Church leaders do not believe in a literal understanding of the Bible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Moral "grey areas" are where you have a decision you don't want to make. You will never be in a situation where two decisions are actually morally equivilent.

---

Never is an infinitely large statement.

What about the lady who had to choose which of her twins would survive, the other to be gassed?

I'm sure there is some Boolean situations where it is one survivor or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Never is an infinitely large statement.

What about the lady who had to choose which of her twins would survive, the other to be gassed?

I'm sure there is some Boolean situations where it is one survivor or the other.

---

I don't think so - and your example is fundamentally flawed, she isn't given a fictional "choice" she's presented with a choice as a means of tortur - if she chose neither the choice would be made for her.

If she chose neither, both would be killed. I recall that one sadist in Nazi Germany liked to play that "game" with mothers and children.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Moral "grey areas" are where you have a decision you don't want to make. You will never be in a situation where two decisions are actually morally equivilent.

---

But don't you think there are often situations where the two decisions are close enough that we would have to have an arrogant idea of our own infallibility to judge them as distinct? They are practically equivalent in that case. And other times it's clear upon reflection, or from a distance, what the right thing is, but the person had to make the decision in a few seconds or was under pressure, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

But don't you think there are often situations where the two decisions are close enough that we would have to have an arrogant idea of our own infallibility to judge them as distinct? They are practically equivalent in that case. And other times it's clear upon reflection, or from a distance, what the right thing is, but the person had to make the decision in a few seconds or was under pressure, etc...

---

Agree 100%. Even if a situation might be clear in hindsight, or with more information, or more reflection, we usually have to make a decision in the moment. Turn right or left? Blue pill or red pill? Ask Judy or Susan to the prom? Is this a dagger I see before me?

We are (by design) imperfect creatures who must function with imperfect knowledge. That's how we're made, and it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with that. You can no more get angry at people for being imperfect than you can get mad at a donut for having a hole in the middle; it's meant to be that way.

As I said earlier, moral quandaries will always be tough, no matter your creed, philosophy or faith.

My take on that moral dilemna is that the mother should love her children so much that she is completely irrational and tries to save them both.

She should save the one she hates least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I don't think so - and your example is fundamentally flawed, she isn't given a fictional "choice" she's presented with a choice as a means of tortur - if she chose neither the choice would be made for her.

---

Well it wasn't a fictional scenario as these happened.

Also you always have a choice. However hers were twin A, twin B, or both if she forfeit the saddists game. Fourth choice to fight back and herself, both the twins and anyone else the guards decided to group punish.

Her next choice was to approach the situation with terror, grace, vengeance, tooth and claw. Even in the death camps no one could strip you of that last choice of choosing your emotive zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

But don't you think there are often situations where the two decisions are close enough that we would have to have an arrogant idea of our own infallibility to judge them as distinct? They are practically equivalent in that case. And other times it's clear upon reflection, or from a distance, what the right thing is, but the person had to make the decision in a few seconds or was under pressure, etc...

---

Surely, whether we make the right choice is distinct from whether there is a right choice? Saying, "oh, it's too hard, I can't choose" is abdicating responsibility, which I consider morally reprehensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Surely, whether we make the right choice is distinct from whether there is a right choice? Saying, "oh, it's too hard, I can't choose" is abdicating responsibility, which I consider morally reprehensible.

---

That's not true. If it's a legitimately hard choice then it probably doesn't matter which you choose. This happens all the time. The people at fault are the ones who are determined to pick out one option as moral and the other as immoral...they make incorrect judgments about people...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

That's not true. If it's a legitimately hard choice then it probably doesn't matter which you choose. This happens all the time. The people at fault are the ones who are determined to pick out one option as moral and the other as immoral...they make incorrect judgments about people...

---

Rubbish.

If one is to try to choose the less immoral choice (note, not the "moral" one) one must first decide that one choice is more less immoral.

A "legitimately hard" choice is the only kind that you'll ever need to make, easy choices aren't really choices at all.

Looking at it another way, anything you do is some kind of choice - including doing nothing.

Classic example of a "hard" choice: Your city is besieged, the besieging general asks you to sacrifice one specific baby and he will leave - or he will raise your city to the ground and kill everyone.

This looks like a "hard" choice but it isn't, you just have to decide whether to take the traditionally "moral" course or the "utilitarian" one. The former says that killing the baby is wrong, end of, so you stand, fight and probably die. The latter says that letting all those people die for the sake of one life is wrong, so you kill the baby and hopefully the general goes away.

Of course, the reality is that the choice you have isn't as simple as our titular despot would have you believe, resist and the city might not fall, capitulate and the city may be destroyed anyway.

Presented with Sophie's Choice I would say that the morally "superior" decision is to try to kill the guard. There are, after all, far fewer guards than prisoners by an order of matgnitude, if every prisoner fought to the death attrition would wear the guards down until eventually there were none left and no one would be presented with that "choice" again.

It seems like you are going off on multiple other tangents :shrug:

If you have made a promise to someone, but there is a strong reason to break it, and you can't quite figure out which is the moral course...it's often an illusion to think that there is a huge gap between the two options. In some cases you could literally flip a coin. I can't imagine why you think it is morally reprehensible to acknowledge that sometimes it's a tough break either way and you just have to pick.

