They're both drowning, you can save only one... (1 Viewer)

[TheIronSheik]

Choosing no religion is still a choice, and therefore constitutes a religion.

Ummm, not according to the dictionary.

And if you are atheist, please tell me where you are getting these "Rules of Morality"?

From my brain.

From your brain?Nice. King of Smack and the best you have is "From my brain."?I apologize then. I didn't realize you had such hard hitting facts as 'the list in your brain'. You the man, fatguyinDanRather'scoat.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Choosing no religion is still a choice, and therefore constitutes a religion.

Ummm, not according to the dictionary.

And if you are atheist, please tell me where you are getting these "Rules of Morality"?

From my brain.

From your brain?Nice. King of Smack and the best you have is "From my brain."?

I haven't heard a better answer.

 

[Smoo]

Is it that moral choices are never right and wrong?

Sure they are. But whether they're right or wrong will vary from person to person.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Choosing no religion is still a choice, and therefore constitutes a religion.

Ummm, not according to the dictionary.

And if you are atheist, please tell me where you are getting these "Rules of Morality"?

From my brain.

From your brain?Nice. King of Smack and the best you have is "From my brain."?

I haven't heard a better answer.

The funny thing is, you're right.There is no better answer. But what you're too stubborn to see is that the list in your head may not be the same list in someone else's head. But where is your proof that your list is correct? Your's is the one true list that everyone must follow?Where is that? In your head, again? If so, you move from stubborn to ignorant. And not ignorant in the "I'm calling you a name" ignoranat, but in the true meaning of ignorance.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Is it that moral choices are never right and wrong?

Sure they are. But whether they're right or wrong will vary from person to person.

So you think it could be moral for some people to commit genocide?

 

[Smoo]

MT- Would you agree that while YOU may see it immoral, it is not immoral in his eyes?

Some people are wrong about what's immoral and what isn't, yes.

If you come across a drowning human and a drowning member of an alien race centuries more advanced than humanity, which is it more moral to save?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

MT- Would you agree that while YOU may see it immoral, it is not immoral in his eyes?

Some people are wrong about what's immoral and what isn't, yes.

What your saying is that his religion is wrong then.

Yes.

Because his set of morals says God before family.

It says cows before family. If he's mistaken as to the nature of a cow -- its capacity for life experiences, for example -- then the Hindu's mistake is a factual one rather than a moral one. Cows are no brighter than cats.

Wait. Doesn't Christian, Muslim, and almost every other religion put God first?

If we ever see a god and a human stranger drowning, we can argue the respective merits of rescuing either. But if it turns out that what you thought was a god is really just a cow, the choice is an easy one.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

MT- Would you agree that while YOU may see it immoral, it is not immoral in his eyes?

Some people are wrong about what's immoral and what isn't, yes.

If you come across a drowning human and a drowning member of an alien race centuries more advanced than humanity, which is it more moral to save?

I'd save the alien, unless it was evil.

 

[Smoo]

Is it that moral choices are never right and wrong?

Sure they are. But whether they're right or wrong will vary from person to person.

So you think it could be moral for some people to commit genocide?

Morality is perception. You can't say "it could be moral", you have to say "they could believe it to be moral".

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If you come across a drowning human and a drowning member of an alien race centuries more advanced than humanity, which is it more moral to save?

It depends. Advancedness isn't the only criterion to go on. But to the extent it's one of many factors to consider, it would weigh in favor of the alien.

 

[Smoo]

MT- Would you agree that while YOU may see it immoral, it is not immoral in his eyes?

Some people are wrong about what's immoral and what isn't, yes.

If you come across a drowning human and a drowning member of an alien race centuries more advanced than humanity, which is it more moral to save?

I'd save the alien, unless it was evil.

That's not what I asked, but it'll do.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

you have to say "they could believe it to be moral".

But when they're talking about genocide, wouldn't they be wrong?

