A real life dilemma - tonight!

Originally posted by FMF
Sometimes you post as if you are not really reading the posts you are responding to, or you are only reading a half a sentence here or there.

OK, maybe its my fault for not being clear enough.
Lets leave Jesus' name out of it since you seem to be really really sensitive about it.

If a person with strong religious beliefs or personal principles has followers, friends, or family that he knows will most probably be persecuted if he does not publicly renounce his beliefs, is he morally wrong to refuse to renounce his beliefs. For example, think about a Jew during the second world war and construct a scenario in which this might happen.

Originally posted by FMF
Well then, this brings us back to the question of whether or not you are being coherent.

When I read the first few pages of this thread, I thought Robbie was being quite clear about what his answer was, but you wouldn't accept it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
When I read the first few pages of this thread, I thought Robbie was being quite clear about what his answer was, but you wouldn't accept it.

Well that's your call.

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK, maybe its my fault for not being clear enough.
Lets leave Jesus' name out of it since you seem to be really really sensitive about it.

If a person with strong religious beliefs or personal principles has followers, friends, or family that he knows will most probably be persecuted if he does not publicly renounce his beliefs, is he morally wrong to ...[text shortened]... nk about a Jew during the second world war and construct a scenario in which this might happen.

So you are now going to proceed as if I haven't answered your question?

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK, maybe its my fault for not being clear enough.
Lets leave Jesus' name out of it since you seem to be really really sensitive about it.

If a person with strong religious beliefs or personal principles has followers, friends, or family that he knows will most probably be persecuted if he does not publicly renounce his beliefs, is he morally wrong to ...[text shortened]... nk about a Jew during the second world war and construct a scenario in which this might happen.

it would be impossible to give a black and white answer to the question. there are too many factors to be able to say what an individual should do overall. each individual case would have to be looked at. even then the answer would'nt always be clear. lets say the person was a neo nazi and his family were being persecuted because he was denying the holocaust. then i would find that an easy "yes" he should renounce his beliefs. should a man who has the believes the world was created by a cocaine sniffing space monkey, but also has the knowledge to save a million human lives is going to have his family killed if he doesnt renounce the space monkey then i would understand if he let his family die as he would save the lives of millions. you could think up millions of hypothetical situations and they would all have different answers for different reasons.

Originally posted by twhitehead
For example, think about a Jew during the second world war and construct a scenario in which this might happen.

Well let's see if I can make sense of your latest analogy [at least that is what I presume it is] for the moral question of whether to save a life by giving blood. I am to imagine that the Gestapo, having caught Jews, are letting those who say they aren't Jews, or say they won't have Jewish beliefs anymore, go free? Right?

Originally posted by twhitehead
When I read the first few pages of this thread, I thought Robbie was being quite clear about what his answer was, but you wouldn't accept it.

thankyou thankyou!

Originally posted by FMF
So you are now going to proceed as if I haven't answered your question?

You haven't answered it. You have tried every means you can think of to avoid answering it including repeatedly deflecting it by claiming that you cannot talk about Jesus for some odd reason. I have even reworded it to not include Jesus and you still cant give a straight answer.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You haven't answered it.

OK, I will settle for you believing that to be so.

Do you think it would be immoral for robbie to save someone's life by donating blood?

Originally posted by FMF
Well let's see if I can make sense of your latest analogy [at least that is what I presume it is] for the moral question of whether to save a life by giving blood. I am to imagine that the Gestapo, having caught Jews, are letting those who say they aren't Jews, or say they won't have Jewish beliefs anymore, go free? Right?

I never said it was an analogy. It is however related. I just want to see where you place a persons integrity regarding their beliefs on your morality scale.

And yes, I am talking about Jews being allowed to go free if they deny being Jews. I know this did not always happen, but we must remember that the Jews had been persecuted for centuries and many believed they would always be persecuted. Why didn't they give up their religion a long time ago in order to live a better life? Did all Jews in Germany during the holocaust at least try to deny that they were Jews? Were there some that openly announced they were Jews?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I never said it was an analogy. It is however related. I just want to see where you place a persons integrity regarding their beliefs on your morality scale.

My "morality scale", at its very simplest statement, is based on the principle of not doing others harm and exercise of the quintessentially human capacity for empathy. Other person's "integrity" - or mine [for that matter] - has no moral content, in and of itself, but can be demonstrated in a person's approach to a moral question. I personally see no virtue whatsoever [in the hypothetical dilemma this OP has set up] in robbie's superstitious refusal to prevent the unnecessary loss of another human's life. Therefore what you might describe as his "integrity" in this matter, I would describe as a stubborn, self-centred, illogical willingness to stand by as a life is lost, and thus a moral failure. I would give blood. divegeester would give blood. I believe this is the morally right decision for both of us to make. I am perfectly happy for you and robbie to disagree with me on this.

Originally posted by FMF
My "morality scale", at its very simplest statement, is based on the principle of not doing others harm and exercise of the quintessentially human capacity for empathy. Other person's "integrity" - or mine [for that matter] - has no moral content, in and of itself, but can be demonstrated in a person's approach to a moral question.

Then your understanding of morality is very simplistic and overlooks some very important considerations - which I suspect you do know about in the back of your mind but aren't realising. You would realise it however if you actually answered some of my questions, which you stubbornly refuse to do.

I personally see no virtue whatsoever [in the hypothetical dilemma this OP has set up] in robbie's superstitious refusal to prevent the unnecessary loss of another human's life.
But you overlook two very important considerations:
1. That life is not, in Robbies view, the end of everything for the person in question. So the event of physical death does not have as great an import as you give it.
2. That all moral questions, especially when dealing with inactivity as opposed to actively helping another whose troubles were not caused by you, are balanced against how much effort/ harm / cost the action represents to you. I notice that in one of your attempts to dodge my question, you tried to shift all blame away from anyone who remained innactive while others were persecuted stating very clearly that the persecutors were to blame and those being persecuted were entirely responsible for doing something about it. You essentially refused to admit any blame for someone who stood by and did nothing.
I see even here you cleverly worded your sentence "refusal to prevent" as if it was an action on Robbie part rather than inaction.

I would give blood.
Would you give blood if the person in question was in Africa and you had to fly here at your own expense to do so? Do you do anything about the people starving in Ethiopia? When does your moral responsibility to assist stop and why?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Would you give blood if the person in question was in Africa and you had to fly here at your own expense to do so? Do you do anything about the people starving in Ethiopia? When does your moral responsibility to assist stop and why?

I donate blood here in Indonesia. My professional work - or a considerable portion of it - is related to poverty alleviation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you overlook two very important considerations:
1. That life is not, in Robbies view, the end of everything for the person in question. So the event of physical death does not have as great an import as you give it.

robbie is entitled to believe he himself is immortal in some shape or form, but for him to project this speculation and superstition onto the reality of another person and then allow that person to die unnecessarily scores zero for not doing harm, scores zero for empathy, and I see it as a moral failure.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I notice that in one of your attempts to dodge my question, you tried to shift all blame away from anyone who remained innactive while others were persecuted stating very clearly that the persecutors were to blame and those being persecuted were entirely responsible for doing something about it. You essentially refused to admit any blame for someone who stood by and did nothing.

Your attempts to draw a parallel between Jesus and robbie were incoherent. Nevertheless, I think I basically answered your question. I do not blame the victims of immoral actions for the immoral actions that they are the victim of. For the death of a patient who needed a blood transfusion, in our hypothetical, I would blame the person who could have donated the blood but refused to do so. For the persecution of Jesus and his followers for their beliefs, I blame the people who persecuted them.