You are mistakenly reading motives into my question which I should point out wasn’t directed at any particular group. I just thought it would be interesting to debate the subject.
Why should humans follow this rule? It does seem a bit counter productive. Instead of putting myself in another’s place, why not just let the strongest take what they want?
Until the Spanish came the Aztecs had a pretty powerful society. It didn’t seem to detract from their society to murder people each year. Their religion demanded sacrifices. Why is that wrong? Most cultures that allow innocent people to be killed justify their actions in some way, so to their way of thinking the murderers are doing good.
Humans do evil things to one another constantly. In fact through much of history people killed each other with little regard for the families of victims.
Why should I care if elderly people are killed? Surely their families will be happy not to have to worry about grandma and grandpa becoming frail and useless. How can a loving grandson or granddaughter allow his grandparents to suffer from a preventable condition-old age- when death involves just a simple injection?I think that this is a good arguement. It also proves that the grace of God works in your heart.
Actually, I think that one could prove that murder was best for society much more easily then that it is bad.
Why should they follow your rules? Obedience can never be mandated. It’s not a problem with the ethics, it’s a problem with human nature.
Yes; but the victims were members of that society as well, even if only by virtue of being prisoners. And it should be noted, if the Aztecs hadn’t maltreated their neighbors like that, Cortes wouldn’t have had their support to take down Montezuma. He couldn’t have done it without them – and they were all for it simply because of what the Aztecs had been doing.
If the person is willing, I see no reason not to. Personally, it’s a course I’d choose – not out of morality, but out of selfishness. I don’t want to linger on.
Will they? If you can absolutely guarantee that, utilitarianism might allow for it – assuming you aren’t taking grandma’s potential wish to remain alive into account.Humans do evil things to one another constantly. In fact through much of history people killed each other with little regard for the families of victims.
Honestly, #5 sucks. It’s a horribly childish expression of ‘my word is law’, with no attempt at justifying it. It’s easily the worst and weakest of the five, and that’s saying something considering #4 is utilitarianism.I think that this is a good arguement. It also proves that the grace of God works in your heart.
Why should they follow my rules? I have no idea.
I am not trying to get anyone to follow any rules just asking questions.]
I skipped it because you went over my dense little brain and I didn’t understand it.I noticed you didn’t have anything to say about the Categorical Imperative though
From a Christian point of view, ‘wrong’ is simply that which offends God and/or is harmful to others – and sometimes the self. Why do you expect an unbeliever’s idea of ‘wrong’ to be any more different than omitting the ‘God’ part? I mean, we still (minus the solipsists) believe in people…
So…“wrong” means “something which is harmful to others and/or the self”.
Obviously we’re not too worried about going to hell or purgatory for misbehaving – all that means is that we act morally out of love. Much like you’re supposed to, even: you do good works because you love God and other people (although frankly I get the idea that many Christians are inspired more by fear of the stick than by looking at the carrot), we do them because we also love those people.
Dude, we’re not space aliens. I don’t enjoy bumping against a hot stove any more than you do – and, I might add, no, I do not melt when doused with holy water.
This is your basis for bad and good behavior and I think that it shows that you as an individual are-judging by my Christian morals- a very kind, wonderful human being. The trouble is that you have to convince others that what you think is moral is the correct path to follow. Thus far you haven’t done that.
I didn’t think that you did melt when doused with holy water. Although that might be an interesting site to see.
I know that you are too intelligent to ignore history.Societies often practiced genocide against one another.
Just as an aside…some Christians do good works from fear of God, I admit. I can only speak for myself though. The fact that God was the one who created what is right or wrong means that if I love God, I will want to follow God’s laws.
This is the sort of fuzzy thinking I am trying to clear away. What is “acting morally”? What is “love” to an athiest? Isn’t that thing you call “love” nothing more than a chemical or biologically random activity in the brain? Certainly you would agree that hundreds of millions of people in the world don’t share your random brain activity labelled as feelings about loving each other. There are millions of people who would look at your random brain acitvity as weakness.
No, I haven’t. It’s not exactly possible. And you have the exact same problem – don’t pretend otherwise.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
People generally do a horrible job of living up to ethics. When has it been otherwise?
‘Acting morally’ would be acting in accord with an ethical system. ‘Love’ may just be, as you say, chemicals in the brain – but does that really matter? What matters more is that we feel it. If love really is only base physical action, your loves are a product of chemistry just as much as mine are.
Where exactly am I holding anyone else to my own standards?
Majority rule is fine, as long as there is sufficient protection of the interests of the minorities. No system of government is perfect, but this one works better than the rest.
No, it shouldn’t be. Good luck punishing anyone for successfully committing suicide! And besides, if you don’t own yourself, just how human are you, really?
He killed someone else. I could easily see decreasing the charge from murder to voluntary manslaughter, as the situation was desperate and he likely was not completely in control from fear and lack of water himself – but the fact remains, he killed another. That B might have died anyway, or have killed him instead had their positions been reversed (or if A had hesitated for five minutes) is immaterial. That B might have been a criminal is also immaterial: he was a human being, and his past has absolutely no bearing on the actual question.
Again—why should YOUR chemical reaction which you label as an “ethical system” be considered better and legal while SOMEONE ELSE’S chemical reaction known as an “ethical system” should be considered “wrong” and hence made illegal? Simply because you feel those reactions taking place?!? Certainly a person who has a chemical reaction producing what we call ‘hate’ feels the reaction taking place.
You want people put into prison for a specific physical action which YOU label “wrong” and THEY label correct.
Again–WHY? Because YOU say so? Why are the minority interests more important than the majority interests? Isn’t it logical and scientifically sound in regards to the survival of our race to round up every criminal in this country and eliminate them? They are a random evolutionary product. They do not have souls. After they are gone, their “feelings” and “interests” will not exist and they will be nothing but a meaningless chemical reaction in OUR brains which we will label as a “memory”. Why would that chemical reaction in our brains be more important than the chemical reaction which says “It’s safer now.” ???
You are contradicting yourself. You said it is “wrong” to harm yourself. Are you now saying the only “wrong” is harm done to others?
Can you be more specific? He performed a specific physical act.
Says who? Says YOU. What is it about killing that is such a big deal?
In essence, your objection seems to be ‘why should anybody do what you say?’
[chuckle] Had a feeling you’d give up. You live a good, safe life on the back of a Western Civilization built on christianity. You have an innate sense that killing is wrong, but can’t answer sufficiently the basis for that sense without facing the truth.
While Christianity has most certainly had an influence on civilization as we know it, I am indebted much more to John Locke for my ‘good, safe life’ (and parts of that may be, shall we say, debatable) than I am to Augustine or Aquinas.
Take, for instance, the idea that we could eliminate all violent criminals in this society in order to make the country a nearly completely safe place . You have “reasoned” that such an act would be “universally wrong”? All rational and logical points seem to weigh heavily on the extermination side. It’s a very scientific solution. You sure there isn’t another aspect to your reaction on the subject?
No–my objection is that all you have done is make a list —“I love humanity” “I don’t want someone to kill me” "There are ethical lists which say ‘killing is wrong’ " and other mere opinions. You’ve now arrived at the point where you are almost admitting “I can’t prove murder is wrong” but you don’t want to say it without “But neither can you!”
Making a list of reasons which say “murdering is a bad thing” is not proving anything. I can easily come up with just as many reasons why murdering can be “good”.