Originally posted by Conrau KAgreed. That's why I originally joined the discussion. But once it was determined that only his point of view was valid (namely that numbers matter more than individual people) then there was no point continuing.
Namely because I think it a pathetic argument. Not because I 'need to face'.
Originally posted by pawnhandlerWait just a second. Rarely does debate change people's point of view. Rather, most people make the best arguments they can, and leave it at that.
Agreed. That's why I originally joined the discussion. But once it was determined that only his point of view was valid (namely that numbers matter more than individual people) then there was no point continuing.
Then again, your dismissal of valid ethical concerns as 'math problem[s]' showed that you weren't really here to debate or give arguments, but rather just indulge in disingenuous remarks. Your comment about 'only his point of view was valid' just reinforces this impression.
[The following is for the benefit of the rest of the audience, who may actually be interested in honestly evaluating the merit of arguments...]
Obviously, numbers inform our ethical decisions. When deciding on say, the best candidate for a liver transplant, we don't give it to the alcoholic, we give it to the guy who is in otherwise good health. Why? Because he will get MORE years of good use from that liver.
Originally posted by pawnhandlerWho says "only his point of view is valid"?
Agreed. That's why I originally joined the discussion. But once it was determined that only his point of view was valid (namely that numbers matter more than individual people) then there was no point continuing.
Originally posted by SwissGambitI may have to re-read but I thought it was CK that spat the dummy and not you.
Wait just a second. Rarely does debate change people's point of view. Rather, most people make the best arguments they can, and leave it at that.
Then again, your dismissal of valid ethical concerns as 'math problem[s]' showed that you weren't really here to debate or give arguments, but rather just indulge in disingenuous remarks. Your comment about ...[text shortened]... n otherwise good health. Why? Because he will get MORE years of good use from that liver.
Clearly you made a good arguement and the fact that your an athiest seems to have given you a clearer view on the matter.
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelPerhaps I didn't make this clear enough: I am an atheist as well. I have no ulterior motive or vested interest in this debate. I just think that the argument that a Christian has a duty to abort fetuses is stupid. SwissGambit is simply being immature. A Christian who believes in moral absolutes, that ends are never justified by their means, would find SwissGambit's utilitarian dilemma completely unintelligible. The possibility that more souls could be saved would carry no force in their moral reasoning since, to them, an act is justified by its nature, not its consequences. SwissGambit's objection to this is basically to label it 'dogmatic'. Whether it is or not, the Christian has extricated himself from the so-called dilemma. Playing at peurile antics, SwissGambit refuses to concede it.
I may have to re-read but I thought it was CK that spat the dummy and not you.
Clearly you made a good arguement and the fact that your an athiest seems to have given you a clearer view on the matter.
Originally posted by Conrau KYeah, thanks for the clarification.
Perhaps I didn't make this clear enough: I am an atheist as well. I have no ulterior motive or vested interest in this debate. I just think that the argument that a Christian has a duty to abort fetuses is stupid. SwissGambit is simply being immature. A Christian who believes in moral absolutes, that ends are never justified by their means, would find Swiss ...[text shortened]... f from the so-called dilemma. Playing at peurile antics, SwissGambit refuses to concede it.
So how can two athiests have such a disagreement? Or maybe the question should be : how can they not?
I thought SG's 'peurile antics' and immaturity were in keeping with the thread title . How else can you debate such ideas presented in that way?
Surely the main question is when do humans become resposible for their own destiny.(whether they goto heaven or hell)
Its a good question and quite tricky but if christians are going to start saying that foetuses goto heaven , thats an immature arguement worthy of an immature response. But thats just me.
Originally posted by Conrau KI think you're guilty of what you accuse me of. I didn't just say that opposing murder on the grounds that ends do not justify means is dogmatic; I also gave reasons why. You then declined to discuss that area further, yet you continue taking cheap shots at me. That's the height of immaturity.
Perhaps I didn't make this clear enough: I am an atheist as well. I have no ulterior motive or vested interest in this debate. I just think that the argument that a Christian has a duty to abort fetuses is stupid. SwissGambit is simply being immature. A Christian who believes in moral absolutes, that ends are never justified by their means, would find Swiss ...[text shortened]... f from the so-called dilemma. Playing at peurile antics, SwissGambit refuses to concede it.
I'm entitled to challenge the theist's ethical system if I choose. In fact, since that sort of thing is critical to this argument, I should be expected to challenge it, if I'm any good as a debater.
Originally posted by karoly aczelFinally, someone understands. Thanks. 🙂
Yeah, thanks for the clarification.
So how can two athiests have such a disagreement? Or maybe the question should be : how can they not?
I thought SG's 'peurile antics' and immaturity were in keeping with the thread title . How else can you debate such ideas presented in that way?
Surely the main question is when do humans become resposible for ...[text shortened]... goto heaven , thats an immature arguement worthy of an immature response. But thats just me.
2 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitFor the record, I did not decline to debate further. I immediately explained that self-defense is not an instance of ends justifying means. You then employed sarcastic and belittling tactics 'You lose points...', at which point I decided that you were simply interested in mocking anyone who challenged you.
I think you're guilty of what you accuse me of. I didn't just say that opposing murder on the grounds that ends do not justify means is dogmatic; I also gave reasons why. You then declined to discuss that area further, yet you continue taking cheap shots at me. That's the height of immaturity.
I'm entitled to challenge the theist's ethical system if I ...[text shortened]... this argument, I should be expected to challenge it, if I'm any good as a debater.
I'm entitled to challenge the theist's ethical system if I choose. In fact, since that sort of thing is critical to this argument, I should be expected to challenge it, if I'm any good as a debater.
But you haven't done that at all. If you want to show that the theist (specifically the Christian) has a moral 'dilemma', you must show some internal inconsistency that arises from his ethical system alone. You have only pitted one ethical system against another. It would be like if I confronted an ardent utilitarian and insisted that his moral beliefs contradicted the natural law. We would definitely be in disagreement, but he would not be in a dilemma. Likewise, if a Christian believes that all moral law derives from the bible, he would not find any dilemma. Obviously there is no biblical mandate for killing fetuses and the Bible and its interpreters lean against abortion. So he is not in any dilema. However, if you suggested that the Bible seemed to licence polygamy in one section, yet denounce it in another, this Christian really would be in a true dilemma since his moral compass gives contradictory advice.