Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[Truly Enlightened]

Let me help you. It's neither a moral act nor an immoral act in itself.And even a child understands that sometimes you have to cause harm to another human being to avoid more harm to come to more people. Like in self defense.Just answer this question: Is killing a suicide bomber before he has time to set off a bomb in a crowd an immoral act?Never said it was. I said to cause the least amount of harm to the society and all the people in it.Correct, if you leave out the society and the other people in it and only focus on one person.I do.Never said it was. I said the moral act is the one that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the society and the people in it.The act of killing in itself is neither a moral nor an immoral act.It's neither in itself.Correct.No.

I get it All acts of killing is neither moral or immoral. Even a child would understand that causing harm to another to protect another or yourself, is a justifiable or excusable act, not a moral act. To answer your question YES, it is an immoral act. But it is a justifiable immoral act. The act of killing can never be moral. But it can be excusable and justifiable. You can't simple exploit the definition of a moral act, to suit your own self-serving set of circumstances. The KKK, Nazi's, Cultists, Despots, Dictators, all did just that.

Let me ask you another question you can also avoid answering. If you are on a raft in the middle of the ocean with 9 other people. If there was only food and water for just 7 people. Is it morally right to throw the other three overboard to protect the lives of the other 7? Or, would it be a justifiable immoral act? Or, should no one be thrown overboard? And, why?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

So you simply ignore the subjective intention or reason for the act and the circumstances surrounding the act. You simply declare killing to be an intrinsically evil act and just ignore all the other factors you listed in your second sentence.

Did you actually read my post? Where do I ignore subjective intent? I stated that "Our subjective intention must also be objectively good. If we are motivated by our hatred for all Middle Easterners with an accent, then our actions are morally evil, regardless of the circumstances". Please read carefully, before misrepresenting my meaning. I also stated that an act is moral, only if all three aspects of the action are good(moral), not just the subjective intent. I do not simply declare that killing is an intrinsically evil act. It is a logically thought-out conclusion based on the obvious consequences of the act itself. The real relationship between both sentences, should've been obvious and easily deduced. Since killing, rape, genocide, and torturing are all intrinsically evil acts against the human condition and our survival, they are also intrinsically evil in themselves. Therefore, they can never become moral. Since these acts can never become moral, the three conditions determining if an act is moral, can never be achieved. Therefore these acts will always be immoral acts. Whether they are justified or not. This was the message you should have interpreted. Obviously you didn't.

I agree that there are no moral absolutes(right or wrong). But there must be an absolute moral principle to start with that is objective(like the Principles of Logic). This principle must define and distinguish between what is moral, and what is not moral. To be objective, it must exist without the need for human opinion or debate, but must be an intrinsic part of every human understanding. It must be a principle that is not arbitrary(made up), but is derived from our own objective intrinsic genetic qualities. It must be a principle that is conducive to the survival and best interests of our species, and not subject to majority rule or the ends will justify the means, which seems to only benefit the majority of society and not all of society. This simple objective principle is THOU SHALT DO NO HARM!

 

[ArtieE]

I get it All acts of killing is neither moral or immoral. Even a child would understand that causing harm to another to protect another or yourself, is a justifiable or excusable act, not a moral act. To answer your question YES, it is an immoral act. But it is a justifiable immoral act. The act of killing can never be moral.But it can be excusable and justifiable. You can't simple exploit the definition of a moral act, to suit your own self-serving set of circumstances. The KKK, Nazi's, Cultists, Despots, Dictators, all did just that.

Let me ask you another question you can also avoid answering. If you are on a raft in the middle of the ocean with 9 other people. If there was only food and water for just 7 people. Is it morally right to throw the other three overboard to protect the lives of the other 7? Or, would it be a justifiable immoral act? Or, should no one be thrown overboard? And, why?

Why can't the act of killing ever be moral? Where do you get that from?

The moral thing to do in the boat would be to do what increases the survival chances for as many as possible. I would assume that some would give up their lives so the others could live. No throwing anybody overboard without their consent.

