The more religious you are the less compassionate:

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What would happen to me if i didn't run to another city?

well the 'avenger of blood', usually a male relative of the dead man might catch you
and kill you, or circumstances and witnesses might be gathered and you'd have to
forfeit your life. Hard to say really, it depends upon the circumstances i reckon.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
A person must have a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm or death in order to have the right to use deadly force in self defense in most US states.

If he cannot demonstrate this at trial, he may find himself convicted of manslaughter or murder.

see the waters are quite murky, 'a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm or death'.
I think my stance is much clearer to be honest. Has not Zimmerman claimed 'a
reasonable fear of bodily harm or death', yet his alleged assailant was unarmed?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well the 'avenger of blood', usually a male relative of the dead man might catch you
and kill you, or circumstances and witnesses might be gathered and you'd have to
forfeit your life. Hard to say really, it depends upon the circumstances i reckon.

Sounds lovely.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Life is life whether you seek to term it such or not is none of my concern. My stance is
Biblical and religious. Attempts to define life as feeling, unfeeling, complex/simple,
conscious/unconscious, are irrelevant as your jump in logic from human to bacteria.
My stance is crystal clear, life is sacrosanct and no amount of hypothetical and
im ...[text shortened]... ling anyway you like, but dont involve me in it, get far far far
away from me man! I mean it.

It's not a hypothetical scenario.

There is a very real (if hopefully remote) possibility that someone might try to fly an airliner
into the Olympic stadiums at the Olympics this year.

To defend against this we are presently deploying and training S.A.M missiles, and state of the
art fighter jets as well as warships and other assets capable of intercepting and destroying
an incoming aircraft in the event that just such a scenario as I outlined were to transpire.


The whole basis of deploying such hardware is that it is better that in the event that all our
other security fails and a hijacked plane is on the way to the city and the Olympic stadiums
and the tens of thousands of people in them that we kill the few to save the many.


There are countless real life examples of this all the time.


The whole point of moral discussions and debates is to deal with the tricky situations where different
moral values conflict and where all available options have a downside and you have to weigh-up
the consequences of different choices and determine which is the best (or possibly least worse).


It is typical of the juvenile nature and unsophistication of biblical/religious morality that it has trouble
dealing with complex moral problems that can't be seen in simple black and white terms.


You state your position that life is 'sacrosanct' and that it is 'never morally acceptable or right to kill'.

Which begs the obvious next question of how you deal with a situation (which occurs all to often in the
real world) where people who don't share this view are actively trying to (and succeeding) in killing others
and the only viable means you have at your disposal to stop them is lethal force?

If you chose not to stop the plane flying into the stadium when you had the power to stop it then you
bear some responsibility for the deaths of the people you could have saved.

You have to decide that the lives of the people in the stadium are worth less than the lives of the terrorists
who are trying to kill them.


That you run away from the argument and from any responsibility for decisions is cowardice.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
see the waters are quite murky, 'a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm or death'.
I think my stance is much clearer to be honest. Has not Zimmerman claimed 'a
reasonable fear of bodily harm or death', yet his alleged assailant was unarmed?

But what good are simple, black-and-white moral principles if they lead to a morally questionable outcome? I prefer a moral framework that gives consideration to the actual effects on the real people involved. If this is omitted, we have defeated the point of having moral principles in the first place.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
But what good are simple, black-and-white moral principles if they lead to a morally questionable outcome? I prefer a moral framework that gives consideration to the actual effects on the real people involved. If this is omitted, we have defeated the point of having moral principles in the first place.

All moral systems start with basic moral values that act as building blocks.

The tricky part is that it is nigh on impossible to create simple moral values that will never
conflict, sometimes with themselves.


For example the simple root value that life generally is preferable to death can land up
in conflict with the simple root value that pain is generally bad and should be minimised.

For someone dying of an incurable degenerative disease who is in extreme pain the only
way to end the pain might well be death.

So you now have to do a moral balance between 'death is bad' and 'pain is bad'.

In the discussions we are having about the morality of killing someone who is trying to kill you
or others you have 'death is bad' in conflict with itself.