 

[Smoo]

you have to say "they could believe it to be moral".

But when they're talking about genocide, wouldn't they be wrong?

They would be in disagreement with the rest of our society. There's no right or wrong.If you're defining 'wrong' as 'in disagreement with the rest of society' then sure, but then it's just a label. It's only wrong within the confines of that society.

 

[TheIronSheik]

If you come across a drowning human and a drowning member of an alien race centuries more advanced than humanity, which is it more moral to save?

It depends. Advancedness isn't the only criterion to go on. But to the extent it's one of many factors to consider, it would weigh in favor of the alien.

How can you say that after you just blatantly called the entire Hindu religion a farce based on the fact that they were saving the less intelligent creature!?!That is unbelievable!

 

[Psychopav]

In that particular instance, I think it's immoral to save the dog.

I agree. I agree that you think it's immoral to save the dog. That's fine. I also think that other people may not think it's immoral to save the dog. That's fine, too.

That's not the way I look at morality. If it's immoral for me to do something, I also think it's immoral for you to do the same thing.

Of course you do. This is what Viv's been saying, and I agree with it. You can think that everybody who performs that act is doing an immoral thing. That's just being consistent and there's nothing wrong with that. Nobody's stopping you. But I may not think the same way. I may have a different morality. And what you think is immoral, I may not think is immoral. And that's fine. Neither of us is empirically "right" or "wrong".

But if you have mutually exclusive perspectives, then although neither of you may be "empirically" right or wrong, one of you is right and one of you is wrong.

 

[Psychopav]

If a Hindu was walking by and saw a cow and a stranger drowning, which would he save?Is it immoral for him to save a god-like creature over a stranger?

Yes.

What you don't realize is, just because you don't answer the question right, it still proves my point.Knowing that you are bull headed enough to think that only your religion can pave the way to acceptable morality takes you from a person debating an issue, and moves you to a person preaching and pushing his belief system on others.

I disagree with this statement. He isn't pushing his beliefs on anyone. He isn't forcing his beliefs on you, nor is he trying to enact a law to force you to act in accord with his beliefs. His opinion was solicited in this thread, and he is providing it.

 

[Green and Gold]

This question is too easy. You save the dog, then grab the drowned stranger and resuscitate them. I don't know how to do CPR on a dog.GG

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

you have to say "they could believe it to be moral".

But when they're talking about genocide, wouldn't they be wrong?

They would be in disagreement with the rest of our society. There's no right or wrong.

Do you, personally, think that genocide is immoral?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

In almost any scenario when you have to make a snap judgement on the relative value of human to dog, the human SHOULD win hands down.

Finally! PROGRESS! Your use of 'almost' and 'should' finally show that you're getting the point, that it is NOT a slam dunk every time. That's all I'm sayin', anyway.

Yes I used almost and SHOULD to account for that .00000000001% of the population that I could see there being a case made that the person does not deserve to live (i.e., hard core criminal, child rapist, etc.). Don't reead any more into it than that. Trust me, my opinion is that my "almost and should" accounts for less than 1%...hardly a number worth gambling against.

But you're acknowledging that there's an overlap. Now you just have to acknowledge that said overlap may be larger for some people, smaller for others.

Sure, but the chance that the stranger randomly falls into that overlap is so infinitesmally small that I would not take the chance that he/she fell into that overlap and save the dog.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If you come across a drowning human and a drowning member of an alien race centuries more advanced than humanity, which is it more moral to save?

It depends. Advancedness isn't the only criterion to go on. But to the extent it's one of many factors to consider, it would weigh in favor of the alien.

How can you say that after you just blatantly called the entire Hindu religion a farce based on the fact that they were saving the less intelligent creature!?!

I never said that intelligence was the only factor. Of course it's not.

 

[Psychopav]

From your brain?Nice. King of Smack and the best you have is "From my brain."?I apologize then. I didn't realize you had such hard hitting facts as 'the list in your brain'. You the man, fatguyinDanRather'scoat.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

MT- Would you agree that while YOU may see it immoral, it is not immoral in his eyes?

