Tough Question for Religious Orientated People

[Theben]

Originally posted by GePap

Well, the thing is we know from the start she is hell bent of wipping out the species- so why mar the last few days of Mankind with savage violence leading to the death of one of the few remianing human beings?

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

[Theben]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Again, you've not given any coherent reason why the survival of the human race is so important in this instance that it permits rape/murder. I'm assuming you don't approve of such things normally, so I'd like to get a consistent argument.

We don't consider killing someone 'normal' either, but we'll do it in times of war or for SELF-PRESERVATION. I would like to think that the above scenarios aren't or will never be 'normal'.

[Ben Kenobi]

And does that survival apply in other situations, for instance, if the woman wasn't pregnant, just the only one left and perfectly fertile, but refused to breed with the remaining men. Would it be okay to rape her and force her to carry a child to term for the sake of species survival?

No. First of all, if God wants the species to perpetuate, then he will encourage the woman to have another child.

Secondly, you have this whole promise of a new heaven and a new Earth. We will receive these gifts at the time of the Second Coming, which everything that we know of now will fade away. Acts like raping the woman will remain with us even after we die, while the preservation of the speices will be meaningless.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Who knows? If you paid attention, Curt cared so much, he asked the question then left.

Can't make an answer without supervision, can't we?

Originally posted by SlowwHand Another in a long line of troll threads, no matter his disclaimer.

Whatever.

The arch-troll Slow calling me a troll?

That's irony personified.

[curtsibling]

And golly-gosh!

This thread got massive real quick!
I have to take my hat off to the posters here!

Now, I have to go through and read it all!

[Arrian]

I disagree, Agathon.

First, I disagree that it's wrong to say "the guerilla captain might kill everyone anyway," because that seems to me a very reasonable objection to make. Someone who hands you a gun and tells you to pick someone to die is the type who might then just laugh at you and gun you all down anyway. But ok, what if that's not an issue (so I TRUST this madman)...

If I give into this sick ****, and shoot a fellow hostage (or myself) to save the rest, he WINS. And I don't want him to win. I want him to lose badly, and all others who come after to lose badly too. Hence shooting him, resulting in the rest of his guerrila types shooting me and the rest of the hostages, killing us all. Is that possibly seflish? Yes, it might just be. But it ain't religious.

"Head like a hole. Black as your soul. I'd rather die, than give you control!"



-Arrian

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
Boris' case introduces an unnecessary complication, since it requires one to resolve the vexed question of whether the rights or welfare of future human beings must be taken into account.

My complication isn't unnecessary, 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. So this dilemma asks them not only to choose between allowing an abortion to save the mother or forcing the mother to die to save the fetus, but also to consider the potential future of the human race.

[Theben]

Just copied and saved Agathon's response. Quite excellent.

[Ben Kenobi]

Agathon:

I though you were a deontological rights based virtue ethicist rather than a slimy utilitarian.

What would you say to a reesponse like this? "Let the ten people go. I offer myself in their stead."

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Theben
We don't consider killing someone 'normal' either, but we'll do it in times of war or for SELF-PRESERVATION. I would like to think that the above scenarios aren't or will never be 'normal'.

Agreed, but in this instance the only person worrying about self-preservation is the woman who doesn't want to die. None of the men are in danger of dying. It's not about preserving themselves.

I just can't fathom killing a woman for the benefit of people who don't even exist yet and that you aren't certain will ever exist.

[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

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


My complication isn't unnecessary, 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. So this dilemma asks them not only to choose between allowing an abortion to save the mother or forcing the mother to die to save the fetus, but also to consider the potential future of the human race.

OK - I apologize for not being clearer.

Your case relies on us sorting out the question of the value of future human lives and what role that should play (if any) in our moral decision making. But that is a separate issue from whether or not it is sometimes right to break moral rules to prevent more egregious cases of rule breaking. That's an additional question your case needs to solve.

[Az]

Agathon: thumbs up on the explanation of why are rights-based theories wrong, but I am not very sure about their connection to religion.

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

[Arrian]

Why would a nuclear holocaust shake people's faith in God, when all the rest of human history hasn't been able to do it?

-Arrian

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No. First of all, if God wants the species to perpetuate, then he will encourage the woman to have another child.

Secondly, you have this whole promise of a new heaven and a new Earth. We will receive these gifts at the time of the Second Coming, which everything that we know of now will fade away. Acts like raping the woman will remain with us even after we die, while the preservation of the speices will be meaningless.

That's a reasonable position for a religionist, certainly. But that question was more for Az specifically than for the religionists.

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