Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that lesson asks if there is ever a time, or for a meme, that is worth sacrificing our children.
"Never." is just not a rational answer and doesn't have to be addressed as anything other than irrational.
"at the drop of a hat." ... well, that is just mean spirited and dangerous.
Sacrificing children out of unthinking allegiance to a "god" in order to curry favor with it is never okay, and is always mean-spirited and dangerous, don't you think?
Sacrificing children out of unthinking allegiance to a "god" in order to curry favor with it is never okay, and is always mean-spirited and dangerous, don't you think?
***changed much later***
I just realized what you mean. My original response to you was wrong.
The lesson for me:
Is there ever a time, or a meme, that is worth a life of our children. "never" is not rational.
yes, I posted '... a particular meme...". yes, there are particular meme that are not worth killing anything for, especially children. "for god" is one of those memes.
My bad pel.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 02-02-2019 at 01:48 PM..
...when there's a moral dilemma of some sort, there may not be a perfect choice, but there's always a best choice.
If there is always a "best" choice, then it would seem that there is really no ambiguity after all. But on what basis do you believe that there is always a best choice? In certain moral situations, why couldn't there potentially be two or more choices that are indistinguishable in terms of which is "better"? Why should we believe that there is always a best choice?
Also: Even if we grant that you are correct in saying that there is always a best choice, must we also grant that the "best choice" is the one and only best choice for everyone? Is it possible that the best choice for a particular person in a particular situation might not necessarily be the best for everyone in similar circumstances? In other words, could "best" sometimes be relative to a particular person? Obviously with aesthetics we freely grant a diversity of "best" choices; we typically don't insist that one song has to be the best song for everyone. Could some significant moral choices be like aesthetic choices in this sense?
In any case, I'm still skeptical that there is always a best moral choice. I'm still wondering if God - or the "nature of reality" - or whatever - is just plain and simply morally indeterminate in some situations. Maybe in some cases what matters (if anything) isn't so much what choice is made but, rather, the "whys" and "hows" of the choice-making process. Or maybe, sometimes, what "matters" is just the mere fact that a choice has to be made.
What I'm really curious about is whether or not people who follow fairly traditional religious traditions can seriously entertain these questions, or would they instead consult a holy book that gives the straight-up answer? Do holy books give straight up answers here? Or do they leave open the possibility that God might allow moral ambiguity in some important moral-choice situations (e.g., does the Christian God have to have an absolute up-front opinion on every question relating to abortion? Or could God conceivably "stand back" an let humans struggle with moral dilemmas that have no objectively correct answer from God's point of view?)
If there is always a "best" choice, then it would seem that there is really no ambiguity after all. But on what basis do you believe that there is always a best choice? In certain moral situations, why couldn't there potentially be two or more choices that are indistinguishable in terms of which is "better"? Why should we believe that there is always a best choice?
Also: Even if we grant that you are correct in saying that there is always a best choice, must we also grant that the "best choice" is the one and only best choice for everyone? Is it possible that the best choice for a particular person in a particular situation might not necessarily be the best for everyone in similar circumstances? In other words, could "best" sometimes be relative to a particular person? Obviously with aesthetics we freely grant a diversity of "best" choices; we typically don't insist that one song has to be the best song for everyone. Could some significant moral choices be like aesthetic choices in this sense?
In any case, I'm still skeptical that there is always a best moral choice. I'm still wondering if God - or the "nature of reality" - or whatever - is just plain and simply morally indeterminate in some situations. Maybe in some cases what matters (if anything) isn't so much what choice is made but, rather, the "whys" and "hows" of the choice-making process. Or maybe, sometimes, what "matters" is just the mere fact that a choice has to be made.
What I'm really curious about is whether or not people who follow fairly traditional religious traditions can seriously entertain these questions, or would they instead consult a holy book that gives the straight-up answer? Do holy books give straight up answers here? Or do they leave open the possibility that God might allow moral ambiguity in some important moral-choice situations (e.g., does the Christian God have to have an absolute up-front opinion on every question relating to abortion? Or could God conceivably "stand back" an let humans struggle with moral dilemmas that have no objectively correct answer from God's point of view?)
If that's what you believe, that's what you believe. But the world is not black and white. In running a school for many years, we often had no make less than ideal decisions, but that didn't mean that we didn't make the best decision that we could.
People who don't believe in god are usually just as moral as those who do.
Beyond that, when there's a moral dilemma of some sort, there may not be a perfect choice, but there's always a best choice.
What would you use as the objective moral standard for a purposeless entity since whether or not it prospers or ceases to exist is completely irrelevant?
If that's what you believe, that's what you believe. But the world is not black and white. In running a school for many years, we often had no make less than ideal decisions, but that didn't mean that we didn't make the best decision that we could.
no, that doesn't mean you didn't. the issue is that you said "there is always a best choice."
What would you use as the objective moral standard for a purposeless entity since whether or not it prospers or ceases to exist is completely irrelevant?
Objective moral standard? Never heard of such a thing.
Objective moral standard? Never heard of such a thing.
Purposeless entity? What's that?
You are just trying to avoid a simple question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
