Why Is This A Problem???

[Bradskii]

It's quite possible to be an atheist and adopt a Christian attitude to morality (sans God).

And I see no problem with that. Jesus is certainly someone that one should include in regards to any study of morality.

My mother was fond of using the phrase 'Well, that's not very Christian'. Obviously meaning that whatever she was referring to wasn't the moral thing to do. It took a while before I realised that it didn't necessarily refer to a specific Christian morality, but to one that was open to all. But that didn't mean that you should exclude all things Christian in any potential world view. It just meant that as well as Christianity, there were other variations on a theme available.

To be honest, my only arguments with Christian viewpoints (apart from the obvious ones regarding a fundamental reading of scripture) are the dogmatic interpretation of moral values (as we have seen in this thread) and matters sexual.

 

[o_mlly]

Life offers no guarantee that you are safe from a difficult situation like this in which a morally correct action results in your demise.

Fallacious reasoning: begs the question.

There's no one moment in the course of the ongoing mishap that we somehow privilege's and say THIS is the moment when the rightful victims are decided.

Passive voice hides the issue at hand. The issue is: who has the authority to decide who lives and who dies? Whatever could inform such a god-like person who is to be the "rightful victims"?

Thats why, If the pilot survives, he wont be charged with any offense whatsoever.

Really? I think not. Aiming a deadly missile at an innocent population is not only immoral but also a criminal act. A bit naive to think that the lawyers will not line up to press lawsuits on behalf of loved ones lost to the criminal act of the one who directed the plane that caused their death.

Not so. Atheism is a lack of belief in God(s). Full stop.

Atheism is not a religion. It doesn't come with a built in moral code or rulebook or dogma. It's quite possible to be an atheist and adopt a Christian attitude to morality (sans God). Most atheists would broadly adopt the moral rules of the society they inhabit. But this is equally true of most people - including Christians.

While that's encouraging, the atheists in this thread seem to be of one moral mind.

Got you. So there is no difference in value between one person and five.

So far, so good.

Got you. So there is no difference in value between one person and five. So if you had to untie the five or the one and only had time to do one or the other, then...it would make no difference? Infinite value equals infinite value. Which means that all of your family has no more value than a random stranger. Actually, no more value than the most evil person in existence.

Ooops, you started out so well. As usual, you throw a strawman in to queer your tiny bit of moral progress.

Or maybe they have equal value but not equal worth. So your entire family is obviously worth more to you than the miserable mass murdering paedophile tied to the tracks. Does that prompt you to flick the switch? No, it actually doesn't. Because you've already decided you'd sacrifice the whole of humanity for one person.

Why don't we add to that mass murdering pedophiles rap sheet a few other scurrilous items, eg., arsonist , kidnapper, mutilator, grave robber and adulterer. There, that should help your second strawman out. And two strawmen in a single post! That could be a novelty, even for you ... not.

At which point you become superfluous to the problem. We can just run a few simple lines of computer code. A few IF and THEN comments and you can be replaced. It will be exactly the same. We can remove you from the equation and replace you with a High performance Automatic Lever system.

That would be HPAL. But, hey, don't start now to let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

The requirement for a fixed and unwavering adherrence to an absolute morality is too important to you to allow us to jeopardise it by introducing a sense of humanity into the equation.

The usual drivel from one who has no moral code and wants an open license to do whatever they feel like doing in the moment. Thinking is just too hard.

 

[o_mlly]

If human lives really had infinite value none of us would ever drive a car, or do a thousand other of the everyday things that get people killed once in a while.

We all die of one thing or another. That fact does not change the value of life. If it did then one could save up and buy a resurrection at their local WalMart.

 

[Bradskii]

As usual, you throw a strawman in to queer your tiny bit of moral progress.

It's not a strawman. It's a logical extention of your position. Shall we address the points directly?

Firstly, if the lives of the many are of infinite value and the life of one is of infinite value, then is there any difference in untying the five people in preference to untying the one?

Secondly, one assumes that the life of your family is worth more to you than that of a mass murderer. But is it the case that you wouldn't sacrifice the murderer to save your family? You've already said as much by saying that you'd allow humanity itself to cease to exist. I'd just like to see you respond directly rather than by implication.

