(December 30, 2015 at 5:50 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Some feel that there is no line between them, or that if there is it is an outlier scenario. Not that this matters, because your comments won;t be capable of expressing that line in any case, it is a parody, two ludicrous statements set up as boundary conditions. Good luck measuring anything that way.
The meteor is incapable of evil, it is not a moral actor. We can choose to either help Carl, or not...and because we are moral actors, this would be an issue of morality. Ask yourself this, would it be right or wrong to help Carl, if you could prevent him from being hit by the meteor? However you answer -that- is an example of your morality. Morality is not simply dictating how other moral agents should behave,this is an absurd summary of morality. We both have a morality regarding Carls situation regardless of whether either of us ever dictate that morality to another person or not.
I eat a cheeseburger, because I'm hungry.
I push Carl out of the way, because he's in my fantasy football league.
I post on atheistforums.org, because I'm bored.
Where is the necessity for good and evil, or right and wrong? Why would you even think to include good and evil or right and wrong?
Do you believe the inconvenience of losing a player from my fantasy football league would make me not pushing Carl out of the way Evil?
