Tough Question for Religious Orientated People

[Az]

than a slimy utilitarian.

Hey!!!!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian
Are you one of the ten, and thus shooting yourself to save the other nine is an option? Or did I read it too fast?

-Arrian

No - you aren't. The question is "is it alright to do bad things to lessen the overall amount of bad in the world?"

But some people say, "No, the ends don't justify the means. You cannot violate anyone's rights for the greater good."

But then they can be asked, "is it right to break moral rules yourself to ensure that less rules are broken overall?"

The only way that rights based theories can reject the idea of a greater good, is by saying that it doesn't matter whether more or less rights are violated, as long as you don't violate them.

But that really requires some sort of religious view to support it.

[Ben Kenobi]

because one of the core reasons that some religionists use to claim abortion is murder is that if the fetus isn't human, it will BE human. Potential humanity is important to them.

Eh?

What part of the statement, "human life begins at conception" says that the fetus is not already a human person?

I find something very disturbing about people who believe in god after a holocaust, esp. a nuclear one.

Why so? We have had a massive Holocaust, yet Jews do not forsake their Creator. Who is to blame for a nuclear catastrope, God or man?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Eh?

What part of the statement, "human life begins at conception" says that the fetus is not already a human person?

I don't recall saying that was your belief, but certainly is a common one among religious people. Perhaps you shouldn't be so arrogant as to assume any reference to religious people refers solely to you and your belief system?

[Agathon]

Azazel. Think about what it is that makes the violating of rights a bad thing, if it isn't the actual effect on the victim. Because if it is the effect, then we have to minimize the number of bad effects.

If it isn't the effect on the victim, it must be something to do with the perpetrator doing it himself. That only makes sense to me, if only clean consciences matter and the effects on the victims don't. A religious view supplies this: what happens to victims in this world doesn't really matter, because all that matters is that each individual keep his conscience as clean as he can by following God's law. People that do that are candidates for heaven, people that don't are candidates for hell. As long as I don't break God's rules, I am fine. If others break them, that is between them and God.

[Arrian]

My basic problem with "the good of the many outweights the good of they few, or the one" is this:

We humans make an awful lot of mistakes. If we actually believed as you do, that doing "bad things" for "the good of the many" was ok, that leads down a road to doing all sorts of bad things that are then justified by "well, it was for the common good!" Even if it was unclear that it really was for the common good.

The party has decided that you must die for the good of humanity! But perhaps 10 yrs down the road you stumbled upon some sort of discovery that actually benifitted humanity.

My point is that we aren't really all that good at predicting the effects of our actions in the future. As such, allowing the "good of the many" to always trump the "good of the few or the one" stikes me as a TERRIBLE idea, because it will be misused, and of course deliberately abused.

-Arrian

[Az]

Agathon:

Gotcha.

You agree with us, right?

I'm still astonished that any non-believer would either force the woman to die or rape her to breed.

Apparently, you've been living a sheltered life.

[Ben Kenobi]

but certainly is a common one among religious people.

I challenge this assumption. Phrasing the statement in this way implies that it is due to their religious teachings that they take on theis view. This is most certainly not the case, with their churches stating the precise opposite. If they choose to reject their own church, then their beliefs arise from the world, and not their faith.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian
My basic problem with "the good of the many outweights the good of they few, or the one" is this:

We humans make an awful lot of mistakes. If we actually believed as you do, that doing "bad things" for "the good of the many" was ok, that leads down a road to doing all sorts of bad things that are then justified by "well, it was for the common good!" Even if it was unclear that it really was for the common good.

The party has decided that you must die for the good of humanity! But perhaps 10 yrs down the road you stumbled upon some sort of discovery that actually benifitted humanity.

My point is that we aren't really all that good at predicting the effects of our actions in the future. As such, allowing the "good of the many" to always trump the "good of the few or the one" stikes me as a TERRIBLE idea, because it will be misused, and of course deliberately abused.

-Arrian

I addressed that question. We do make mistakes because we are not infallible. But we should always act to the best of our knowledge. If we say we shouldn't act unless we are certain, we'd never do anything.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Theben


We don't know that. All we know is that she doesn't want to have sex with the men.

Same thing. I doubt she is unaware of the implications of not having sex.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Azazel
Gotcha.

You agree with us, right?

I'm not sure. I disagree with the religious people. I think that the only source of value is human welfare, but I have specific ideas about what this is. It's not pleasure or preference satisfaction, but a state of flourishing in accordance with our nature.

[Az]

Well, that's awfully vague, isn't it?

How about this particular case?

[Arrian]

I addressed that question. We do make mistakes because we are not infallible. But we should always act to the best of our knowledge. If we say we shouldn't act unless we are certain, we'd never do anything.

I'm not saying we should never act, but rather that we should be very careful about what we justify in the name of the "common good" (or any good, for that matter). Death, which is what we're discussing in this shoot the hostage example, is irrevocable.

-Arrian

[Theben]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'm still astonished that any non-believer would either force the woman to die...

No, b/c the one child most likely will not be enough to save humanity, assuming it's even female.

or rape her to breed.

Lesser of two evils. I'd say the same thing if it was one man and a community of women, and the man didn't want to breed.

This also assumes of course that modern medicine isn't available. Otherwise, if a trained specialist is available and the equipment available we could extract the woman's eggs and the men could fertilize them. End of dilemma.

[Az]

This also assumes of course that modern medicine isn't available. Otherwise, if a trained specialist is available and the equipment available we could extract the woman's eggs and the men could fertilize them. End of dilemma.

And then what? grow them inside the male body like in that arnie movie?

No, b/c the one child most likely will not be enough to save humanity, assuming it's even female.

I still say you have to give it a shot.