So if someone is suicidal I can kill them. What if you are in a coma for a week, was it oaky to kill you then?
Yes it can. If someone is in a coma can I kill them?
No, a plant’s not human.
By that standard it’s okay for me to go to a nursing home and mug all the residents, right?
When you have human DNA, I’d say that makes you a human. So yes, having human DNA does make you more valuable than a plant.
Baseless? You are the one saying, and I quote:
So if you’re in a coma I can torch destroy your lawn?
. Actually you’re right. You said that it doesn’t matter if they are human, it’s okay to kill them anyway.
. So if you’re in a coma I can kill you?
How? They are comparing you to the main group of the last 100 years that tried to arbitrarily take away a group’s right to life.
I believe it’s the Lord, though even if you don’t believe in Him, are you saying humans should not be treated with dignity?
It’s not an ethical standard, it’s a fact. Morality is subjective not because I want it to be, but because it is. “I should not kill humans” will never be a descriptive, objective statement; it will always be prescriptive and subjective.
How would you know “what’s right”? You just told us it was “subjective”! You also said that’s a “fact” - prove it!It’s not an ethical standard, it’s a fact. Morality is subjective not because I want it to be, but because it is. “I should not kill humans” will never be a descriptive, objective statement; it will always be prescriptive and subjective.
As for what seems to be your only other question, whether or not it is morally permissible for you to kill me while I’m in a coma depends on how much emotion is invested in the continuation of my life. Perhaps the suffering you’ll cause my family and friends will outweigh the utility of my death. In other words: will the action produce more happiness than suffering?
I know Christians like their morality to be all nice and tidy, but doing what’s right sometimes requires one to get their hands dirty.
I gave my opinion of what’s right. If you want “proof” that ethics are subjective, you can either use common sense or do a search on David Hume’s is-ought gap. “I should…” does not describe anything, but rather pleads that something exist. Ethics are emotional statements that express one’s desire for something to be a certain way, not describe what something is.
Words have meaning that have a common meaning. That is why we have dictionaries.
Dottiepo:Any ideas on refuting the following? It is from an atheist. I replied noting the arbitrary nature of the argument, but looking for other ideas from such smart folks out there!
Prior to 24-26 weeks, the fetus has no bilaterally synchronous EEG patterns. By all medical definitions, it is braindead. Prior to this point (typically 18 or 20 weeks to be safe) I do not believe a “human life” is being taken. There is no brain… No sentience or conscience to kill.
Oreoracle:
Oreo:It’s not an ethical standard, it’s a fact. Morality is subjective not because I want it to be, but because it is. “I should not kill humans” will never be a descriptive, objective statement; it will always be prescriptive and subjective.
As for what seems to be your only other question, whether or not it is morally permissible for you to kill me while I’m in a coma depends on how much emotion is invested in the continuation of my life. Perhaps the suffering you’ll cause my family and friends will outweigh the utility of my death. In other words: will the action produce more happiness than suffering?
I know Christians like their morality to be all nice and tidy, but doing what’s right sometimes requires one to get their hands dirty.
It is the exact opposite. That is an objective truth. It is self evident.
First off, not all ethical systems focus on duty and obligation. Consequentialism dismisses duties entirely and concentrates on producing whatever is seen to be good.
But then, anyone who conjures up an idea that provokes actual thought is dismissed as a troll around here. We wouldn’t want people to question their beliefs so that they might lose their conformist chains, huh? No siree. Christianity is a “feel good” religion (like most religions) for those on the right side of the spectrum. As I said, Christians will typically believe anything or willfully ignore anything if it means comfort and security.Good people, methinks that Oreoracle is, what they say in internet parlance, a troll.
Each statment only seems to be desinged as a response to wind people up, with no coherent logic behind any of his arguments, with most of his 'fact’s shown to be inaccurate.
I wouldn’t entertain this any further.
A couple of notes. There have been many adults that have experienced a situtation in which they had had no bilaterally synchronous EEG patterns and were declared “brain dead”, but with God, brain dead isn’t dead. They came out of it and lived. Here are a couple of examples:
It is not about feeling good or bad. It is about truth and objective moral law. Questioning is great. The problem is once someone actuallys finds the truth they are called non critical thinkers or only interested in feeling good.
On the contrary, living as a Christian will probably be one of the most difficult things you could attempt to do, and far from ‘feel good’ anything goes as long as I am OK, as you seem to believe. On the contrary, we don’t believe just about anything that comes along.
opcorn:What do you mean “fell away to one side”? I’ve said that abortion may or may not be wrong in some cases just as killing an adult may or may not be wrong in some cases.Moral dilemas are open to reasoned debate, but I could not help but notice how your arguments fell away to one side when it came to defending your own life, considering you are just a bunch of cells with a particular DNA code
What is the difference between your position and being simply unprincipled? If searching for the truth leads one to accept error does that mean the search, in and of itself, is sufficient?What do you mean “fell away to one side”? I’ve said that abortion may or may not be wrong in some cases just as killing an adult may or may not be wrong in some cases.
But you are right on one thing: Christians have to abide by a slew of pointless rules and, upon breaking them, must force themselves to express genuine guilt to repent. However, they also never have to think. It’s always easier being a drone than knowing that the onus is on you to find the truth and not condemn others for their search, even when they don’t end up in your denomination. Hellfire, or supporting those that use it, is never the answer.
I never said that I would be satisfied if I knew that I accepted error; I will obviously try to improve as the facts are revealed to me. But I feel that, even if I, or you, or anyone, possessed the truth, we should not scorn others for not likewise possessing it, nor should we simply say “You don’t know, so obey me, since I do know.” as the Church does. We can only encourage others’ development.
I don’t guess I get facts. Where did you get your definition? There is numerous definitions of good. Webster does not define it as you do. Their definitions are not in your favor.Can you guess what the definition of “good” is? “Good” is “being positive or desirable in nature.” Desirable…hmm…sounds an awful lot like what I’ve been saying. The definitions of “bad” are in my favor as well.
You all can sit there cupping your ears and screaming that it isn’t so, but that doesn’t change a thing. Christians would say that 2+2=7 if it made them feel more comfortable in this chaotic world.
