If God doesn't exist, wasn't Stalin a very successful human being?

  • Thread starter Thread starter snarflemike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cerad2 said:
How one defines success if of course a key point.

Society as a whole can decide what to condemn. As oppose to ducking your responsibility and letting a god take care of it.

How many examples of that not being a good idea do you want.

Yep.

And do keep in mind that Stalin stopped Hitler.
Click to expand...
not without a lot of help
 
Bradski said:
Whether something is wrong or not is decided by us. It cannot be any other way. There are no objective moral laws to start with. The bible may mention a few universal guidelines (which we would understand and uphold even without any religious texts), but each has to be interpreted by us as the situation demands.

If you ask someone: ‘Is stealing wrong?’, then the only sensible reply is: ‘Under what circumstances?’ If you blandly state that stealing is morally wrong under any circumstances but could be considered the right thing to do in certain circumstances, then to call stealing ‘objectively wrong’ is to render the term itself meaningless.
Click to expand...
Since people the world over know deep within themselves that child abuse, lying, stealing, murder, etc., are morally and ethically wrong, then “objective moral laws” and standards must exist; and moral laws obviously require a moral lawgiver. Christians believe that this moral Lawgiver is God and that every person comes into the world with God’s “law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them” (Romans 2:15). Although some people may refuse to listen to that still small voice that knows right from wrong and “interpret” subjectively that such things as child abuse, lying, stealing, murder, etc., as being right “in certain circumstances,” God says, “There is a way which seemeth just to a man: but the ends thereof lead to death” (Proverbs 14:12).
 
shoe said:
Since people the world over know deep within themselves that child abuse, lying, stealing, murder, etc., are morally and ethically wrong, then “objective moral laws” and standards must exist.
Click to expand...
Well, let’s take an easy example such as lying.

Someone breaks into your house and holds you at gunpoint. Your wife is hiding in the bedroom. He asks you, with obvious evil intent, whether your wife is at home. Now you might insist that lying is morally wrong in all circumstances but you would also have to admit that lying in this case would be the right thing to do.

Classing something as objectively wrong but allowing for circumstances where it would be the right thing to do makes nonsense of the term ‘objective’. It doesn’t appear to mean what you’d like it to mean.
 
Bradski said:
Well, let’s take an easy example such as lying.

Someone breaks into your house and holds you at gunpoint. Your wife is hiding in the bedroom. He asks you, with obvious evil intent, whether your wife is at home. Now you might insist that lying is morally wrong in all circumstances but you would also have to admit that lying in this case would be the right thing to do.

Classing something as objectively wrong but allowing for circumstances where it would be the right thing to do makes nonsense of the term ‘objective’. It doesn’t appear to mean what you’d like it to mean.
Click to expand...
G-d forbid that ever happened; but your creating a false dilemma.

Lying is, in no way, ever okay.

You could, for instance, not respond to the intruder, just as well, and not be caught in a lie.

This example, in no way, “makes nonsense” of objective truth.

Shalom Aleichem
 
YeshuaOrHaOlam said:
G-d forbid that ever happened; but your creating a false dilemma. Lying is, in no way, ever okay. You could, for instance, not respond to the intruder, just as well, and not be caught in a lie.
Click to expand...
C’mon now. This isn’t a false dilemma. It’s an example of when lying is the correct thing to do whether you think it’s objectively wrong or not. I’m not really sure that you’d keep risk keeping quiet rather than lie to save your wife’s life. No normal person would.

And what if he put his gun down and you took it. That is, you took what was rightly his from him with the express intention of never returning it. That’s stealing. And however you want to spin it, that’s an acceptable thing to do in that situation.

It’s really not difficult to imagine these scenarios yourself. Stealing is wrong, except….(fill in the blanks).
 
Bradski said:
C’mon now. This isn’t a false dilemma. It’s an example of when lying is the correct thing to do whether you think it’s objectively wrong or not. I’m not really sure that you’d keep risk keeping quiet rather than lie to save your wife’s life. No normal person would.

And what if he put his gun down and you took it. That is, you took what was rightly his from him with the express intention of never returning it. That’s stealing. And however you want to spin it, that’s an acceptable thing to do in that situation.

It’s really not difficult to imagine these scenarios yourself. Stealing is wrong, except….(fill in the blanks).
Click to expand...
Shalom Brad,

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree here. I realize where you are going with this, but I simply disagree.

A friend of mine asked, “would it not be okay for a father to steal food to feed his family, if he had no other way of providing?”

This would be a terrible situation, and I’m sure it is a reality for many (G-d Bless Them), but again, the answer is, no; it is never right to steal, under any circumstance.

Shalom to you my friend!
 
Bradski said:
C’mon now. This isn’t a false dilemma. It’s an example of when lying is the correct thing to do whether you think it’s objectively wrong or not. I’m not really sure that you’d keep risk keeping quiet rather than lie to save your wife’s life. No normal person would.
Click to expand...
Back against the wall life or death situation I would probably lie too. But I think there is a bit of a semantics issue with the scenario. If you wanted to operate within a “don’t tell a lie” constraint you can mislead some one with true statements. For example, you could say “I sent my wife to the grocery store” and if you had sent her to the grocery store earlier that day/week/year/decade you are making a true statement. But you would be doing so with the intention of misleading the person expecting him to to think the statement is about the recent past and that your wife isn’t present. A lie is one type of misrepresentation. But it’s not the only type of misrepresentation.
 
