|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are Fundamentalists Inherently Immoral | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
{AbE} The actual moral theory I subscribe to would say, yes go ahead and rape his mother if you're sure it will result in saving 100,000s of people, but I'm still not sure if I could do it.{/AbE} The question is a false dilemma - the choices given are: 1) rape Hitlers mom and prevent the Holocaust2) allow the Holocaust you inhuman monster Those aren't the only choices possible. You could try convincing Hitler's mother to give the child up, or warn her of how he would turn out, or even kill Hitler as a child so that you don't have to rape his mother. You could forcibly sterilize his mother. You could intercept the first copy of Mein Kampf and burn it so that Hitler's ideas do not become so easily popularized. You could bring a DVD detailing WWII to various government leaders and warn them of the results of letting Hitler take power, and the consequences of the insane policies regarding Germany after WWI that directly led to his. I could go on. The most ethical choice if restricted to those two options is certainly to rape Hitler's mother...but that's like asking whether you would choose to kill one person or a dozen to prevent a puppy from being hit by a car - neither solution is ethical, and there are other, far more ethical ways you could accomplish the same end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Just to play devil's advocate here: you do realize they would lock your ass away for being a psycho witch for thinking you can tell the future and for this devil's tool: a "dvd", right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Just to play devil's advocate here: you do realize they would lock your ass away for being a psycho witch for thinking you can tell the future and for this devil's tool: a "dvd", right? They'll lock me away for raping Hitler's mom, too. "DVD" was meant to also imply a player. Technology as advanced as a portable DVD player and few WWII documentaries would do wonders to convince people that what I'm saying is true. ABE - the point is that the entire question is a false dilemma; there are many more options than "rape" or "allow Holocaust." Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Yeah, I got at that with the beginning of my post, detailing that in this scenario, it would be hard to force the situation so those two options are all that are available.
But, constrained to those two, and only those two, scenarios, then my code would tell me to rape her. Now, even with that, whether or not I could actually follow through on my ethical plan, I'm not sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2302 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
Don't know about his opinion but I can categorically state that rape is wrong no matter what!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Again I will say this. I think rape is wrong under any circumstances. So the God of the Bible, in commanding his boys to "take the virgins for themselves," is aiding and abetting - hell, insisting upon something that is "wrong under any circumstances." I'm glad that you've cleared that up. No other Bible-believers have bothered to try. Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Unless we think that Hitler's actions made for a more secure future so that the violent deaths of millions enabled the peaceful existence of billions. There is the rub. How do we know that the alternative to Hitler wouldn't be worse? This whole moralistic mental exercise of whether raping Hitlers mother or killing Hitler as a baby is a futile and wasteful exercise. We have no idea what the alternative is. It could be magnitudes worse. Do we know that Hitlers atrocities did killed a person that birthed a person that would have started a worldwide holocaust. We don't? We never will. The mental exercise is futile because w have no idea what the affects may have been. Never mess with the timeline. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
The actual moral theory I subscribe to would say, yes go ahead and rape his mother if you're sure it will result in saving 100,000s of people, but I'm still not sure if I could do it. But you would never know what the results would be. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Holyfire23 Inactive Member |
Coragyps writes: So the God of the Bible, in commanding his boys to "take the virgins for themselves," is aiding and abetting - hell, insisting upon something that is "wrong under any circumstances." Since we are on the subject of morality, let us look at the options here. Assume you are a Jewish man in the times of Moses. You have just defeated an army of men and have arrived at their village to find a village full of women and children. You have three options. 1) Kill them all. 2) Leave the women to take care of their children without the help of any men who would otherwise hunt and plant crops and provide for their families. 3) Take the women and any children. Make the woman your wife and provide for her and her children. Which one of these choices is the most moral to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
So then you are telling us that morality is indeed not absolute, but rather depends on the circumstances? It's all relative?