 

[ArtieE]

Did you actually read my post? Where do I ignore subjective intent? I stated that "Our subjective intention must also be objectively good. If we are motivated by our hatred for all Middle Easterners with an accent, then our actions are morally evil, regardless of the circumstances". Please read carefully, before misrepresenting my meaning. I also stated that an act is moral, only if all three aspects of the action are good(moral), not just the subjective intent. I do not simply declare that killing is an intrinsically evil act. It is a logically thought-out conclusion based on the obvious consequences of the act itself. The real relationship between both sentences, should've been obvious and easily deduced. Since killing, rape, genocide, and torturing are all intrinsically evil acts against the human condition and our survival, they are also intrinsically evil in themselves. Therefore, they can never become moral. Since these acts can never become moral, the three conditions determining if an act is moral, can never be achieved. Therefore these acts will always be immoral acts. Whether they are justified or not. This was the message you should have interpreted. Obviously you didn't.

I agree that there are no moral absolutes(right or wrong). But there must be an absolute moral principle to start with that is objective(like the Principles of Logic). This principle must define and distinguish between what is moral, and what is not moral. To be objective, it must exist without the need for human opinion or debate, but must be an intrinsic part of every human understanding. It must be a principle that is not arbitrary(made up), but is derived from our own objective intrinsic genetic qualities. It must be a principle that is conducive to the survival and best interests of our species, and not subject to majority rule or the ends will justify the means, which seems to only benefit the majority of society and not all of society. This simple objective principle is THOU SHALT DO NO HARM!

The killing of a suicide bomber is FOR the survival of all his potential victims, FOR our survival because we wouldn't survive if we let suicide bombers kill us all. Hence the act must be moral.

 

[ArtieE]

This simple objective principle is THOU SHALT DO NO HARM!

You mean THOU SHALT DO NO HARM EXCEPT WHEN NOT DOING HARM RESULTS IN MORE HARM BEING DONE THAN THE ONE YOU DO!

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Why can't the act of killing ever be moral? Where do you get that from?

The moral thing to do in the boat would be to do what increases the survival chances for as many as possible. I would assume that some would give up their lives so the others could live. No throwing anybody overboard without their consent.

I think I understand the problem we have. I think we have two different moral points of view. You judge a moral action as being either morally right or morally wrong. I judge some moral action as being either morally good or morally bad. According to a teleologist(you), the right-making qualities of the action depend only on its consequences(consequentialism). A deontologists(me) believes that the action can be right/good or wrong/evil in itself, and independent of the consequences. One position is self-serving, self-justifiable, and can lend itself to some very obvious social abuse(state approve murder, segregation laws, religious intolerance, euthanasia, hate crimes, etc.). The other position believes that that some actions are intrinsically wrong/evil in themselves. This position is not effected by the ends will justify the means, and does not depend on the current social norms and values of the day.

I strongly suspect that three people are not just going to throw themselves overboard voluntarily, no matter how much they know it will benefit the rest. I also suspect that straws will be drawn, or the rest will wait until one member becomes too weak to formally consent or protest. Therefore, killing them to benefit the majority will certainly be non-consensual. The survival instinct is a very powerful instinct. From the victim's perspective throwing them overboard is certainly not a moral action. But who cares, right? As long as it "increases the survival chances for as many as possible", it is still a moral act. Right?

 

[Polymath257]

So, does an immoral act become moral because it is justified?

For example, if a sniper has a clean shot of a terrorist about to blow up a classroom of children, is the taking of the life of the terrorist a moral act? Is it justified? Is it what the sniper *should* do?

 

[Audie]

If the majority thought raping little girls for fun was moral would it be moral? Since what is moral is subjective?

Butting in here, if you do not mind?

A Jesuit priest expressed it to me that God did not make us as machines, but, images of Himself, endowed with intelligence and judgement.

He, God, commanded, "thou shalt not steal"

Did he mean "This is an absolute, there can be no exceptions."?

Or is it more subtle than that?

He didnt mention rape of course, which for my take
is a far more heinous act than any theft.

Maybe He didnt feel he had to?

Apparently, when the Russians invaded German,
it was the norm to rape all the women. Majority
either took part, or tacitly condoned it, so there is your
hypothetical in action.

Would God, or any reflective person say it was morally right, what they did? Rhetorical question.

What gets tricky is conflicting moral imperatives.

We all know theft is wrong. But we applaud the British pilot, escaped POW, who stole a Nazi warplane and
flew it back to England. (!) Give him a medal.

The "theft is wrong" takes a deep back seat, and I
doubt anyone feels he should have paid for it later.

If you had to steal medicine to save your mother's life?
Do it.
But morality requires that when you can, you go back,
say what you did, and take full responsibility, whatever
it may take.

