Sojourner553

Just now saw this post:

* "These measures were needed to save the child from Satan and protect its soul for heaven." -- Andrea Yates

* "The child would have spread a false religion and needed to be tortured to demonstrate its beliefs were wrong." -- Tomás de Torquemada

* "The child was an infidel and if allowed to grow up would have hurt the holy cause" -- Bin Laden

* "The child was probably GAY anyway" -- Reverend Jerry Falwell

* "This was all appearance: The child was obviously an 'impressionable' young woman and therefore under the influence of a 'disembodied spirit', making such unpleasant measures necessary to remove her demons" --
Heinrich Kramer; James Sprenger (authors of THE MALLEUS MALEFICARUM)

* "Suffering demonstrates the mercy of Jesus" --
Flaggelents from the Dark Ages.

Moral of story: Why do you assume "belief" makes one act in an obvious moral way?

History has shown it was primarily CONSERVATIVE RELIGIOUS groups who fought and opposed democracy, toleration, slave abolition, women rights, and laws outlawing child abuse.

Check it out (Section V)

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>
Sojourner

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

tronvillain

It cannot be shown to be wrong except from a given perspective, but thankfully most of us share a similar perspective on the issue. There is no reason that you "should" feel guilty about the hypothetical.

Hans

John Page

To maintain the hypothetical's intended gripping effect I will offer what is the coldest reason I can come up with at this time. And that is that it was done for no other purpose than to cause the parents as much grief as possible knowing how their child suffered before dying a horrifying death.

Hans

Wizardry

If I shorthanded your explination to read: It's wrong because it is (or is likely to be) detrimental to society. Would that accurately depict your explination?

Please don't be side tracked by arguing about guilt. Guilt was only used as part of a definition of wrong. I used that definition under the pretext that a normal healthy mind will feel guilt if it believes it has done something wrong. Whether this pretext is accurate or not is irrelevent. The "mission" is to show if actions were wrong.

MeBeMe

The fact you put "Hypothetical, of course!!" at the beginning of your first post suggests you are probably already aware of the answer to your own question.

Hans

Tom Piper

Yes I want it shown how the actions are wrong.

tronvillain

Ultimately it's not, but from my perspective it is, because it really bothers me.

Hans

tronvillain

I concur 100% from the first word to the last. And oddly enough I found it to be the most difficult post to respond to.

I find that to stand in the face of what is likely one of our most coveted and sacred beliefs, the belief that such acts are just plain wrong, and to logically and reasonably dispose of that belief is absolutely liberating. Liberating not because I could feel free to perform such acts guilt free but liberating because the elimination of a false belief, espesially one so coveted and sacred, allows me to think and grow in ways that were completely impossible before. Not to mention that acting on intelligence rather than assumption is much more rewarding.

Not being the antisocial, sociopathic, sexual deviant portrayed in the opening post hypothetical it is my desire to share this liberation. A liberation that can only be found by challenging one's most coveted and sacred beliefs up close, in your face, and personal.

John Page

But why? Were you molested as a child? Did you go to confession?

Hans

You were already given a why. If you truly need the above to formulate a response then pick both and generate a separate response for each.