Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[bellenuit]

If a manufacturer of a wonder drug, issued its products in bottles of pills, labelled with clear warnings of dangers from overdosing, accompanied by clear instructions that exactly one pill is to be taken every six hours, would one then be justified in blaming that manufacturer, when some people suffered ill health, after mistakenly taking six pills every hour?

Would it now be fair to declare the drug toxic ,irrespective of the potentially beneficial results, that one may derive from correct usage?

Is the manufacturer to be perpetually held to blame for the misunderstandings of its patrons?

Can you see how strongly this analogy relates to the key anti theistic arguments?

Really poor analogy. We are talking about God demanding the killing of innocents including infants.

And why are you defending such actions (also Grah)? Is it not clear to you that those actions are no better than what ISIS would do? So it is all OK so long as you can invoke some Deity as an excuse. Again exactly what ISIS does to justify its barbaric acts. The morality you regard as objective and Grah regards as perfect, is deeply flawed. And I can judge it because I have a brain and can see what the consequences of such actions are and would be.

And of course secular morality isn’t perfect and no one claims it to be. But it is arrived at by people trying to judge what actions are good and right based on their experiences. Any one person can have a deeply flawed moral compass, but collectively, when arrived at freely, they tend to get it generally right. But it takes religion for people to collectively decide that abhorrent actions are ok. Steven Weinberg has a quote that brilliantly encapsulates that fact, a quote which you are aware of no doubt.

 

[Value Collector]

but morality seems to be a moveable feast for a lot of people.

Yes, for the religious it is,

As you have just witnessed gods perfect morality can ban killing in one breath then in the next send his boys to go wipe out a rival tribe and rape their daughters.


As for your morality question, as I said before, it’s situational, laws are blunt instruments to try and regulate behavior, you still need a good moral frame work to know when to follow them and when to break them.

No system off laws will ever be able to represent perfect morality, so yes it is possible to act immorally while not breaking any laws.

As warren Buffett says, you shouldn’t choose your actions based on what is legal, but whether you would be happy for a front page news article to appear written about it by a smart but unfriendly news reporter, for your friends and family to read.

 

[SirRumpole]

No system off laws will ever be able to represent perfect morality, so yes it is possible to act immorally while not breaking any laws.

You still haven't defined your own morality. What actions of others do you consider immoral ?

As for your morality question, as I said before, it’s situational, laws are blunt instruments to try and regulate behavior, you still need a good moral frame work to know when to follow them and when to break them.

As I said, a moveable feast.

 

[cynic]

Really poor analogy. We are talking about God demanding the killing of innocents including infants.

And why are you defending such actions (also Grah)? Is it not clear to you that those actions are no better than what ISIS would do? So it is all OK so long as you can invoke some Deity as an excuse. Again exactly what ISIS does to justify its barbaric acts. The morality you regard as objective and Grah regards as perfect, is deeply flawed. And I can judge it because I have a brain and can see what the consequences of such actions are and would be.

And of course secular morality isn’t perfect and no one claims it to be. But it is arrived at by people trying to judge what actions are good and right based on their experiences. Any one person can have a deeply flawed moral compass, but collectively, when arrived at freely, they tend to get it generally right. But it takes religion for people to collectively decide that abhorrent actions are ok. Steven Weinberg has a quote that brilliantly encapsulates that fact, a quote which you are aware of no doubt.

The analogy is not nearly so poor as you might choose to believe.

You just cannot see it can you?

You are very much a part of a competing religion!

On the subject of human atrocities, there happens to be a very specific religion, that has, regretfully, been blindly practised, individually, and at other times, collectively, by many self deluded members of the human populace.

The practice of the religion to which I allude, is solely responsible for the vast majority of the atrocities that have been repeatedly (and mistakenly) attributed to other religious philosophies.

Closer examination of the reasoning and justifications, given by the initiators of the many atrocities, typically attributed to one or more religions, reveals that the true culprit is a single specific religion.

