Calling all non-Catholic Chirstians to help me out here

reply to post by chr0naut

"There was an old man whose wife was very sick and going to die if she doesn't get some medicine soon. So the old man goes to the Chemist to get the medicine. They have the medicine but it is very expensive and the old man is poor and cannot afford it, so he leaves the store empty handed. Later that night, the old man breaks the window of the Chemist shop and steals the medicine. Is the old man a bad man for doing that?"

Interesting analogy. I'm still not understand how this differs from my own belief in "subjective morality". I think this situation depends on whether you think the monetary is a good system for a given civilisation. I personally don't think the man is "bad" - I believe everyone should have equal rights to medicine (i'm not a communist either)

Again, this is the issue can be further explained by this anology.

Many people cast aspersions on people who break the law. In some societies it may be considered wrong (and illegal) to drink under the age of 21. Whereas in another country it may be lower (18 in my country)

People have different ideas of what is right and wrong based on their own social prejudices, or even personal prejudices.

In some tribes, cannibalism is condoned, and has been documented to even be a "divine ritual".

Again, i believe "rights" and "wrongs" are subjective from culture to culture, country to country, and time to time etc.

I do believe their is such a concept as altruism, and i believe humans, as aware beings - are naturally empathetic, altruistic or "caring".

What do you think?

reply to post by awake_and_aware


What I was trying to show is that the concept of a moral right and wrong is innate.

Even though we know something may be wrong morally, we often still commit acts that give some sort of advantage to us.

It is these acts, against our innate feelings of what is right or wrong, that are "sin". They are also our own personal choices; should we do what we feel is right, or should we take any advantage we can get?

We are, at our core, moral creatures, the exceptions (sociopaths and the like) show this to be the case.

reply to post by chr0naut


I totally understand where you're coming from, and i'm inclined to agree that we are all aware beings, we are capable of understand a persons pain, and thus we SHOULD feel guilty about intentionally harming someone mentally or physically. We SHOULD all be empathetic.

But HOW do we REASON the sociopaths, The Charles Mansons, the Stalins, The Hitlers, The Maos? How do you reason a lack of guilt for atrocious acts against fellow human brothers?

Do we just label those as anomolies?

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Show them love my friend.... Love breaks down all walls

reply to post by Akragon


Who said i wasn't loving? I'm just putting questions out there.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Akragon

 

Who said i wasn't loving? I'm just putting questions out there.

i know, i didn't say you wern't loving.... i was just answering your question...

But HOW do we REASON the sociopaths, The Charles Mansons, the Stalins, The Hitlers, The Maos? How do you reason a lack of guilt for atrocious acts against fellow human brothers?

Do we just label those as anomolies?

As i said show them love, there will be a time when they will be judged, but thats not our place... Show them love and move on.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


We need to acknowledge that they are a danger to ourselves (survival first) even if they have not committed some horrible crime, and deal appropriately to the threat.

By the same token we need to be forgiving (what is done is done, let's hope for something better in the future).

Forgiveness strengthens us as well as allowing justice for those who are "missing something".

I view sociopathy as similar to a physical disability. It is due to random factors and an outcome of the complexity of a universe that incorporates random and pseudorandom events at a fundamental level.

reply to post by chr0naut

[We need to acknowledge that they are a danger to ourselves (survival first) even if they have not committed some horrible crime, and deal appropriately to the threat.

What about Nazi Germany? I admit the regime was a danger to freedom. But you could argue they would trying to achieve a greater good for civilisation on earth. They wern't nessasarily a danger to survival. Again, some may argue that they were trying to improve the survival rates of our species.

Not that i agree with it, but it just goes to show that people have different ideas of "right" and "wrong".

Besides, animals are a danger to other animals. Do you not classify our species as "animal"? just because our brain is "wired" differently?

Some animals even sacrifice a few for the many. To help the future of the species. Would this not be a moral act?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware


What about Nazi Germany? I admit the regime was a danger to freedom. But you could argue they would trying to achieve a greater good for civilisation on earth. They wern't nessasarily a danger to survival. Again, some may argue that they were trying to improve the survival rates of our species.

Please tell me you're having a laugh?
You seriously think the Nazis were trying to "achieve a greater good for civilisation on earth"?
Vicky

reply to post by Vicky32


Having a laugh? I'm just putting questions out there. I didn't say they were my own beliefs. I'm trying to further understand my own position.

if the human species was going to die out due to disease if we didn't prevent certain genes from passing on, would you try to prevent it those genes from being passed on?

It's a similar situation on a smaller scale, where if certain genes arn't removed, a child may be born with birth defects which may lead to death (or pain) IVF can remove the unwanted genes.

A&A

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Nazi Germany had a eugenics campaign that went well beyond giving advantage to a "preferred" genotype, they actively and systematically murdered millions.

If I think that another race, sub-species or species is not as advanced as mine, I would not attempt to eradicate it. It makes no logical sense to do so, not even if resources were limited. I would share that we both could survive.

Killing and claiming that by it you are somehow "bettering" the world shows how inferior the Nazi theorists were because they were so "threatened" by diverse and largely peaceful peoples who in truth were no threat at all.

A truly advanced civilization gives life but would not take it.

Every war monger will claim his is the 'just war', any justification will do to absolve the self of guilt and blame and garner support.

reply to post by chr0naut


That's your opinion. We don't know what makes a great civilisation. Maybe different civilisations in the universe (if they exist) have different ideas of what makes a "great" civilisation.

I'm not saying a disagree with it. Only that opinons are subjective.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Yes, you are right, it is really just my opinion.

I'm probably just a little ismIST about it.

reply to post by chr0naut


That's the great thing about discussion; differing opinions and points.

Peace