 

[durangodawood]

We all die of one thing or another. That fact does not change the value of life. If it did then one could save up and buy a resurrection at their local WalMart.

Some of us die by human actions that no one who valued human life infinitely would perform. Like driving a car.

You show value by what you do, not by the words you say. And I don't think you or any of us here act in a way that demonstrates human life has infinite value.

 

[Bradskii]

Actually, if I remember correctly, and based on the supposed 'additional context' we pick up from the sequal...

They really should have given that a miss. The oddest thing about it is Helen Mirren's cartoon Russian accent - seeing that her name is actually Miranov and her father was Russian nobility.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

They really should have given that a miss. The oddest thing about it is Helen Mirren's cartoon Russian accent - seeing that her name is actually Miranov and her father was Russian nobility.

Yes, her Russian accent was a little cartoonish compared to an authentic Russian accent, but I still enjoyed the movie.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, her Russian accent was a little cartoonish compared to an authentic Russian accent, but I still enjoyed the movie.

She could talk like Donald Duck and I'd still pay good money to watch her.

 

[Occams Barber]

The usual drivel from one who has no moral code and wants an open license to do whatever they feel like doing in the moment. Thinking is just too hard.

I often think of many Christians as morally vacuous or perhaps just morally immature. I admit this is an unfair assessment but in many cases it does contain a grain of truth.

Christians are provided with a book of moral rules and the admonition that these rules are absolute and unchanging. This means that Christians often have less need to think through issues of right and wrong in any depth. In general terms many Christians don't need to evaluate moral rules - they are simply a given and are justified by the fact that they exist. Morality is handed down by God to save Christians the problem of working it out for themselves. The benchmark for a moral rule is not an assessment of impact or fairness but whether it comports with the will of God.

In my case I've never been a Christian so I don't take my rules automatically from Christian sources. I've also looked at morality enough to know that it has varied enormously across time and between cultures. For me considering morality or ethics has been an ongoing process. While I've naturally absorbed much of the morality inherent in my culture it has often involved questioning and agonising decisions. It also means that my moral values can change over time as I learn and as new information becomes available. My morality may not be 'right' but it is, at least, a considered process.

@Bradskii and other atheists will go through their own process of determining what is moral and it may be that we will have differing views. What we will share in common is the process of deciding, for ourselves, what is right and what is wrong in a moral code which is considered rather than prescribed

OB

 

[Bradskii]

I often think of many Christians as morally vacuous or perhaps just morally immature. I admit this is an unfair assessment but in many cases it does contain a grain of truth.

Christians are provided with a book of moral rules and the admonition that these rules are absolute and unchanging. This means that Christians often have less need to think through issues of right and wrong in any depth. In general terms many Christians don't need to evaluate moral rules - they are simply a given and are justified by the fact that they exist. Morality is handed down by God to save Christians the problem of working it out for themselves. The benchmark for a moral rule is not an assessment of impact or fairness but whether it comports with the will of God.

In my case I've never been a Christian so I don't take my rules automatically from Christian sources. I've also looked at morality enough to know that it has varied enormously across time and between cultures. For me considering morality or ethics has been an ongoing process. While I've naturally absorbed much of the morality inherent in my culture it has often involved questioning and agonising decisions. It also means that my moral values can change over time as I learn and as new information becomes available. My morality may not be 'right' but it is, at least, a considered process.

@Bradskii and other atheists will go through their own process of determining what is moral and it may be that we will have differing views. What we will share in common is the process of deciding, for ourselves, what is right and what is wrong in a moral code which is considered rather than prescribed

OB

A: 'Hmm. Tricky question. I'll have to think about that'.
C: 'Hmm. Tricky question. Give me a minute to look up the answer'.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I'm talking about the tired old "trolley problem". It goes like this:


Trolley problem - Wikipedia

Where's the "problem"? Pull the darn lever. Only a jerk wouldnt.