Some people are wrong about what's immoral and what isn't, yes.

If you come across a drowning human and a drowning member of an alien race centuries more advanced than humanity, which is it more moral to save?

I would still save the human as he/she is a member of my specie. Self protection/preservation of specie is a pretty strong drive in me I guess.

 

[Psychopav]

MT- Would you agree that while YOU may see it immoral, it is not immoral in his eyes?

Some people are wrong about what's immoral and what isn't, yes.

If you come across a drowning human and a drowning member of an alien race centuries more advanced than humanity, which is it more moral to save?

I'd save the alien, unless it was evil.

What if it's E.T.? E.T. died! E.T. is dead! No more "Elllliiiiooooottttt". No more "ET phone home, ET phone home!"

 

[Smoo]

But if you have mutually exclusive perspectives, then although neither of you may be "empirically" right or wrong, one of you is right and one of you is wrong.

Yes. From my perspective, I'm right and he's wrong. From his perspective, he's right and I'm wrong. Neither of us are independently right or wrong. Morality depends on perspective.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

But if you have mutually exclusive perspectives, then although neither of you may be "empirically" right or wrong, one of you is right and one of you is wrong.

Yes. From my perspective, I'm right and he's wrong. From his perspective, he's right and I'm wrong. Neither of us are independently right or wrong. Morality depends on perspective.

Do you believe there are any moral absolutes or are you comfortable in asserting that morality is self-generated due to perspective?

 

[flufhed]

God, they are STILL drowning? Someone at least save ONE of them for god's sakes.

 

[Smoo]

you have to say "they could believe it to be moral".

But when they're talking about genocide, wouldn't they be wrong?

They would be in disagreement with the rest of our society. There's no right or wrong.

Do you, personally, think that genocide is immoral?

Yes.

 

[Psychopav]

But if you have mutually exclusive perspectives, then although neither of you may be "empirically" right or wrong, one of you is right and one of you is wrong.

Yes. From my perspective, I'm right and he's wrong. From his perspective, he's right and I'm wrong. Neither of us are independently right or wrong. Morality depends on perspective.

Subjective morality depends on perspective. Objective morality doesn't.I believe in an objective morality. You don't. These positions are mutually exclusive. Are you saying that your position is the right one and mine is the wrong one?

 

[satch]

After reading the last few pages of this, I hugged my dog and a stranger. My dog licked me, the stranger punched me.

While quite humorous, that statement actually has relevance as it would be very true. If I hug a stranger, it could result in a violent retaliation....interesting comment on our society as well as the human race in general.

 

[Smoo]

MT- Would you agree that while YOU may see it immoral, it is not immoral in his eyes?

Some people are wrong about what's immoral and what isn't, yes.

If you come across a drowning human and a drowning member of an alien race centuries more advanced than humanity, which is it more moral to save?

I would still save the human as he/she is a member of my specie. Self protection/preservation of specie is a pretty strong drive in me I guess.

So do you believe that one of you or fatguy would be behaving immorally? Is there an absolute right answer in this scenario?

 

[Smoo]

But if you have mutually exclusive perspectives, then although neither of you may be "empirically" right or wrong, one of you is right and one of you is wrong.

Yes. From my perspective, I'm right and he's wrong. From his perspective, he's right and I'm wrong. Neither of us are independently right or wrong. Morality depends on perspective.

Do you believe there are any moral absolutes or are you comfortable in asserting that morality is self-generated due to perspective?

I do not believe there are any moral absolutes.

 

[Smoo]

Are you saying that your position is the right one and mine is the wrong one?

Of course I am. But that's not a moral stand, that's a philosophical stand.

 

[Psychopav]

Are you saying that your position is the right one and mine is the wrong one?

Of course I am. But that's not a moral stand, that's a philosophical stand.

