s future as it stands at the moment. So that leaves cultural evolution. And trying to have unprotected sex with as many women as possible leads to social problems that can hurt a societies and collectives ability to sustain itself. As a species, we’re at a point where simply just putting more people on the planet will not help our species or life in general’s health. [/quote]
Uh, but trying to have sex with as many women as possible is one of the elemental drives of evolution. And now you and eph are trying to convince me that my obligation to society and “the planet” is going to over-ride my drive to fuck like Roger Rabbit on X?
Sorry, but this all sounds like some serious religious thinking to me. A little too much faith in the face of some seriously damning empirical evidence. [/quote]
Our neocortex is a powerful tool that is part of our brain that can push away instinctual drives and use things like logic in its place or it can even maintain those passions yet direct them to something constructive (i.e. something like weightlifting). We also have the ability to link thoughts (higher thinking) to feelings and vice versa.
And of course, the more you know, the more questions you have. That goes for any scientific field and many other fields as well. Hell, the more I know in life the dumber I feel.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I am no kind of idealist. I know full well that life often gives you the choice between a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich with a hair on it. In situations where there is no other choice, or where it amounts to as much because the consequences otherwise would be so dire, then of course we just have try and make the least bad choice we can (indeed, most of us do this every election season!).
However, I would certainly draw the line at proactively hunting out these choices and making them when there are possibly better options (easy example: the stupid pro-abortion argument that these kids are going to grow up unwanted to a miserable life. This argument is always made by an alive person capable of protesting if someone felt like his existence were so worthless it should be snubbed out).
In other words, I do NOT believe that might makes right, nor that you can get a good from a bad. But I also understand reality and realize that we really are sometimes forced into unfortunate decisions. In those cases, you do the best you can. [/quote]
Well said. I see it the same way, which is a more mature perspective than in my fundamentalist days. Back then, my idealistic belief was that every choice has a right or wrong answer, as reflected in this childhood hymn:
[quote]Choose the right! Let no spirit of digression
Overcome you in the evil hour.
There’s the right and the wrong to every question;
Be safe through inspiration’s power.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I am no kind of idealist. I know full well that life often gives you the choice between a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich with a hair on it. In situations where there is no other choice, or where it amounts to as much because the consequences otherwise would be so dire, then of course we just have try and make the least bad choice we can (indeed, most of us do this every election season!).
However, I would certainly draw the line at proactively hunting out these choices and making them when there are possibly better options (easy example: the stupid pro-abortion argument that these kids are going to grow up unwanted to a miserable life. This argument is always made by an alive person capable of protesting if someone felt like his existence were so worthless it should be snubbed out).
In other words, I do NOT believe that might makes right, nor that you can get a good from a bad. But I also understand reality and realize that we really are sometimes forced into unfortunate decisions. In those cases, you do the best you can. [/quote]
Well said. I see it the same way, which is a more mature perspective than in my fundamentalist days. Back then, my idealistic belief was that every choice has a right or wrong answer, as reflected in this childhood hymn:
[quote]Choose the right! Let no spirit of digression
Overcome you in the evil hour.
There’s the right and the wrong to every question;
Be safe through inspiration’s power.[/quote]
[/quote]
To clarify, and because I am probably extra sensitive because my comments here have been getting taken and twisted to imply I said something I did not: I think it’s best not to worry about the questions you raise above until they clearly arise. For most of us, most of the time, it is possible and best to follow the advice of the hymn above. Indeed, “knowing” the morals will still show us the way to make the best bad choice when we are finally faced with such a problem.
My entire point since joining this argument has been that there are standards of morality that are universal, such as murder (not necessarily killing), rape, sadistic cruelty, theft, selfishness, that remain immoral regardless of the choices we are faced with or those choices others decide to make. So a moral dilemma only represents a shitty situation, NOT a refutation of the moral nature of certain acts.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Even for those that don’t get caught, it usually does not create genuine joy for them.
[/quote]
Yes it does. If I can have sex with however many women I choose to, whenever I want, I will definitely be feeling some joy. And who are you to say that my long term lack of fulfillment is not equal to my present fulfillment of my every desire? I could get hit by a bus tomorrow and the end result will be just the same as if I had gone to Bangladesh and dedicated my life to helping the poor. I’m still worm food. At least this worm food gets to live it up before he goes.