The aptly named "HolierThanThouism" religion, is the common denominator in the vast majority of humanly perpetrated atrocities.

So if you sincerely believe that assailing religious philosophy, is justifiable by reason of altruism, then the aforementioned religion, is the only one truly deserving of such assault!

So why are anti theists picking on Christianity and Islam, when there is clearly a much more heinous and insidious culprit, dangerously close at hand?

 

[Value Collector]

You still haven't defined your own morality.


.

Not sure I could define it in a forum post. But basically its as I have described, I use the well being of humans and thinking creatures as the foundation, make decisions depending on the situations present.

But once you decide the premises of what is good for well being eg, freedom is preferable to being unfree, health is preferable to being unhealthy, life is preferable to death, being pain free is preferable to pain etc etc you can form decisions on what the correct moral action would be.

But it doesn’t lend it’s self to absolute rules, because there are to many factors.

What actions of others do you consider immoral ?

Killing someone for not believe it in your god?

Perhaps you might get a better idea of how I work out moral questions by you putting up a scenario and I will tell you how I would work through it.

As I said, a moveable feast

How is it movable? As I said morality is objective it’s not relative, so it’s not movable.

In any situation there would be an action that is the most moral action for all those involved.

But just because you can’t pin it down to absolute laws doesn’t mean it’s movable, it’s just means there is to many moving parts.

Eg thy shalt not kill, is an absolute law, but because it is absolute it means it can’t be moral in all situations, because in some situations the most moral thing to do is to kill some one, eg a mercy killing of a terminal cancer patient that wants to die

 

[SirRumpole]

Perhaps you might get a better idea of how I work out moral questions by you putting up a scenario and I will tell you how I would work through it.

I did give a few examples before, but how about

- use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima

- allowing people to sleep on the streets instead of providing affordable housing

- dodgy bank lending practices that take people's entire savings or giving loans that people can never afford

- keeping refugees imprisoned without change of rehabilitation

 

[bellenuit]

The analogy is not nearly so poor as you might choose to believe.

You just cannot see it can you?

You are very much a part of a competing religion!

On the subject of human atrocities, there happens to be a very specific religion, that has, regretfully, been blindly practised, individually, and at other times, collectively, by many self deluded members of the human populace.

The practice of the religion to which I allude, is solely responsible for the vast majority of the atrocities that have been repeatedly (and mistakenly) attributed to other religious philosophies.

Closer examination of the reasoning and justifications, given by the initiators of the many atrocities, typically attributed to one or more religions, reveals that the true culprit is a single specific religion.

The aptly named "HolierThanThouism" religion, is the common denominator in the vast majority of humanly perpetrated atrocities.

So if you sincerely believe that assailing religious philosophy, is justifiable by reason of altruism, then the aforementioned religion, is the only one truly deserving of such assault!

So why are anti theists picking on Christianity and Islam, when there is clearly a much more heinous and insidious culprit, dangerously close at hand?

Presumably you are referring to Stalin, Pol Pot and more. Almost all free thinking secularists, have condemned them right from the beginning. They were pursuing a communist agenda and were just as ruthless against secularists as against religious people. Their dogma was the communist manifesto not secular morality as it had evolved to that point.

Atheism, as you should know by now, makes no statement other than they do not accept any proof that has been provided to date that there is a God (although willing to change their view should evidence to the contrary be forthcoming). Some atheists go farther and say there is no God. However, that's it, nothing more, even if you erroneously want to ascribe other beliefs to it. What views atheists have on other topics, including morality, is of no consequence, as it is individual to each atheist and inconsequential to the position that they do not accept that the existence of a God has been proven.

I have no problem condemning the atrocities of communist dictators, whether they be atheists or not. Their actions were and are repugnant and are absolutely immoral according to my moral values.