So you believe in philosophical absolutes but not moral absolutes.

 

[zdaddy]

Not sure how we got to the point, where people started confusing dogs with humans, and thinking they are there children. But it is sad that it has come to that.

 

[Smoo]

Are you saying that your position is the right one and mine is the wrong one?

Of course I am. But that's not a moral stand, that's a philosophical stand.

So you believe in philosophical absolutes but not moral absolutes.

What is a 'philosophical absolute'?

 

[Thorn]

After reading the last few pages of this, I hugged my dog and a stranger.  My dog licked me, the stranger punched me.

While quite humorous, that statement actually has relevance as it would be very true. If I hug a stranger, it could result in a violent retaliation....interesting comment on our society as well as the human race in general.

You'd better not try and hug me after you don't save that stranger.

 

[Psychopav]

Are you saying that your position is the right one and mine is the wrong one?

Of course I am. But that's not a moral stand, that's a philosophical stand.

So you believe in philosophical absolutes but not moral absolutes.

What is a 'philosophical absolute'?

I guess I would characterize it as a stand in which the assertion brooks no contradiction, regardless of circumstances. So in this case, it would be the philosophical position that morality is solely subjective and never objective.

 

[660]

Not sure how we got to the point, where people started confusing dogs with humans, and thinking they are there children. But it is sad that it has come to that.

I know because most people's children are ***holes and most dogs are not

 

[zdaddy]

Not sure how we got to the point, where people started confusing dogs with humans, and thinking they are there children.  But it is sad that it has come to that.

I know because most people's children are ***holes and most dogs are not

I would agree slightly with that comment, seeing how you are someones child..And I see that you are one of the confused people.Dogs are to stupid to be a-holes

 

[660]

Are you saying that your position is the right one and mine is the wrong one?

Of course I am. But that's not a moral stand, that's a philosophical stand.

So you believe in philosophical absolutes but not moral absolutes.

What is a 'philosophical absolute'?

I guess I would characterize it as a stand in which the assertion brooks no contradiction, regardless of circumstances. So in this case, it would be the philosophical position that morality is solely subjective and never objective.

I think it is very clear that morality is subjective. This can be based on religious or non-religious circumstances. If you say morality is objective that is usually only because you view your religion as the TRUE guide.

 

[660]

Not sure how we got to the point, where people started confusing dogs with humans, and thinking they are there children.  But it is sad that it has come to that.

I know because most people's children are ***holes and most dogs are not

I would agree slightly with that comment, seeing how you are someones child..And I see that you are one of the confused people.Dogs are to stupid to be a-holes

I will gladly admit I am someone's child and am fact as ***hole. I have no problem with that attempt at an insult.However, while dogs may be too stupid to be ***holes, my vote can be explained more by the joy I would get from watching some ***hole die then it would be saving the dog. But if it makes you feel any better I would drop the dog off at a Korean resturaunt for dinner.

 

[Smoo]

Are you saying that your position is the right one and mine is the wrong one?

Of course I am. But that's not a moral stand, that's a philosophical stand.

So you believe in philosophical absolutes but not moral absolutes.

What is a 'philosophical absolute'?

I guess I would characterize it as a stand in which the assertion brooks no contradiction, regardless of circumstances. So in this case, it would be the philosophical position that morality is solely subjective and never objective.

I'm undecided on that. I believe it is absolutely true, but I also believe that not everything I believe is absolutely the correct belief. Hope that made sense.

 

[satch]

Not sure how we got to the point, where people started confusing dogs with humans, and thinking they are there children. But it is sad that it has come to that.

I don't think anyones is confusing dogs with humans. They are clearly 2 different species. The confusion is about what gives the human species more of a right to life over any other species, in this case a dog, and how we arrive at that conclusion without being merely selfish as a race.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

But if you have mutually exclusive perspectives, then although neither of you may be "empirically" right or wrong, one of you is right and one of you is wrong.

