Tough Question for Religious Orientated People

[Theben]

Originally posted by Arrian


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

But in the above instance, inevitable. Either 1 dies or 10 do. There are to be no variables.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Azazel
And then what? grow them inside the male body like in that arnie movie?

She never objected to childbirth, only having sex with the men.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Theben
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.

Why is it an "evil" to allow the woman to choose? What is "evil" in a moral sense about the human race ending in this instance?

Forcing the woman to die to save the baby isn't alleviating any suffering, it's causing more. The Utilitarian argument fails utterly at addressing this issue, because such a creed doesn't apply to non-existent people. If it were to do so, it would have to be seriously revamped in consideration of all other scenarios. First and foremost, it would preclude abortion in any and all circumstances, which is something I don't think most utilitarians would agree with. Second, it would easily pave the way for genocide on a mass scale, because if it's permissable to commit an act of evil for the sake of yet-to-exist people, it's permissable to commit great acts of evil for the good of such hypothetical folks. If it could be shown that slaughtering 6 million Jews would ultimately better the state of the world and a billion people, then it would be the right thing to do, wouldn't it?

[GePap]

Again, if the woman does not want mankind to live, it is all withn her power- if guys can;t convince her that for the good of humanity she must have sex (or at least, see if someone can use a turkey baster) and they force her, she might very well sabotage the whole thing.

So in the end, nothing but suffering would be achieved..not very utilitarian.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Theben


She never objected to childbirth, only having sex with the men.

You ignore the whole "fall of civlization" part. Reproductive technology will be back to pre-industrial era levels.

[Az]

Why is it an "evil" to allow the woman to choose? What is "evil" in a moral sense about the human race ending in this instance?

I've told you already.

Forcing the woman to die to save the baby isn't alleviating any suffering, it's causing more. The Utilitarian argument fails utterly at addressing this issue, because such a creed doesn't apply to non-existent people. If it were to do so, it would have to be seriously revamped in consideration of all other scenarios.

Yes it does. I've explained to you how it adresses this.
It's the same reason why putting a time bomb that would explode in a hundred years is wrong. Even though the people who are hurt by it aren't born yet, it's still wrong, since they'll be born some day, and will be hurt.

First and foremost, it would preclude abortion in any and all circumstances, which is something I don't think most utilitarians would agree with.

Preclude? No. Limit? yes.

Second, it would easily pave the way for genocide on a mass scale, because if it's permissable to commit an act of evil for the sake of yet-to-exist people, it's permissable to commit great acts of evil for the good of such hypothetical folks. If it could be shown that slaughtering 6 million Jews would ultimately better the state of the world and a billion people, then it would be the right thing to do, wouldn't it?

That's quite the big IF there, Boris. Regular utilitarianism doesn't calculate the ethical value of an action without considering the full picture.

[Jaguar]

Re: Tough Question for Religious Orientated People

Originally posted by curtsibling
OK, today I'm back with a new question!

And before we progress any further, I want to straighten a few things out.

1. I am not trolling. I have respect for my fellow posters here.

Just because I ask a question concerning faith does not mean I am
a heretic ogre trying to deprive innocent people of their precious views.

2. I am seriously interested in your answers, and do not appreciate spammers filling up my thread with silliness.

If you have a problem with the question, tell me.

If you cannot maintain a sensible attitude, then get mommy to sit you in your high chair to play, OK?

And if you want to go off topic and discuss the finer points, please start your own thread.

Now if you are up for it, here is a question!

If you are religious, and adhere to the ideas that suicide and murder is bad, how would you tackle this moral problem:

Scenario:
While on holiday, you and your loved ones (partner/family/etc) are taken kidnapped and captive by terrorists/criminals.
They give you the choice of either shooting your loved ones or yourself – What do you do?

You could be heroic, and try and shoot them, resulting in you and your loved ones being killed anyway.

But would that be murder?

And if forced to shoot yourself, is that still suicide?

How would you handle this situation?

Please answer as you see fit.

I would try to shoot them. Taking a stand against evil is that important to me.

I don't really see why this is a religious question though.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by 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."

You don't have to be a deontologist to be a Virtue Ethicist. Aristotle isn't.



Thank you for your kind words, Theben.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, on the rape woman scenerio- if you begin using violence, how does anyone stop her from committing suicide? She can certainly act to sabotage any pregnacy without the ability to stop her, unless she is strapped down, sedated and fed intravenously.

