(March 17, 2016 at 9:08 pm)truth_seeker Wrote: 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?

My Retort:

Checkmate     TC   TS

(March 18, 2016 at 6:01 am)truth_seeker Wrote:

(March 18, 2016 at 3:20 am)Mathilda Wrote: Should by what standard? There is no 'should' for anything because there is no objective morality.

But as an evolved pack animal with instincts to band together with fellow members of my species, my sense of empathy and consciousness means I personally would prefer to look after the disabled person.

Exactly my point. In an atheistic worldview, there is no independent objective morality. There is no standard. There is no "should" of anything, as you mentioned.
One's own sense of empathy and consciousness (and I'm not saying an atheist can not "feel" empathy) does not entail any "shoulds" or standards on others. It's only your opinion, not binding to others in any way.

This is simply not true. We evolved to function as a group of individuals, not as solitary individuals, so certain group behaviors form a natural imperative for us. Morality of the group is one such behavior that while not possessing permanent, objective characteristics, does nonetheless provide for the setting of group norms that are binding on all members of the group, as a consequence of how the group treats rule breakers. There is morality, even if it is changeable and dependent on group behaviors. That doesn't make it any less real.

(March 18, 2016 at 6:01 am)truth_seeker Wrote: So if I was the disabled person in the OP scenario (and I know people in this situation), I would be very seriously and extremely threatened. Because its all relative, and "it depends", so each person I meet is an entirely open canvas of infinite possible moralities, because (in this world view) there is no independent standard objective morality. There is no "should" of anything, as you mentioned, and its all open for discussion.

That consensus morality tends to converge upon certain "absolutes" is evidence against this "blank canvas of morality" view that you are presenting. Morals are partly inbred and partly taught. The institutions of family, culture, and government serve to perpetuate a system of morals and stabilize it against the possibility of radical change. There are shoulds just as if the morality were objective. That it is a consequence of group behaviors that are inbred in each of us gives it the substantiality that it needs. This is not to say that a society couldn't change its morals such that killing your disabled person is moral, but that it does not align with recent societies and is thus de facto immoral.

Part of this consensus morality includes valuing others as human beings. You don't get to wipe that away because you have a philosophical objection. It's a very real part of the fabric of our morals, even if you don't see the reasons for it being so.

(March 18, 2016 at 6:01 am)truth_seeker Wrote: But for a standard, independent, outside source of morality (that is, objective morality), no body would even begin to imagine pondering on this, and the issue is absolutely and completely out of question. And because of that, if I was the disabled person in the OP scenario, I would feel completely safe and relaxed. Which also eventually benefits everybody.

That depends on the objective morals in question. Even if there are objective morals, you're simply interpreting the scenario as falling under them. Remember that the bible didn't proscribe either rape or slavery. This is an example of people following 'objective' morals that we today would consider unthinkable. These two issues may well lie outside the bounds of any objective morals and be a mere human invention. What evidence do you have that killing the disabled person is covered by an objective ethic, as opposed to being merely dragged along on the boundary of other morals that truly are objective?

.


@Jörmungandr, first of all, I have to begin by thanking you for critiquing my ideas in an objective way. Thank you

(March 18, 2016 at 1:21 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 18, 2016 at 6:01 am)truth_seeker Wrote: Exactly my point. In an atheistic worldview, there is no independent objective morality. There is no standard. There is no "should" of anything, as you mentioned.
One's own sense of empathy and consciousness (and I'm not saying an atheist can not "feel" empathy) does not entail any "shoulds" or standards on others. It's only your opinion, not binding to others in any way.

This is simply not true.  We evolved to function as a group of individuals, not as solitary individuals, so certain group behaviors form a natural imperative for us.  Morality of the group is one such behavior that while not possessing permanent, objective characteristics, does nonetheless provide for the setting of group norms that are binding on all members of the group, as a consequence of how the group treats rule breakers.  There is morality, even if it is changeable and dependent on group behaviors.  That doesn't make it any less real

That's all fine and nice. But all of this is your own take on the issue. Your entire argument is not binding to anyone. It might be a nice and humane argument, but not binding at all. Its still relative to your own understanding. So again we're back at the "blank canvas of infinite possible moralities" issue.

Quote:

(March 18, 2016 at 6:01 am)truth_seeker Wrote: So if I was the disabled person in the OP scenario (and I know people in this situation), I would be very seriously and extremely threatened. Because its all relative, and "it depends", so each person I meet is an entirely open canvas of infinite possible moralities, because (in this world view) there is no independent standard objective morality. There is no "should" of anything, as you mentioned, and its all open for discussion.

That consensus morality tends to converge upon certain "absolutes" is evidence against this "blank canvas of morality" view that you are presenting...

The institutions of family, culture, and government serve to perpetuate a system of morals and stabilize it against the possibility of radical change...