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3456 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Well that's a rather sanitized version of probable scenarios. Let's look at the messy reality. Assume you're a Hebrew at the time of Moses and you and your tribesmen have just killed all the men of Midian for no other reason than your god's vengence. (Odds are all the men weren't in the battle, just like all the Hebrews weren't in the battle. Older men tend to stay behind.) What are you going to do next? Next on the list of things to do is plunder and lay waste the conquered city, even though you already know your god has promised you land on the other side of the Jordan. So you proceed to burn all the towns where the Midianites had settled as well as all their camps. You take all their herds, flocks and goods as plunder. (BTW, if you hadn't plundered their food and livestock and wasted their homes, the women and children probably would have managed just fine.) Now you feel sorry for the poor women and take them and their children back to camp with you. Now you are ordered to kill all the boys and women who are not virgins. This means there are no mothers left to tend their children. (Yep, they were much safer with you than in the barren village.) There is nothing moral about this situation. Since women tended to be married off young, odds are the Hebrews were left with girls under 18 years of age. Only those with menses would be taken as wives. That could be as young as 13 years of age. (No trauma there! ) The most moral thing to do is to not attack people without provocation. When one has to fight, don't plunder and destroy. Two wrongs don't make a right. Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given. Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
You're not gonna answer my quostion, huh?
None of your three options reflect the plan your God is said to have commanded: kill the men, kill the womed, kill the boy children, kill the grandpas and grammaws, and take the virgin girls back to your house. Then screw 'em. That's murder + rape. You have said, on this thread, that rape is always wrong. How do you justify this God guy promoting it? "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Modulous writes: Perdition writes: However, I would still say raping her is wrong, because 1) rape is wrong and 2) despite being his mother, she is not responsible for the Holocaust and capital punishment of the sort rape would have to be is not justified. So you'd condemn thousands of Jewish women (and probably not a few men), not to mention non-Jewish residents of conquered lands to be raped, tortured and millions to be murdered? It's not like they were responsible for the Holocaust either. Sure it's distasteful - I'd have difficulty doing it. I might not be able to do it. But I'd still consider it a moral imperative if I knew that doing it would remove the Holocaust. Unless we think that Hitler's actions made for a more secure future so that the violent deaths of millions enabled the peaceful existence of billions. There might be a bit of jumping around for the context of right/wrong in here. I agree with Perdition (given Rhavin's clarification on somehow only having the two choices). 1 - I would rape Hitler's Mom (or at least try...)2 - Out of the two choices, raping Hitler's Mom is "better" ("good"?) and the holocost is "worse" ("bad"). 3 - In the overall sense, I would still say that raping Hitler's Mom is "bad". Sort of a lesser-of-two-evils type of thing.I'd call it a "good decision", but still not a "good action". ...not sure if that even makes sense, but it's what's in my head.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I'd just like to clarify, since a few people have jumped into this subthread, that the Hitler example was not of my choosing. The original point I was making is that it might be possible to conceive of a situation where raping somebody is the moral imperative, though such a situation is likely to be unrealistic or at best unlikely. Therefore, saying 'rape is always wrong' is just a convenient linguistic shortcut. Technically what it means is 'rape is wrong in the vast majority of situations that might realistically occur'.
In direct response to your post, I agree - it is the lesser of two evils - but when the decision is yours to make the morally right choice is to pick the lesser of two evils, yes? It is of course incredibly rare that 'rape' happens to be the lesser of two (or more) evils.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Modulous writes: In direct response to your post, I agree - it is the lesser of two evils - but when the decision is yours to make the morally right choice is to pick the lesser of two evils, yes? It is of course incredibly rare that 'rape' happens to be the lesser of two (or more) evils. Yes. I just thought that's what Perdition said, then you questioned him when he still called it "wrong". I think all 3 of us are talking about the same thing, and agree, we're just getting confused between the local use of right/wrong (rape vs. holocaust) and the overall use of right/wrong (the action of raping). Personally, I would describe it as a morally good decision that results in consciously choosing to do a morally bad action. It is an important step in morality, when we start to understand that decisions and actions are seperate. I think your morality is far beyond this step, but my clarification is more for on-lookers then a correction to your personal self. Sort of like first-aid. If you have two cut fingers, but only one bandage, you bandage the worst-cut. That doesn't make it good to have an open wound.. it's just the best decision from the limited situation. It is important to remember that an open wound is still bad for all situations (including this one), just as it is important to remember that rape is still wrong for all situations (including this one). It's just the limitations of the situation that prevents us from attending all wounds, or avoiding all wrongs.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024