Let's take this pleasant scenario even further. Let's say she has a female child and then dies. So you have one female, 12-13 years from puberty. You can raise that female, do everything possible to "protect" her since she's your only means of perpetuating the species, then systematically force breed her as often as she can physically take it.

To assure the greatest possible genetic variation in your limited remaining gene pool (and we know this is critical to long term survival from studies of Kilimanjaro crater lions and great apes in isolated gene pools), you have to breed her around with the healthiest men with the best genetic profile. Some of her kids will be male, thus useless. Some may be female, depending on the odds, how long she survives as breeding stock, etc. With each female, you have another 12-13 year wait before they can be bred. So for two generations, you're looking at 25-30 years, assuming you don't get a run of boys. Many of your original surviving males will have died off by then, maybe most or all, depending on the conditions on earth and their age and health.

Assuming everything goes your way, and all females born are fertile and survive until breeding age, you are attempting to reestablish a viable population based on essentially enslaving any females as breeding stock, raping them (by forced breeding with a variety of partners to gain the largest possible genetic diversity), and excluding some or many of the survinving males from any breeding opportunities. You've gone back to the cave days in terms of rights of females, you've destroyed any concept of familial relationships, and you have a limited population that is still critically inbred for many generations would be susceptible to many possible factors wiping out the "breeding stock."

Is this combination of murder, rape, slavery, and the fundamental destruction of familiar relationships and moral concepts of rights and behavior worth it, in the vague hope of maintaining the species survival? Count me out.

BTW, thanks for the condolences and good wishes, everyone.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Why is it an "evil" to allow the woman to choose? What is "evil" in a moral sense about the human race ending in this instance?

What would it matter if you kept your morals since in the end no one will be left to care?

If it could be shown that slaughtering 6 million Jews would ultimately better the state of the world and a billion people, then it would be the right thing to do, wouldn't it?

There's context, and levels of benefit. I wouldn't allow 6 million jews to die if everyone else gets a free lottery ticket out of the deal, but if no one else ever had to suffer ever again, all the remaining 'evils' in the world were forever cured, and people lived to a ripe old age and etc. etc.- who knows?

How about you? What if you knew that if the woman was raped/child born, that 500 years from now, after struggling to get by and rebuild civilization, the human race flourished, and was more moralistic and "good" than before? Would you deny those thousands the right to exist, b/c of the welfare of one person?

[Az]

Actually, you won't have to rape them, too. You'll educate them about the improtance of the continuation of the species.

Have you guys ever considered how it was in the dawn of humanity, esp. in one of those REAL bad times, like that Krakatoa eruption. That's the kind of stuff that went on. Luckily for all of us, they were still animal enough to realize the importance of the continuation of the species. Apparently we're too smart to care about our goddamn existance.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

BTW, thanks for the condolences and good wishes, everyone.

You can add mine.

[Pekka]

How about this one:

If God exists, can God make a stone so heavy even he can't lift it?





(ps. I believe in God)

[Az]

There's context, and levels of benefit. I wouldn't allow 6 million jews to die if everyone else gets a free lottery ticket out of the deal, but if no one else ever had to suffer ever again, all the remaining 'evils' in the world were forever cured, and people lived to a ripe old age and etc. etc.- who knows?

Hell, I'll tell you this: yes.

[Theben]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Assuming everything goes your way, and all females born are fertile and survive until breeding age, you are attempting to reestablish a viable population based on essentially enslaving any females as breeding stock, raping them (by forced breeding with a variety of partners to gain the largest possible genetic diversity), and excluding some or many of the survinving males from any breeding opportunities. You've gone back to the cave days in terms of rights of females, you've destroyed any concept of familial relationships, and you have a limited population that is still critically inbred for many generations would be susceptible to many possible factors wiping out the "breeding stock."

Enslaving? Raping? Destruction of family? You're taking a leap of faith here. The women I highly doubt would be enslaved, any more so than any other person in the community, just trying to survive. Most probable that they will be conferred with an exceptionally high status in the community, if not made the leaders. The breeding need not be forced (except the 1st woman) and it is just as likely if not more likely that the women will accept the responsibility and status given to them. And the familial concept would only change from nuclear/extended to communal, which already exists and isn't a bad one. It's found in many 'primitive' societies and that's what this would be. As for the males who've lost "breeding opportunities", well, in your scenario they lost them anyway, right?

BTW, thanks for the condolences and good wishes, everyone.

You're welcome.