The Moral Argument

[quatona]

The point of the scenario is to demonstrate that in some situations, life must be taken to achieve some greater good or end.

Follow so far?

Sure, that´s trivial, though: We base our decisions on our values. I don´t see anyone disagreeing with that. Now what´s that got to do with the Moral Argument, again?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

While maybe not the pinnacle, this is one of the higher points of outright arrogance I have seen you display in these forums. How do you know me, and my position in life?

...

Again with the arrogance. You have no idea of the tears of joy I have wept at the birth of a child, the dark place I go when they are sick, or the abysses that I have stared into and come to grips with. You do not know of the delusions I have found myself under (although I have mentioned them in these forums), the epiphanies that I have had, and the hours that I have put into educating myself on those subjects discussed in these forums.

You have never been born again. I have been an unbeliever.

Thus I have been on both sides of the fence. You still stand on the side that I used to stand on.

That is what I meant.

How do you know that Davian is standing on the side that you previously stood on? He is a nonbeliever, and you were a nonbeliever, or so you claim. That's where the similarity ends. To establish that he now occupies the same position you once occupied, you would have to show some interest in his life and engage in sincere dialogue with him to ascertain the commonalities between his situation now and your situation back then. But you aren't interested in that, and so you lack the information necessary to conclude that he stands "on the side (you) used to stand on."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I said Jesus is infallible, not my senses. Pay attention.

Read your own quote!

No I am not open. There is nothing to be open to. Jesus was a historical person.

Some things I am open to and some I am not. If that leads you to think I am not honest, objective or open then so be it.

If you think intellectual honesty is important in the pursuit of truth, then why wouldn't you approach that question openly? Also, why did you claim to be open if you aren't?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

@Oncedeceived, what is your response to this question?

What if you found yourself living in another time and Yahweh commanded you to do so? Note that I am not asking you whether you would defend yourself against attacks. I am asking whether you would kill men, women, and children solely at Yahweh's behest, and without question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

DogmaHunter, bhsmte, Arch, and Nicholas, you guys sure do sound like people who think slavery and the killing of children is wrong, even if the Israelites thought it was right and that it would be wrong even if the Israelites were to succeed in becoming the majority.

But objective moral values and duties don't exist...

My moral compass is pseudo-objective. In the sense that I start from subjective premises (well-being = good, suffering = bad).

This is why I think the moral argument is powerful.

Your "moral argument" amounts to nothing more or less then mere obedience to a perceived authority. That isn't morality. That's psychopahty.

You all can't help but affirm objective moral values and duties.

Your "objective moral values and duties", include the killing and enslavement of women and children.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is no irony. It is totally consistent with the Christian faith.

Right. He wouldn't. Why is it disturbing, even if you didn't understand why He wouldn't and therefore no Christian would believe He would, it doesn't make sense to say it is disturbing.

He wouldn't "command you to rape someone", but apparantly he has no problems with commanding to kill women and children and / or enslave them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't believe that God commits Genocide in the way we define it anyway but yes, I do think it is valid when people of the same group or culture were not killed. It demonstrates the entire culture was not a target but that only a specific number of them were involved in attacking the Jews.

Toddlers and babies (and cattle) attacked Jews?

 

[anonymous person]

Which of your three definitions are you using now?

What strawman? You did present three different definitions. That's an easily demonstrable fact.

You don't care enough about my views to even know what they are. That would require dialogue, which you have little interest in.

You still refuse to state your views and defend them. If anyone is hindering dialogue it is you.

 

[anonymous person]

Dogmatically? In what sense? I don't assume that my senses are infallible and that therefore I cannot be fooled or that I am invulnerable to error. You do assume that though, at least with respect to your religious intuitions, which have become dogmatically entrenched.

Can you provide a test for determining the veridicality of your senses?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I did not ask you this in order to argue that there is an objective morality.

The hypothetical does not allow for you to sit and split hairs over the issue. The train is speeding towards the children and you either choose to kill two children or one.

Backup there buddy...

What's all this business about quotana "killing children" in this scenario?
It seems to me that whatever happens, 1 or 2 children will die in a train crash - an accident.

There is no killing involved - whatever is being done with the switch.

