Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[Truly Enlightened]

And in that instance, it would be the most moral act to carry out.

I just don't get it. How can anyone think that the act of killing is a moral act. Even by it definition, it is an immoral act. We even have laws protecting people from this act. No moral act has to be justified or excused. You don't just change the definition of an immoral act, just because of the circumstances. The nature of the act itself hasn't changed, only the circumstances has. Do you think that killing someone should be justified or excusable? Or, is the act of killing a moral act under any circumstances? How do you compare charity as a moral act, with killing as also a moral act? Charity, altruism, humanitarian gestures, healing, sharing, and sacrifice for another, are moral acts that are always moral under any circumstances, and is never an illegal act. So, we should change the definition of a moral act to "any deed that causes the greatest amount of harm to anyone in society is moral, only when the deed is justified. This means any justifiable act of violence becomes a moral act. My definition of morality is much more consistent, and never need to be justified.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Is taking two lives worse than taking one?

Is saving two lives better than saving one?

In a choice between taking one life and having 10 others die, which choice is less harmful?

This is not about choice. This is not about the reason for the act. This is about the act itself, and calling an immoral act a moral act. We all agree that taking another human life without justification would be an immoral act? We all agree that the act of killing causes the greatest amount of harm to another? And we all agree that part of the definition of a moral act is that it causes the least amount of harm to another. The definition doesn't say that the act of killing, is not the act of killing, if it can be proven justifiable or excusable. This makes very little sense to me. It can't be a moral act in some cases, and immoral in another. Taking someone's life is still the same, whether it is justified or not. The only difference is its criminal culpability. There is no criminal culpability in any true moral act.

Anyway, this is my belief and my understanding.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And in that instance, it would be the most moral act to carry out.

And you or I would profusely apologize to the victim of our act, rather then trumpet to them, "I'm being so MORAL as I kill you/rape you/steal from you."

 

[SkepticThinker]

I just don't get it. How can anyone think that the act of killing is a moral act. Even by it definition, it is an immoral act. We even have laws protecting people from this act. No moral act has to be justified or excused. You don't just change the definition of an immoral act, just because of the circumstances. The nature of the act itself hasn't changed, only the circumstances has. Do you think that killing someone should be justified or excusable? Or, is the act of killing a moral act under any circumstances? How do you compare charity as a moral act, with killing as also a moral act? Charity, altruism, humanitarian gestures, healing, sharing, and sacrifice for another, are moral acts that are always moral under any circumstances, and is never an illegal act. So, we should change the definition of a moral act to "any deed that causes the greatest amount of harm to anyone in society is moral, only when the deed is justified. This means any justifiable act of violence becomes a moral act. My definition of morality is much more consistent, and never need to be justified.

The circumstances are a huge part of the equation. It depends on what is most moral given a particular situation. In the situation under discussion, killing the person would be the most moral thing to do. In a completely different situation, the most moral thing to do may be to not kill the person.

I have been saying that an act is immoral/moral based on the situation. Killing in one instance (e.g. killing an enemy in a war zone) is considered a moral action, while in another instance (e.g. shooting a stranger in the head because it feels good) it is an immoral action. It’s actually fairly simple. I find your definition to be confusing and convoluted, even though I do agree with some parts of it.


I didn’t compare killing to charity. But if you want to go there … is charity a moral act if someone is donating time and money to the Ku Klux Klan or ISIS, for example?




Just for a reminder, this was the type of situation under discussion:

“What about your conscience if you let somebody harm or kill your family when you could have prevented it by hurting or killing the assailant?" So moral people should do the moral thing and let an assailant simply harm or kill their families instead or harming or killing him? That would be the moral thing to do?”

 

[SkepticThinker]

And you or I would profusely apologize to the victim of our act, rather then trumpet to them, "I'm being so MORAL as I kill you/rape you/steal from you."

Well of course. Who would say such a thing anyway?

That doesn't change the fact that it would still be the most moral action to take in that situation.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The circumstances are a huge part of the equation. It depends on what is most moral given a particular situation. In the situation under discussion, killing the person would be the most moral thing to do. In a completely different situation, the most moral thing to do may be to not kill the person.

I have been saying that an act is immoral/moral based on the situation. Killing in one instance (e.g. killing an enemy in a war zone) is considered a moral action, while in another instance (e.g. shooting a stranger in the head because it feels good) it is an immoral action. It’s actually fairly simple. I find your definition to be confusing and convoluted, even though I do agree with some parts of it.


I didn’t compare killing to charity. But if you want to go there … is charity a moral act if someone is donating time and money to the Ku Klux Klan or ISIS, for example?




Just for a reminder, this was the type of situation under discussion:

“What about your conscience if you let somebody harm or kill your family when you could have prevented it by hurting or killing the assailant?" So moral people should do the moral thing and let an assailant simply harm or kill their families instead or harming or killing him? That would be the moral thing to do?”

