• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A universal morality?

JoeZen

Member
Playing with words is the purpose of this place -- which can be a real handicap for the meditators and HolySpirit communers. They really have no good chance.:)
What is playing with words to do with religiousness ?. If that is the case, then I've come to the wrong forum ...
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
Isn't the medication working yet? ;) Actually, I'm Norwegian. OK, since I have some time to spare and like hopeless cases why don't we try a little scenario:

Two people are alone in the woods completely isolated. One has been in an accident and is horribly injured and in horrible pain and begs to be shot. There are no other alternatives. Shoot or let him suffer. Are you going to tell us that the correct moral decision depends on whether the other guy subjectively feels like shooting him or not? You don't think the correct moral decision would be to shoot no matter what the shooter might subjectively feel like? "Sorry, I can't shoot you no matter how much agony you are in it's not moral for me to shoot you because that is my subjective feeling that it's better to let you slowly die in agony for who knows how long." I can just imagine what his relatives would say when he finally had to tell them that he spent hours dying in agony because morality is subjective and I didn't think it was moral to shoot him. You really think whether it's moral or not to shoot in any way shape or form depends on some subjective feelings of the shooter?

Didn't you forget to tell us what type of trees were in that forest, what they were hunting, what their normal occupations are (maybe one is a Chinese spy!), whether they have grandchildren, whether they have cell phone reception, what sort of gun they are using, and how far the nearest hospital is?
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Didn't you forget to tell us what type of trees were in that forest, what they were hunting, what their normal occupations are (maybe one is a Chinese spy!), whether they have grandchildren, whether they have cell phone reception, what sort of gun they are using, and how far the nearest hospital is?
No I didn't forget. This time I tried to make it as simplistic as possible for you because obviously that's all you can handle. But even now you didn't manage to make any relevant and rational comments on the moral problem and point of the post.

By the way, if you didn't catch my conclusion to your train scenario in its most simplistic form: if you only know there is one person on one track and five on the other and there are no other factors the moral thing to do would be to send the train down the track with one person on it. If you had to let the train continue straight ahead without doing anything to the lever then it would be moral to do so. If you had to flip the lever then it would be moral to do so. Unless you have any other suggestions and think that you should kill five instead of one because you feel like? If you don't, we can only conclude that that is the moral decision no matter who were at the lever.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
What is playing with words to do with religiousness ?. If that is the case, then I've come to the wrong forum ...
This thread is called "A universal morality?". We can discuss for example whether morality comes from gods or from evolution or something else and whether that makes it universal or if the morality depends on what one person thinks is moral.

Imagine two people standing opposite each other and there are no other factors involved. One person wants to shoot and kill the other and the other person doesn't want to be shot. The only thing that decides whether he will shoot or not is whether he thinks it's moral to shoot. Falvlun and AmbiguousGuy appear to think (I'm not 100% sure) that if the shooter feels it's moral to shoot it's moral to shoot. If the shooter feels it's not moral to shoot it's not moral to shoot. So, what do you think? Does the morality depend on whether the shooter thinks it's moral to shoot or is it immoral to shoot whatever the shooter might think given no other factors?
 
Last edited:

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Agree with you: the same freedom you give the other to think, is the same freedom to give one to die : the freedom to be himself :)
Thank you. You understood the point and even gave a rational response and an assessment why it would be moral. Very refreshing. You managed to put more meaning into 26 words than others can get into who knows how many posts.
 
Last edited:

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
What is playing with words to do with religiousness ?

It's a forum for discussing, comparing and debating religion. I'd have no idea how to do all of that without words.

If that is the case, then I've come to the wrong forum ...

I don't think any online forum exists where you can do a mind meld, without words. That technology isn't available yet.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
No I didn't forget. This time I tried to make it as simplistic as possible for you because obviously that's all you can handle.

I think that experienced and effective debaters, at a minimum, feel no urge to insult those with whom they debate.
 

JoeZen

Member
It's a forum for discussing, comparing and debating religion. I'd have no idea how to do all of that without words.



I don't think any online forum exists where you can do a mind meld, without words. That technology isn't available yet.
I don't think you get what i meant : religious forums are discussed and debate on the point of truth. Playing on words hinders the truth as one can say one thing but meaning something else : this is what playing on words means to me ..politicians do it all the time - the most dishonest people you would find lols ..
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
I don't think you get what i meant : religious forums are discussed and debate on the point of truth. Playing on words hinders the truth as one can say one thing but meaning something else : this is what playing on words means to me ..politicians do it all the time - the most dishonest people you would find lols ..

