So subjective, then.
-
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!
Are You Right?
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
So subjective, then.
So if a decision were made to harm one innocent being to save hundreds, that is wrong?
Regardless of your answer, this still sounds a bit subjective to me.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I'm just hoping my God acknowledges that "it's the thought that counts."
That didn't work with my boss when I told him that I thought about wearing pants to work today.
leov
Well-Known Member
People imply subjective.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Let's be clear on our expectations of me: I have ambition to lay out a logical framework similar to Kant's moral imperative within a couple of posts on RF. You asked is it possible to be objectively right, i say yes. You ask how. I say through logic consistancy. You then say that logic itself could be wrong. Well then we have no system to evaluate each others words here much less whether one is right or wrong. So, we have assumed logic is correct based on our participation in this discussion. Now which system of logic is correct is another hurdle. But that doesn't matter as i am not laying out any actual framework. Thus my hypothetical would consist of whatever logic is correct.
Uncommon Sense
Member
I don’t have much to offer other than that I think it would be the most hilarious thing if most of us who are adamant about being right, think they have religious truths and facts, or scientific truths and facts are one day completely stupefied and wrong for all of the lies and demeaning they have done to each other regarding this all.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Dat de point.
But if it is "their own," is it not, by definition, subjective?
I know the Messengers of God were right. They are all Truth. Thus I can say I am right about all Gods Messengers and put my life on it.
As for the rest of it, understanding the entire big picture, sometimes we may be right with some aspects, if we agree with them and have actually understood what they have said, but therin lays the dilemma.
Regards Tony
What about the Golden Rule? That is a beneficial gauge.
I know the Messengers of God were right. They are all Truth. Thus I can say I am right about all Gods Messengers and put my life on it.
As for the rest of it, understanding the entire big picture, sometimes we may be right with some aspects, if we agree with them and have actually understood what they have said, but therin lays the dilemma.
Regards Tony
But you didn't answer the question.
Outnumbered 50 or more to 1. Could 50 people possibly be wrong? Sometimes it would be far easier just to say, "You're right and I'm wrong." that to even attempt some sort of reasoned discussion. Simpler.
"If you desire to be pure, have firm faith, and slowly go on with your devotional practices without wasting your energy in useless scriptural discussions and arguments. Your little brain will otherwise be muddled."
-- Sri Ramakrishna (1836-1886), famed Hindu mystic
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Whose decision would it be to harm one innocent being in order to save hundreds of being is it? Is it the choice of that one innocent being to be willing to sacrifice their life of their own volition? Or is someone else deciding that they should sacrifice that one innocent being to save hundreds?
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Yeah your own. Pat of the principle is "You can lead a horse to water (an objective principle) but you can't make them drink it ( you can't make them apply it)
Well i am pretty sure breathing is correct. Also it maybe important and not breathing is not good.i am pretty sure.
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
If we apply the principle of doing no harm then robbing a person of their volition against their will is wrong but if they choose to sacrifice themselves for the sake of others then that is where it get complex because even if their own self-sacrifice wasn't wrong because they did it of their own volition, you have to determine whether it was right or good. Good is complex.
So death is wrong? Then clearly, we've made some mistakes.