Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It amazes me that atheists and skeptics here have such difficulty figuring this out.
Yes, but the notion of ownership is deeply ingrained in our society. My Church even at times comes under the mistaken notion that She owns grace, and is not a Steward of the Owner of the Vineyard. I should not think that it is altogether easy to understand the difference between ownership and stewardship.
Let's say two experienced survivalists (We'll call them Toe Jam & Earl) crash land in the Sahara Desert. TJ had bought a bottle of water before the trip, and that was the only item that survived the crash. They know that only with extreme rationing, that bottle of water is enough for one of them to survive on as they make the trek out of the desert. If they share, they both die, essentially; and because they're both experienced survivalists they know this. Does TJ own that water because he purchased it? Is he evil if he refuses to share because he decides he wants to be the one to survive? Would Earl be evil if he tried to take that water without TJ's permission and then killed him during the ensuing conflict when TJ catches him in the act?A person who refuses water to one dying of thirst is bad. A person who claims to own, and then refuses, our most basic vital life force, to one who will die without it, is evil.
Interesting scenario. The act of taking one sip of water is essentially the same as killing the other, and yet if no one takes a sip they both die. This isn’t unlike that scene in Batman: The Dark Knight where the Joker rigs two ferries to blow up after a certain amount of time unless one chooses to detonate the other early. If you recall, in the end neither group feels justified detonating the other, and this is seen as a moral victory over the Joker. Ultimately, I think the most moral course of action for the two of them would be to try to come to an agreement about who gets to drink the water. I don’t think it matters at that point who bought the water, but that would be up to them to decide. If an agreement can’t be reached, then they have both failed. To fight each other for the water would be a fight for the second-best moral solution to their problem.Let's say two experienced survivalists (We'll call them Toe Jam & Earl) crash land in the Sahara Desert. TJ had bought a bottle of water before the trip, and that was the only item that survived the crash. They know that only with extreme rationing, that bottle of water is enough for one of them to survive on as they make the trek out of the desert. If they share, they both die, essentially; and because they're both experienced survivalists they know this. Does TJ own that water because he purchased it? Is he evil if he refuses to share because he decides he wants to be the one to survive? Would Earl be evil if he tried to take that water without TJ's permission and then killed him during the ensuing conflict when TJ catches him in the act?
@gaara4158 @2PhiloVoid @Ana the Ist @zippy2006 @Silmarien
I've been following the thread for a while, and I like seeing the responses and reasonings to the hypotheticals. Any one or all or some of you guys want to weigh in on this complicated scenario?
As a nonbeliever, I don’t typically turn to the teachings of Jesus when I’m at a loss in an ethical dilemma. At least, not directly. Still, I’ll answer your question. Given his moral teachings, I’d expect Jesus to advise the water-miser to share the water with the stranger at his gates, and to give him whatever else he needs. Of the thirsty man, on the other hand, I’d expect Jesus to advise that he pray for deliverance, ask politely for water of the water guardian, and humbly accept his fate if no deliverance comes.I guess we'll have to consider other tributaries of ethical consideration, like Jesus Himself. What would He 'suggest' to solve these hypothetical moral instances involving contesting claims of severe thirst ... ?
As a nonbeliever, I don’t typically turn to the teachings of Jesus when I’m at a loss in an ethical dilemma. At least, not directly. Still, I’ll answer your question. Given his moral teachings, I’d expect Jesus to advise the water-miser to share the water with the stranger at his gates, and to give him whatever else he needs. Of the thirsty man, on the other hand, I’d expect Jesus to advise that he pray for deliverance, ask politely for water of the water guardian, and humbly accept his fate if no deliverance comes.
Let's say two experienced survivalists (We'll call them Toe Jam & Earl) crash land in the Sahara Desert. TJ had bought a bottle of water before the trip, and that was the only item that survived the crash. They know that only with extreme rationing, that bottle of water is enough for one of them to survive on as they make the trek out of the desert. If they share, they both die, essentially; and because they're both experienced survivalists they know this. Does TJ own that water because he purchased it? Is he evil if he refuses to share because he decides he wants to be the one to survive? Would Earl be evil if he tried to take that water without TJ's permission and then killed him during the ensuing conflict when TJ catches him in the act?
@gaara4158 @2PhiloVoid @Ana the Ist @zippy2006 @Silmarien
I've been following the thread for a while, and I like seeing the responses and reasonings to the hypotheticals. Any one or all or some of you guys want to weigh in on this complicated scenario?