It astounds me that you should still refer to atheism as a religion as if it had tenets beyond that of a statement on God's existence. It seems that having now established that you are quite willing to absolve your religions of morally repugnant acts, you think by bring up the old atheism bogey you can turn the tables. Nope, that doesn't work. No problem from my end condemning morally repugnant acts, no matter who does them. If Stalin did not accept the existence of God for the same reasons as I do not accept God's existence, that doesn't in any way lead me to try and defend his actions.

Conflating secular morality with atheism shows me that you have lost the argument. If you think Stalin was trying to follow the secular morality that had been developed and espoused by say the Founding Fathers of the US (many who were religious but opted for a secular system of government based on secular principles) or by great thinkers like Bertrand Russell, then that is quite preposterous.

Religion is like the various channels on a TV. Atheism is simply the off button. It is not another channel.

 

[cynic]

Presumably you are referring to Stalin, Pol Pot and more. Almost all free thinking secularists, have condemned them right from the beginning. They were pursuing a communist agenda and were just as ruthless against secularists as against religious people. Their dogma was the communist manifesto not secular morality as it had evolved to that point.

Atheism, as you should know by now, makes no statement other than they do not accept any proof that has been provided to date that there is a God (although willing to change their view should evidence to the contrary be forthcoming). Some atheists go farther and say there is no God. However, that's it, nothing more, even if you erroneously want to ascribe other beliefs to it. What views atheists have on other topics, including morality, is of no consequence, as it is individual to each atheist and inconsequential to the position that they do not accept that the existence of a God has been proven.

I have no problem condemning the atrocities of communist dictators, whether they be atheists or not. Their actions were and are repugnant and are absolutely immoral according to my moral values.

It astounds me that you should still refer to atheism as a religion as if it had tenets beyond that of a statement on God's existence. It seems that having now established that you are quite willing to absolve your religions of morally repugnant acts, you think by bring up the old atheism bogey you can turn the tables. Nope, that doesn't work. No problem from my end condemning morally repugnant acts, no matter who does them. If Stalin did not accept the existence of God for the same reasons as I do not accept God's existence, that doesn't in any way lead me to try and defend his actions.

Conflating secular morality with atheism shows me that you have lost the argument. If you think Stalin was trying to follow the secular morality that had been developed and espoused by say the Founding Fathers of the US (many who were religious but opted for a secular system of government based on secular principles) or by great thinkers like Bertrand Russell, then that is quite preposterous.

Religion is like the various channels on a TV. Atheism is simply the off button. It is not another channel.

No! You have almost completely misunderstood my post, and are arguing points that were never raised.

My argument against the existence of "secular morality" is not based upon my theistic views, it is derived from the observation, that by its very definition alone, morality simply cannot exist in an accidental or unintended universe!

My reason for mentioning and condemning the prevalent practice of the "HolierThanThouism" religion, was my effort to alert yourself, and those of your ilk, to the reason I believe that the anti theist's enmity for Christianity, Islam, and theism generally, is misdirected.

I have witnessed the all too prevalent, practice, of "HolierThanThouism", by numerous people, including some Christians, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, "agnostic atheists",anti theists, socialists, capitalists, communists, scientists, humanists, naturalists and "none of the above"ians, just to mention a few!

And its practice, is almost certainly the common denominator, in almost every, human dictated, atrocity, including those that "HolierThanThouists", gleefully cite when condemning somebody else's religion!

I agree that a position of doubt, or even conviction, in the nonexistence of deities, does not make atheism a religion. However, many atheists, by their own choices and behaviours, have made atheism their religion! Do you understand the distinction I am making here, (it strikes to the heart of the true definition of religion)?

To use the television off button is not a channel analogy:
Having the button in the "Off" position does not make one an "OffButtonist", however, obsessing about the fact that the button is being left in the "Off" position, does make one a member of the "OffButtonist" religion!

 

[bellenuit]

No! You have almost completely misunderstood my post, and are arguing points that were never raised.