I think you are missing the point entirely. No one in their right mind is questioning whether the act, or the omission of the act of killing is a justifiable act under some circumstances, and not under others. No one is questioning whether the act, or the omission of the act is criminal in some cases, and justifiable, excusable, and non-criminal in other cases. My point was that a moral act is ALWAYS non-criminal, non-violent, and beneficial under ANY circumstances. Moral acts never need to be justified, excused, or defended. You are implying that a moral act has no clear definition, and is always dependent on the circumstances. Therefore any immoral act can become a moral act. I gave many examples of the abuses of interpretation(cops killing unarmed suspects, undercover operations). I simply believe that there are certain acts that are so heinous, and so harmful, that by their very nature can never be considered a moral act(homicide, torture, rape, mutilations, genocide) under any circumstances. How is this in any way convoluted?

Trying to say that any heinous act will become a moral act, only under the right set of circumstances, is more convoluted than anything I could ever come up with. It's like saying that a genetic man can become a genetic woman. The person may have the appearance of a genetic woman, but will always be a genetic male. I also may not agree with the goal of a charitable act, but the act of charity is still legal, beneficial, and moral by definition. Do you think that it is a moral act if you kill you child, because someone is holding a gun to your wife's head giving you a choice? Or, is letting your wife die, more moral? Why would you still be criminally culpable for making the former choice? Because you can be criminally excused from all other criminal acts under duress, except homicide. No life is worth more than another, under any circumstances.

I'm afraid we will simply have to agree to disagree. My definition of a moral act is a one-fits-all, and is not dependent on any circumstances. It is the act itself that determines if the act is moral or not, not the circumstances. The circumstances can only determine if an immoral act is justified, legal, excusable, or necessary. Not any moral act. I think this becomes clearer, once we stop looking for "why".

 

[ArtieE]

We agree, they should do an immoral act for the greater good. The fact that you have to phrase it as a question shows it's a lesser of two EVILS.

Right. The right and moral thing to do is to do the lesser of two evils if those are your only choices.

 

[Audie]

I think you are missing the point entirely. No one in their right mind is questioning whether the act, or the omission of the act of killing is a justifiable act under some circumstances, and not under others. No one is questioning whether the act, or the omission of the act is criminal in some cases, and justifiable, excusable, and non-criminal in other cases. My point was that a moral act is ALWAYS non-criminal, non-violent, and beneficial under ANY circumstances. Moral acts never need to be justified, excused, or defended. You are implying that a moral act has no clear definition, and is always dependent on the circumstances. Therefore any immoral act can become a moral act. I gave many examples of the abuses of interpretation(cops killing unarmed suspects, undercover operations). I simply believe that there are certain acts that are so heinous, and so harmful, that by their very nature can never be considered a moral act(homicide, torture, rape, mutilations, genocide) under any circumstances. How is this in any way convoluted?

Trying to say that any heinous act will become a moral act, only under the right set of circumstances, is more convoluted than anything I could ever come up with. It's like saying that a genetic man can become a genetic woman. The person may have the appearance of a genetic woman, but will always be a genetic male. I also may not agree with the goal of a charitable act, but the act of charity is still legal, beneficial, and moral by definition. Do you think that it is a moral act if you kill you child, because someone is holding a gun to your wife's head giving you a choice? Or, is letting your wife die, more moral? Why would you still be criminally culpable for making the former choice? Because you can be criminally excused from all other criminal acts under duress, except homicide. No life is worth more than another, under any circumstances.

I'm afraid we will simply have to agree to disagree. My definition of a moral act is a one-fits-all, and is not dependent on any circumstances. It is the act itself that determines if the act is moral or not, not the circumstances. The circumstances can only determine if an immoral act is justified, legal, excusable, or necessary. Not any moral act. I think this becomes clearer, once we stop looking for "why".

Do you find anyone agrees with your idiosyncratic definition of morality?

 

[ArtieE]

I'm afraid that I have seen far too much actual graphic violence in my life, to watch it being played out in a video. Any act of killing, torture, or rape, are sickening to me. You will just have to describe the circumstances to me, since you seem uneffected. However, another poster stated, "We agree, they should do an immoral act for the greater good.". This was the only point I was trying to make.

That act would be the right and moral act not an immoral act...

Obviously you believe that any inherently evil, illegal, and violent act is MORAL under any justifiable situations.

The right thing to do will always be per definition the moral thing to do.

I believe that the act of killing is an immoral act, under any circumstances. So if you think that causing the greatest amount of harm to anyone in society, fits the definition of a moral act, it won't be because of my lack of trying.

