[quote]Legionary wrote:
Oh sorry I must be especially dense today. Of course, more statues than you can imagine. Oh, and you’ll be the savior of a religion which will become the largest in the world. Mel Gibson will also make a hit movie exploiting…ummm, I mean, honoring your sacrifice, and occasionally, someone will claim to see your image in toast. [/quote]
Well, in that case I am in, if the case ever arises, PM me.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, if the numbers are subjective, how do you call another person immoral for not biting at 3,000? Or 3,000,000? And so on. [/quote]
Seriously, would you do it for 30? If not, are you then immoral, because you had the ability to and didn’t?
[/quote]
Seriously, I asked first. Again, what about one man being brutally tortured to death for the sake of mankind? Would you condemn him to death? Or is this in all cases immoral because you are in fact murdering him?[/quote]
Let me make this crystal clear. It doesn’t matter the number. It is immoral.
Now, for 30?[/quote]
You just said that God sending Jesus to die on the cross for mankind was immoral. Now, how can an omnibenevolent god like Yahweh be capable of that?[/quote]
No, I didn’t.
[/quote]
According to you, an individual being sacrificed for mankind is immoral in any case. So did Jesus die for you or not? Was it a moral act? If you say no you are denying everything you claim to believe in.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, if the numbers are subjective, how do you call another person immoral for not biting at 3,000? Or 3,000,000? And so on. [/quote]
Seriously, would you do it for 30? If not, are you then immoral, because you had the ability to and didn’t?
[/quote]
Seriously, I asked first. Again, what about one man being brutally tortured to death for the sake of mankind? Would you condemn him to death? Or is this in all cases immoral because you are in fact murdering him?[/quote]
Let me make this crystal clear. It doesn’t matter the number. It is immoral.
Now, for 30?[/quote]
You just said that God sending Jesus to die on the cross for mankind was immoral. Now, how can an omnibenevolent god like Yahweh be capable of that?[/quote]
No, I didn’t.
[/quote]
According to you, an individual being sacrificed for mankind is immoral in any case. So did Jesus die for you or not? Was it a moral act? If you say no you are denying everything you claim to believe in.[/quote]
Tsk, tsk, tsk…
I thought a video would be better.
Nobody reads anymore.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, if the numbers are subjective, how do you call another person immoral for not biting at 3,000? Or 3,000,000? And so on. [/quote]
Seriously, would you do it for 30? If not, are you then immoral, because you had the ability to and didn’t?
[/quote]
Seriously, I asked first. Again, what about one man being brutally tortured to death for the sake of mankind? Would you condemn him to death? Or is this in all cases immoral because you are in fact murdering him?[/quote]
Let me make this crystal clear. It doesn’t matter the number. It is immoral.
Now, for 30?[/quote]
You just said that God sending Jesus to die on the cross for mankind was immoral. Now, how can an omnibenevolent god like Yahweh be capable of that?[/quote]
No, I didn’t.
[/quote]
According to you, an individual being sacrificed for mankind is immoral in any case. So did Jesus die for you or not? Was it a moral act? If you say no you are denying everything you claim to believe in.[/quote]
No I’m not.
Let’s play one of my scenarios Legionary. You’re the Christian. You explain to me why it’s not equivalent.
Oh, and, for 30?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, if the numbers are subjective, how do you call another person immoral for not biting at 3,000? Or 3,000,000? And so on. [/quote]
Seriously, would you do it for 30? If not, are you then immoral, because you had the ability to and didn’t?
[/quote]
Seriously, I asked first. Again, what about one man being brutally tortured to death for the sake of mankind? Would you condemn him to death? Or is this in all cases immoral because you are in fact murdering him?[/quote]
Let me make this crystal clear. It doesn’t matter the number. It is immoral.
Now, for 30?[/quote]
You just said that God sending Jesus to die on the cross for mankind was immoral. Now, how can an omnibenevolent god like Yahweh be capable of that?[/quote]
No, I didn’t.
[/quote]
According to you, an individual being sacrificed for mankind is immoral in any case. So did Jesus die for you or not? Was it a moral act? If you say no you are denying everything you claim to believe in.[/quote]
No I’m not.
[/quote]
So was Jesus, an individual who was put to death for the sake of mankind, a justifiable example of the few being sacrificed for the sake of the many or not?
Not even if I post a video.
Fortunately I know where to get crayons…
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, if the numbers are subjective, how do you call another person immoral for not biting at 3,000? Or 3,000,000? And so on. [/quote]
Seriously, would you do it for 30? If not, are you then immoral, because you had the ability to and didn’t?
[/quote]
Seriously, I asked first. Again, what about one man being brutally tortured to death for the sake of mankind? Would you condemn him to death? Or is this in all cases immoral because you are in fact murdering him?[/quote]
Let me make this crystal clear. It doesn’t matter the number. It is immoral.
Now, for 30?[/quote]
You just said that God sending Jesus to die on the cross for mankind was immoral. Now, how can an omnibenevolent god like Yahweh be capable of that?[/quote]
No, I didn’t.
[/quote]
According to you, an individual being sacrificed for mankind is immoral in any case. So did Jesus die for you or not? Was it a moral act? If you say no you are denying everything you claim to believe in.[/quote]
No I’m not.
