(September 3, 2013 at 2:44 pm)genkaus Wrote: I didn't realize I had to explicitly state each and every thing - the woman made the right/moral/good choices. The man did not make the right/moral/good choices. Since he did not make the opposite choices, his choices were not wrong/immoral/bad - so he is guilty of sin of omission, though not commission. The consequence of that was having a poor quality of life. And yes, the statement "the woman's life was better" is an objective judgment.
I don't see how any of either of their choices has anything to do with morality?
Morality has to do with how we deal with other conscious beings with respect to their well being, and giving them a chance to flourish.
A single person can not act immorally or morally, since there are no other conscious beings to interact with.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