Let's say two experienced survivalists (We'll call them Toe Jam & Earl) crash land in the Sahara Desert. TJ had bought a bottle of water before the trip, and that was the only item that survived the crash. They know that only with extreme rationing, that bottle of water is enough for one of them to survive on as they make the trek out of the desert. If they share, they both die, essentially; and because they're both experienced survivalists they know this. Does TJ own that water because he purchased it? Is he evil if he refuses to share because he decides he wants to be the one to survive? Would Earl be evil if he tried to take that water without TJ's permission and then killed him during the ensuing conflict when TJ catches him in the act?
@gaara4158 @2PhiloVoid @Ana the Ist @zippy2006 @Silmarien
I've been following the thread for a while, and I like seeing the responses and reasonings to the hypotheticals. Any one or all or some of you guys want to weigh in on this complicated scenario?
I’d expect Jesus to advise that he pray for deliverance, ask politely for water of the water guardian, and humbly accept his fate if no deliverance comes.
You'd think so, right? Unfortunately, I think it has something to do with a somewhat... skewed distribution of those resources within society.
The secular perspective would truly be missing something spectacular about reality if the theist perspective turned out to be correct. But in practice, when it comes to forming ethical guidelines, I don't see enough difference between the two to really fuss about.
I have a number of issues with the concept of infinite value, but we can sidestep those for now to work within your structure.
I don't think it's necessarily untenable to believe in "infinite value" via differing rational pathways,
...but I don't think it's even necessary for both of us to get there in the first place. You can start from a position that states human beings are infinitely valuable, and that position would have its own set of implications, including perhaps the Categorical Imperative. I, on the other hand, can start from a position that states humans ought to strive for a society in which we can all reasonably co-exist, and that would have its own implications, which might also include the Categorical Imperative. In this way, we both find that the CI is a useful tool for creating moral guidelines -- lofty ones, even -- even if we don't agree on the basis of morality itself.
Zippy said:I grant that there is merit in using the Categorical Imperative to "aim for the moon and land among the stars," so to speak. It has helped the secular world in that way. The problem, which Aristotle saw so clearly, is that if you can't see the moon clearly you may end up in the wrong galaxy. In that way Kant had too much deduction and not enough induction, which Hume pointed out starkly. Aristotle is much more subtle.
That is indeed more or less my move, so we'll have to get into why you don't think it works.
I think lofty moral goals are more accessible to secular humanists than you give them credit for.
Let's say two experienced survivalists (We'll call them Toe Jam & Earl) crash land in the Sahara Desert. TJ had bought a bottle of water before the trip, and that was the only item that survived the crash. They know that only with extreme rationing, that bottle of water is enough for one of them to survive on as they make the trek out of the desert. If they share, they both die, essentially; and because they're both experienced survivalists they know this. Does TJ own that water because he purchased it? Is he evil if he refuses to share because he decides he wants to be the one to survive? Would Earl be evil if he tried to take that water without TJ's permission and then killed him during the ensuing conflict when TJ catches him in the act?
@gaara4158 @2PhiloVoid @Ana the Ist @zippy2006 @Silmarien
I've been following the thread for a while, and I like seeing the responses and reasonings to the hypotheticals. Any one or all or some of you guys want to weigh in on this complicated scenario?
I see nothing moral about both men dying when one could have lived. It doesn't really matter how the water is taken, though I would think it more moral to kill the man without it than to let him die of thirst.
I see nothing moral about both men dying when one could have lived. It doesn't really matter how the water is taken, though I would think it more moral to kill the man without it than to let him die of thirst.
I am reminded of what is likely the most disliked Science Fiction story of all time The Cold Equations. The setup is that a rescue/relief ship with vital medication is sent to a mining colony. Stripped to the bare essentials and still no spare fuel. But after the very first use of the rocket to adjust the trajectory it is noticed that something is wrong. The problem turns out to be a young woman who stowed away to see her brother one of the miners.
If she stays aboard the ship crashed and she and the pilot die, followed not long afterwards by everyone in the mining colony. There is no chance for a second ship to make it in time.
For decades people unwilling to face reality have been trying to rewrite the story, they always fail. It seems their kin are here.
Let's say two experienced survivalists (We'll call them Toe Jam & Earl) crash land in the Sahara Desert. TJ had bought a bottle of water before the trip, and that was the only item that survived the crash. They know that only with extreme rationing, that bottle of water is enough for one of them to survive on as they make the trek out of the desert. If they share, they both die, essentially; and because they're both experienced survivalists they know this. Does TJ own that water because he purchased it? Is he evil if he refuses to share because he decides he wants to be the one to survive? Would Earl be evil if he tried to take that water without TJ's permission and then killed him during the ensuing conflict when TJ catches him in the act?