My argument against the existence of "secular morality" is not based upon my theistic views, it is derived from the observation, that by its very definition alone, morality simply cannot exist in an accidental or unintended universe!

You have used that argument before and my view on it differs from VC.

I hold the view that morality is a human construct and has evolved in parallel with our evolution as a species. Thus it can exist in an accidental universe. As I said previously. I do not hold morality as something objective, independent of the human (and probably later primate) species.

Morality to me is subjective and will be different from that of others, as it is determined by everything that has gone into making me what I am today, which includes culture, survival needs, education etc. People in the same socio-economic and cultural circumstances will tend to have a similar set of moral values. However, though recognising that there are cultures (used as an all inclusive word here) that are so vastly different to mine that they will have moral values very different to mine does not mean I believe in moral relativism (that we should not criticise anything we view as morally reprehensible in other cultures). I believe that as we advance from subsistence living we are able to extend our sense of empathy to others in our species beyond our immediate family and tribe to other humans and to other species. Science in particular and education in general enhances our morality by also adding respect for the planet we live on.

There is a convergence of morality across nations and cultures today as many countries have risen above subsistence living, have high standards of education and cross pollination of ideas due to our communication advances. The difference between what is regarded as moral by someone living in China is not that different to that from someone in the US (though there may be huge political differences). However, this convergence, IMO, is not representative of some objective morality being discovered slowly. It is just a reflection of the fact that most have now reached a similar level in their evolutionary progression.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that should intelligent machines take over and our species becomes extinct, that the morality that might likely develop among intelligent machines, if it does develop, would be vastly different to ours. Pain, which is a huge determinant in our sense of empathy and hence morality, might be of zero significance in an intelligent machine world. Should they develop morality, having a completely different evolutionary path to ours (not based on random mutations and natural selection), it is very likely that their morality would not have any resemblance to ours. That is why I see human morality as a human construct and not objective in a universal sense.

 

[Value Collector]

I hold the view that morality is a human construct and has evolved in parallel with our evolution as a species. Thus it can exist in an accidental universe. As I said previously. I do not hold morality as something objective, independent of the human (and probably later primate) species.

Morality to me is subjective and will be different from that of others, as it is determined by everything that has gone into making me what I am

I agree morality is an emergent property of our evolution.

But where I say it is objective rather than subjective is where it relates to the facts of the universe.

Eg once we decide it is about the well being of humans, then it becomes objective, because the facts about what will increase or decrease that well being are subject.

But again this is not a claim that absolute rules can be made, it’s just recognizing that the affect of pouring acid on some ones face against their will is not subjective, the results will be objectively immoral, it’s as objective as the laws of physics

 

[Value Collector]

-1- use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima

-2- allowing people to sleep on the streets instead of providing affordable housing

-3- dodgy bank lending practices that take people's entire savings or giving loans that people can never afford

-4- keeping refugees imprisoned without change of rehabilitation

1- I don’t have enough information, it may have been moral from a self Defence position, but I could be wrong since my decision doesn’t include all the facts

2- from a personal stand point, I have no moral obligation to provide housing to anyone except people I have entered into a contract with,

3- i would need more information, but if it involved deception it’s probably immoral.

4- keeping them detained for longer than a reasonable amount of time to process them would be immoral, they should always have the right to leave processing and return to their homeland, it should be their choice to stay and continue processing or not.

 

[cynic]

I agree morality is an emergent property of our evolution.

But where I say it is objective rather than subjective is where it relates to the facts of the universe.

Surely an "emergent property" by its very definition, would have to be subjective.

Eg once we decide it is about the well being of humans, then it becomes objective, because the facts about what will increase or decrease that well being are subject.

So all it takes is a simple decision to transmute the subjective into objective?! Isn't the decision making process itself subjective? And then by deciding that it is about a specific thing, does that not render it dependent upon (i.e. subject to) that particular thing?