This is not to say that a society couldn't change its morals such that killing your disabled person is moral, but that it does not align with recent societies and is thus de facto immoral

Your last statement completely wipes out the first two. If killing a disabled person can shift from being immoral to moral is not a radical shift, I don't know what is.

And this is exactly my point. How can you even begin to identify a "radical" shift? What is the source against which you're making the judgment whether something is radical or not?

I think a good term for this would be "boiling frog morality", following the idea that if a frog jumps into an already boiling water, they will immediately jump back out. However, if they start inside normal water, and then you gradually boil the water, the frog stays inside until their probable death.

Quote:

(March 18, 2016 at 6:01 am)truth_seeker Wrote: But for a standard, independent, outside source of morality (that is, objective morality), no body would even begin to imagine pondering on this, and the issue is absolutely and completely out of question. And because of that, if I was the disabled person in the OP scenario, I would feel completely safe and relaxed. Which also eventually benefits everybody.

That depends on the objective morals in question.  Even if there are objective morals, you're simply interpreting the scenario as falling under them.  Remember that the bible didn't proscribe either rape or slavery.  This is an example of people following 'objective' morals that we today would consider unthinkable.  These two issues may well lie outside the bounds of any objective morals and be a mere human invention.  What evidence do you have that killing the disabled person is covered by an objective ethic, as opposed to being merely dragged along on the boundary of other morals that truly are objective?

You are confusing two things: the objective morality itself, and the details that can be obtained from it. For example, if the objective morality says no one is allowed to kill. Period. Then this simple objective morality statement fits a large number of scenarios. Such as a killing a disabled person, killing infants (e.g. after birth abortion), etc.  So even though the sentence "killing a disabled person" did not exist in the objective moral, it is still absolutely covered by that objective moral.

To give a legal analogy, consider the US constitution. The constitution represents the essential elements of the law of the land. However, you still need constitutional judges and courts in order to apply that constitution to specific detailed cases. Are these detailed cases mentioned literally in the constitution? of course not! But the rulings of the constitutional judges use the constitution as a "flash light" the tells you what to do in that very detailed scenario. So the final result is that the detailed scenario is constitutional, even though it was not literally mentioned in the constituion.

(March 18, 2016 at 11:34 pm)truth_seeker Wrote:

(March 18, 2016 at 1:21 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: This is simply not true.  We evolved to function as a group of individuals, not as solitary individuals, so certain group behaviors form a natural imperative for us.  Morality of the group is one such behavior that while not possessing permanent, objective characteristics, does nonetheless provide for the setting of group norms that are binding on all members of the group, as a consequence of how the group treats rule breakers.  There is morality, even if it is changeable and dependent on group behaviors.  That doesn't make it any less real

That's all fine and nice. But all of this is your own take on the issue. Your entire argument is not binding to anyone. It might be a nice and humane argument, but not binding at all. Its still relative to your own understanding. So again we're back at the "blank canvas of infinite possible moralities" issue.

It's not a proscriptive norm, it's a description of who and what we are, biologically and psychologically. Those are objective facts which are bourne out by animal studies and human studies. So, no, we aren't a blank canvas, as we come prewired for certain behaviors which combine to form morality. It's not just a point of view, and your suggesting that it is just makes no sense.

(March 18, 2016 at 11:34 pm)truth_seeker Wrote:

Quote:That consensus morality tends to converge upon certain "absolutes" is evidence against this "blank canvas of morality" view that you are presenting...

The institutions of family, culture, and government serve to perpetuate a system of morals and stabilize it against the possibility of radical change...

This is not to say that a society couldn't change its morals such that killing your disabled person is moral, but that it does not align with recent societies and is thus de facto immoral

Your last statement completely wipes out the first two. If killing a disabled person can shift from being immoral to moral is not a radical shift, I don't know what is.

And this is exactly my point. How can you even begin to identify a "radical" shift? What is the source against which you're making the judgment whether something is radical or not?

I think a good term for this would be "boiling frog morality", following the idea that if a frog jumps into an already boiling water, they will immediately jump back out. However, if they start inside normal water, and then you gradually boil the water, the frog stays inside until their probable death.

What exactly are you arguing here? That morality must be changeless to be morality? How does that follow from anything? The fact that morality can change is a positive, not a negative. You've still yet to grapple with the fact that this morality is a process, and it is the parameters of that process which set the ground conditions for even having a morality. What's the alternative, that some inscrutable set of morals from one specific society set the bounds of morality for all of time? Why that particular society? You're complaining that changing morals are arbitrary (they're not), and what you have to replace it with is equally arbitrary.

