Increase of Atheists around the world, increase of crime any coincidence?

[Freddy]

Freddy:

HarryStotle:

Freddy:

Oh, and do you eat pork by the way? Some people consider it immoral.

Actually, if you mean by “some people” Jewish individuals, it would be incorrect to claim they consider it a moral question.

Jews and Muslims consider it a command by God. Is disobeying God immoral? I would have said yes. But as you will.

Not immoral, but contravenes the will of God.

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

HarryStotle:

In fact, I’ll start…

It is always wrong to wantonly murder an innocent human being. Yes?

YOU’LL start? Good grief. I’ve been trying to suggest a topic for scores of posts and now you say that you’ll start. That’s a bit rich. And murder is always wrong by the very definition of the word. A non starter if there ever was one.

Recall that you seemed to have insisted no one could impose their morality on others.

So you don’t mind people imposing their moral views on you?

I am simply clarifying that morality is nothing more than those rules that should be imposed on others.

So murder of a human being is always wrong? We are morally obligated not to murder other human beings, correct?

We can impose that moral rule on others, then? Yes?

What other moral rule can we always impose on others?

Again I am not interested in what we cannot impose on others, but only those you think we should impose on them because they have an obligation to live according to those rules.

Go ahead, make a long list.

I’ll get to it as soon as I’ve finished discussing the moral problem of the young girl. As I said, feel free to dive in whenever the mood takes you.

 

[HarryStotle]

I’ll get to it as soon as I’ve finished discussing the moral problem of the young girl. As I said, feel free to dive in whenever the mood takes you.

I’ll make it easy for you – kill two birds with one stone, so to speak…

Is it a moral obligation to jump in and rescue the young girl? That means any responsible moral agent MUST do so.

Is that your claim? It is a moral obligation to save a drowning girl?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’ll get to it as soon as I’ve finished discussing the moral problem of the young girl. As I said, feel free to dive in whenever the mood takes you.

I’ll make it easy for you…

Is it a moral obligation to jump in and rescue the young girl? That means any responsible moral agent MUST do so.

Is that your claim? It is a moral obligation to save a drowning girl?

So you’d value her over the cost of your suit. Another agreement. Good. More tomorrow. Guys are turning up for poker…

But a quick one now we’ve briefly covered value:

Would you be devastated if you watched her drown and couldn’t save her? Or tried to rescue her but failed? That is, is saving her, or failing to save her going to affect you in any way? Or would there be indifference?

 

[HarryStotle]

Would you be devastated if you watched her drown and couldn’t save her? Or tried to rescue her but failed? That is, is saving her, or failing to save her going to affect you in any way? Or would there be indifference?

So, let me get this straight…

You are attempting to make the case that the reason I ought to save the girl is because I would be devastated if I didn’t? That I would be “affected?”

Nothing to do with the life of the girl, but solely from how I would be affected by NOT saving her?

Seems completely ego-centred. It all hangs on the feelings I come away with?

What about the life of the girl?

I suspect this is where we have the problem. My feelings do not enter into the calculus.

The good for the person is what is the ONLY important consideration.

What if I wouldn’t feel devastated or wasn’t affected at all, but I saved her for her sake? For the sake of her life and the lives of those around her?

See, there is the problem with relying on feelings.

If you want to argue that feeling devastated or sad are the reasons you should save her, then you have to admit that if those feelings didn’t come up, then there would be no obligation on your part to save her. You could just shrug, say, “I’m not affected,” and go your merry way. Ergo, the fetus problem, for you.

Sure you could accuse someone of indifference or callousness, but you couldn’t accuse them of being immoral, unless morality has nothing to do with feelings or empathy, but everything to do with the good of the human being whose life is at stake. And anyone should respond to save the girl without any regard at all for feelings, but for the sake of her well-being, alone.

 

[upant]

Then is it fair to say that you cannot therefore impose your morality on others?

There is only one set of rules. The universal rules are what we should all follow, not made up, majority-agrees morals. Truth is truth even if no one follows it.

We have to look for it first. If we find a common basis for what we believe then we have a better chance of finding agreement.

again, I will ask, what happens when there’s no agreement. What if we can’t find common ground.

what are the rules for your game? state them upfront. what happens when we can’t find common ground and disagree?

Upant finds the question tricky.

not tricky, one-sided. saving a girl or not, isn’t the issue with your morality. morality based on majority agreement is the issue. you want to direct the discussion to what you think is a clever way of getting agreement. but I won’t agree on morals being defined by majority agreement.

let’s address the hard stuff like how can abortion be both moral and immoral. let’s get to the real issue: what backs your morals and holds people accountable to them.

 

[Elf01]

People would value the girl’s life over the value of a suit.

We’re still trying to establish why. My previous questions have assumed the girl is a stranger. What if she’s not and bullies my child? What if her father raped or murdered a loved one of mine and got away with it? I’m going to care a lot less about the anguish caused then.

Now what if my suit has sedimental value? Say it was a gift from a loved one who will be annoyed that it was ruined, maybe they are a tailor and made it for me?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

People would value the girl’s life over the value of a suit.