[quote]
And I would say it’s not okay because it goes against evolutionary ethics.[/quote]
So what? What are “evolutionary ethics” and why am I in any way obligated to follow them? Perhaps I’m the next most important mutation. I am just following my instincts. Maybe I’d be violating “evolutionary ethics” if I did not do what my instincts tell me to do, which is to fuck every woman I see and take what I want.
Again, though, this is not proof of a “morality” source within the brain. You are still doing what I said, using faith to fill in the gaps for a conclusion you’ve already reached. This is how it always works with evolution (I have no problem with evolution, btw). The idea is elevated to practically a God status, so that, even though we cannot definitively say a damned thing, well, its evolution, man, and if you disagree with that we’ll have to excommunicate you. Atheists are always so quick to point out when theists do this sort of thing, yet when their own sacred cows come up (mainly evolution and “climate change,” there may be a few I’m forgetting), they get all evangelical on you.
I’m not really directing this at you personally so much as saying trying to show that this occurs on both sides of the ideological fence, and you guys never give us a pass.
Edit: And yes, I know about certain scientific studies and anecdotal incidents that indicate a “moral center,” but I am far from convinced that this has been definitively proven and that there are not a LOT of other factors to keep in mind.
[quote]To clarify, and because I am probably extra sensitive because my comments here have been getting taken and twisted to imply I said something I did not: I think it’s best not to worry about the questions you raise above until they clearly arise. For most of us, most of the time, it is possible and best to follow the advice of the hymn above. Indeed, “knowing” the morals will still show us the way to make the best bad choice when we are finally faced with such a problem.
My entire point since joining this argument has been that there are standards of morality that are universal, such as murder (not necessarily killing), rape, sadistic cruelty, theft, selfishness, that remain immoral regardless of the choices we are faced with or those choices others decide to make. So a moral dilemma only represents a shitty situation, NOT a refutation of the moral nature of certain acts.
[/quote]
I agree that a moral dilemma doesn’t refute the morality of certain acts, but it does call into question their relative priority and consequences. At the end of the day, the pivotal question that informs morality remains the same: “Does this act ultimately contribute to human well being relative to other acts, or not?”.
The main reason people disagree on what is moral and what is not is that they define “human well being” differently. For example, if you believe acts leading to misery in this life ultimately result in eternal bliss in a future life, ANYTHING can be justified in the name of morality, including murder, rape, sadistic cruelty, theft, and selfishness.
^
I’ll agree in the sense that I feel the studies on it are still in its infancy and there’s a lot of questions about the subject and we’ll most likely only have more questions the more we find out about it. It’s just I don’t see any reason why humans are exempt from the same processes of evolution that other species follow. As such, biology and culture have come up with solutions to certain problems to not only help our species survive, but thrive.
[quote]forlife wrote:
the pivotal question that informs morality remains the same: “Does this act ultimately contribute to human well being relative to other acts, or not?”.[/quote]
LMAO, sorry but in light of ALL of the facts this just sounded funny coming from you.
In the light of your cherry picked facts, you mean…ALL the facts would include the unanimous conclusions of the major health organizations 
[quote]forlife wrote:
The main reason people disagree on what is moral and what is not is that they define “human well being” differently. For example, if you believe acts leading to misery in this life ultimately result in eternal bliss in a future life, ANYTHING can be justified in the name of morality, including murder, rape, sadistic cruelty, theft, and selfishness. [/quote]
You hardly need a belief in the afterlife to justify brutal acts.
The simple belief that physical pleasure defines well being has lead to all sorts of problems throughout history.
E.g. If I get a lot of physical pleasure from killing you and having sex with your corpse, then as long as you don’t experience too much pain when you die that could be acceptable if physical pleasure defines well being. And some crazies think exactly like this.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
sorry late reply haven’t been on for a few days.
[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]
Im not sure if there are levels of immorality? - But surely when given a choice you’d have to look at the act as a whole rather than two individual cases. Saving the greater amount of people would be the more moral act. I was just curious if others thought this justifies killing the baby and therefore make the act “moral”. I think it does…
Also, using a baby is a bad example because people get caught up in the emotion(ie the negative connotations of killing a baby) instead of actually thinking about the situation - If you use a 90 yr old terminal cancer patient you’d likely hit less empathy?[/quote]
I really would like to stop engaging you, but I just can’t help myself when you keep dropping these steaming turds of twisted logic all over the forum.