(March 18, 2016 at 11:34 pm)truth_seeker Wrote:

Quote:That depends on the objective morals in question.  Even if there are objective morals, you're simply interpreting the scenario as falling under them.  Remember that the bible didn't proscribe either rape or slavery.  This is an example of people following 'objective' morals that we today would consider unthinkable.  These two issues may well lie outside the bounds of any objective morals and be a mere human invention.  What evidence do you have that killing the disabled person is covered by an objective ethic, as opposed to being merely dragged along on the boundary of other morals that truly are objective?

You are confusing two things: the objective morality itself, and the details that can be obtained from it. For example, if the objective morality says no one is allowed to kill. Period. Then this simple objective morality statement fits a large number of scenarios. Such as a killing a disabled person, killing infants (e.g. after birth abortion), etc.  So even though the sentence "killing a disabled person" did not exist in the objective moral, it is still absolutely covered by that objective moral.

To give a legal analogy, consider the US constitution. The constitution represents the essential elements of the law of the land. However, you still need constitutional judges and courts in order to apply that constitution to specific detailed cases. Are these detailed cases mentioned literally in the constitution? of course not! But the rulings of the constitutional judges use the constitution as a "flash light" the tells you what to do in that very detailed scenario. So the final result is that the detailed scenario is constitutional, even though it was not literally mentioned in the constituion.

Ignoring your misunderstanding of Common Law, what you are describing is still an inference, an inference which might be wrong. There was a time when blacks and women didn't have any rights. That too was an inference from the generalities of the society's morals to the specifics of independent cases. It was, and is, liable to error. So, no, a general code doesn't prevent you from falling into error on the specific cases. Think of abortion in the wake of Roe v. Wade, that was an application of constitutional law, one which many in the U.S. disagree with. You're implying that if it derives from a more general code, then it is necessarily correct, but that's just not so. Even if it were a clear application of principle in the disabled person's case, all things being equal, there will arise cases that aren't infallibly derived from the general principles. (Remember that the case in question is just an example; it changes nothing in my argument if I substitute "kill a fetus" for your disabled person, yet it disrupts your entire line of argument. We're arguing general principles here, not specific cases.)

(March 17, 2016 at 9:16 pm)truth_seeker Wrote:

(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.

The atheistic point of view is that there is no god. What bearing this has on this question escapes me.

For me, i wouldn't really care if some stranger died (and that is my personal view, nothing to do with atheism)

The problem is, who chooses who gets to live? what if my loved ones are chosen to be killed because of a disability? what if i am chosen to be killed because of a disability? What if someone corrupt is put in charge of choosing who to kill?

The negatives outweigh the positives so there is no reason to allow such a law into effect.

My personal opinion.

(March 17, 2016 at 9:08 pm)truth_seeker Wrote: 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?

The person can kill himself if he wants to. The fact that he hasn't indicates that he's OK with his condition.

(March 17, 2016 at 9:28 pm)truth_seeker Wrote:

(March 17, 2016 at 9:26 pm)Little lunch Wrote: From a theist point of view, why not just kill all the babies before they sin so they can all go to heaven?

Because, from a theist point of view, the deity prohibits it and everybody must obey the deity.

The Bible deity was OK with people eating their babies.

@OP

Because it's illegal.  You planning something?

(March 17, 2016 at 10:07 pm)truth_seeker Wrote:

---

(March 17, 2016 at 10:00 pm)c172 Wrote: Holy goddamn shit!! 

I was born with spina bifida (go to this link if you care to educate yourself *refrains from holding breath on the matter* http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/spinabifida/facts.html ). I use crutches to ambulate. 

I have no job whatsoever. I am on a pension. Partially probably my fault (I was never great at job interviews), and partially definitely not my fault (disabled people are discriminated against, at least here in America). I have also gone through much of my life with zero friends. Again, partially me as a person probably looking in the wrong places, but also able-bodies who sometimes want nothing at all to do with a person on crutches or in a wheelchair.

We're human beings, just like gays, blacks, women (some folks subscribe to all categories aforementioned I'm sure. You provide a compelling (but completely disturbing) argument. Jobs are not the only way a person can contribute to society. Look at all the able-bodied people there are that get onto pensions and other such services and don't do anything to wean themselves off even though they actually can. Nobody (including me) is suggesting they be killed. 

TBH, I have not gotten through this thread. I have only read the OP. I may add more when I do get through the thread.


*wow*

---

Quote:I feel you buddy   ...
The scenario I posted completely appalls me, but I just wanted to learn more about the evidence that other world views provide to support their case. Especially the Darwinian-heavy form of atheism.

In modern normal situations humans in all socities will make special efforts to care for people who need it such as you described.  However, when severely stressed some people (not all) will actively kill the old and infirmed in order to provide  scarce resources to children and themselves.  If things continue to deteriorate the able-bodied adults will then start killing the children as a last resort.  But things have to be about 99.9% bad for that to happen.

https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/tag/indian-famine/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hor...ya-7136930

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worl...-to-death/

http://www.memecenter.com/fun/943170/facepalm