We’re still trying to establish why. My previous questions have assumed the girl is a stranger. What if she’s not and bullies my child? What if her father raped or murdered a loved one of mine and got away with it? I’m going to care a lot less about the anguish caused then.

Now what if my suit has sedimental value? Say it was a gift from a loved one who will be annoyed that it was ruined, maybe they are a tailor and made it for me?

Then those reasons may guide your decision.

Does the fact that she might be a stranger change your decision?
What if she is a bully?
What if her father is a monster? Does that impact on the girls’s survival?
What if your suit has great sentimental value? Could it be worth more that a girl’s life?

Are they serious questions? The answers appear obvious to me. Are they not to you?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Then is it fair to say that you cannot therefore impose your morality on others?

There is only one set of rules. The universal rules are what we should all follow, not made up, majority-agrees morals. Truth is truth even if no one follows it.

We have to look for it first. If we find a common basis for what we believe then we have a better chance of finding agreement.

again, I will ask, what happens when there’s no agreement. What if we can’t find common ground.

what are the rules for your game? state them upfront. what happens when we can’t find common ground and disagree?

Upant finds the question tricky.

not tricky, one-sided. saving a girl or not, isn’t the issue with your morality. morality based on majority agreement is the issue.

I’m not askimg for the majority decision. I want to know yours. If you and I agree and so does everyone else then it becomes the majority decision. Is it then a bad decision because of that?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Would you be devastated if you watched her drown and couldn’t save her? Or tried to rescue her but failed? That is, is saving her, or failing to save her going to affect you in any way? Or would there be indifference?

So, let me get this straight…

You are attempting to make the case that the reason I ought to save the girl is because I would be devastated if I didn’t? That I would be “affected?”

Not THE reason. But one of the reasons. There would be many. I assume from what you say that you would be devastated if you couldn’t help her. We’ll include that in the reasons we have so far. Unless you state that you would be indifferent to her death.

Now let’s look at the suffering of the girl herself. Not her parents or any effect her drowning might have on you. I assume that if you passed a child in the street that was choking or in some equally obvious distress then you would go to her aid. As would anyone, I think you would agree.

So I assume that you would empathise with the girls suffering and do what you could to end it. By saving her. I mean, who could stand by and watch a young girl struggle for life without raising a hand to help.

So in that respect, you would give assistance. Let me know if you feel you might not. I will otherwise assume you would.

 

[Elf01]

Are they serious questions? The answers appear obvious to me. Are they not to you?

I’m trying to get at the reasons why they’re obvious.

 

[upant]

Is it then a bad decision because of that?

yes, if it is against truth. for example abortion, euthanasia, etc. you talk about a child dying, well what about the old and unborn dying, is that good? you and I can have a personal agreement but that doesn’t mean the rule is moral.

why do you refuse to address the evil of abortion (or anything evil seen as good by the secular masses) as viewed as moral? this shows the fault with the way you want to develop morals.

what do you do with a topic that has no agreement?

 

[HarryStotle]

upant:

Freddy:

Then is it fair to say that you cannot therefore impose your morality on others?

There is only one set of rules. The universal rules are what we should all follow, not made up, majority-agrees morals. Truth is truth even if no one follows it.

We have to look for it first. If we find a common basis for what we believe then we have a better chance of finding agreement.

again, I will ask, what happens when there’s no agreement. What if we can’t find common ground.

what are the rules for your game? state them upfront. what happens when we can’t find common ground and disagree?

Upant finds the question tricky.

not tricky, one-sided. saving a girl or not, isn’t the issue with your morality. morality based on majority agreement is the issue.

I’m not askimg for the majority decision. I want to know yours. If you and I agree and so does everyone else then it becomes the majority decision. Is it then a bad decision because of that?

Not interested in what is a majority decision? And how the heck does the agreement of two suddenly get presumed to become a “majority” decision?

I am only interested if it is a moral decision. In other words, are human moral agents obligated to jump in and save the girl irrespective of what a majority thinks or what their own empathic feelings tell them. Is there a moral duty? If so, are there any mitigating circumstances.

For example, if the person is a non swimmer and more likely to drown themselves, would they be obligated? Add to that, say the person were a mother of five young children themselves, who were entirely dependent upon that mother, would she be obligated? Should she feel “devastated” herself if the girl drowned? Would that be helpful to her in her own life?

There are a great many factors at play here, which is why feelings on their own don’t begin to address the moral question – one which cannot be answered with a straight yes or no.

At the same time, however, a strong swimmer who was trained in rescue would indeed have a moral obligation, and after doing everything possible, if the girl still drowned a Christian would know that the girl is in God’s hands, and her destiny is far greater than mere earthly existence. So having done everything they could, the would-be rescuer would not need to feel devastated at the girl’s drowning.

Personally, I don’t think an atheist would feel devastated either, given the metaphysical POV undergirding their atheism.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Is it then a bad decision because of that?

you and I can have a personal agreement but that doesn’t mean the rule is moral.

