Jump to content

Ethics


Jymotion

Recommended Posts

If it was proven, beyond any shred of a doubt, that an all-powerful and all-knowing God exists, and that this God demanded that you kill someone, would you do it?  If you do not, it is 100% certain that you will suffer a horrible fate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was proven, beyond any shed of a doubt, that an all-powerful and all-knowing God exists, and that this God demanded that you kill someone, would you do it?  If you do not, it is 100% certain that you will suffer a horrible fate.

On TF2. Sure why not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's so ethical about doing something out of fear of a horrible fate?

 

What's unethical about doing something your proven God tells you to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God could have no ethics.

 

Even if he is all-knowing?  Wouldn't his code for what gets you into heaven and what sends you to hell the same as ethics (since it is all proven to exist)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if he is all-knowing?  Wouldn't his code for what gets you into heaven and what sends you to hell the same as ethics (since it is all proven to exist)?

Ethics is the concept of right and wrong conduct. If God is not following any concept of right and wrong, then he is not an ethical being and none of his commands are ethical to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ethics is the concept of right and wrong conduct. If God is not following any concept of right and wrong, then he is not an ethical being and none of his commands are ethical to follow.

 

You think you have a better understanding of right and wrong than an all-knowing God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think you have a better understanding of right and wrong than an all-knowing God?

No, but unless he shares his moral philosophy with us, we would have no way of knowing if he is an ethical being or not. Of course, you could treat God as a force of nature that can't be reasoned with. In that case, ethics would be as it is now; something we'd have to come up with ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Fun fact--a lot of theories of moral development focus not on WHAT you do, but on WHY you arrived at that solution.

 

Moral dilemmas have many factors that come into play, so psychologists and moral theorists tend to focus on the process rather than the conclusion when doing morality and ethics research.

 

Also, I was gonna point out the problems with your question but pudding did already

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any concept of a God describes them as creator therefore a command to destroy life, for that end only, being contrary to God's being, invalidates the request and is a test of the person receiving the request.

 

Restate the question. During our lives we do things to survive and thrive because of the personal mandate to survive and thrive. Isn't that mandate essentially a command from a God also. If so, which Is more important, the madate or the nature in which we carry it out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would question why first. 

 

Kill that kid before he murders 6M+ people. Sure.

 

Kill that couple because they are different. Nope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with divine command theory was postulated in ancient Greece.

"Does God approve of it because it is right, or is it right because God approves of it?"

 

If God approves of it because it is right, that would mean "right" is something that even God must answer to, and so there must be some other method of finding out what is right. If it is right because God approves of it, then that means morality is arbitrary and based on an "almighty" being, so any sort of moral deliberation would be meaningless. Because God said "Thou shalt not steal," it would mean any act of stealing is immediately immoral.

 

A better example would be that of a runaway train. You're standing next to a switch that diverts the tracks into two paths. One path leads to four children playing on the track, the other leads to a rich man whose car stalled on the track. Right now, the train is headed to kill the children. You can choose to change its path to kill the man instead, should you hit the switch. There are no other choices available, and the train will inevitably kill someone. What do you do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich man is gonna bite it.

 

Ah, but that rich man was about to liberate you from poverty, and instead the children see you killing the rich man. One of them then assume death is desirable, and grow up to be an artist, and then literally Hitler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, if you decide to pull the switch and kill the rich man, you are actively participating in murder. The train wasn't put on there by you, and you can't really stop it. If you decide to change its path, then you are condemning the man to die. In other ways, you are using that man in order to save the children. Is it ethical to kill another person? Divine command would say no. Is it ethical to use another person, for the benefit of someone else? Kant would say no. Is it ethical to ignore the train and pretend like you didn't see anything? Virtue ethics would say no. Is it ethical to kill a man and save four children, since one life is better than four? Utilitarians can argue both ways.

 

Basically, there is no correct option, only what you make of it. Depending on your stance, you must choose one or the other option, and suffer the consequences of each.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I chose the rich man for 2 reason. 4 lives over 1. Children over adult. 

 

I am preventing the loss of 4 children costing the life of another adult. Rich is subjective, monetarily rich, life fulfilled rich? 

 

Both would suggest that he has lived a full life. Thus, in my eyes, the burden wouldn't be as great as just watching 4 children get slaughtered. Being a father myself I would kill anyone who hurts my kid without any mercy or remorse or gladly die in place of them. I would hope that any parent would understand that.

 

The life of a child is greater than an adult, IMO. 

 

Also, whos to say that I could not help the man out of his car, or the man is stupid enough to see a train and he is on tracks; put two and two together.

 

What if Hancock shows up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, if you decide to pull the switch and kill the rich man, you are actively participating in murder. The train wasn't put on there by you, and you can't really stop it. If you decide to change its path, then you are condemning the man to die. In other ways, you are using that man in order to save the children. Is it ethical to kill another person? Divine command would say no. Is it ethical to use another person, for the benefit of someone else? Kant would say no. Is it ethical to ignore the train and pretend like you didn't see anything? Virtue ethics would say no. Is it ethical to kill a man and save four children, since one life is better than four? Utilitarians can argue both ways.

 

Basically, there is no correct option, only what you make of it. Depending on your stance, you must choose one or the other option, and suffer the consequences of each.

 

Problem, was the train heading for one or the other?  If it wasn't then no one dies.  If it was then the train has in theory committed the murder.  I can not be morally culpable for the train.  Also, you can not construct a perfect argument.  We can't know the outcome. We don't know if the man will die but we do know that the children are less likely to survive.  A predetermined outcome can't be argued because it is unreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem, was the train heading for one or the other?  If it wasn't then no one dies.  If it was then the train has in theory committed the murder.  I can not be morally culpable for the train.  Also, you can not construct a perfect argument.  We can't know the outcome. We don't know if the man will die but we do know that the children are less likely to survive.  A predetermined outcome can't be argued because it is unreal.

From my first post:

"Right now, the train is headed to kill the children. You can choose to change its path to kill the man instead, should you hit the switch. There are no other choices available, and the train will inevitably kill someone."

 

The train can't stop, and it will hit the children or hit the man, and kill them/him. Pulling the switch is your decision, what do you choose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are all stupid enough to be on a train track?

Is there a way to kill them all?

Humanity would probably be better off without their stupidity around anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...