Did Ashad Russell do something right (moral) or something wrong (immoral) here? Maybe you are simply unaware that acts have consequences for others than the person killing and the person killed?
Dramatic moment hero bystander shoots dead suspect who was battering police officer in the road as cops begs for him to pull the trigger

 

[ArtieE]

You are implying that a moral act has no clear definition, and is always dependent on the circumstances. Therefore any immoral act can become a moral act.

No. An act can be a moral or immoral act depending on the circumstances. The act itself is neutral.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Do you find anyone agrees with your idiosyncratic definition of morality?

It is not MY definition or is idiosyncratic. My opinions are not always determined by popular consensus, and I don't think that three people with contrived rationales constitutes a consensus of disagreement. Maybe its just what you want to believe. What do you think?

 

[ArtieE]

I'm afraid we will simply have to agree to disagree. My definition of a moral act is a one-fits-all, and is not dependent on any circumstances. It is the act itself that determines if the act is moral or not, not the circumstances. The circumstances can only determine if an immoral act is justified, legal, excusable, or necessary. Not any moral act. I think this becomes clearer, once we stop looking for "why".

So what you are actually saying is that somebody who harms or kills others for example in defence of their country, in defence of innocent others, in defence of their family or themselves are doing something inherently immoral?

 

[Audie]

No. An act can be a moral or immoral act depending on the circumstances. The act itself is neutral.

Exactly. Same in any society, in law, in the bible.
"Immoral" is immoral by custom or statute.

Belief in Absolute Morality is for the, ah, well, never mind.

But it is not the product of clear thinking.

 

[Audie]

It is not MY definition or is idiosyncratic. My opinions are not always determined by popular consensus, and I don't think that three people with contrived rationales constitutes a consensus of disagreement. Maybe its just what you want to believe. What do you think?

I think it is inappropriate to make this into something
about me.

"contrived rationales constitutes a consensus"?

You may be right that it is not yours nor idiosyncratic. The
absolute morality aspect is straight christian fundy, tho they define
morality as whatever god decrees.

If it is not your definition, whose is it?

For clarity maybe you could state your (the)
definition in a couple of declarative sentences?

"Define your terms" and all.

As is, your try at a definition has fallen prey to the
vice of equivocation.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

No. An act can be a moral or immoral act depending on the circumstances. The act itself is neutral.

So, the act of killing is NEUTRAL. The act of rape is NEUTRAL. The act of torture is NEUTRAL. The act of genocide is NEUTRAL. I get it. All these acts are neutral, and neither moral or immoral acts. Their morality is later determined by the circumstances. Makes perfect sense to me. So, it is not the definition of what a moral act is that matters, it is only the application of the act that matters. Therefore, all immoral acts(since moral acts are already moral) can be moral under the right set of circumstances? I have already stated before, that I do not watch graphic real violence, so I won't be watching your posted site. But feel free to watch and enjoy. Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Audie]

So what you are actually saying is that somebody who harms or kills others for example in defence of their country, in defence of innocent others, in defence of their family or themselves are doing something inherently immoral?

That is how I read it.

 

[ArtieE]

So, the act of killing is NEUTRAL. The act of rape is NEUTRAL. The act of torture is NEUTRAL. The act of genocide is NEUTRAL. I get it. All these acts are neutral, and neither moral or immoral acts. Their morality is later determined by the circumstances.

What is your justification for calling an act immoral then?

 

[Audie]

So, the act of killing is NEUTRAL. The act of rape is NEUTRAL. The act of torture is NEUTRAL. The act of genocide is NEUTRAL. I get it. All these acts are neutral, and neither moral or immoral acts. Their morality is later determined by the circumstances. Makes perfect sense to me. So, it is not the definition of what a moral act is that matters, it is only the application of the act that matters. Therefore, all immoral acts(since moral acts are already moral) can be moral under the right set of circumstances? I have already stated before, that I do not watch graphic real violence, so I won't be watching your posted site. But feel free to watch and enjoy. Let's just agree to disagree.

What is your justification for calling an act immoral then?

You have the wrong -cation.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I think it is inappropriate to make this into something
about me.

"contrived rationales constitutes a consensus"?

You may be right that it is not yours nor idiosyncratic. The
absolute morality aspect is straight christian fundy, tho they define
morality as whatever god decrees.

If it is not your definition, whose is it?

For clarity maybe you could state your (the)
definition in a couple of declarative sentences?

"Define your terms" and all.

The comment "contrived rationales constitutes a consensus", was directed at the 2-3 people that disagree with my interpretation of a moral act. You implied in your statement " Do you find anyone agrees with your idiosyncratic definition of morality" , that no one agrees with my interpretation/definition of a moral act. 2-3 people's contrived opinions do not suggest that that no one agrees. In any case, my statement had nothing to do with you on any personal level.

Somehow I don't think clarity would make any difference at all.

 

[ArtieE]

You have the wrong -cation.

the definition of justification
I'm just asking him to give his reasons why the act of killing would always be immoral.