Absurd hypothetical here, but lets say you must rape
an innocent girl to get Hitler to end the war. (yeah, I know its ridiculous)

An innocent gets hurt, or, millions die.

Every bombing raid of course kills many innocents...

What do you do? Why?

Is there a book, a manual from God that says just what to do? If so, what does it say to do?

 

[Audie]

So, does an immoral act become moral because it is justified?

For example, if a sniper has a clean shot of a terrorist about to blow up a classroom of children, is the taking of the life of the terrorist a moral act? Is it justified? Is it what the sniper *should* do?

100 percent moral and correct,what he not only should, but must do.

 

[Polymath257]

100 percent moral and correct,what he not only should, but must do.

And I would agree. But there is an argument being made that *any* taking of a life is immoral. I am wondering what that argument says in this situation.

 

[Audie]

As Coel Hellier puts it:

"Thus, a subjective morality is strongly preferable to an objective one! That’s because, by definition, it is about what we humans want. Would we prefer to be told by some third party what we should do, even if it is directly contrary to our own deeply held sense of morality?

Given that an objective morality would be highly undesirable, why do so many philosophers and others continue to try hard to rescue an objective morality?"
Six reasons why objective morality is nonsense

Good q.

I think in part it is because philosophy is in
large measure a completely frivolous passtime.
Who on campus is more tiresome than the
philosophy majors?

Objective morality" is one they can argue
around a late night table with a drip candle
stuck in a wine bottle, forever.

Needless to go into why Christians so often
find themselves in pretzels trying to prove
objective morality.

 

[Audie]

And I would agree. But there is an argument being made that *any* taking of a life is immoral. I am wondering what that argument says in this situation.

The mindless robots are the ones making the absolutist argument.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are three things that determine whether an action is moral or immoral. The objective act itself, the subjective intention or reason for the act, and the circumstances surrounding the act. All three aspects must be objectively good, in order for the act to be morally good. If the act itself is an intrinsically evil act(murder, killing, rape, torture, pedophilia), it can never be a moral act. These actions go against our basic human good, and should never be compromised. Our subjective intention must also be objectively good. If we are are motivated by our hatred for all Middle Easterners with an accent, then our actions are morally evil, regardless of the circumstances. Good intentions can never make bad actions good or moral. The circumstances only contribute to increasing or decreasing the morality(right or wrong) of the act.

While I agree for the most part, I don't agree that the acts you listed can never be moral. The circumstances make a huge difference in determining the morality of an action.

The ends cannot always justify the means. I have already stated that any unjustifiable immoral act can never be moral. That is an obvious given. Where we disagree is that a justifiable immoral act can't be a moral act. Even if your family had a gun pointed at their heads, and you are told to kill someone to save them, you would still be criminally responsible for your actions. No life is worth more or less than another life, even if that life is innocent or guilty. I believe, from memory, any crimes committed under duress(Patty Hearst) except for murder, you would not be criminally responsible. Since killing is the ultimate harm you can do to another person, I can't see how this fits into the definition of a moral act, to do the least amount of harm.

While I agree that killing is the ultimate harm you can do to another person, given that it completely erases them from existence, I do think that it can be a moral action in specific instances, as in my example in my last post, where someone I love who is suffering in agony from a terminal illness is begging me to help them die. In that case, even though ultimately I/we are bringing ultimate harm to the person, that harm outweighs the harm of them having to live on in horrible agony and eventually dying a terrible, painful death. Does that fit your criteria?

This example is totally out there, but I think it makes the point (and I just finished watching the Walking Dead ). Let's say a bunch of zombies just grabbed someone you care about (or someone you don't care about, for that matter) and they are eating that person right in front of you. That person is in agony, as the zombies tear off chunks of his flesh. This person is dead no matter what. If you run away and leave him, he will continue to be eaten until he finally dies and turns into a zombie himself, roaming around for the rest of his days attacking and eating many other people. Or you could stay, and shoot him in the head and put him out of his misery. In fact, he's yelling at you to do just that. Is shooting him in the head a moral action to you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think I understand the problem we have. I think we have two different moral points of view. You judge a moral action as being either morally right or morally wrong. I judge some moral action as being either morally good or morally bad. According to a teleologist(you), the right-making qualities of the action depend only on its consequences(consequentialism). A deontologists(me) believes that the action can be right/good or wrong/evil in itself, and independent of the consequences. One position is self-serving, self-justifiable, and can lend itself to some very obvious social abuse(state approve murder, segregation laws, religious intolerance, euthanasia, hate crimes, etc.). The other position believes that that some actions are intrinsically wrong/evil in themselves. This position is not effected by the ends will justify the means, and does not depend on the current social norms and values of the day.