Killing someone is bad, but so is not stopping someone from killing others when you have the power to
stop them.

So you have to decide which is worse, killing someone or allowing someone to kill others.



I agree completely that you need a moral framework that can cope with these conflicts.

And conflict resolution is the key major advantage that makes secular morality superior to non-secular
morality.

http://atheistexperience.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/matts-superiority-of-secular-morality.html

Originally posted by SwissGambit
But what good are simple, black-and-white moral principles if they lead to a morally questionable outcome? I prefer a moral framework that gives consideration to the actual effects on the real people involved. If this is omitted, we have defeated the point of having moral principles in the first place.

what good are they? we have no issues, the matter is clear and settled for us
personally, what other people do is their concern, if it has any bearing upon us, the Law
takes care of it, but its useless to talk of a moral framework that does not take the
individuals conscience into consideration and here secular law can only go so far, to be
truly far reaching, to be truly practical, it must transcend this law and motivate the
individual. People dont drive at 55mph because they want to, they do so through
coercion through some punitive action which may result from them transgressing this
law, this is entirely different.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's not a hypothetical scenario.

There is a very real (if hopefully remote) possibility that someone might try to fly an airliner
into the Olympic stadiums at the Olympics this year.

To defend against this we are presently deploying and training S.A.M missiles, and state of the
art fighter jets as well as warships and other assets capable of i ...[text shortened]... at you run away from the argument and from any responsibility for decisions is cowardice.

The matter is crystal clear and no amount of abusive terms can change this. Once
again we have no issues , no fences facing us, the beauty of Christianity is that while
he world has so many issues to face, our vision is absolutely clear.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what good are they? we have no issues, the matter is clear and settled for us
personally, what other people do is their concern, if it has any bearing upon us, the Law
takes care of it, but its useless to talk of a moral framework that does not take the
individuals conscience into consideration and here secular law can only go so far, to be
...[text shortened]... punitive action which may result from them transgressing this
law, this is entirely different.

So when you used the term 'accidental manslaughter', that was not a legal term but a personal one?

Who is speaking of a moral framework that disregards conscience?

Speeding laws are motivated by public concern about road safety. This is a moral imperative. If people quit caring about this, speeding laws would be abolished. So no, it's not just the fear of punishment that motivates everyone to obey speed limits.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
So when you used the term 'accidental manslaughter', that was not a legal term but a personal one?

Who is speaking of a moral framework that disregards conscience?

Speeding laws are motivated by public concern about road safety. This is a moral imperative. If people quit caring about this, speeding laws would be abolished. So no, it's not just the fear of punishment that motivates everyone to obey speed limits.

Yeah , thats right, by and large the majority of motorists obey the road rules and guidelines as the basis of helpful ,safe navigation around the roads.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think he is speaking out of his arse.

Seeing as I remember that the post you quoted was directed at me...

I hope you never sit around and wonder why pro-choice advocates find it so easy to disagree with pro-life advocates. With this kind of rhetorical contribution to the discussion, I hope you never have to wonder.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my stance is not political, but religious. I am a-political.

So in thinking about your response, the main question I keep coming back to is: even if, in the scenario of a rape victim, you take a strictly religious, "nonviolent" approach to the siutation, surely you need to have an intellectual investment in how governments should approach that kind of situation, too? If you think the 14-year-old girl shouldn't have an abortion, that's fine, but what do you think society/government should think about whether that girl should have an abortion?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
So when you used the term 'accidental manslaughter', that was not a legal term but a personal one?

Who is speaking of a moral framework that disregards conscience?

Speeding laws are motivated by public concern about road safety. This is a moral imperative. If people quit caring about this, speeding laws would be abolished. So no, it's not just the fear of punishment that motivates everyone to obey speed limits.

yes, it was a personal one, but is probably legal as well.. They may be motivated
by public concern for safety but the fact that they are broken with impunity
consistently is evidence that either the majority of persons consciences are not
working or are desensitised to the point of failing to alert them, or that the laws
themselves are ineffective, not providing the correct impetus to motivate a person.

