wildernesse

My earlier example did fit the question. The question was Would I allow billions of people to suffer for the actions of 2 people?

It did not state whether the actions of the 2 people were positive or negative. Therefore, I didn't have enough information to answer it well because what if the actions of the 2 people were positive or neutral in and of themselves for the 2 people as individuals?

I was explicitly told not to mention the Bible nor refer to it--so although people seem to be considering Adam and Eve, I was not. Then it is implied that I'm obviously being blind to the implications of the question and its obvious biblical connotations. I'm not dancing around the original question, I don't think--because I can't say that I should change/prevent the actions or consequences of actions of 2 people or based on the suffering of many. People are valuable whether it's just one person or many.

--tibac

Mad Kally

HOW CAN ANYONE LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL QUESTIONS AND SAY ANYTHING BUT NO!!!!

Look what religion has reduced people to.. it's sickening. Don't try to keep rationalizing it. It isn't working.

Sapient

AMEN!




Hey, check out my State of the Union show, Friday: http://thedeepdark.com/bos

Mad Kally

Way cool! I'll be listening.

Unforgiven Too

How do you guys do it?

I couldn't get very far at all in the first link to the Christian sites you asked this on. If they asked a similar question about someone else's beliefs, asking an answer without referring to their own holy texts, they wouldn't think themselves out of line at all. Is it that hard to see that you're asking for a straight, human opinion answer, and that citing the bible in no way is "proof" of anything? I should get on there and start citing Edgar Cayce as solid, bottom-line proof (I may sort of believe in him, but I certainly wouldn't cite his "say-so" as the final word, I'd consider anyone else insane to do so). They'd probably bust a blood vessel, accuse me of a number of horrible sins involving the occult, and assure me that, on their word, my book is untruth and should be burned and also, on their word, that theirs is absolutely the final word. I'm rambling, I'm so frustrated just thinking about it. They make me think of the contortionists at the circus, trying to bend and twist the facts to fit the beliefs. Like trying to fit five pounds of flour into a one pound bag, as my dad would say. If someone was attempting such a feat, insisting earnestly and with single-minded conviction that the bag was not too small, was just right, that no other bag would do. . . . we'd put him away. Seriously.

If asked such a question about my own "beliefs" (I don't like to put them on a level with dogmatic beliefs, because mine are constantly evolving to fit the ever-changing understanding of the universe, as well as my own ever-changing understanding of people, and I know it) I'd know exactly what was meant and would probably think hard on it--and my beliefs might end up evolving just that much farther. But I guess that's the difference--dogmatic religions like the "pure" form of Xianity are the farthest thing possible from a personal religion. They're set in stone and that is the very basis. Any change is bad, any word or belief against Yahweh's "final word" is wrong and must be destroyed, legislated, hounded, or exiled--and don't get me started on the evidence thing. Evidence to any contrary is held up as being fabricated by Satan or man, or is destroyed outright.

I saw them do this once in reference to some stuff in the Quran about what embryos look like. When all evidence against it being a mortal hoax had been addressed, the only answer left was the 'Satan's work' answer, which can't really be proved or disproved--thus, the happy little bubble remains intact.

As for the comment about the bible being infinite levels above fairy tales, all I can say is that Hans Christian Anderson's "The Little Mermaid" (not the shit version Disney did, massacring the excellent tale originally told) is far more of a tale of morality than 99.9% of the Bible. I'll summarize, since it was one of my favorites before Disney worked its "magic" on it:

The witch was a businesswoman, the little mermaid made a stupid and dangerous mistake. She had no soul, unlike a human, and so she was also after a human soul for herself, which she hoped to obtain by marrying a human, though she loved the Prince dearly and really wanted to marry him. Otherwise, she'd live 300 years and then dissolve into sea foam. If he married anyone else (as part of the "becoming human" spell), she would just immediately turn into a soulless pile of sea foam when the sun rose the next day. No time limit whatsoever apart from that. (Fun fact--the sea witch in the story cut out the mermaid's tongue to take her voice, no song and dance spell)