But again this is not a claim that absolute rules can be made, it’s just recognizing that the affect of pouring acid on some ones face against their will is not subjective, the results will be objectively immoral, it’s as objective as the laws of physics

You do seem to like plagiarising other people's work, don't you?

As it happens, the person uttering these words, thinking himself clever, happens to have unwittingly contradicted himself!

Congratulations on your assumption of a fellow atheists' mistake!

 

[cynic]

You have used that argument before and my view on it differs from VC.

I hold the view that morality is a human construct and has evolved in parallel with our evolution as a species. Thus it can exist in an accidental universe. As I said previously. I do not hold morality as something objective, independent of the human (and probably later primate) species.

Morality to me is subjective and will be different from that of others, as it is determined by everything that has gone into making me what I am today, which includes culture, survival needs, education etc. People in the same socio-economic and cultural circumstances will tend to have a similar set of moral values. However, though recognising that there are cultures (used as an all inclusive word here) that are so vastly different to mine that they will have moral values very different to mine does not mean I believe in moral relativism (that we should not criticise anything we view as morally reprehensible in other cultures). I believe that as we advance from subsistence living we are able to extend our sense of empathy to others in our species beyond our immediate family and tribe to other humans and to other species. Science in particular and education in general enhances our morality by also adding respect for the planet we live on.

There is a convergence of morality across nations and cultures today as many countries have risen above subsistence living, have high standards of education and cross pollination of ideas due to our communication advances. The difference between what is regarded as moral by someone living in China is not that different to that from someone in the US (though there may be huge political differences). However, this convergence, IMO, is not representative of some objective morality being discovered slowly. It is just a reflection of the fact that most have now reached a similar level in their evolutionary progression.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that should intelligent machines take over and our species becomes extinct, that the morality that might likely develop among intelligent machines, if it does develop, would be vastly different to ours. Pain, which is a huge determinant in our sense of empathy and hence morality, might be of zero significance in an intelligent machine world. Should they develop morality, having a completely different evolutionary path to ours (not based on random mutations and natural selection), it is very likely that their morality would not have any resemblance to ours. That is why I see human morality as a human construct and not objective in a universal sense.

Surely this international, intercultural "convergence of morality", that you mention, is in truth, just a convergence of agreement about desirable and undesirable behaviours, and as such, is at best, an expression of those cultures/nations perception of morally correct behaviour, as opposed to morality itself?

 

[bellenuit]

Surely this international, intercultural "convergence of morality", that you mention, is in truth, just a convergence of agreement about desirable and undesirable behaviours, and as such, is at best, an expression of those cultures/nations perception of morally correct behaviour, as opposed to morality itself?

That is what morality is. It is subjective perceptions of what is the correct thing to do and primarily based on the golden rule. The "others" in the golden rule has expanded from family to tribe to one's nation to everybody and to also include animals to a varying degree. There is only "we" to judge what is right. Suggestions of a theistic inspired objective morality is just a belief whose veracity is completely dependent on the existence of a deity of sorts, something for which many find evidence lacking.

 

[cynic]

That is what morality is. It is subjective perceptions of what is the correct thing to do and primarily based on the golden rule. The "others" in the golden rule has expanded from family to tribe to one's nation to everybody and to also include animals to a varying degree. There is only "we" to judge what is right. Suggestions of a theistic inspired objective morality is just a belief whose veracity is completely dependent on the existence of a deity of sorts, something for which many find evidence lacking.

Well I can see that on this matter, we are clearly not on the same page of the dictionary.

So I think I will simply have to leave you with your belief in your subjectively perceived morality concept.

 

[SirRumpole]

1- I don’t have enough information, it may have been moral from a self Defence position, but I could be wrong since my decision doesn’t include all the facts

2- from a personal stand point, I have no moral obligation to provide housing to anyone except people I have entered into a contract with,

3- i would need more information, but if it involved deception it’s probably immoral.