OK. If you see anyone here who is 'playing with words', according to your definition of that term, I think you should object. Tell them how and why they are playing with words. Provide examples and take them to task over it.

That's what I would do anyway.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
I think that experienced and effective debaters, at a minimum, feel no urge to insult those with whom they debate.
Right. From your posts:

"That's a fundamentalist, yes?"

"But for five extra minutes of physical pain here on earth, Artie would be willing to condemn him to eternal agony. What sort of monster would make a decision like that." I wouldn't and you are misrepresenting me in the most insulting way.

"has the magic power" no I don't think I have magic powers.

"which one of us thinks that he is a god?" Not me.

This post of yours didn't contain any interesting questions or statements or any rational arguments either and all my efforts to engage you in rational conversation have failed so I will put you on my ignore list. I'm not sure how that works yet so I'm just saying in case you wonder why I don't answer any of your posts. Bye.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Right. From your posts:

"That's a fundamentalist, yes?"

You consider it an insult to be likened to a fundamentalist? But some of my best friends are fundamentalists!

This post of yours didn't contain any interesting questions or statements or any rational arguments either and all my efforts to engage you in rational conversation have failed so I will put you on my ignore list. I'm not sure how that works yet so I'm just saying in case you wonder why I don't answer any of your posts. Bye.

I'm going to miss you. Come back when you feel ready.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
No I didn't forget. This time I tried to make it as simplistic as possible for you because obviously that's all you can handle. But even now you didn't manage to make any relevant and rational comments on the moral problem and point of the post.
I think you are projecting. This is actually exceedingly befuddling. I haven't once asked you to make anything simplistic. I have actually felt that every scenario so far provided has been pretty standard, basic, run-of-the-mill ethics problems, like you'd get in any college course. YOU are the one who has claimed that they weren't simplistic enough. (And when simplicity was offered, you then claimed that it was so simplistic that it had no relation to reality and you would not deign to comment.)

I made precisely the comments I wanted: That is, I was parodying your replies to each of our moral dilemmas in order to make a point, specifically, the ridiculousness of your argumentation.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
This thread is called "A universal morality?". We can discuss for example whether morality comes from gods or from evolution or something else and whether that makes it universal or if the morality depends on what one person thinks is moral.

Imagine two people standing opposite each other and there are no other factors involved. One person wants to shoot and kill the other and the other person doesn't want to be shot. The only thing that decides whether he will shoot or not is whether he thinks it's moral to shoot. Falvlun and AmbiguousGuy appear to think (I'm not 100% sure) that if the shooter feels it's moral to shoot it's moral to shoot. If the shooter feels it's not moral to shoot it's not moral to shoot. So, what do you think? Does the morality depend on whether the shooter thinks it's moral to shoot or is it immoral to shoot whatever the shooter might think given no other factors?
Logic, reason, common sense, experience, cultural traditions, etc, all can be utilized in determining which moral action to take. Often times, reason, logic, et al can support more than one moral action. Therefore, it is the case that more than one permissible moral action is often available to any given ethical dilemma.

I think one of the problems is that you are conflating "best possible outcome" with "morality". An ethical action need not be one that creates the best possible outcome. An ethical action only need not conflict with the standard moral code within that particular culture.

Here's an example:
In the train dilemma, most people, as you did, believe that switching the train to the track with only one person is the best ethical option because the outcome produces more people being saved.

But what if the one person who you killed by your action would have grown up to cure cancer. Millions of people, then, would have been saved if you had not switched the track.

Switching the track was not, therefore, the action with the best possible outcome.

It was, however, still a morally permissible action, that was reasonable to perform. After all, you did not know that this person would have cured cancer.

Conversely, not switching the track would have also been morally permissible, since causing harm through inaction generally isn't seen as ethically suspect as causing harm through action, and your inaction in this case has the added benefit of saving millions of people from cancer.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
I have actually felt that every scenario so far provided has been pretty standard, basic, run-of-the-mill ethics problems, like you'd get in any college course. YOU are the one who has claimed that they weren't simplistic enough. (And when simplicity was offered, you then claimed that it was so simplistic that it had no relation to reality and you would not deign to comment.)
Rubbish. What is the standard of education these days? Aren't college students supposed to understand that the moral thing to do in the train scenario would be to first consider if it was possible to save everbody and then consider if more people could be hurt? Without realistic details your standard problems are so simplistic as to be childs play.
I made precisely the comments I wanted: That is, I was parodying your replies to each of our moral dilemmas in order to make a point, specifically, the ridiculousness of your argumentation.
I see. So by removing the factors that makes the moral dilemma complicated and makes it hard to figure out you reduce it down to the level of the intelligence of college students nowadays. OK.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Here's an example:
In the train dilemma, most people, as you did, believe that switching the train to the track with only one person is the best ethical option because the outcome produces more people being saved.

