Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The Other Michael · 05-22-2002, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by babelfish:
It's strange that you should have thought of such an out-of-this-world type scenario. Why didn't you just ask me about some real-world scenarios like Ruby Ridge or Waco? That's what immediately came to my mind when I read your post.

. . . All I know is that in most cases I would fight tooth and nail for my family. Wouldn't you?

Hi Babelfish,

It's probably the result of reading science fiction and fantasy for the last 40 or so years.

I was proposing somewhat of a reductio ad absurdum. If you knew your family was going to die in 24+ hours anyway, and by going a bit earlier than that you could save 30,000 others, would you make the sacrifice or fight for the extra hours?

Plus I think I might prefer the euthanasia rather than the horrible death from the collywobbles.

There are undoubtedly many far less severe situations in which I'd be right beside you on the front lines. A simple bad guy vs us is a pretty easy call, I'd think. Where does the line get crossed to where you and your family go under for the reduced suffering of a much greater number of people? That of course presumes that such a decision to make a sacrifice would occur.

cheers,
Michael

babelfish · 05-23-2002, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Other Michael:


There are undoubtedly many far less severe situations in which I'd be right beside you on the front lines. A simple bad guy vs us is a pretty easy call, I'd think. Where does the line get crossed to where you and your family go under for the reduced suffering of a much greater number of people? That of course presumes that such a decision to make a sacrifice would occur.

cheers,
Michael

Hi Michael,

I like science fiction too. Actually your posts made me think up a bunch of other imaginary scenarios . . .

Here's one: You are on a life raft that can hold 20 more people. Several yards to your right, there are 20 people who will drown if you don't paddle the life raft over to them immediately. Farther out to your left, your young daughter is struggling in the water. By the time you will have rescued her, the other 20 people will have drowned. What is the moral thing to do? (I would go for my daughter, even if the 20 people were members of your family, Michael, or a group of scientists about to discover a cure for cancer, or adult members of my own family.)

My answer to your imaginary scenario with the virus from Mars is: What if the authorities are wrong? You have to admit this has been known to happen! I believe that in that situation I would still try to kill anyone who came anywhere near my family in an attempt to incinerate us.

(

<-my face if anyone tried to incinerate my family!)

JL · 05-23-2002, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Atheists believe free will and reason are sufficient, hence the preoccupation with utopia, fame, and heaven on earth.

I am preoccupied with none of these, nor am I familiar with any who are.

The Other Michael · 05-23-2002, 06:01 AM

Good morning Babelfish,

Sure, there are any number of variations that we could come up with, and we could probably come up with plenty of them to justify most any possible decision.

What if your youngest daughter was over to the one side, but your two next oldest daughters were in the group of 20? etc etc etc

I could probably add more and more conditions to the collywobble scenario to meet every point you could raise, (I've noticed that in some threads - "but wait! what about . . . .") but I doubt that would benefit either of us.

I'll have to proclaim my inability to make a good argument involving what a person might chose with their children being involved, as I'm not a parent and never will be. Children remain a somewhat academic subject for me, and it is a subject that holds minimal interest.

But it can be an interesting thought exercise to consider some of these scenarios, wacky though they may be, and my impression is that a lot of what goes on in these forums boils down to thought exercises to try and get us to stretch our mental muscles a bit (though every now and again I seem to develop a cramp in my prefrontal lobes).

cheers,
Michael

NumberTenOx · 05-23-2002, 06:07 AM

>> By the time you will have rescued her, the other 20 people will have drowned.<<

Hey, Peter Parker! Your girlfriend or that cable car full of kids? "You've spun your last web, Spiderman!".

Seriously, a rehash goes like this:

Theist: The source of morality is either A) punishment of some type from God depending on your actions, or B) an inherent desire to be God-like - the created in his image thing.

Atheist: The source of morality is either A) punishment of some type from society depending on your actions, or B) an inherent desire to be moral built in by evolution - the selfish gene thing.

Sorry this doesn't advance the argument, I just thought it was interesting.

[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: NumberTenOx ]

babelfish · 05-23-2002, 07:03 AM

Hi Michael!

Quote:

What if your youngest daughter was over to the one side, but your two next oldest daughters were in the group of 20? etc etc etc

Did you ever see the dreadful movie "Sophie's Choice" starring Meryl Streep? This hypothetical would be the only one that would be liable to break my heart. I'd probably let go of the raft and drown myself...

Quote:

But it can be an interesting thought exercise to consider some of these scenarios, wacky though they may be, and my impression is that a lot of what goes on in these forums boils down to thought exercises to try and get us to stretch our mental muscles a bit (though every now and again I seem to develop a cramp in my prefrontal lobes).

You're so right. Sometimes after I've debated on these boards I feel like I've just had a really good aerobic work-out. It really gets those endorphins flowing, doesn't it? Maybe that's why it's so addicting.

But getting back to the point of this whole discussion, in none of these hypothetical scenarios can I imagine whipping out the Bible for guidance. Every decision we make is human-centered, whether we want it to be so, or not.

The Other Michael · 05-23-2002, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by babelfish:
But getting back to the point of this whole discussion, in none of these hypothetical scenarios can I imagine whipping out the Bible for guidance. Every decision we make is human-centered, whether we want it to be so, or not.

Hi Babelfish,

You'd want to make sure you've got the drip-dry version of the Bible when out on the raft.

Yep, in the end we've got to figure out our own answers, and Mr. Murphy will do his best to throw you into a situation where you have to make a snap decision on something you've never thought about.

cheers,
Michael

babelfish · 05-23-2002, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Other Michael:


You'd want to make sure you've got the drip-dry version of the Bible when out on the raft.