[/quote]
So was Jesus, an individual who was put to death for the sake of mankind, a justifiable example of the few being sacrificed for the sake of the many or not? [/quote]
No, Jesus was God who had the power to lay down his own life and take it back up. Your scenario concerns you making that decision for another.
So, are you going to answer my question? If not, let me know and I won’t waste my time anymore.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, if the numbers are subjective, how do you call another person immoral for not biting at 3,000? Or 3,000,000? And so on. [/quote]
Seriously, would you do it for 30? If not, are you then immoral, because you had the ability to and didn’t?
[/quote]
Seriously, I asked first. Again, what about one man being brutally tortured to death for the sake of mankind? Would you condemn him to death? Or is this in all cases immoral because you are in fact murdering him?[/quote]
Let me make this crystal clear. It doesn’t matter the number. It is immoral.
Now, for 30?[/quote]
You just said that God sending Jesus to die on the cross for mankind was immoral. Now, how can an omnibenevolent god like Yahweh be capable of that?[/quote]
No, I didn’t.
[/quote]
According to you, an individual being sacrificed for mankind is immoral in any case. So did Jesus die for you or not? Was it a moral act? If you say no you are denying everything you claim to believe in.[/quote]
No I’m not.
[/quote]
So was Jesus, an individual who was put to death for the sake of mankind, a justifiable example of the few being sacrificed for the sake of the many or not? [/quote]
No, Jesus was God who had the power to lay down his own life and take it back up. Your scenario concerns you making that decision for another.
[/quote
The consequences are the same. Mankind is saved.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, if the numbers are subjective, how do you call another person immoral for not biting at 3,000? Or 3,000,000? And so on. [/quote]
Seriously, would you do it for 30? If not, are you then immoral, because you had the ability to and didn’t?
[/quote]
Seriously, I asked first. Again, what about one man being brutally tortured to death for the sake of mankind? Would you condemn him to death? Or is this in all cases immoral because you are in fact murdering him?[/quote]
Let me make this crystal clear. It doesn’t matter the number. It is immoral.
Now, for 30?[/quote]
You just said that God sending Jesus to die on the cross for mankind was immoral. Now, how can an omnibenevolent god like Yahweh be capable of that?[/quote]
No, I didn’t.
[/quote]
According to you, an individual being sacrificed for mankind is immoral in any case. So did Jesus die for you or not? Was it a moral act? If you say no you are denying everything you claim to believe in.[/quote]
No I’m not.
[/quote]
So was Jesus, an individual who was put to death for the sake of mankind, a justifiable example of the few being sacrificed for the sake of the many or not? [/quote]
No, Jesus was God who had the power to lay down his own life and take it back up. Your scenario concerns you making that decision for another.
[/quote
The consequences are the same. Mankind is saved.
[/quote]
But Jesus role as a moral agent is different.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
The consequences are the same. Mankind is saved.
[/quote]
Guy eats like crap all his life, live a sedentary lifestyle, dies.
Guy is murdered.
The consequences are the same. A guy died.
If you’re response to this doesn’t include an answer the question I’ve repeatedly posed, I don’t think there’s much else to say. 30? X being the number of members in your family. X+1 being the number who would live if you killed your family? And how much would you actually pulling the trigger on your family go for? 4,000 lives? 6,000 lives? Hell that’s double the original 3000. I mean some indirect means for their death, or you pulling the trigger as they plead with you. Consequences are the same, dead at your decision.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
In Ursula Le Guin’s short story, “Those Who walk Away From Omelas”, the town of Omelas is described as a place of perpetual happiness, a utopia. However, the town’s boundless contentment and prosperity rely upon the preservation of a twisted obligation, the utter misery of one small child. The child lives locked away in a small closet, deprived of proper food, medical care, and any semblance of human compassion. At least once in their lives, the citizens of Omelas must witness firsthand how the child is tormented and have knowledge of its wretched condition. Finding it unbearable to know that their complete happiness depends on the horrid existence of the child, some choose to leave the town, never to return.
What would you do if you lived in Omelas? Stay or leave? And why?
*Attempting to save the child would be one of the worst things a citizen of Omelas could do. Even if they managed to bring the child some happiness (and LeGuin makes it clear that it has been miserable for far too long to have any true happiness), this small amount of joy would pale in comparison to the utter devastation that the rest of city would experience.[/quote]
I’d kill the child and destroy the mechanism used to to accomplish this feat.
THEN I’d walk away from Omelas.
They make this child miserable for their own happiness. I would find somewhere for the child to be at least somewhat happy and if that is impossible then I would end his misery. His misery being the people of the town, of course.
I see no moral value in this utopia you speak of
It’s not 1 vs. a billion
It’s 1 vs. 0
You’re not comparing morals
You’re comparing magnitudes of pleasure vs. suffering
Morals do not care about that - so if you have morals this is very easy
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I see no moral value in this utopia you speak of
It’s not 1 vs. a billion
It’s 1 vs. 0
You’re not comparing morals
You’re comparing magnitudes of pleasure vs. suffering
Morals do not care about that - so if you have morals this is very easy[/quote]
For some forms of utilitarianism increasing happiness is the moral goal. Or decreasing suffering.