The four requirements of justifyable pain, suffering or harm

[Spock]

I think this is a good time to point out something. Suppose that I would have specified the lifeboat as an exception. I bet that some of you guys would have brought up that the self-defense cannot be used as justification. You would have brought up that self-sacrifice is the way to go, and not kill the others, just so that you could survive. It is highly amusing that no matter what an atheist brings up, you guys have a conditioned reflex of opposing it. You draw your own conclusions from it.

 

[vz71]

Wars and lifeboat examples are exceptions.

Of course. But it just proves the point I made earlier concerning the inability to place hard rules. Any rule that is written without a fair amount of ambiguity is simply going to generate exceptions.

Actually these are included. If someone volunteers to go into harm’s way, then the action is his own business. Go back to the opening post. I will repeat it here: “Unless, of course person “A” volunteers for it, and is aware of the consequences.”

OK, then we take Jesus out of the exceptions list and instead add the majority of people that have suffered for the faith.
They volunteer yes, but one can readily argue that they do not know the full consequence. Or should we place an exception to this as well?

I am talking about normal situations, when someone inflicts harm on non-volunteers, and tries to justify it with the excuse of bringing “greater good” to others. I will give you examples (just to show you how it is done, in an intellectualy honest manner).

OK, you just tossed your rules out in favor of a singular set of insulated examples.
Everything else is now an exception.

You see? It is easy. Now, maybe you agree with such practices, I don’t know. If you say that these practices are fine and dandy, just say it.

I have seen for some time now, but I feel you still do not.
Your 4 rules just generated several exceptions.
Your rules to cut out these exceptions generated exceptions.
And your clarification concerning these rules to try to avoid exceptions is itself an exception.

My point is made. The more you eliminate generality, the more exceptions you generate and the more meaningless the rule becomes.

 

[vz71]

I think this is a good time to point out something. Suppose that I would have specified the lifeboat as an exception. I bet that some of you guys would have brought up that the self-defense cannot be used as justification. You would have brought up that self-sacrifice is the way to go, and not kill the others, just so that you could survive.

I bet someone else will point out the highly dubious nature of this speculation.

It is highly amusing that no matter what an atheist brings up, you guys have a conditioned reflex of opposing it. You draw your own conclusions from it.

So you believe we have a conditioned response to made up scenarios that have not been actually played out?

How many have you observed in this make believe example to cause this belief?
Am I one of these pretend people too?
What do you pretend I say in this dream?

I sometimes find my own daydreams ‘highly amusing’ too.
Many people do. We have all dreamed of the ‘fatal comeback’ word or phrase that we should have used but didn’t.

 

[Spock]

OK, then we take Jesus out of the exceptions list and instead add the majority of people that have suffered for the faith.
They volunteer yes, but one can readily argue that they do not know the full consequence. Or should we place an exception to this as well?

I said nothing about “full consequences”. As long as someone volunteers it is their business, and no one else’s. They have dominion over their lives and that is it. Now I can hardly wait for you to argue that they have no dominion over their life, only God has dominion over it, and it is unacceptable to volunteer. Hey, isn’t it acceptable to commit suicide?

OK, you just tossed your rules out in favor of a singular set of insulated examples.
Everything else is now an exception.

Sheer nonsense. The examples support the rules, they are not exceptions.

I specified the rules. They are simple and straightforward. You can agree with them, or not. So far I did not see any serious argument against them.

 

[vz71]

I specified the rules. They are simple and straightforward. You can agree with them, or not. So far I did not see any serious argument against them.

You’re right.
The rules you have made up support the example you made up.

They simply fail when applied elsewhere.

 

[Spock]

I bet someone else will point out the highly dubious nature of this speculation.

What is dubious about it? The original argument was that it can be justified to kill others in a lifeboat situation (close off the doors and make the others drown). I point out that this is a stretch of either “self-defense” or “war”. Because last time I looked it was a Catholic doctrine that self-defense and war are the only exceptions to the “thou shalt not kill” rule. By the way, do you say that the “thou shalt not kill” is also “bad rule”, because there are exceptions to it?

 

[Spock]

They simply fail when applied elsewhere.

Real examples?

 

[vz71]

Real examples?

you first.

 

[vz71]

I bet that some of you guys would have brought up that the self-defense cannot be used as justification. You would have brought up that self-sacrifice is the way to go, and not kill the others, just so that you could survive. It is highly amusing that no matter what an atheist brings up, you guys have a conditioned reflex of opposing it. You draw your own conclusions from it.

I bet someone else will point out the highly dubious nature of this speculation.

What is dubious about it?

You mean other then being completely made up?
“some of you guys would have brought up that…”
" You would have brought up that …"

 

[tonyrey]

How do people benefit when they suffer from malnutrition?

This should be:

How do people benefit when they know they could have saved others’ lives and did not do so?

By gloating over the fact they’re still alive and the others are dead?

 

[The_Exodus]

Pain, suffering or harm can sometimes be justified. They can be justified if some greater good comes out of them. But the “greater good” is much too vague. Not all harms can be justified simply because some good will ensue. Here are the four requirements I wish to introduce.

1. The recipient of the “greater good” must be the same who endured the harm. It is unacceptable to inflict some harm on person “A”, so that person “B” will reap some benefits. Unless, of course person “A” volunteers for it, and is aware of the consequences.
2. The “greater good” must really outweigh the harm. If the sufferer is mature and lucid, he must be asked first, if he wants the harm. If the sufferer is not mature or lucid, then the one who inflicts the pain must use his best judgment.
3. The harm cannot be lessened without losing the benefit.
4. The harm must be a logical prerequisite to the benefit. If the same benefit can be reached without the harm, the harm cannot be justified.