If you and I agree on any matter it’s because we think it’s morally correct. Unless you would agree to a proposition that you thought was immoral?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

upant:

Freddy:

Then is it fair to say that you cannot therefore impose your morality on others?

There is only one set of rules. The universal rules are what we should all follow, not made up, majority-agrees morals. Truth is truth even if no one follows it.

We have to look for it first. If we find a common basis for what we believe then we have a better chance of finding agreement.

again, I will ask, what happens when there’s no agreement. What if we can’t find common ground.

what are the rules for your game? state them upfront. what happens when we can’t find common ground and disagree?

Upant finds the question tricky.

not tricky, one-sided. saving a girl or not, isn’t the issue with your morality. morality based on majority agreement is the issue.

I’m not askimg for the majority decision. I want to know yours. If you and I agree and so does everyone else then it becomes the majority decision. Is it then a bad decision because of that?

Not interested in what is a majority decision? And how the heck does the agreement of two suddenly get presumed to become a “majority” decision?

For example, if the person is a non swimmer and more likely to drown themselves, would they be obligated? Add to that, say the person were a mother of five young children themselves, who were entirely dependent upon that mother, would she be obligated? Should she feel “devastated” herself if the girl drowned? Would that be helpful to her in her own life?

There are a great many factors at play here, which is why feelings on their own don’t begin to address the moral question – one which cannot be answered with a straight yes or no.

At the same time, however, a strong swimmer who was trained in rescue would indeed have a moral obligation, and after doing everything possible, if the girl still drowned a Christian would know that the girl is in God’s hands, and her destiny is far greater than mere earthly existence. So having done everything they could, the would-be rescuer would not need to feel devastated at the girl’s drowning.

Upant mentioned the ‘majority decision’. I was simply explaining that that was not what we are looking for.

And I’m not sure how you can say feelings don’t play a part and then suggest a few scenarios to us.when the decision to save her are specifically dependent on what one is feeling at the time (what about if I drown, what about my children if I drown, how will I feel if she drowns).

And you think there is a greater moral requirement for a good swimmer to save her over a poor swimmer? Not something I would have suggested but we’ll take it on board. The performance of a moral duty is dependent on your ability to carry out that moral duty.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Are they serious questions? The answers appear obvious to me. Are they not to you?

I’m trying to get at the reasons why they’re obvious.

That’s good. Maybe we can look at each in turn:

Does the fact that she might be a stranger change your decision?

We do care more for our close circle of family and friends than we do for strangers. And we seem to care for those in close proximity more than those who are physically distant. So if there’s a child starving next door we’d do all we could, but if the child is on the other side of the world then we don’t. So the fact that the child is drowning in front of us propmts us into action.

What if she is a bully?

A bully might not matter. But what if she was an adult and had just massacred your family? I guess the degree that we consider the life a valuable life worth saving does come into it. Maybe you’d save Hitler. I wouldn’t.

What if her father is a monster? Does that impact on the girls’s survival?

No. The sins of the father are the sins of the father only.

What if your suit has great sentimental value? Could it be worth more that a girl’s life.

I can’t see anyone making this choice. But there are things that are more valuable. The life of your own child over the young girl. So if you had to make a choice and there was no other option then you’d save your girl and let the other drown.

 

[upant]

If you and I agree on any matter it’s because we think it’s morally correct. Unless you would agree to a proposition that you thought was immoral?

again you ignore the obvious. Two people may think something is moral when it isn’t. Abortion is the obvious example, many people agree abortion is moral and many think it is immoral. It can’t be both, your decision process is flawed.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If you and I agree on any matter it’s because we think it’s morally correct. Unless you would agree to a proposition that you thought was immoral?

again you ignore the obvious. Two people may think something is moral when it isn’t. Abortion is the obvious example, many people agree abortion is moral and many think it is immoral. It can’t be both, your decision process is flawed.

I didn’t say that it WOULD be morally correct. I said that if we AGREED on any matter then we would THINK that it was morally correct. You actually posted what I said. Why didn’t you understand it? Whether it was correct or not would need investigation. Both sides putting forth their reasons. Discussions. Various scenarios proposed. Fact checking. Debate. Reasoned arguments.

 

[upant]

do you not have an answer to the abortion question? Without an answer to this question, your morals have no validity.

Freddy:

I said that if we AGREED on any matter then we would THINK that it was morally correct.

what good is thinking something is moral when in fact it is immoral.

Both sides putting forth their reasons. Discussions. Various scenarios proposed. Fact checking. Debate. Reasoned arguments.

you keep saying this; but, assume there is no agreement. what then?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:
do you not have an answer to the abortion question? Without an answer to this question, your morals have no validity.

I said that if we AGREED on any matter then we would THINK that it was morally correct.

what good is thinking something is moral when in fact it is immoral.

Both sides putting forth their reasons. Discussions. Various scenarios proposed. Fact checking. Debate. Reasoned arguments.

you keep saying this; but, assume there is no agreement. what then?

You are endlessly repeating yourself, upant. You ask some questions and I give the answers and then you ignore said answers and ask the very same questions again. This is like Groundhog Day…