But what if the one person who you killed by your action would have grown up to cure cancer. Millions of people, then, would have been saved if you had not switched the track.

Switching the track was not, therefore, the action with the best possible outcome.
So what? That doesn't matter. It was the only morally permissible action based on the available information. The rest is just speculation and irrelevant simply because one can't see into the future. Hindsight is irrelevant.
Conversely, not switching the track would have also been morally permissible, since causing harm through inaction generally isn't seen as ethically suspect as causing harm through action, and your inaction in this case has the added benefit of saving millions of people from cancer.
Completely irrelevant of course. You can't judge the morality of an action based on hindsight. If it was moral when it was initiated based on the available information it is and forever will be the moral action to take in that circumstance. And to pretend there's a difference between not throwing the lever or throwing the lever is also rubbish of course, just a way for immoral people to avoid responsibility. You decide which track to send the train on, if that means throwing or not throwing a lever is completely irrelevant. A human may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, to paraphrase Isaac Asimov.
 
Last edited:

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
So what? That doesn't matter. It was the only morally permissible action based on the available information.

The five people in the path of the train are convicted murderers, but they're all family men with wives and children who love them. You're unsure if they actually did any murdering. They all claim to be innocent victims of a government conspiracy, but they were convicted by juries. Of course they claim that the government handpicked those jurors and tampered with them, threatening IRS audits and worse if they did not convict.

Anyway, now these five have been placed on the tracks legally, by the government, for execution. You happen to be the local switchman, which is why you're at the execution site.

The one guy on the other track has an IQ of 50, a terminal disease which will kill him within weeks, and a serious desire to die.

So can you tell us the Correct Moral Choice for this situation? Do you throw the switch and save the five lives and let the one life be snuffed out? Or do you stand by and let the five die?

And would you mind showing some details as to how you arrived at your decision?
 
Last edited:

jtartar

Well-Known Member
Is there such a thing as a universal morality? If you think so, how does one determine what it is? Can such a thing, if it even exists, be determined objectively?

dyanaprajna,
The Universal Morality, is, for every human being, the reflection of God's character. Rom 3:23, tells us that all fall short of the Glory of God. The Bible also teaches us that we all sin many times, even if we wish we could stop, 1John 1:7-10.
Jesus is the only man who ever lived that did not sin, Heb 4:15. The Bible says that Jesus is the exact representation of God. Of course, when you are speaking about The Almighty God, Jehovah, you are talking in absolutes, no one else is absolute in anything. Even Jesus, when a man called him GOOD TEACHER, like a title, Jesus stopped him, and said; why do you call me good, only ONE is GOOD, GOD, Luke 18:18,19.
The Bible gives us evidence as to what we must do. Consider Rom 8:1-11. Here, notice that the thing that pleases God is for us to be MINDING the things of the SPIRIT, and not be MINDING the things of the FLESH. This means that we should try to put away the bad things of the flseh and try to think about and do the things of the spirit.
The Bible tells us what the things of the spirit are, and also the things of the flesh, Gal 5:19-21, and the things of the SPIRIT are Gal 5:22,23.
Now, the truth is: No person on earth can obey the laws of God perfectly. This is the reason that God sent His son to earth, to give his life as a Ransom Sacrifice for us. He gave his life for us so that all who Believe in him and obey him, do not have their sin charged to them, but the ransom of Jesus covers that person from sin, Matt 20:28, 1Tim 2:4-6, Heb 2:9, 9:26, 10:16,17, 2Cor 5:14,15, Eph 1:7.
There is just ONE NAME under heaven by which me MUST get saved, Acts 4:12, John 20:30,31.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
dyanaprajna,
The Universal Morality, is, for every human being, the reflection of God's character. Rom 3:23, tells us that all fall short of the Glory of God. The Bible also teaches us that we all sin many times, even if we wish we could stop, 1John 1:7-10
Ten to one this whole post was written by an artificial intelligence program specifically made to produce a coherent reply to a religious question using the Bible as its only source. Sorry CIA or Stanford or whoever you are, to fool us a post must contain something that sounds like the independent thoughts of a human being arrived at through reasoning.
 
Top