Posts: 69
Threads: 4
Joined: March 14, 2016
Reputation:
0
paralysis
March 17, 2016 at 9:08 pm
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2016 at 9:22 pm by truth_seeker.)
Hello guys
I want your opinion on the following scenario.
Lets assume there was a completely disabled human being who needs major help through all daily activities.
This human being is under the following condition:
- He/she has no job whatsoever
- He/she has zero friends and zero family members
If you are an atheist, can you give me a reason (other than legal issues) of why this person should not be killed as to free more resources (money, time, hospital space, etc) for the rest of the community?
Posts: 7259
Threads: 506
Joined: December 12, 2015
Reputation:
22
RE: paralysis
March 17, 2016 at 9:09 pm
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2016 at 9:10 pm by Jehanne.)
You argument is perverse; it's like saying that society should sacrifice a healthy individual to harvest that person's organs so that half-a-dozen individuals can live.
Posts: 30595
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: paralysis
March 17, 2016 at 9:15 pm
Because I'm not a sociopath, and have a well-developed sense of empathy, I would not care to see someone treated in a way that I would not want to be treated.
/thread
Posts: 69
Threads: 4
Joined: March 14, 2016
Reputation:
0
RE: paralysis
March 17, 2016 at 9:16 pm
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2016 at 9:18 pm by truth_seeker.)
(March 17, 2016 at 9:09 pm)Jehanne Wrote: You argument is perverse; it's like saying that society should sacrifice a healthy individual to harvest that person's organs so that half-a-dozen individuals can live.
From an atheistic point of view, a healthy individual is beneficial to me as they can take a job and provide service to the society, which will eventually help me. So they should not be killed.
But the disabled person in this example has no job whatsoever, is complete disabled, and has no friends/family which might be affected by his death.
Posts: 34734
Threads: 200
Joined: August 13, 2012
Reputation:
145
RE: paralysis
March 17, 2016 at 9:19 pm
Yes.
1. Because a society *should* look after it's most vulnerable people and if the person wants to continue to live, then who are we to kill them?
2. If you justify killing these people for convenience, where does it end? (And please, don't conflate this with abortion).
Dying to live, living to die.
Posts: 69
Threads: 4
Joined: March 14, 2016
Reputation:
0
RE: paralysis
March 17, 2016 at 9:19 pm
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2016 at 9:21 pm by truth_seeker.)
(March 17, 2016 at 9:15 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Because I'm not a sociopath, and have a well-developed sense of empathy, I would not care to see someone treated in a way that I would not want to be treated.
/thread
In an atheistic world view, morality is relative. What you consider empathy is only your concept of empathy. Some one else is not bound to your empathy.
(March 17, 2016 at 9:19 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Yes.
1. Because a society *should* look after it's most vulnerable people and if the person wants to continue to live, then who are we to kill them?
2. If you justify killing these people for convenience, where does it end? (And please, don't conflate this with abortion).
where is your evidence that it should?
From an atheistic point of view, a healthy individual is beneficial to me as they can take a job and provide service to the society, which will eventually help me. So they should not be killed.
But the disabled person in this example has no job whatsoever, is complete disabled, and has no friends/family which might be affected by his death.
Posts: 20476
Threads: 447
Joined: June 16, 2014
Reputation:
111
RE: paralysis
March 17, 2016 at 9:22 pm
If the world was that callous as to destroy non productive humans, then we've already lost our humanity.
Let's experiment on Muslims and Christians first, before we get too carried away! Hehe
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Posts: 30595
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: paralysis
March 17, 2016 at 9:22 pm
(March 17, 2016 at 9:19 pm)truth_seeker Wrote: (March 17, 2016 at 9:15 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Because I'm not a sociopath, and have a well-developed sense of empathy, I would not care to see someone treated in a way that I would not want to be treated.
/thread
In an atheistic world view, morality is relative. What you consider empathy is only your concept of empathy. Some one else is not bound to your empathy.
1. Atheism isn't a worldview.
2. Moralityis subjective, not relative.
3. If you feel that way, feel free to kill people, and the rest of us who do value empathy will collectively see you put in prison.
Posts: 1633
Threads: 33
Joined: March 14, 2016
Reputation:
23
RE: paralysis
March 17, 2016 at 9:23 pm
Because most of us are empathetic and if that person is happy and wants to live it's his/her right to. It's not like we're going to sacrifice him/her just because he/she unfortunately doesn't have the same abilities the average person has.
It feels like you're implying that atheists are immoral and/or selfish, but I might be wrong here, it's very late and I'm tired.
On the other hand, if the person himself wants to die, I wouldn't mind if he/she got killed, painlessly with medical assistance.
Posts: 30129
Threads: 304
Joined: April 18, 2014
Reputation:
92
RE: paralysis
March 17, 2016 at 9:24 pm
. . . or a rock crusher . . .
The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
|