Killing (and the actual correct term in this case is “murdering”) a baby is not MORE moral, nor is it MADE moral through circumstances. Circumstances do not affect morality. Murdering a baby is immoral, in EVERY SINGLE CASE, ALWAYS! That does not mean that sometimes people are forced into choosing between two immoral situations, but it does NOT transform an evil act into a good one.
If you disagree, then please tell me how you would feel after having killed a baby in the manner I described a few days back, saving six billion people. If the act suddenly “becomes” moral, then you should not feel any remorse, and you can give six billion high fives with dead baby goo still sticking to your fingers. Indeed, it should even be easy to kill the little creature, right? Because it’s now a “moral” act.
And don’t put words in my mouth this time. I said you could kill your baby, since you so desire, so feel free to enjoy yourself. I never said here or before anything about NOT going through with the act. [/quote]
- Youve proven multiple times you cannot respond with any manner of respect.
- Youve proven multiple times you are the one that fails to apply common sense to an argument.
- I am not saying I’m right(but you seem to be saying you are) - I am simply flipping the coin to another perspective, one of which you seemingly cannot grasp.
Im not saying it would be “enjoyable” but if you look at the two options, in my view, and any normal, logical, decent person would agree, wiping out an entire species would be stupid, illogical and probably immoral. Given this I posed my question.
You would feel a lot worse killing 6 billion people, if not, i suggest you seek serious council. Also, you twisted youre argument to strike an emotional cord “crushing the babies skull” - If i flipped it the other way, in that you had to crush 6 billion peoples skulls(including babies) YOU WOULD FEEL A LOT MORE REMORSE.
I understand your point of view that circumstance doesnt change the morality of an act but i think it does - FUN TIP OF THE DAY: If you had of just said that, you would have got your point across a lot quicker and coherently. Also understand youre opinion is not always correct.
[quote]forlife wrote:
In the light of your cherry picked facts, you mean…ALL the facts would include the unanimous conclusions of the major health organizations :)[/quote]
Oh I’m sorry you seem confused. I’m talking about the ugly health statistics revolving around certain activities that you may or may not participate in. There are no major health orgs that claim otherwise.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
Out of curiosity - Do any of the religious people in this forum, have a different religion to their parents?[/quote]
Could you be any more transparent? Will confirming your biases make you “more” right?
C’mon, tell the truth now, you just want that self-satisfaction that will come with being able to say, “see, I knew it!”[/quote]
I was hoping for someone to say they weren’t…or that someone had gone from religion to atheism or vice versa…
But seeing as you like to be a dick - could you be any more stupid??? the same could be said for atheism or any belief system that “runs in the family”- seriously mate pull your fucking head in you’re embarrassing yourself…
oh God(!)
you are one who doesn’t grasp the (pretty simple) point here.
yes, avoiding the death of 6 billions justify the killing of a baby.
but no, it doesn’t “therefore” make the act “moral”
or “more moral”
or “less immoral”
it is still bad.
both option are bad.
ie : there’s nothing to rejoice.
there’s nothing good in this situation.
bad causes, bad effects, bad circonstances, life’s a bitch. you had to kill a baby to save humanity.
sometimes there is no moral in the story, and no happy end to the movie.
in such a situation, you’re not a hero.
you just did a dirty job, when needed.
if you are moral, the next day, you don’t celebrate your exploit with thousands of grateful bimbos you just saved.
you mourn the loss of the baby you just killed.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes, I see where you’re coming from on the baby example. Would you agree though that there is a sort of “macro morality” that says the overall good is sometimes best served by committing immoral acts with negative consequences on a smaller scale? In other words, sometimes the most moral action requires committing an immoral action, because ultimately it accomplishes a greater good. [/quote]
Thats what I was trying to get at.
Why would I kill a baby to save humanity? I wouldn’t kill a baby to save myself or a family member…
So… how many babies does it take to paint a wall 
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
One thing I like about the video , is that Altruism is a good thing .
What do you call some one that believes in God but not in Religion ?[/quote]
I think maybe then one cannot be called an atheist? In fact I think many of us (i mean throughout the world) beleive in God or some divine being in some way or another, its just that the way we choose to 1) worship or not worship, 2) fear or not fear, 3) love or not love him/her/it or watever gender u believe ur God is that cause this division, a.k,a religion.
I agree with the OP that sometimes tolerance is usually the best “solutiuon” to the situation.