Yes. From my perspective, I'm right and he's wrong. From his perspective, he's right and I'm wrong. Neither of us are independently right or wrong. Morality depends on perspective.

Do you believe there are any moral absolutes or are you comfortable in asserting that morality is self-generated due to perspective?

I do not believe there are any moral absolutes.

So raping a child is okay in some circumstances? Trust me if anyone touches any of my five children they will quickly discover whether or not I feel that they are obliged to making this moral decision of their own accord.

 

[zdaddy]

Not sure how we got to the point, where people started confusing dogs with humans, and thinking they are there children.  But it is sad that it has come to that.

I know because most people's children are ***holes and most dogs are not

I would agree slightly with that comment, seeing how you are someones child..And I see that you are one of the confused people.Dogs are to stupid to be a-holes

I will gladly admit I am someone's child and am fact as ***hole. I have no problem with that attempt at an insult.However, while dogs may be too stupid to be ***holes, my vote can be explained more by the joy I would get from watching some ***hole die then it would be saving the dog. But if it makes you feel any better I would drop the dog off at a Korean resturaunt for dinner.

LOLhope that makes you feel better, when some ##### decides to let your mother drown, so he can take his dog to a Korean restaurant.And it really wasn't an attempt at an insult, just the realization that it pays to be an ##### in this day and age.

 

[zdaddy]

Not sure how we got to the point, where people started confusing dogs with humans, and thinking they are there children. But it is sad that it has come to that.

I don't think anyones is confusing dogs with humans. They are clearly 2 different species. The confusion is about what gives the human species more of a right to life over any other species, in this case a dog, and how we arrive at that conclusion without being merely selfish as a race.

Your typical human influences how many lives? Hundreds??? Hopefully most for the best, and for a long period of time. Your typical dog, one or two people may actually give a hoot about, and that is only for 10-13 years, than it is time to get a new puppy...

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

After reading the last few pages of this, I hugged my dog and a stranger.  My dog licked me, the stranger punched me.

While quite humorous, that statement actually has relevance as it would be very true. If I hug a stranger, it could result in a violent retaliation....interesting comment on our society as well as the human race in general.

Or the dog could rip your throat out and the human could give you a $100 bill. What was your point again?

 

[Smoo]

But if you have mutually exclusive perspectives, then although neither of you may be "empirically" right or wrong, one of you is right and one of you is wrong.

Yes. From my perspective, I'm right and he's wrong. From his perspective, he's right and I'm wrong. Neither of us are independently right or wrong. Morality depends on perspective.

Do you believe there are any moral absolutes or are you comfortable in asserting that morality is self-generated due to perspective?

I do not believe there are any moral absolutes.

So raping a child is okay in some circumstances? Trust me if anyone touches any of my five children they will quickly discover whether or not I feel that they are obliged to making this moral decision of their own accord.

You're not following this very well.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

you have to say "they could believe it to be moral".

But when they're talking about genocide, wouldn't they be wrong?

They would be in disagreement with the rest of our society. There's no right or wrong.

Do you, personally, think that genocide is immoral?

Yes.

Do you think it's immoral just when you do it? Or do you think it would also be immoral for me to do it?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

But if you have mutually exclusive perspectives, then although neither of you may be "empirically" right or wrong, one of you is right and one of you is wrong.

Yes. From my perspective, I'm right and he's wrong. From his perspective, he's right and I'm wrong. Neither of us are independently right or wrong. Morality depends on perspective.

Do you believe there are any moral absolutes or are you comfortable in asserting that morality is self-generated due to perspective?

I do not believe there are any moral absolutes.

So raping a child is okay in some circumstances? Trust me if anyone touches any of my five children they will quickly discover whether or not I feel that they are obliged to making this moral decision of their own accord.

You're not following this very well.

How so? I am not asking you if you personally feel it is okay. I am asking you if it is okay if some people do this because it is not a moral absolute.