(August 15, 2010 at 8:49 am)solja247 Wrote: These are always a lot of fun. However, the fact has never changed that you have just killed an innocent man. Situations can CHANGE our morals but we still think it is evil. The evil is not mitigated at all, its choosing the lesser of two evils.
No, it is not evil. Whilst I would always hesitate in killing somebody, doing it for the greater good is not evil. It may be unpleasant, but that's just moral squeamishness. Equally, killing Hitler as a baby would be unpleasant, but ultimately a good act. That's my view, anyway. Clearly you and I see morality differently. Like you, I do think that moral judgements are meaningful, and that morality is more than just society's values, but I am a utilitarian. The end justifies the means. Nothing is wrong in and of itself, only in terms of its consequences.
Quote:I never thought, 'what if that was me.' or something else. I was the guy with the gun liberating the women and children.
Most likely, that sense of compassion was just self-interest operating on a sub-conscious level. Putting ourselves in the position of others, and seeing that we wouldn't like to be in that situation, is surely the basis of morality.
Quote:Yes I have, I am not very fond of killing anything.
Nor am I.
Quote:Suppose you have a choice, you have to kill one baby so that 5000 people can live, or you leave that baby alive so the 5000 people die a terrible death. Which one do you choose?
Either one is horribe. You are still at fault for allowing 5000 people to die and if you kill the baby, you have just killed an innocent baby. When these sought of questions are asked its choosing the lesser of two evils, not about choosing whats good and evil.
Kill the baby. Unpleasant though it is, it's still the right thing to do. Anyone who says otherwise is a coward. Whether I could bring myself to do it, I don't know, but I still think it's the better thing to do.
Quote:Yes and No. C.S Lewis makes a great point in his book 'Mere Christianity' Although we would say that witch burning was evil back in the 16th century. They thought the alleged witches were real witches who were making people sick, affecting crops, killing people and tools of the devil. If such people did exisit would it not be fair that were brought to justice? (death or life improsonment) however, we know today that the people who were killed in the witch inquisition were innocent and it was based on misconceptions and superstitions. If these people were real and were doing what was alleged, we would still be judging these horrible people, would we not?
Many people today are against the death penalty, me included, so we probably wouldn't want to burn witches to death. Besides, what you say is clearly wrong. Even our most basic moral values have changed drastically. Most people today think that animal welfare, for instance, is important to some extent, whereas before they were treated as objects, despite their obvious pain and distress. Similarly, children were sent up chimneys or made to work in dangerous conditions even as recently as a hundred years ago, something which we now regard as abhorrent. This wasn't based on ignorance, but callousness.
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