I strongly suspect that three people are not just going to throw themselves overboard voluntarily, no matter how much they know it will benefit the rest. I also suspect that straws will be drawn, or the rest will wait until one member becomes too weak to formally consent or protest. Therefore, killing them to benefit the majority will certainly be non-consensual. The survival instinct is a very powerful instinct. From the victim's perspective throwing them overboard is certainly not a moral action. But who cares, right? As long as it "increases the survival chances for as many as possible", it is still a moral act. Right?

Okay, this is the part where I think I'm not following you. I'm not sure how you can say that actions are right/good or wrong/evil in themselves, independent of the potential consequences. I think the consequences of an action play a HUGE part in determining the morality of that action. And I don't see how it wouldn't. I mean, aren't the consequences of an action one of the main reasons we carry out an action in the first place?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Go into a bar and call someone a "N" person, and see if you are threatened for "TALKING".

So if I use the n-word in a bar, they're striking me without my responding is justified in your eyes?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am not worried about it. I think it would be absolutely terrif if there was a god and he gave us absolute morality. If wishes was fishes, we'd all eat pie, of somesuch thing.

You wish/ hope there is a god, and that makes it real to you. Does not make it real.

Now, the purpose of the hypothetical is to show you that even rape, (is that like a fav. topic with you?) is not an absolute evil.

You would rape and steal if you thought it was a good idea, right?

There is a very very fuzzy definition to rape, actually, which makes it a poor choice for absolutes.

In the event, you have said that you would commit rape, if the circumstances dictated.

Moral relativism. No absolute there.

Earlier you indicated you would steal if there were a higher purpose.

Moral relativism.

I think we have determined that there is no moral absolute for you.


As for "you or I"

You maybe-

I am mot equipped to do something to apologize for.

How is it relativistic to say, "Theft for greed is absolutely wrong, theft for starvation is absolutely permissible?"

But of interest, I don't think I could perform the rape, I think the 1,000 people would have to die. I just don't have it in me. Christ is in me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The question is what do you mean by "the love of Christ"? If you were preaching the message from the Bible that is not love. Though it is modified by some Christians. Of course there is no excuse for actual assault and battery, but you still might thing about he message that you were spreading.

I mean I was gentle, self-effacing, ministering, not speaking of Hell, offering freedom and release, etc. Those have included times where I was attacked because it's a spiritual and not a carnal battle in this world.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In other words, you'd say to the person, "In most every other situation I can think of, rape is an immoral act. But in this particular situation, it is the moral thing to do. I'm sorry."

Nobody is trying to say rape is cool. Come on, don't do that, you're better than that.
We're trying to help you understand morality/ situational ethics.

I couldn't do it, though, because of God in me, and the 1,000 would die. My failure to "perform" is based on this moral absolute.

Or put another way, it takes a hard skeptic indeed to spend time conjecturing on when rape is a good thing to avoid even the appearance of eternal moral absolutes.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, you make enemies if you stand on a street corner and preach that you and your likes are the only ones who are telling the "truth".That just depends on how condescending you are. I have the truth and you don't is pretty condescending to begin with.

So I preach the gospel and deserve to be attacked?

If you say the n-word in a bar, and are beaten but do not resist the beating, the assault and battery is justified?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't advocate assault and battery. But I have also seen too many preachers that are 'preaching the love of Christ' while actually condemning everyone who walks by, who denounce the ways people dress, who claim those who disagree are 'tools of the devil', and who are generally jerks.

Now, I am NOT claiming you were a jerk. I wasn't there. But you might ask yourself how you came across to others and if it was reasonable for them to think you were being one.

I have seen cases where a jerk preacher was thrown into the local pond. Again, not something I think was a good thing. But he was hardly blameless in what happened.

I know the kind! The jerks take a lot of heat from passionate Christians, who revile them publicly to defend a more loving preaching manner, and then the jerks get a conspiratorial mindset that they're truly right and most Christians are wrong.

I'm not a perfect preacher but I try to exhibit love and care--sometimes people assume I'm the jerk kind.