In the United States over 11 million major crimes involving dishonesty are reported
each year. And the failure to report all taxable income amounts to over $250 billion
a year. In New York City about a hundred thousand people avoid paying fares in the
subway system—every day. An official said that if all these cheaters were arrested,
“we’d tie up the court system for months.” In Japan a survey of taxpayers found that
95 percent cheated on tax returns, including 92 percent of the lawyers. In one
month over 16,000 people were caught stealing free rides on the railways.

source Jehovahs witnesses - 1986

Clearly secular laws do not motivate the majority of individuals to exercise their
consciences.

Originally posted by wittywonka
So in thinking about your response, the main question I keep coming back to is: even if, in the scenario of a rape victim, you take a strictly religious, "nonviolent" approach to the siutation, surely you need to have an intellectual investment in how governments should approach that kind of situation, too? If you think the 14-year-old girl shouldn't hav o you think society/government should think about whether that girl should have an abortion?

Its a matter for society/governments. I am under duress to obey secular laws as a
Christian (Romans chapter 13), yet this subjection is relative, to those principles
espoused in scripture, as the governments are placed in a relative position to God.
What this means is that if a government decree attempts to negate or superseded a
Biblical principle, i am under duress to obey the higher authority, in this instance
God. However as long as there is no conflict of interest, we are happy to obey
secular authorities and are indeed counselled to do so.

In the case of abortion secular authorities may introduce laws permitting its use and
the matter is entirely up to them, we ourselves personally do not oppose the
governments (Romans 13) but on a personal and collective level as Christians, we
do not endorse such a policy, for we have our own government, Gods Kingdom and
our own leader, Jesus Christ. So while I am a UK citizen, my allegiance is not to the
UK government, although i comply with all its mandates so far as it does not
transgress Biblical principles, but to Gods Kingdom, in reality.

The essence of the matter can be directly traced to the paying of taxes, when the
Christians in Rome were having a crisis of conscience, because the Caesar was
licentious, incestuous, idolatrous etc which are practices directly opposed to Biblical
morality, yet the Christians were counselled to pay taxes to such an authority, not
only on account of retribution, but on account of their own consciences. The right to
exercise the faculty of conscience is paramount, no one has the right to take life.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The matter is crystal clear and no amount of abusive terms can change this. Once
again we have no issues , no fences facing us, the beauty of Christianity is that while
he world has so many issues to face, our vision is absolutely clear.

I wasn't disputing that you had made up your mind and that you had a very firm conviction about
what the morally right thing to do was.

I was pointing out that you were wrong and how terrible the consequences of you being wrong
were.

To conclude that (for example) it is morally wrong to shoot down an airliner to prevent it being flown
into a packed stadium necessarily requires that you can't see a difference between a scenario where
100 people die and one where 50,000 people die.

You don't value the life of others, all you value is getting your precious (non-existent) soul into heaven
(or whatever nonsense afterlife you believe in).

The most important thing for you is that YOU never kill anyone.

Regardless of the consequences for anyone else.

No-mater how many innocent people might die because you did not act.


The second world war is a case in point.

Of all the wars in history, the allies declaring war on Nazi Germany in the face of their aggression and the
evils they represented is probably the least challenging moral decision in the history of war.

Germany and it's plans had to be stopped, the life, liberty, and happiness of the entire rest of the world relied
on it.
Yet the JW's refused to help, refused to fight.
Faced with an enemy who can only be described as evil, and who's actions and intentions would cause and require the
deaths of countless millions and the suffering of millions more with entire peoples wiped out your people did nothing.

Because you were more concerned with how YOU would be treated in some fictional afterlife and obeying the commands
of a non-existent deity you were not prepared to fight for the real lives and happiness of others.

And you call that morality.




And you, here on these forums, are perfectly demonstrating the major problem with theistic/religious/authoritarian morality.

It isn't up for debate.

You are not willing to even entertain arguments against your position, you stick your fingers in your ears
and yell abuse instead of listening to arguments and then calmly making counter arguments.


Secular morality has one great advantage over theistic/religious/authoritarian morality.

If we have a moral conflict and we want to determine what the best choice is we can sit down and debate it and
reason the problem out. We can change and adapt to new technology and situations not envisioned when the
moral code was first set out.

You can't.