1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSuppose there was a 10 year old child in a bank with a bomb strapped to his chest and the button in his hand. He has 20 people hostage. You are in charge of the sniper team outside. You have had an hour to think about it. Do you give the kill order?
I would not act rationally probably on instinct so I don't think I can give you a rational answer. I guess if I didn't get shot while trying I could probably disarm a 14 year old without causing him harm.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadA ten year old is holding 20 people hostage. Yeah right. 🙄
Suppose there was a 10 year old child in a bank with a bomb strapped to his chest and the button in his hand. He has 20 people hostage. You are in charge of the sniper team outside. You have had an hour to think about it. Do you give the kill order?
Is this the best you can come up with to justify hurting kids?
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkNo I don't know how I would react but I would not regard harming the 14 year old child waving a a gun to be morally impermissible, if I thought doing was necessary to save lives and would likely save lives. How about you?
I would not act rationally probably on instinct so I don't think I can give you a rational answer. I guess if I didn't get shot while trying I could probably disarm a 14 year old without causing him harm.
Do you know how you would react?
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357If there was an option between harming the child and saving lives or not harming the child and saving lives I would choose the 2nd option. I think disarming a child who is waving a gun is possible without causing harm to the child. How about you?
No I don't know how I would react but I would not regard harming the 14 year old child waving a a gun to be morally impermissible, if I thought doing was necessary to save lives and would likely save lives. How about you?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAnd if you had the choice of declaring that bears poo in the woods or declaring that the Pope is a Catholic, which option would you choose?
If there was an option between harming the child and saving lives or not harming the child and saving lives I would choose the 2nd option.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWas asking (words to the effect of) 'why are atheists open to torturing babies for fun?' ~ and then just repeating it what felt like 200 times ~ the best you could come up with to discuss morality [and your robotized superstitions] with other people?
A ten year old is holding 20 people hostage. Yeah right. 🙄
Is this the best you can come up with to justify hurting kids?
Originally posted by FMFIt seems that after all this time you still don't understand what the moral implications are of having no moral absolutes.
Was asking (words to the effect of) 'why are atheists open to torturing babies for fun?' ~ and then just repeating it what felt like 200 times ~ the best you could come up with to discuss morality [and your robotized superstitions] with other people?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI do, however, now know full well what the interpersonal and psychological implications are of having a different perspective on what you call "moral absolutes" and of not sharing your fondness for the ancient Hebrews..
It seems that after all this time you still don't understand what the moral implications are of having no moral absolutes.
Originally posted by FMFMy use of the word 'moral absolutes' is rather conventional. If you have a better definition feel free to share it.
I do, however, now know full well what the interpersonal and psychological implications are of having a different perspective on what you call "moral absolutes" and of not sharing your fondness for the ancient Hebrews..
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou defined "moral absolutes" in terms of them being, what can only realistically be described as, a figment of your pretentious and superstitious imagination in which there featured some kind of supernatural entity - a male, apparently, who can do whatever he wants - and who has supposedly communicated with you. You are welcome to both your notions, your definition, and the self-aggrandizing religionist fantasies you base them upon.
My use of the word 'moral absolutes' is rather conventional. If you have a better definition feel free to share it.
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFIf you believe that certain things are always wrong for all people at all times regardless of the societies they belong to then you believe in 'moral absolutes' according to the conventional definition of 'moral absolutes' whether you would like to admit it or not. Your belief system cannot cope with or account for the existence of moral absolutes that you clearly do believe exist. So obviously you will blank this out as a coping mechanism.
You defined "moral absolutes" in terms of them being, what can only realistically be described as, a figment of your pretentious and superstitious imagination in which there featured some kind of supernatural entity - a male, apparently, who can do whatever he wants - and who has supposedly communicated with you. You are welcome to both your notions, your definition, and the self-aggrandizing religionist fantasies you base them upon.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou said all this stuff before but you ignored my responses.
If you believe that certain things are always wrong for all people at all times regardless of the societies they belong to then you believe in 'moral absolutes' according to the conventional definition of 'moral absolutes' whether you would like to admit it or not. Your belief system cannot cope with or account for the existence of moral absolutes that you clearly do believe exist. So obviously you will blank this out as a coping mechanism.