Then I am a jerk because I do not hold a utilitarian view of morality and I do not see human beings as sacrifices to the good of the group. Such examples smuggle these views in surreptitiously, and they do not represent reality in the first place. These are known as lifeboat scenarios and they do not represent the conditions in which men and women live their lives. Such thought experiments divorce morality from reality and therefore from facts, reason, and logic.

Why should I take on the guilt of having killed someone by my own actions when their plight is not of my doing, hmmm? And if self-sacrifice is the standard of virtue then shouldn't those people on the track be willing to sacrifice themselves in order to save me from that burden of guilt?

 

[Moral Orel]

Oh, of course. How can I argue with that impeccable logic. Why didn't I and the rest of the world's mathematicians see that?

I already demonstrated the way that the world's mathematicians do real math by comparing sizes of infinities in my initial post.

 

[Moral Orel]

Its a hypothetical. You can just take out any leftover people with a shark attack if you feel the need.

But how do I get to be responsible for a shark attack? I'm not a shark!

 

[o_mlly]

And I see no problem with that. Jesus is certainly someone that one should include in regards to any study of morality.

Then you would pull the lever on yourself instead of the one whose life isn't all that important to you, right?

Firstly, if the lives of the many are of infinite value and the life of one is of infinite value, then is there any difference in untying the five people in preference to untying the one?

Untying people to save lives is categorically different than murdering them. See the difference? Untie the five.

Secondly, one assumes that the life of your family is worth more to you than that of a mass murderer. But is it the case that you wouldn't sacrifice the murderer to save your family?

The mass murderer in the moment is innocent, ie., he's not murdering anyone tied to the track. So no difference to the dilemma as originally posted. I know labeling the one in this way may make you emotionally more enabled to pull the lever but morality is rational, not emotional. I note that you continue to insert the word "sacrifice" instead of "murder" into the dilemma. The only human being that you can sacrifice is yourself. Did you pull that lever on yourself?

 

[Bradskii]

Untying people to save lives is categorically different than murdering them. See the difference? Untie the five.

Why the five? What's the logic you employ that says that's the better outcome?

 

[o_mlly]

... atheists will go through their own process of determining what is moral and it may be that we will have differing views. What we will share in common is the process of deciding, for ourselves, what is right and what is wrong in a moral code which is considered rather than prescribed

If morality was subjective, ie., determined in the mind of each actor, then you'd have a point. But it's not, so you don't. If the atheist's process is common then the outcome would be common. But it's not so you don't really have a point, do you? But thanks for the epistle from on high anyway.

 

[o_mlly]

Some of us die by human actions that no one who valued human life infinitely would perform. Like driving a car.

You show value by what you do, not by the words you say. And I don't think you or any of us here act in a way that demonstrates human life has infinite value.

I don't see the logic that the value of a thing is dependent on ... what? Its fragility, its robustness, its whatness ... ? Help me out here.

One way to act that demonstrates the infinite value of human life is to never commit murder.

 

[Occams Barber]

If morality was subjective, ie., determined in the mind of each actor, then you'd have a point. But it's not, so you don't. If the atheist's process is common then the outcome would be common. But it's not so you don't really have a point, do you? But thanks for the epistle from on high anyway.

Any casual perusal of moral codes across time and cultures will tell you that morality is obviously subjective. It varies from place to place, from time to time and, to a lesser extent, from individual to individual within a culture. Within a given society the rules tend to be more or less agreed but individuals and sub groups will still have their own opinions.

This observation is self evident.

OB

 

[o_mlly]

Why the five? What's the logic you employ that says that's the better outcome?

• The act of untying either the five or the one to save lives is in its object good.
• My intent is to save lives ... also good.
• The circumstances are favorable to completing only one untying.

Having satisfied my rational need to justify the act as good I may now let my emotional side determine which of the two good acts to perform. I choose five.

 

[o_mlly]

Any casual perusal of moral codes across time and cultures will tell you that morality is obviously subjective. It varies from place to place, from time to time and, to a lesser extent, from individual to individual within a culture. Within a given society the rules tend to be more or less agreed but individuals and sub groups will still have their own opinions.

This observation is self evident.

No. Epistemology, the potentiality of the knowledge of human beings, does not determine ontology, the nature of reality. Reality is singular and independent of the thinking mind.