PaulSacramento wrote: Spock wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:I don;'t think that any of these were answered....
IS it moral to kill the one to save the many?
Is it moral to kill the few to save millions?
Would it have been moral to kill the Nazis to save the 10's of millions that died in WW2?
Would it have been moral to kill Stalin or Lenin or Mao and save 10's of millions?
Moral dilemmas are common to all moral theories. They depend upon the assumption that the moral theory defines something as immoral, and then create a situation that pits one immoral action against another. That's why it is a dilemma.
My moral theory explains why killing is immoral. The question of which horn of the dilemma would be "more immoral" depends upon further argument, as it would under any moral theory. For example, I presume you have a moral theory. How would you answer your own questions? If you can't or won't answer this point, your will be revealing that you have a double standard are not interested in seeking truth.
In other words, your moral theory is subjective.
Why do you make UNSUPPORTED assertions? If you want to assert that my argument is faulty, you need to do more than mere say that I'm wrong. You need to give reasons for your assertions. My theory is not subjective. It is objective in exactly the same way that physics is objective as I explained in an earlier post today and at length in my article The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality
. Did you read either of my explanations? If not, why are you rejecting things you know nothing about?
I notice you didn't answer the question though.
That is correct. It would be foolish to answer a calculus question if the person asking doesn't agree with the arithmetic upon which it is based. You must first understand the basics of my theory before we can fruitfully explore complex moral dilemmas.
I refer back to this post on the first page as, truly, the most honest answer that can be given:
However, from what I've seen, the more sensible of the "moral" Atheists who have actually given thought to the matter typically acknowledge that there is no objective standard of morality in their worldview, but they say that the relative is just as valid as the absolute in their view. In their worldview, since there is no God and people are the highest form of life, there is nothing wrong with saying "I act by this set of morals because I want to, not because I believe they are inherently and objectively moral. I WANT to help mankind, therefore I try to fight sexism and racism". Which I admit, I think is somewhat noble of them, even if I as a Christian don't hold that view of morality. Just because you don't believe in objective morality doesn't mean you will go off the deep end and actively try to do the opposite of what is considered moral.
Your answer may be honest, but that doesn't help the fact that it is blatantly false in this context. I assert objective moral absolutes. Your opinion about other atheists is totally irrelevant to the validity or invalidity of my argument.
So much more honest to end it here then continue because of ulterior motives.
Your constant assertion of "ulterior motives" is immoral. How would you like it if everyone in this forum answered you with such false accusations?
And to answer your question, Yes I have a moral code ( not theory) and that is one that I base of Christ and His teachings and guidance from the HS.
Is it perfect? Nope, I am human
Is it without dilemma's? Nope, I am Human.
Does it give me a solid core from which to make moral judgment on acts? Yes, I believe it does.
So what is my answer to those questions.
The answer is Yes.
I am curious as to your answer of course and how the "GR" applies.
Your "moral code" sounds totally subjective in as much as it relies upon your own private interpretation of Christ's teachings the totally subjective "experience" of the Holy Spirit which is indistinguishable from your own feelings.
So you glibly answer "yes" as if there were no moral dilemma?!? Wow.
As for how I would answer - I can't explain that to you until you show some basic understanding of the argument I have put forth. It would be absurd to try to work on the roof if we are still laying the foundation.