Manipulating your environment is your definition of success? You’re one sick person if that’s your goal in life. My definition of success is to live life to the fullest and be happy. Why would I pick mass murder over that?
 
Poseidon said:
Manipulating your environment is your definition of success? You’re one sick person if that’s your goal in life. My definition of success is to live life to the fullest and be happy. Why would I pick mass murder over that?
Click to expand...
Shalom Poseidon;

How can you decry one, if they held such a view, as sick?

Tell me, how can you, as an atheist, justify the condemnation of such things?

According to your worldview, is a polar bear a terrorist because he kills a baby seal cub?

Shalom Aleichem
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Back against the wall life or death situation I would probably lie too. But I think there is a bit of a semantics issue with the scenario. If you wanted to operate within a “don’t tell a lie” constraint you can mislead some one with true statements.
Click to expand...
My point in the hypothetical is to show that however adamant you can be in stating that something is objectively true, you can always think of a scenario when it is not. That is, when it is relative to the situation.

There’s always a get-out-of-jail reply such as ‘don’t say anything’ or ‘say she went to the shops’. But that just leads to further refinement of the scenario so that you don’t have those options. I can’t be bothered heading down that track for the next half a dozen posts so just imagine one yourself when you have to either lie, and save your wife, or tell the truth and have her raped.

Lying in that situation is the right thing to do. It cannot, even in anyone’s wildest imagination, be the wrong thing to do. If you do insist on saying that it is still objectively wrong, ‘but you could do it in that situation’, then you’d be saying, in effect, that lying is objectively wrong but relative to the situation.

The term ‘objective’ then ceases to have any meaning.
 
Shalom my friends;

I feel as though my time on this thread is done, thank you for your kindness during our discussion.

To all those who have not yet come to faith in Yeshua, who feel confused, or lonely, know this;

There is a G-d out there who loves you more than you could ever know, and His Son, Yeshua can help you through any trial or tribulation. If you ever need help, or feel lost, look to Him, and He will give you rest. Miracles happen, everyday. Seek and you will find. May G-d bless you richly in your life.

Thank you again, and G-d love you.

Shalom Aleichem to you all.
 
Bradski said:
Lying in that situation is the right thing to do. It cannot, even in anyone’s wildest imagination, be the wrong thing to do. If you do insist on saying that it is still objectively wrong, ‘but you could do it in that situation’, then you’d be saying, in effect, that lying is objectively wrong but relative to the situation.
Click to expand...
Here’s an interesting detail from the film “Dekalog” (10 Commandments), by Polish filmmaker Krzysztof Kieslowski, a series of 10 short films (each about one of the 10 commandments), that aired on Polish television in the 1980’s and subsequently has become a classic of world cinema:

*In one of the episodes (devoted loosely to “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness”) a professor of philosophy is discussing a Catholic family in Poland who refused to hide Jews during the Holocaust – a mother and daughter who had come to them for help. The explanation that Catholic family had given is that they cannot lie or be deceitful, by hiding a family. After all, “thou shalt shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

One of the philosophy students–himself a Catholic, presumably, in very Catholic Poland–said to the class, “then they couldn’t have been Catholic… Because, if they were, they would have known that there was a value even greater than the importance of telling the truth in all circumstances – namely, the value of preserving life.”

I’ve heard this argument, among Catholic themselves, so it seems that there is no clear consensus on this. What I do know is that I haven’t yet heard a Catholic who dared say that concealing Jews during World War II was wrong; and that, if the Nazi officer were to come to one’s house, and ask, “tell me truthfully – are you keeping Jews here?” that a true Catholic should have said, “they’re downstairs, down the long hall – second door on your left.”

So these situational ethical dilemmas are very real, as I think you are right to point out. Indeed, what happens when there is a collision between two moral values? Do I act deceitfully–hiding and skulking around, and concealing information–to save a life? Or does one rather say that all of those who concealed Jewish, or gypsy, or other targeted families, during World War II, were behaving immorally?

It is one thing to refuse to lie to save one’s own life, and quite another to refuse to lie to save the life of your neighbor.
 
Good points.

And they reminded me of a story I read about a musical about Helen Keller. On top of the subject matter itself didn’t really lend itself to what could be described as an enjoyable night out at the theatre, the production was dire in the extreme.

So much so that at one point, when the Germans burst into her house an audience member shouted out: She’s in the attic!
 
snarflemike said:
He certainly manipulated his environment to his advantage.
Click to expand...
Given the premises there would be no objective standard upon which to form a judgment. Each individual would be able to set his own standards. So, if you had had a chance to ask Stalin, I suspect he would have said that he had been very successful. But that is just speculation.
🤷
 
Bradski said:
Good points.

And they reminded me of a story I read about a musical about **Helen Keller. **On top of the subject matter itself didn’t really lend itself to what could be described as an enjoyable night out at the theatre, the production was dire in the extreme.

So much so that at one point, when the Germans burst into her house an audience member shouted out: She’s in the attic!
Click to expand...
Um, you do mean Anne Frank right? 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top