4- keeping them detained for longer than a reasonable amount of time to process them would be immoral, they should always have the right to leave processing and return to their homeland, it should be their choice to stay and continue processing or not.

1. You were in the Army, doesn't your code say you should not kill civilians ? They are non combatants and are not in a position to threaten troops. Again this principle seems to be moveable to enable you to mollify your own conscience and convince you that any horror is justifiable. Any other country that murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians would be bought to account, but not it seems when that country are the winners.

2. You are part of a society that is supposed to care for people (remember empathy ?), run by a government that you elect funded by taxes that you pay, but still you find it convenient to wipe your hands of any responsibility and go on your way. Why not write to your government urging that they provide more social housing and vote for the other side the government doesn't take action ? I know Christians who do such things and it seems to me that they have a better sense of right and wrong than you and I who are thinking of our own hip pockets.

It seems to me therefore that your morality is one of convenience in order to evade responsibility and provide a convenient escape in times where your conscience (the true morality imo) might tell you that something is wrong. Maybe I prefer some hard and fast rules that draw a line over which one should not step in preference to a mish mash of excuses and avoidance.

 

[Value Collector]

1. You were in the Army, doesn't your code say you should not kill civilians ? They are non combatants and are not in a position to threaten troops. Again this principle seems to be moveable to enable you to mollify your own conscience and convince you that any horror is justifiable. Any other country that murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians would be bought to account, but not it seems when that country are the winners.

.

the Geneva convention signed after world war 2 brought in heaps of rules that didn't exist prior. I am not sure what the rules were before that, but that is irrelevant to morality, because morality is not about laws.

But to me a life is a life a civilians life isn't worth more than a soldiers, the Australian and American and even most Japanese soldiers were innocent and if dropping the 2 nuclear weapons ended the war earlier and reduced the total number of lives lost, especially lives on our side, there is an argument for it in my opinion, there was already a devastating bombing campaign going on killing civilians every day, the nukes ended that.

2. You are part of a society that is supposed to care for people (remember empathy ?), run by a government that you elect funded by taxes that you pay, but still you find it convenient to wipe your hands of any responsibility and go on your way. Why not write to your government urging that they provide more social housing and vote for the other side the government doesn't take action ? I know Christians who do such things and it seems to me that they have a better sense of right and wrong than you and I who are thinking of our own hip pockets.

I didn't say people shouldn't help if they want to, I just said people have no obligation eg they shouldn't be forced to, from a personal standpoint. eg giving blood helps people, but it would be morally wrong to force people to give blood.

Maybe I prefer some hard and fast rules that draw a line over which one should not step in preference to a mish mash of excuses and avoidance

Lots of people prefer absolute rules, but in most cases these don't lead to a moral system, they simplify it tomuch.

eg, you might like a rule that says "thy shalt not kill" but as I pointed out, following that rule or enforcing that rule can end up leading you to do immoral things.

There is a reason why the Australian law has pages and pages legal documents about what types of killings are crimes, degrees of murder, etc etc. and then even then murder trials drag out.

If your mother or partner were dying of cancer, and couldn't drink was in severe pain and was due to die in a few days, but was begging just to be let go, would you get comfort with the absolute rule "thy shalt not kill" just because you didn't have to think and it made your decision for you, or would you prefer to make your decision based on the situation and the logical moral guidelines I laid out above.

 

[SirRumpole]

I didn't say people shouldn't help if they want to, I just said people have no obligation eg they shouldn't be forced to,

It's not about other people's morals, it's about yours and you have made it pretty clear that you don't care if people are living on the streets, it's not your problem. Some morality.

But to me a life is a life a civilians life isn't worth more than a soldiers, the Australian and American and even most Japanese soldiers were innocent and if dropping the 2 nuclear weapons ended the war earlier and reduced the total number of lives lost, especially lives on our side, there is an argument for it in my opinion, there was already a devastating bombing campaign going on killing civilians every day, the nukes ended that.