 

[anonymous person]

So which part of the Moral Argument is it pertinent to? The substantiation of premise1, premise2, or the conclusion?

Now, what´s the correct answer according to your "objective morality"?


So you aren´t actually asking what you asked ("What should you do?", which asks me to take time to premeditate on the issue) but "What would you do?" (under time pressure, without having the time to think about it)?


That´s not the way I would describe my options, to begin with.


I have answered it. Several of my values are in conflict here - it isn´t called a "moral dilemma for nothing".
In case you actually meant to ask "What would you (under time pressure, without having premeditated on such a scenario, and without the time to do so now)?": I cannot conclusively answer this question until I am actually in that situation, but I can easily fathom myself being paralyzed and unable to make a decision, which would result in the train running its original course.

Great. So if it were on you, two children would be run over by a train because you would be paralyzed by your conflicting values.

In other words, on this forum you talk a big game, but when the rubber hits the road you would choke.

Thanks for letting us know that.

 

[anonymous person]

Backup there buddy...

What's all this business about quotana "killing children" in this scenario?
It seems to me that whatever happens, 1 or 2 children will die in a train crash - an accident.

There is no killing involved - whatever is being done with the switch.

If you flip the switch, you are deliberately causing the train to take a path that will surely run over a child playing on the track. Call it what you will. You are the efficient cause of a child dying.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I would agree with you. It really is not a hard question. In the scenario, I would say the deliberate killing of the child is good.

Again, there is no "killing" going on - much less "deliberate killing". Moreover, neither outcome is "good" here. Both are traggic. And in both cases, the one with access to the switch will feel incredibly bad and most likely will be traumatised.

Such a situation would be so disturbing and traggic that most people wouldn't actually flip anything. Rather, they'ld "flip out" and be pretty much paralized at the truelly shocking, horrific scenario that is unfolding before there eyes.

I would say one would be morally obligated to kill the one child, to save the two.

Again, there is no "killing" here. There is an unstoppable train, crashing into kids. A truelly traggic accident. Not a murder or killing.

Follow so far?

Yes, I follow your mega loaded, dishonest, attempts at trapping people with nonsense arguments.

 

[anonymous person]

How do you know that Davian is standing on the side that you previously stood on? He is a nonbeliever, and you were a nonbeliever, or so you claim. That's where the similarity ends. To establish that he now occupies the same position you once occupied, you would have to show some interest in his life and engage in sincere dialogue with him to ascertain the commonalities between his situation now and your situation back then. But you aren't interested in that, and so you lack the information necessary to conclude that he stands "on the side (you) used to stand on."

All a man has to do is tell me who he thinks Jesus is. That is the test. His view of Jesus now is how my view of Jesus used to be. This is by his own admission.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you flip the switch, you are deliberately causing the train to take a path that will surely run over a child playing on the track. Call it what you will. You are the efficient cause of a child dying.

No. The train is.

You only would be if the switch had a third option which would stop the train and you consiously chose not to use that option.

Stop being so dishonest.

 

[anonymous person]

Sure, that´s trivial, though: We base our decisions on our values. I don´t see anyone disagreeing with that. Now what´s that got to do with the Moral Argument, again?

Reference DogmaHunter ' s posts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

All a man has to do is tell me who he thinks Jesus is. That is the test. His view of Jesus now is how my view of Jesus used to be. This is by his own admission.

So, is it your opinion that all people who don't believe this jesus fellow was the son of a god (or god himself), have identical mentalities and opinions about anything and everything?

Do you consider this sensible?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Reference DogmaHunter ' s posts.

What about it?

I merely responded to how mega-dishonest your wording is.

 

[anonymous person]

No. The train is.

You only would be if the switch had a third option which would stop the train and you consiously chose not to use that option.

Stop being so dishonest.

Dude, chill out.

The thought experiment is a variation of the "the trolley problem". It's a thought experiment. Google it.

You flip a switch. The train does not flip the switch. It just goes where you send it.

 

[quatona]

Great. So if it were on you, two children would be run over by a train because you would be paralyzed by your conflicting values.

That´s not exactly what I said.

Now, were you lieing again when you said this question was pertinent to the Moral Argument?
I suspect you just wanted created another opportunity for a cheap low blow - not pertinent to anything that´s in discussion?