(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.
(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.
As CD stated, it's called empathy.
And no, that's NOT from an atheistic point of view. It MAY be considered to be that way from a social Darwinist point of view (the two do not equate as the same thing), but we've have evolved, and are intelligent enough, to overcome our animal nature and instincts (most of the time).
Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:
"You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???"
