The Moral Argument

[Oncedeceived]

Post # please? Sorry, I want to make sure I know which one you're talking about.

Post #1393

 

[Moral Orel]

Post #1393

Right, that's the one I quoted here:

That is simply false. They were only told to wipe out specific groups within the culture. God commanded some to be driven out of their cities and allowed to go elsewhere, some fled before the Jews arrived and were not to be sought out to kill, some God said He would drive out of the city and they should be killed and some even were allowed to stay. So as you can see, the only pertinent information necessary to deem it as genocide fails.

So if you want answers to every single one of the things you said, here they are.

Would you say that genocide means that every member of this society, political group, or culture be a target?

Yes. That they are identified as targets because they belong to said group, but that the motivation for deciding to commit the act of genocide is not simply the fact that they are part of that group.

Would it have been a genocide if the Native Americans had killed everyone of the settlers including women, children and the old and had secured their homeland?

Yes. If the Native Americans were powerful enough to defeat us, then morally they should have stopped after killing the able-bodied men and soldiers.

I hope you realize how nonsensical that sounds. Of course it was because they were Jews.

He didn't pick them at random. He set out to kill them because of the reasons I gave. He identified who to kill based on the fact that they were Jewish, but it wasn't because they were Jews. I don't know how to explain that distinction better. To me it sounds like someone saying, "The KKK hates blacks because of the color of their skin" when really they hate them because of the perceived association of that skin color with negative traits.

But the really pertinent part is my question to you:

If God commands an entire society, or nation, or culture to be destroyed, regardless of motive, does it fit the real definition of "genocide" (not your definition of genocide)?

 

[anonymous person]

You defined "objective moral values and duties" as "God-given moral values and duties," remember? Thus rendering P1 a tautology?

And you think slavery and killing children is objectively wrong.

That's the last point I made from which you sought to divert attention by creating a strawman.

If I am wrong about your views of slavery and killing children say so.

If I am right, then be honest and admit it.

We can then move on to something else.

 

[anonymous person]

Nicholas, suppose a woman is giving birth and due to complications during, it is determined that if they allow the baby to be born, the mother will die as a result and the baby will die shortly after it is born. But if the baby is killed before it is too late, then the mother will live.

So either both die, or the baby dies and the mother lives.

What should be done?

 

[Moral Orel]

Nicholas, suppose a woman is giving birth and due to complications during, it is determined that if they allow the baby to be born, the mother will die as a result and the baby will die shortly after it is born. But if the baby is killed before it is too late, then the mother will live.

So either both die, or the baby dies and the mother lives.

What should be done?

Abort. I'm reasonably sure I know where you want to go with this, but I'll let you go there before I say more.

 

[anonymous person]

Abort. I'm reasonably sure I know where you want to go with this, but I'll let you go there before I say more.

So you think the right thing to do would be to kill the child?

 

[bhsmte]

Abort. I'm reasonably sure I know where you want to go with this, but I'll let you go there before I say more.

One dead vs two dead, makes sense.

 

[Hieronymus]

So you think the right thing to do would be to kill the child?

Of course.
It's not viable anyway, but the mother can be saved.

 

[bhsmte]

Abort. I'm reasonably sure I know where you want to go with this, but I'll let you go there before I say more.

Yep, look out below.

 

[anonymous person]

One dead vs two dead, makes sense.

Why should they minimize the loss of life if possible?

 

[Moral Orel]

So you think the right thing to do would be to kill the child?

Now you're using loaded terms. "Child" does not necessarily apply in this situation. So before you ask another loaded question, answer this: is a walnut buried in the ground a tree? Is it even a sapling?

 

[anonymous person]

Now you're using loaded terms. "Child" does not necessarily apply in this situation. So before you ask another loaded question, answer this: is a walnut buried in the ground a tree? Is it even a sapling?

When does it become a child?

 

[Moral Orel]

When does it become a child?

That isn't an answer to my question. Quid pro quo. Better hurry before I leave for work.

 

[anonymous person]

That isn't an answer to my question. Quid pro quo. Better hurry before I leave for work.

I am not talking about walnuts or trees.

I am talking about killing one child so that both the mother and child do not die.

What should be done?

If you need another scenario, I will give you one.

 

[Hieronymus]

Why should they minimize the loss of life if possible?

Why wouldn't they?
What if the mother already has children?

Why would you want them both to die?

 

[Moral Orel]

I am not talking about walnuts or trees.

It's a very valid comparison. The Bible even refers to it as a seed, so I don't know what your problem might be with it. Is a planted seed the same thing as the finished product, or do we draw a distinction? If you want to continue using the word "child" then you need to prove it is a valid term in this discussion. Quid pro quo.

 

[Moral Orel]

Why wouldn't they?
What if the mother already has children?

Why would you want them both to die?

I doubt he does. He's trying to bait me. No need to engage him on this.

 

[Hieronymus]

I doubt he does.

I doubt everything, so i ask the question.

He's trying to bait me. No need to engage him on this.

Well, i'm very curious about his answer now.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you need another scenario, I will give you one.

That would be a good idea. Give me a scenario that involves a born human child so that we can talk about born human children, since I am pretty sure that is the comparison you want to make. And no, that doesn't mean I think abortion is okay up until the child is born, so don't go spinning off on a tangent that isn't really there.

But I'm off to work now, so we'll have to continue this later.

 

[anonymous person]

Nicholas, you can flip a switch to divert a speeding train from the track it is on to another track running parallel to it. If you don't flip the switch two children that are playing on the track will die but if you flip the switch, one child playing on the parallel track will die. What should be done?