@gaara4158 @2PhiloVoid @Ana the Ist @zippy2006 @Silmarien
I've been following the thread for a while, and I like seeing the responses and reasonings to the hypotheticals. Any one or all or some of you guys want to weigh in on this complicated scenario?
I don't want to call anyone "evil" in a situation like this, since the moral burden in question is obviously extremely high, and I don't think not wanting to sacrifice your life makes you evil.
But it shouldn't surprise anyone that I think the best moral option would involve each being willing to die for the other person--that might include sharing the bottle, but if one is more at peace with the idea of dying than the other, then it might not. This isn't even that extreme a scenario, since it's just a starker version of what we run into everytime there's a natural disaster and the looting starts. If cooperation didn't go out the window in extreme circumstances, I think there would be considerably less suffering in the long run.
What I mean is that there are multiple worldviews that allow for this thing we're calling "infinite value" which gives us license to prioritize one thing over all others. I know there's more to the concept in your worldview than just that, but functionally that's what really matters.How so? I don't think infinity admits of pathways. Either you have it or you don't. There is no additive procedure to arrive at infinity.
Yes, I have to admit that Christianity is very effective in incorporating natural unity with morality to create a worldview that checks all the Humanist boxes for creating a good society. We might not be able to achieve that as easily directly from Lockean political philosophy, but there's nothing stopping us from recognizing this limitation and seeking to overcome it from other angles. In fact, adopting what we like about Christianity into our worldview and rejecting what we don't is what most people do, Christian or otherwise, in the West.The Categorical Imperative does not handle diversity elegantly, to say the least. It breaks down when it is applied to use of any scarce resource, even if not everyone is interested in using that resource, for example.
Although it has been awhile since I studied political philosophy, your approach is seemingly Lockean. Coexistence and social contract is the name of the game in modern political philosophy. The problem with coexistence as an axiom is that it fails to see natural unity (spouse, family, clan, tribe, state, nation, world, cosmos, etc.). For Aristotle and the ancients, man was by nature a social animal, meant to live in union with other human beings and in harmony with nature. Christians elevate that binding force to the theological virtue par excellence and the stuff out of which God's own life is made: love. "The love that moves the sun and the other stars."
Build one house on love and another on coexistence, and see if you can tell the difference.
I don't think it makes any difference at all if what they both equate to is "maximal."I mean, do you think there is a big difference between valuing highly and valuing infinitely?
Yeah, secular humanism doesn't really have anything like that, and from our perspective there's no reason to believe that's even possible, fine sentiment though it is. We're just as capable of empathy, good will, and charity.An important anthropological aspect to introduce here is the soul (which, as your thread makes clear, is a difficult reality to pin down). What seems common to most understandings of the soul, though, is that it is something that transcends the finitude of the material world. This means we can "love someone beyond death." We can love them regardless of their situation. We can love them even if we cannot help them and they cannot help us. We can love them even if we are both dying of thirst [enter Mother Teresa]. We can pray for people. We can will their good without limit and without circumspection. We can pray that our enemies will be aided by grace even in the very moment when they strike us on the cheek.
It sounds like your main gripe with secular humanism is that it does not treat personal satisfaction as a goal of morality. That's a fair observation, but I don't think it's a problem at all. Personal satisfaction, to me, is more a matter of lifestyle decisions -- choosing to pursue a fulfilling career, picking up a hobby, starting a family -- and carrying out those decisions in an ethical fashion than it is strictly about following an all-encompassing moral framework.I don't find them to be overly inaccessible. I would say that if the secularist achieved their goal they would be surprised to find themselves still unsatisfied. If the ancients achieved theirs I think a sort of natural beatitude would arise.
Uhm... as opposed to what? Bible morality?So, in line with what Christian Smith asserts to Shermer in the video, do you think that atheists haven't thought out well enough what the moral and ethical social implications are for the human world if atheism is true?
Uhm... as opposed to what? Bible morality?
Let's see.
Death for working on a Saturday. If you want to marry a girl and she doesn't like you, just rape her and pay her father 50 shekels. She's yours for life.
NASB Deut. 22:28 “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.
Now, no Atheist I know advocates this kind of morality. Therefore, the moral and ethical implications may not be as bad you think.
PS. Sorry to resurrect an old thread.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?