The Moral Argument

[quatona]

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?

If it weren´t - would that do away with your intentional lie?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You've answered the question.

You said it would be "less bad".

Why do you say that?

Because 2 dead children would cause more suffering then 1.
And because I value life.

Now, what is the point of bringing up a cliché moral dilemma in this discussion?

 

[anonymous person]

If it weren´t - would that do away with your intentional lie?

Answer the question. Is the bringing up of what God commanded in the OT pertinent to the Moral argument?

 

[Hieronymus]

Look, THE moral is Agape.
Veering off from Agape causes immorality.
Agape is the Law of Christ.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Answer the question. Is the bringing up of what God commanded in the OT pertinent to the Moral argument?

Absolutely. Since the moral argument asserts that morality = god's commandments.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You've answered the question.

You said it would be "less bad".

Why do you say that?

Also, you didn't follow through on my question that extends from the moral dilemma...

Would you push the fat guy unto the tracks?

 

[quatona]

Answer the question.

No, you answer my first question first.

 

[anonymous person]

Because 2 dead children would cause more suffering then 1.
And because I value life.

Now, what is the point of bringing up a cliché moral dilemma in this discussion?

The point was to show you sometimes it is best to take life, regardless of how old the person is, if in the taking, some greater good is achieved, like the minimization of suffering or the preservation of a greater number of lives, etc.

 

[anonymous person]

Absolutely. Since the moral argument asserts that morality = god's commandments.

Then what I brought up is relevant for the reason I gave.

 

[quatona]

Then what I brought up is relevant for the reason I gave.

Ok. So if God commanded you not to flip the switch - what would be the moral thing to do?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then what I brought up is relevant for the reason I gave.

Can you clarify?
Because i'm not seeing the connection.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The point was to show you sometimes it is best to take life

Haaaaa.... now I see why you insisted on dishonestly toying with the word "killing", by making it look that flipping the switch equals "killing" the child on the other track.

To bad it didn't work though. Again, the switch flipper isn't killing anybody.
At best, the flipper tries to avoid an even bigger traggic accident.

So, please, answer part 2 of that moral dilemma...
Would you push the innocent fat guy on the track?

regardless of how old the person is, if in the taking, some greater good is achieved, like the minimization of suffering or the preservation of a greater number of lives, etc.

So, if that is your way of defending the killing of Amalekite babies and toddlers, then all that is left now is show how killing those babies and toddlers "achieved a greater good".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

Haven't I already made my views clear?

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

What do you mean? As already stated, I don't assume my senses to be infallible, so in what sense do I rely on them dogmatically?

 

[quatona]

We all know that at least one child will die.

Is it not better for one to die than two?

Oh, look, anonymous person argues from utilitarian morality.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Your view of Jesus when?

I'm afraid this only deepens the confusion for me. If you had never considered the possibility that you could be wrong up until a month ago, then can you honestly say that you approached these questions objectively roughly 15 years ago? After all, approaching the matter honestly requires one to accept the possibility of error in their thinking. If you only began to accept that possibility a month ago, then it seems strange to say that you approached it honestly roughly 15 years ago. But perhaps I have confused the story. I don't expect you to have perfect recollection of your initial disposition when you began investigating the matter 15 years ago.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Stay on topic please.

LOL!!

 

[anonymous person]

Since there are four or five addressing me, I will write in general all that I can.

The thought experiment attempts to show what a morally sufficient reason might be for causing a train to run over a child. The thought experiment can take many forms but it paints the scenario in such a way as to make it easier to see how causing something that we would normally recoil at and react violently to looks when compared with something else, namely, two children being run over.

In isolation, the running over of a child by a train is not something we would all think is good, but if it is set over against the running over of two, just one more than the one, it has a different connotation and we here can see how one would be morally obligated to save the two for the sake of the one.

If we were to change the 2 to 200 or 2,000, our conscience would not protest as much as it did with the 2.

We rightly perceive and intuit that if we were given the choice to press a button and thereby cause 2,000 people in a large prison cell to be gassed experiencing slow suffocating death, or to not push it and thereby condemn a child to being shot in the head, we would choose the latter in order to achieve a greater good, namely the preservation and minimization of suffering for the 2,000.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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?

 

[quatona]

Since there are four or five addressing me, I will write in general all that I can.

Way to avoid answering the actual questions.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Way to avoid answering the actual questions.

Standard protocol.