The Moral Argument

[anonymous person]

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?

Seems like a strawman to me.

 

[quatona]

You flip a switch. The train does not flip the switch.

Except when I don´t.

 

[quatona]

Reference DogmaHunter ' s posts.

What to it?
How´s this moral dilemma pertinent to the Moral Argument?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Dude, chill out.

Dude, be honest.

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

I know about these thought experiments. I don't live in a cave.

My beef is with your wording.
The person with access to the switch isn't killing anyone.

The train is killing the children. The person with access to the switch can not stop the train. Whatever happens, at least one child will die in an accident. The person flipping (or not flipping) the switch isn't killing anyone.

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

And you are unable to send it anywhere where it does not kill someone.

The train. Not you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Seems like a strawman to me.

????

How is asking a question a strawman?

 

[anonymous person]

Except when I don´t.

Exactly. You choose not to stop two children from being run over by a train.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Exactly. You choose not to stop two children from being run over by a train.

When are you finally going to answer quotana's question on how this is related in any way to the "moral argument"?
Regardless of what quotana's answer is?

How is this moral dilemma pertinent to the "moral argument"?

Inquiring minds want to know...

 

[anonymous person]

Dude, be honest.



I know about these thought experiments. I don't live in a cave.

My beef is with your wording.
The person with access to the switch isn't killing anyone.

The train is killing the children. The person with access to the switch can not stop the train. Whatever happens, at least one child will die in an accident. The person flipping (or not flipping) the switch isn't killing anyone.



And you are unable to send it anywhere where it does not kill someone.

The train. Not you.

We all know that at least one child will die.

Is it not better for one to die than two?

If there were ten children on the track instead of two, would that change anything?

How about a whole train car full of babies?

If the choice was between a whole train car full of new born babies was on the track, would you direct the train to run over the one child?

If so, why?

If not, then you would choose to allow a whole train car full of babies to be destroyed.

 

[quatona]

Exactly. You choose not to stop two children from being run over by a train.

I´m not God. I can´t prevent the killing either way. Doesn´t mean I´m the killer.
Now get over it.
Last time:How is - as you claimed several time - this dilemma "pertinent to the Moral Argument"?

 

[anonymous person]

When are you finally going to answer quotana's question on how this is related in any way to the "moral argument"?
Regardless of what quotana's answer is?

How is this moral dilemma pertinent to the "moral argument"?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Inquiring minds want to change the subject.

 

[anonymous person]

I´m not God. I can´t prevent the killing either way. Doesn´t mean I´m the killer.
Now get over it.
Last time:How is - as you claimed several time - this dilemma "pertinent to the Moral Argument"?

Sure you are responsible for the train killing two children. You could have stopped it but you didn't.

 

[quatona]

We all know that at least one child will die.

Is it not better for one to die than two?

If there were ten children on the track instead of two, would that change anything?

How about a whole train car full of babies?

If the choice was between a whole train car full of new born babies was on the track, would you direct the train to run over the one child?

If so, why?

If not, then you would choose to allow a whole train car full of babies to be destroyed.

How about a full train car full of Amalektites?

 

[anonymous person]

????

How is asking a question a strawman?

It's a rhetorical question loaded with assumptions I gave you no reason to assume in the first place.

 

[quatona]

Sure you are responsible for the train killing two children. You could have stopped it but you didn't.

Ok, the dilemma isn´t "pertinent to the Moral Argument". Another lie on your track records of lies for Jesus.

 

[anonymous person]

How about a full train car full of Amalektites?

Stay on topic please.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Is it not better for one to die than two?

I'ld rather call it "less bad".

If there were ten children on the track instead of two, would that change anything?

No.

How about a whole train car full of babies?

If the choice was between a whole train car full of new born babies was on the track, would you direct the train to run over the one child?

If so, why?

If not, then you would choose to allow a whole train car full of babies to be destroyed.

It seems as if you don't know what comes after this thought exercise. You realise there are multiple parts to this, right?

Allow me to continue....

Forget the switch.

This time, there is only one track with children on it and a train.
You are on a hill next to the track. The only way to stop the train is by pushing the fat guy next to you unto the track. If you do that, the children will live, but the fat guy will be turned into kebap.

What do you do?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Inquiring minds want to change the subject.

You're the only who brought up this thought exercise in context of the moral argument.... how is it changing the subject to ask about how it relates to it???

Now please explain how it relates to it. Make your point already (that is, if you actually have any).

 

[anonymous person]

Ok, the dilemma isn´t "pertinent to the Moral Argument". Another lie on your track records of lies for Jesus.

Is the objection of atheists by appeal to what God commanded the Israelites to do at one point thousands of years ago in a specific time and place pertinent to the Moral argument?

 

[anonymous person]

I'ld rather call it "less bad".



No.


It seems as if you don't know what comes after this thought exercise. You realise there are multiple parts to this, right?

Allow me to continue....

Forget the switch.

This time, there is only one track with children on it and a train.
You are on a hill next to the track. The only way to stop the train is by pushing the fat guy next to you unto the track. If you do that, the children will live, but the fat guy will be turned into kebap.

What do you do?

You've answered the question.

You said it would be "less bad".

Why do you say that?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's a rhetorical question loaded with assumptions I gave you no reason to assume in the first place.

If that is how you feel, then you could have just answered "no" and moved on.

fyi: a loaded question is a question wich requires you to actually acknowledge the "loaded" point - no matter what you answer. That clearly isn't the case with my question, as you could have just answered with "no" and that'ld be it.