RE: paralysis
March 18, 2016 at 6:01 am
(This post was last modified: March 18, 2016 at 7:19 am by truth_seeker.)
.
guys I really hope we can keep this discussion productive without insults and ridicule of persons, so that we can have a fruitful examination of ideas and principles.
I hope I didn't insult any specific individual. I truly do not mean that.
And just to be clear, if you self-identify as an atheist, I'm not making the arguments in this post as an insult to your person.
I'm only initiating a detailed examination of the implications of this world view.
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.
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.
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.
guys I really hope we can keep this discussion productive without insults and ridicule of persons, so that we can have a fruitful examination of ideas and principles.
I hope I didn't insult any specific individual. I truly do not mean that.
And just to be clear, if you self-identify as an atheist, I'm not making the arguments in this post as an insult to your person.
I'm only initiating a detailed examination of the implications of this world view.
(March 18, 2016 at 3:20 am)Mathilda Wrote:(March 17, 2016 at 9:08 pm)truth_seeker Wrote: 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?
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.
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.
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.