On the night after the Prince's wedding, she's on the wedding ship waiting for dawn, her sisters come up and throw her this knife they bought from the sea witch, having cut off all their beautiful hair for it. If the mermaid stabs the prince in the heart with it, his blood will fall on her feet and she'll get her tail back and get to live out the rest of her 300 years. She goes to do it, but upon seeing him in bed with the other woman, whom it is clear he loves dearly, she can't make him pay the price for her own mistake, and loves him enough that she'd rather see him happy with another woman than dead. So she throws the knife into the sea and dives in after just as the sun rises, turning her to sea foam.

In the end, she gets a soul for that.

That, to me, is at least one fairy tale that is infinite levels above the bible, could do without the bloody witchcraft part, but has a clear path of love, morality, and those responsible accepting responsibility. No innocents were slain in the writing of this story. Hand me this story and the bible, I'd create a belief system on the story long before I'd create any system based on the bible.

I doubt if anyone had the patience to really read all of that, but I had to get it out. If I even try to start a philosophical or religious arguement here, I get the farts and fumes. (not that they're dogmatic, but they just aren't interested). If there's anyone in the world who's interested AND understands what I"m talking about, it's the people here. Just wanted, after seeing that link, to once again register my admiration and amazement of you atheists. Banging one's head against a solid stone wall must be painful, but someone has to do it if we're ever going to get through. And I lack the patience.

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

ManM

Mad Kally,
Given the general nature of the question, I could say you are quite a horrible person for saying no. The question is: "Would you let billions of people suffer for the actions of two people?" This is quite incomplete. What happens if billions of people don't suffer? Perhaps the alternative would be even worse than the suffering. I chose the option, "I might, I might not".

HelenM

Sapient, this is not a religious question. I think it belongs on Moral Foundations and Principles as stated.

If you think it belongs on General Religious Discussions I'd be curious to know why

Anyway, I will never be in the position of choosing whether to cause billions of people to suffer for the actions of two others.

I do not believe it' would be ethical of me to make one person suffer for the actions of another. If one person has the power to choose to take on the suffering of another, I'd say that's their choice. Depending on the circumstances I might try to persuade them out of it.

take care
Helen

wildernesse

What if the 2 people's actions are good for the 2 people, Kally? What if preventing the 2 people's actions does harm to those 2 people? Is it ok to harm those 2 people because more than 2 people won't suffer? How many people have to benefit from one person's torture to make that torture ok?

I'm not answering this religiously, and to say that I am rationalizing my religion when I'm trying to clarify the question is wrong.

Is the question supposed to be: Would you hold billions of people responsible for 2 people's actions?

Of course, not--that's my answer to this question.

That's a different question than would you cause billions of people to suffer for the actions of 2 people? It's semantics, yes. But I don't see in that question that the actions of the 2 people warranted punishment. And I specifically thought of an example where answering no to the question meant that innocent people (the 2) would have to be sacrificed for their actions--actions that did not warrant punishment and might even be beneficial to them.

A biased assumption would be to assume we are talking about Adam and Eve and God's supposed imposing of suffering on billions of people who share in Adam and Eve's act. The OP specifically stated that we were not to speak about the Bible or find recourse in the Bible. Therefore it's not a religious question at all, but an ethical one. I too, believe that this would be best in MPF and not GRD because it has nothing to do with religion--except that previous religious people were asked.

--tibac

Starboy

Depends on what I had to do to stop the suffering. The most obvious case where the answer would be yes is if in order to stop the suffering I would have to destroy all of the people or keep them from ever existing. In that case I would let them suffer since I would consider that to be the least offensive of the two choices.

In some sense this is a trick question because it doesn't spell out what it would take to stop the suffering. The cure could be much worse than the disease.

Starboy

Mad Kally

ManM, you are a sick and brainwashed cult member! Why are you people still trying to rationalize? Read the original questions!

Read the original questions and just answer YES or NO.

It's obvious who the moral people are on this website! (atheists)