paralysis

[Joods]

Yeah. This regurgitation of the same crap is really getting old.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Hello guys

I want your opinion on the following scenario.

Lets assume there was a completely disabled human being who needs major help through all daily activities.
This human being is under the following condition:

• He/she has no job whatsoever
  
• He/she has zero friends and zero family members
  

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.

In terms of naked self interest, it is better for me, and for everyone else, that we live in a society where the most vulnerable are looked after because none of us know that we aren't going to be joining them. This is why people take out insurance policies.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

EVIDENCE as to why severely or totally disabled people should be cared for at the expense of the rest of society:





Boru

[Ivan Denisovich]

Why atheists shouldn't kill such person? Cause killing innocents is more a religious thing as exemplified by primitive, tribal deity of christianity and no atheist should sink to such level.

[Bob Kelso]

Hello guys

I want your opinion on the following scenario.

Lets assume there was a completely disabled human being who needs major help through all daily activities.
This human being is under the following condition:

• He/she has no job whatsoever
  
• He/she has zero friends and zero family members
  

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?

In what way does a completely disabled, jobless, friendless, person without a family equal a waste of resources? Are you somehow under the impression that this takes away from their impact on society? 

Honestly now, think things through before you post "gotcha" tripe.

From an atheistic point of view

You keep saying this, and it's far more revealing than you might believe. 

There is no "atheistic" point of view other than a lack of belief in deities. That's it. 

What you're talking about is social darwinism, and it's abominable.

I fell you buddy <3 ...
The scenario I posted completely appalls me, but I just wanted to learn more about the evidence that other world views provide to support their case. Especially the Darwinian-heavy form of atheism.

I'm not your buddy.

Why do you need evidence? Sometimes I wonder how Christians can live with themselves (at least the far right-wingers), but if they're happy, then fine. I can avoid them or engage them as need be.

[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.

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.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Exactly my point. In an atheistic worldview, there is no objective morality. There is no standard. There is no "should" of anything, as you correctly mentioned.
One's own sense of empathy and consciousness does not entail any "should"s or standards in 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 very very seriously 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 objective morality. There is no "should" of anything, as you mentioned, and its all open for discussion.

This is my entire argument. I do not say that an atheist can not feel empathy. I'm saying that, by their own world view, empathy in situations as appalling as the scenario in OP breaks down into a "debatable", "there is no should", relative issue.

But you cut off the rest of my post:

In terms of naked self interest, it is better for me, and for everyone else, that we live in a society where the most vulnerable are looked after because none of us know that we aren't going to be joining them. This is why people take out insurance policies.

It is for this reason that disabled people are not "very very very seriously threatened".

While for a standard, independent, outside source of morality (i.e. objective morality), no body would even begin to imagine pondering on this, and is completely out of question. And because of that, if I was the disabled person in the OP scenario, I would feel completely safe and can relax and become an effective member of society, which also eventually benefits everybody.

You are making assumptions about what this hypothetical outside source of morality actually is. Not that an objective morality can even exist, it's not possible. But if one could, how do you know that it wouldn't be something similar to the laws in the Old Testament? The paralysed person in your hypothetical situation would be even more at risk.

Historically speaking our societies are more caring and safer than they have ever been in the past. And if we want to continue this trend or to maintain what we have, then we should look after the vulnerable.

[RozKek]

I would be impacted by their death, and I care, deeply, about them, even though they are strangers.

I see. Thanks Jehanne.
This is the only self-consistent statement so far from an atheistic point of view.

Any other possible explanations?

---

By the way, just for the record, the scenario I posted completely appalls me.
But I just wanted to learn more about the evidence that other world views provide to support their case.

Actually several people has said the same thing, that we are empathetic. Maybe you should go find out what empathy means.

---

All am saying is, this fits perfectly in survival of the fittest worldview. Why are you, if you are an atheist, is suddenly appalled by the idea?

Because atheism/science/the evolution theory isn't a religion that we must follow, as I've said I have empathy. And really? 7 billion people, I doubt his existence threatens all of us, survival of the fittest doesn't matter for us anymore.

---

From a theist point of view, why not just kill all the babies before they sin so they can all go to heaven?

Because, from a theist point of view, the deity prohibits it and everybody must obey the deity.

Hold on. You're asking us why we won't sacrifice a completely disabled person in order to make life better for the others in the society "because we're out of resources, right?".

And I'm asking you, why won't you go sacrifice yourself by killing hundreds of newborn babies. They'll go to heaven and you'll go to hell, you're ruining your own life (1 person) but you're making life better for hundreds of others. Right?

[KevinM1]

Atheism isn't a worldview. All it means is a lack of belief in deities. That's it. Until you can actually grasp that, any attempted discussion with you is pointless.

[drfuzzy]

You argument is perverse; it's like saying that society should sacrifice a healthy individual to harvest that person's organs so that half-a-dozen individuals can live.

---

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.

---

Wow. Classic self-absorbed sociopath.