I was gonna make this very same point!

Happy Wonderer · 05-24-2002, 10:31 PM

True moral behavior requires a disbelief in God. Acting "morally" because fear that Mom, God, or the Boss will punish you if you misbehave is merely acting as a rat in a cage, pushing the right levers to get a treat and avoiding the ones that give you a shock.

I believe that empathy is the most important reason that humans treat each other reasonably. Feeling the hurt in someone else's eyes doesn't feel good to (normal) people, so they avoid causing it. Anticipating the consequences of our actions on future relationships also keeps us in line. (People are generally much less kind to strangers than they are to even casual acquaintances.)

Religion is one means that societies use to overcome this natural disinclination to harm others. "Surrender your will to GOD!" is a common theme to many religions. That means, "don't make any moral decisions for yourselves, we will make them for you. We make the tough calls, you just wield the axe..."

Notice how many religions de-humanize the "others." They are hell-kindling anyway, doesn't matter if you set fire to them now! This is one way of overcoming empathy. An image that I can't forget is from a history of the Spanish Conquistadores, recounted by a former soldier. On encountering an Indian village, they were ordered (by the priests) to slay everybody. He recalls tossing babies in the air and bayonetting them. He felt bad about it, but they were told that this was really a *good* thing because they were saving these little heathen souls...

Anyway, before I go off on too long of a rant, my basic point is that religion is one of the many means that humans have invented to overcome their natural tendancy to behave decently towards each other. Telling people that this world isn't real, the "others" aren't people but are devils, and that you must surrender your will have historically proven to be a great help towards the goal of creating ever-increasing and imaginative atrocities.

HW

babelfish · 05-25-2002, 06:07 AM

HW,

I liked your post.

It reminded me of how the Religious Right is talking about Islam right now. How people who pray to Allah are nothing but evil Satan worshippers.

Ironically, that's exactly what the Islamics are saying about those who pray to Jesus!

05-23-2002, 06:07 AM	#25
NumberTenOx Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bellevue, WA Posts: 284	>> By the time you will have rescued her, the other 20 people will have drowned.<< Hey, Peter Parker! Your girlfriend or that cable car full of kids? "You've spun your last web, Spiderman!". Seriously, a rehash goes like this: Theist: The source of morality is either A) punishment of some type from God depending on your actions, or B) an inherent desire to be God-like - the created in his image thing. Atheist: The source of morality is either A) punishment of some type from society depending on your actions, or B) an inherent desire to be moral built in by evolution - the selfish gene thing. Sorry this doesn't advance the argument, I just thought it was interesting. [ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: NumberTenOx ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-23-2002, 06:01 AM	#24
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	Good morning Babelfish, Sure, there are any number of variations that we could come up with, and we could probably come up with plenty of them to justify most any possible decision. What if your youngest daughter was over to the one side, but your two next oldest daughters were in the group of 20? etc etc etc I could probably add more and more conditions to the collywobble scenario to meet every point you could raise, (I've noticed that in some threads - "but wait! what about . . . .") but I doubt that would benefit either of us. I'll have to proclaim my inability to make a good argument involving what a person might chose with their children being involved, as I'm not a parent and never will be. Children remain a somewhat academic subject for me, and it is a subject that holds minimal interest. But it can be an interesting thought exercise to consider some of these scenarios, wacky though they may be, and my impression is that a lot of what goes on in these forums boils down to thought exercises to try and get us to stretch our mental muscles a bit (though every now and again I seem to develop a cramp in my prefrontal lobes). cheers, Michael

05-24-2002, 10:31 PM	#29
Happy Wonderer Veteran Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Washington, the least religious state Posts: 5,334	True moral behavior requires a disbelief in God. Acting "morally" because fear that Mom, God, or the Boss will punish you if you misbehave is merely acting as a rat in a cage, pushing the right levers to get a treat and avoiding the ones that give you a shock. I believe that empathy is the most important reason that humans treat each other reasonably. Feeling the hurt in someone else's eyes doesn't feel good to (normal) people, so they avoid causing it. Anticipating the consequences of our actions on future relationships also keeps us in line. (People are generally much less kind to strangers than they are to even casual acquaintances.) Religion is one means that societies use to overcome this natural disinclination to harm others. "Surrender your will to GOD!" is a common theme to many religions. That means, "don't make any moral decisions for yourselves, we will make them for you. We make the tough calls, you just wield the axe..." Notice how many religions de-humanize the "others." They are hell-kindling anyway, doesn't matter if you set fire to them now! This is one way of overcoming empathy. An image that I can't forget is from a history of the Spanish Conquistadores, recounted by a former soldier. On encountering an Indian village, they were ordered (by the priests) to slay everybody. He recalls tossing babies in the air and bayonetting them. He felt bad about it, but they were told that this was really a good thing because they were saving these little heathen souls... Anyway, before I go off on too long of a rant, my basic point is that religion is one of the many means that humans have invented to overcome their natural tendancy to behave decently towards each other. Telling people that this world isn't real, the "others" aren't people but are devils, and that you must surrender your will have historically proven to be a great help towards the goal of creating ever-increasing and imaginative atrocities. HW

05-25-2002, 06:07 AM	#30
babelfish Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Augusta, Maine, USA Posts: 2,046	HW, I liked your post. It reminded me of how the Religious Right is talking about Islam right now. How people who pray to Allah are nothing but evil Satan worshippers. Ironically, that's exactly what the Islamics are saying about those who pray to Jesus!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.