Determinism.....

[solarwave]

Tiberius: Well I am more of an absolutist than relativist and for me I would have to save the many not the few. Killing the few may be bad but isn't it the lesser of two evils.

Not necessarily... the few may have been very wise and benevolent leaders, and the many may have been rash and malevolent vagrants.

In general, that would be the lesser of the two evils... but that doesn't mean that it is absolutely less evil...

I suppose the value of the life of both are still the same, though of course it does throw a spanner in the works.

Well you can only really go by what you know, and if you dont know whos in the train you can only go by the lesser of two evils.

The fact that some people have different morals doesn't prove that some of them arn't wrong because of a absolute moral law.

??? What absolute moral law? Surely you instead meant that some morals are 'wrong' because they are unjust?

Yeah because they are unjust, but they are unjust because certain things are wrong and certain things are right (ie: an absolute moral law).[/quote]

[rjh4 is back]

If I had to pull a lever to kill 1 million people who I knew (and we're talking about absolute knowledge here for hypothetical reasons) would cause the deaths of 1 billion otherwise, I would do so. I see the loss of 1 billion people as more tragic than the loss of 1 million.

Given that, what would you think about a Christian killing an abortion doctor if the person's reasoning was along the same line?

[Violet]

I suppose the value of the life of both are still the same, though of course it does throw a spanner in the works.

Well you can only really go by what you know, and if you dont know whos in the train you can only go by the lesser of two evils.

It's always one's own choice to make... given whatever the situation.

Yeah because they are unjust, but they are unjust because certain things are wrong and certain things are right (ie: an absolute moral law).

No, they are unjust because they are unfair. Fairness is when one receives what they deserve... unfairness is when they receive more or less than they deserve. Of course, what one deserves is subjective, just like morals... but they are not essentially related. Eg: Say that murdering people is immoral... but a war medal is what your hero deserves for committing this immoral act.

Given that, what would you think about a Christian killing an abortion doctor if the person's reasoning was along the same line?

Because it is ridiculous to think that you can kill that which has never been born? The person's logic would be faulty in this case... for not only does abortion help 'save?' the life of the would-be mother: it keeps children from being raised in a negative circumstance by people who are not prepared to have them... and finally it is ridiculous to think that you can kill that which has never been born. Prevent birth from occurring ≠ murder unless the mother had intended to have the child (placing worth on the child, much like christians place worth on 'God').

Also: One of those children could have grown to be a tyrant that would kill many more people than the abortion doctor.

[solarwave]

Yeah because they are unjust, but they are unjust because certain things are wrong and certain things are right (ie: an absolute moral law).

No, they are unjust because they are unfair. Fairness is when one receives what they deserve... unfairness is when they receive more or less than they deserve. Of course, what one deserves is subjective, just like morals... but they are not essentially related. Eg: Say that murdering people is immoral... but a war medal is what your hero deserves for committing this immoral act.

But how do you know what someone deserves? For me I say murder is wrong not killing. A war hero only deserves a medal if it was justified killing or because it is set out in law that he must be given a medal. If it is because of law it isn't fairness, its just following a cold hard law. If it is because he was a 'good' hero and the killings were justifed then in comes morality to have to explain it.

But I may have got what you were saying wrong lol

[Violet]

But how do you know what someone deserves? For me I say murder is wrong not killing. A war hero only deserves a medal if it was justified killing or because it is set out in law that he must be given a medal. If it is because of law it isn't fairness, its just following a cold hard law. If it is because he was a 'good' hero and the killings were justifed then in comes morality to have to explain it.

There is no objective 'they deserve ___'... that base must be established by the individual. Well, one would hope that you are giving the war hero a medal for either honorable conduct, bravery, excellent performance, or other such quality

Giving a soldier a medal because he killed people isn't moral by my standards... but it is justifiable by all sorts of things. The soldier could deserve the medal just as a notation of his services, for his 'headcount', for his reckless bravery in a situation, for stealing obtaining information that won the war.... all sorts of things can justify his killing (see murdering?) of the enemy soldiers. But does that make murder 'right'?

I could just as easily justify rape. For my 'impressive show of dominance', my ability to make another bend to my will, because it was an act willed by god, because I've needed 'release' for years, etc. Tell me now... does that make rape 'right'? Was it fair to the victim to commit rape?

Not at all. So you see the difference between having a reason for doing something... and that something being 'right'? Morals ≠ justifications... and both are completely subjective. Justice is built atop justifications... which are simply reasons. Morals are an established sense of 'good' and 'bad' (right and wrong, good and evil). Fairness is getting what one 'deserves'... which is built atop morals and justifications (and possibly also soundness [see logic], I haven't concluded anything on such).

[rjh4 is back]

Because it is ridiculous to think that you can kill that which has never been born?

Are you suggesting that a baby is not alive until it has been born? hock:

If so, I must say that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

Remember Adrian's hypothetical and his answer.

"If I had to pull a lever to kill 1 million people who I knew (and we're talking about absolute knowledge here for hypothetical reasons) would cause the deaths of 1 billion otherwise, I would do so. I see the loss of 1 billion people as more tragic than the loss of 1 million. "

Do you agree with him Saerules?

If so, what would you say about a Christian killing an abortion doctor based on absolute knowlegde that if the doctor is killed, some woman who was going to get an abortion didn't and the baby that would be born would save a million people from being killed by some tyrant? In your view would the Christian be justified? Does that make my previous hypothetical better for you?

[theblindferrengi]

A baby is not a life until it has been severed from its mother, until then it is still a part of its mother, because it depends on its mother to stay alive, just like a hand or a leg. Cutting it out is no different than cutting an arm off.

[Violet]

If so, what would you say about a Christian killing an abortion doctor based on absolute knowlegde that if the doctor is killed, some woman who was going to get an abortion didn't and the baby that would be born would save a million people from being killed by some tyrant? In your view would the Christian be justified? Does that make my previous hypothetical better for you?

Yes, the Christian would be justified if that were the case. And yes, I agree with Adrian completely in that case.

Are you suggesting that a baby is not alive until it has been born?

/concur with what the TBF just said. It may as well be a rock with a heart, so far as I am concerned (Unless I have made up my mind to have the baby... in which case I have placed worth upon it). I believe I've made my stance on this issue quite clear before? That baby is a hypothetical person... until it reaches the state of development that one could declare it having reached personhood. Until then: it holds no higher place in my mind than does a computer. Im not going to discuss this... because some people here take this far too personally (as is evidenced by the last time I discussed this with someone here). My own personal values place this personhood upon the baby's birth... the baby isn't alive to me until it has taken its first breath.

[chatpilot]

Arguing abortion with a Christian is like trying to teach a cat how to bark. Most of them consider a baby a person from the moment of conception basing themselves on this verse of scripture and others like it:

Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

God knows each and every one of us from before we were even formed.

Job 1:21
And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

After losing his 8 children which God gave him and everything he owned Job praised God and was blessed. In other words god decides who lives or dies. According to some of the teachings of the bible we are all predestined to live or be aborted or murdered by crack headed parents etc. But like Saerules I'd rather avoid this subject altogether because it is a literal merry go round that can be argued and disputed infinitely and come to no conclusion.

[solarwave]

Saerules: What is it about the first breath of a baby that is so special? Or is it that they are outside the mother? So then is it our location or the ability to breath that makes us a person? It can't be independance since a baby outside is no more likely to survive without its mother than a baby inside the mother.

To be honest I have no idea what I think on this issue.