How can you equate a civilians life against two soldiers ? You have no way of knowing if this comparison is even valid and besides civilians were not the people doing the killing, but again that doesn't matter to you.

Killing innocent people is just a means to an end. If that is secular morality, then it's screwed.

 

[grah33]

Presumably you are referring to Stalin, Pol Pot and more. Almost all free thinking secularists, have condemned them right from the beginning. They were pursuing a communist agenda and were just as ruthless against secularists as against religious people. Their dogma was the communist manifesto not secular morality as it had evolved to that point.

Atheism, as you should know by now, makes no statement other than they do not accept any proof that has been provided to date that there is a God (although willing to change their view should evidence to the contrary be forthcoming). Some atheists go farther and say there is no God. However, that's it, nothing more, even if you erroneously want to ascribe other beliefs to it. What views atheists have on other topics, including morality, is of no consequence, as it is individual to each atheist and inconsequential to the position that they do not accept that the existence of a God has been proven.

I have no problem condemning the atrocities of communist dictators, whether they be atheists or not. Their actions were and are repugnant and are absolutely immoral according to my moral values.

It astounds me that you should still refer to atheism as a religion as if it had tenets beyond that of a statement on God's existence. It seems that having now established that you are quite willing to absolve your religions of morally repugnant acts, you think by bring up the old atheism bogey you can turn the tables. Nope, that doesn't work. No problem from my end condemning morally repugnant acts, no matter who does them. If Stalin did not accept the existence of God for the same reasons as I do not accept God's existence, that doesn't in any way lead me to try and defend his actions.

Conflating secular morality with atheism shows me that you have lost the argument. If you think Stalin was trying to follow the secular morality that had been developed and espoused by say the Founding Fathers of the US (many who were religious but opted for a secular system of government based on secular principles) or by great thinkers like Bertrand Russell, then that is quite preposterous.

Religion is like the various channels on a TV. Atheism is simply the off button. It is not another channel.

Personally I think you're a little too hung up on the innocent lives God takes away in the OT (alongside the vile). Followers of the NT tend not to make a big deal out of that.

I believe that the morality revealed in the NT is for the human race, and that it fits in nicely with the Morality Argument, and our conscience.

 

[Value Collector]

it's about yours and you have made it pretty clear that you don't care if people are living on the streets, it's not your problem. Some morality.

Where did I say I didn't care if people lived on the streets, I have said many times I like social safety nets.

you don't get nuance do you?

I was pointing out that on a personal level a person shouldn't be forced to help, because that is a breach of their personal freedoms.

How can you equate a civilians life against two soldiers ?

I think a soldiers life and a civilian life are of equal value, I don't think a 19 year old life suddenly becomes expendable because he put on a uniform to defend his country whether the uniform was Australian, American or Japanese.

besides civilians were not the people doing the killing, but again that doesn't matter to you.

Did you know that on average 22,000 civilians died per day as a result of ww2? thats about 55,000,000 civilians during the whole war, only 150,000 died in Hiroshima and 75,000 in Nagasaki nuclear attacks. So yes I think ending the war earlier might have been moral.

In the whole War, about 5 civilians died for every 1 soldier.


Japanese Civilians were already being killed by the daily carpet bombing and nightly fire bombing campaigns, As I said if the nukes ended the killing early the may have ben justified.

Killing innocent people is just a means to an end. If that is secular morality, then it's screwed.

innocent people were already dying, and inline to die.

I just finished reading a book about the Australian 2/6 commandos fighting the Japs in WW2, that one unit took 41 casualties in the last month of the war, the fighting was still very intense, and would have continued.

----------------------


Picture this situation.

An out of control train is heading down a line that has 3 children on it, and you can do nothing except you have a chance to push a button that switch the track so the train goes onto a second line with only 1 child on it.

what is the moral thing to do?

Its a sheet situation either way I know, but if someone chose to switch the track to save the 3 and let the 1 die, I can't say it was immoral.