These are very simple requirements. Maybe you agree, maybe you don’t. If you disagree, please tell me, why?

You seem to leave no place for harm as just punishment in your schema, which makes most of these postulates deficient in terms of explanatory power. For instance.

1. Whoever receives harm must be receiving it as some sort of punishment. Punishment can be either medicinal, or retributive.
2. Punishment is itself a good, and so it may be displayed eternally, for example, and there would be no diminishing of a greater good. Indeed, thereby the greater good would be exemplified.
3. Harm is always beneficial, either in terms of being medicinal for the recipient, or to display fit punishment.
4. Again, since harm is void of any reference to justice, the same criticisms apply.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, unfortunately I can. Allowing rape, murder, torture and genocides to go ahead. Allowing hunger to happen due to lack of rain. Allowing cancer to happen due to lack of medication. I wish there would be no examples.

Allowing is not inflicting. A parent may allow a child to spend their money foolishly so as to not have money for something more important. That does not mean the parent is the one responsible for the action, or inflicted the subsequent pain.

 

[pnewton]

1. The recipient of the “greater good” must be the same who endured the harm. It is unacceptable to inflict some harm on person “A”, so that person “B” will reap some benefits. Unless, of course person “A” volunteers for it, and is aware of the consequences.

Why? This assumes that there is no interconnectedness among man kind. Regretfully, some suffer for the actions of others. Sometimes people suffer for the good of others.

Typhoid Mary had to be isolated against her will in order to save lives. The greater good outweighed the harm, even thought the harm was to her and the good was to others.

 

[Spock]

You seem to leave no place for harm as just punishment in your schema, which makes most of these postulates deficient in terms of explanatory power.

This all hangs on the phrase “just punishment” and the extent of the punishment. It is generally accepted that retribution or revenge is not a moral principle. “Restitution”, if possible, could be justified, revenge cannot be.

1. Whoever receives harm must be receiving it as some sort of punishment. Punishment can be either medicinal, or retributive.

Was the Holocaust was “justfied” by the Nazis? They said that the Jews were the murderers of Jesus, and they took revenge for it.

1. Punishment is itself a good, and so it may be displayed eternally, for example, and there would be no diminishing of a greater good. Indeed, thereby the greater good would be exemplified.

Eternal punishment for a temporal “crime” is never just, since it is out of proportion.

1. Harm is always beneficial, either in terms of being medicinal for the recipient, or to display fit punishment.

Waterboarding and other kinds of torture? Would you state this, if you were the recipient?

 

[Spock]

Allowing is not inflicting. A parent may allow a child to spend their money foolishly so as to not have money for something more important. That does not mean the parent is the one responsible for the action, or inflicted the subsequent pain.

There is no difference. If the parent allows the child to get hold of a gun, and the child kills someone, the parent is held responsible, and rightly so,

 

[Spock]

Why? This assumes that there is no interconnectedness among man kind. Regretfully, some suffer for the actions of others. Sometimes people suffer for the good of others.

Typhoid Mary had to be isolated against her will in order to save lives. The greater good outweighed the harm, even thought the harm was to her and the good was to others.

Isolation is not “fun”. But at least it is better than killing her. A rational person would understand that isolation is necessary, and would cooperate.

 

[pnewton]

There is no difference. If the parent allows the child to get hold of a gun, and the child kills someone, the parent is held responsible, and rightly so,

I gave a different example. If there is any example where there is a difference, then the terms are no equal. In the case of a gun, a parent is responsible for keeping the gun secure, so he would be held responsible for his failure to secure the gun.

 

[Spock]

I gave a different example. If there is any example where there is a difference, then the terms are no equal. In the case of a gun, a parent is responsible for keeping the gun secure, so he would be held responsible for his failure to secure the gun.

Ok. Let’s use your example. If the parent allows the child to foolishly spend the money it is still his decision to allow it, and must take responsibilty. Whoever has the power carries the responsibility.

 

[pnewton]

Ok. Let’s use your example. If the parent allows the child to foolishly spend the money it is still his decision to allow it, and must take responsibilty. Whoever has the power carries the responsibility.

As a parent, this does not really work. No, part of making the child an adult is giving the option for the wrong choices, abdicating the responsibility for the sake of the child. Trust me, no parent would accept the child demanding more money because he says, “Well you let me waste the money.” This is how children are raised to adulthood. This is how God raises us.

 

[Spock]

As a parent, this does not really work. No, part of making the child an adult is giving the option for the wrong choices, abdicating the responsibility for the sake of the child. Trust me, no parent would accept the child demanding more money because he says, “Well you let me waste the money.” This is how children are raised to adulthood. This is how God raises us.

Well, I am a parent. You are also correct that both positive and negative reinforcements have their place under the Sun. But this is not the point. If the parent sees an incorrect behavior, and allows it, it can be justified in certain situations, but it cannot be justified in others. The parent may see that the child is trying to poke a wire into a live electric outlet. Allowing it cannot be excused on the grounds, that the child’s free will is sacrosanct, and it should not be interfered with. The parent cannot say: “let him learn from his mistakes”. The parent cannot use the “excuse”: “well, I told him not to poke into the socket”. And that is how God “raises” us. He does not interfere even when someone is about to make a fatal mistake, and jeopardizes his “salvation”.

But, regardless, it is the parent’s responsibility in all cases.