Any system of morality that focuses on actions instead of people and uses bunches of strange theoretical situations is terrible.

edit: I think you will go nowhere with these generals nazi's babies examples. Simply enough, consider two values that can oppose each other. For example, family loyalty and legal justice. That kind of choice in many scenarios can easily make you throw your hands up in the air, you see that? In many cases like that I wouldn't even feel bad towards someone who made what I was pretty sure was the wrong choice, just because I can see what value they were going after and I don't think it's easy to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It seems like you are going off on multiple other tangents :shrug:

If you have made a promise to someone, but there is a strong reason to break it, and you can't quite figure out which is the moral course...it's often an illusion to think that there is a huge gap between the two options. In some cases you could literally flip a coin. I can't imagine why you think it is morally reprehensible to acknowledge that sometimes it's a tough break either way and you just have to pick.

Any system of morality that focuses on actions instead of people and uses bunches of strange theoretical situations is terrible.

edit: I think you will go nowhere with these generals nazi's babies examples. Simply enough, consider two values that can oppose each other. For example, family loyalty and legal justice. That kind of choice in many scenarios can easily make you throw your hands up in the air, you see that? In many cases like that I wouldn't even feel bad towards someone who made what I was pretty sure was the wrong choice, just because I can see what value they were going after and I don't think it's easy to do.

---

There was one conherent point there, enforced choices are immoral and you should fight them. I'm sorry if the examples were poorly framed.

As to your examples, those are easy.

Never break your word and uphold the law over any familial loyalty, unless the law is unjust in which case oppose it over any loyalty.

Loyalty implies oathtaking, lawbreakers are oathbreakers - outlaws and felons - you don't owe them anything because they cannot be trusted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

As to your examples, those are easy.

Never break your word and uphold the law over any familial loyalty, unless the law is unjust in which case oppose it over any loyalty.

Loyalty implies oathtaking, lawbreakers are oathbreakers - outlaws and felons - you don't owe them anything because they cannot be trusted.

---

Very interesting. I don't agree in the slightest :D

Is it really easy to never ever break a promise and send your loved ones off to jail for their mistakes? Somehow I doubt it...

I tend to agree with Philipvs. I don't know why... Maybe we all adhere to different moral codes based on life situation/ upbringing etc.
I could never choose between my daughters. I would have attempted to save both or died trying. No philosopher juggle could change this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Never break your word and uphold the law over any familial loyalty, unless the law is unjust in which case oppose it over any loyalty.

Loyalty implies oathtaking, lawbreakers are oathbreakers - outlaws and felons - you don't owe them anything because they cannot be trusted.

---

Sorry. Family first, second and third. Doing what's right is the same as doing what is right for one's family.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Very interesting. I don't agree in the slightest :D

Is it really easy to never ever break a promise and send your loved ones off to jail for their mistakes? Somehow I doubt it...

---

I didn't say it was easy to do, just easy to decide.

Surely you can appreciate the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Sorry. Family first, second and third. Doing what's right is the same as doing what is right for one's family.

~:smoking:

---

I see no reason why this should be so. If my son were a rapist I would shop him to the police myself so I didn't have to beat him to death. Family loyalty is a fine thing, but it has to be reciprocated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I didn't say it was easy to do, just easy to decide.

Surely you can appreciate the difference?

---

I don't think the difference is important in this case...isn't the point exactly that someone working on strictly theoretical grounds can work out a whole system, but that those things have little application in real life? Also I agree with rory. Certainly the image of a husband being like "Yes officer, she WAS speeding" when they get pulled over is pretty silly don't you think? Is it telling that you picked one of the worst crimes for your example?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I see no reason why this should be so. If my son were a rapist I would shop him to the police myself so I didn't have to beat him to death. Family loyalty is a fine thing, but it has to be reciprocated.

---

There is no reason. It is simply my belief.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

There is no reason. It is simply my belief.

~:smoking:

---

Fair enough, but it isn't mine.

Church leaders do not believe in a literal understanding of the Bible

Title kind of makes sense. To be a leader you need some sort of brain, also in a church. So how could it possibly come as a surprise that church leaders in fact question the literal understanding of a book several hundred years old?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

There is no reason. It is simply my belief.

~:smoking:

---

I take it you rank primitive genes above civilized memes?

Surely then you can't be against honour killings as it is about family first.

And how about if you found out a favourite uncle was molesting an unrelated child?

I'm sure there is a few areas where you still rank memes above genes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I take it you rank primitive genes above civilized memes?

Surely then you can't be against honour killings as it is about family first.

And how about if you found out a favourite uncle was molesting an unrelated child?

I'm sure there is a few areas where you still rank memes above genes...

---

Honour killings are about killing one's family. That's hardly putting them first. And I am pretty confident that my family would not do such a thing. I am not concerned with what other families get up to, if it doesn't break the law. Honour killings does break UK law and hence should be stopped.

Uncle kiddie fiddler? Yes, that is a toughie. First off, I take it I'm certain my children are unaffected? Else his castrated body is going under a pile of lime in woodland. Past that point I would imagine it would be a case of getting support whilst trying to ensure the welfare of children.

In the general society I rank memes above genes as I have no particular interest in the genetic make up of general society. They are not mine so I have far less loyalty to them. Blood is thicker than water etc.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Church leaders do not believe in a literal understanding of the Bible

Title kind of makes sense. To be a leader you need some sort of brain, also in a church. So how could it possibly come as a surprise that church leaders in fact question the literal understanding of a book several hundred years old?

---

And out of nowhere Kad comes streaking in from the far post

I guess now that springtime is almost here there are no more housewives on the slope

What a tragedy