Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are Fundamentalists Inherently Immoral
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 61 of 161 (521527)
08-27-2009 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Perdition
08-27-2009 5:07 PM


{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 Holocaust
2) 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Perdition, posted 08-27-2009 5:07 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by hooah212002, posted 08-27-2009 5:40 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 64 by Perdition, posted 08-27-2009 5:49 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 62 of 161 (521529)
08-27-2009 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rahvin
08-27-2009 5:34 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rahvin, posted 08-27-2009 5:34 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Rahvin, posted 08-27-2009 5:48 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 63 of 161 (521532)
08-27-2009 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by hooah212002
08-27-2009 5:40 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by hooah212002, posted 08-27-2009 5:40 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 64 of 161 (521533)
08-27-2009 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rahvin
08-27-2009 5:34 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rahvin, posted 08-27-2009 5:34 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 65 of 161 (521546)
08-27-2009 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by anglagard
08-27-2009 8:27 AM


Re: Morality--but which one?
Don't know about his opinion but I can categorically state that rape is wrong no matter what!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by anglagard, posted 08-27-2009 8:27 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 66 of 161 (521555)
08-27-2009 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Holyfire23
08-27-2009 1:14 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Holyfire23, posted 08-27-2009 1:14 PM Holyfire23 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Holyfire23, posted 08-27-2009 11:35 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 67 of 161 (521560)
08-27-2009 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Modulous
08-27-2009 5:01 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Modulous, posted 08-27-2009 5:01 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 68 of 161 (521563)
08-27-2009 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Perdition
08-27-2009 5:07 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Perdition, posted 08-27-2009 5:07 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Holyfire23
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 161 (521571)
08-27-2009 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Coragyps
08-27-2009 9:26 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 08-27-2009 9:26 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by dwise1, posted 08-27-2009 11:42 PM Holyfire23 has replied
 Message 71 by purpledawn, posted 08-28-2009 7:16 AM Holyfire23 has not replied
 Message 72 by Coragyps, posted 08-28-2009 7:48 AM Holyfire23 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 70 of 161 (521572)
08-27-2009 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Holyfire23
08-27-2009 11:35 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Holyfire23, posted 08-27-2009 11:35 PM Holyfire23 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Holyfire23, posted 08-28-2009 12:01 PM dwise1 has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 71 of 161 (521592)
08-28-2009 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Holyfire23
08-27-2009 11:35 PM


Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right
quote:
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Holyfire23, posted 08-27-2009 11:35 PM Holyfire23 has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 72 of 161 (521595)
08-28-2009 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Holyfire23
08-27-2009 11:35 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Holyfire23, posted 08-27-2009 11:35 PM Holyfire23 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Holyfire23, posted 08-28-2009 12:07 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 73 of 161 (521608)
08-28-2009 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Modulous
08-27-2009 5:01 PM


Decision vs. Action?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Modulous, posted 08-27-2009 5:01 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Modulous, posted 08-28-2009 9:19 AM Stile has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 74 of 161 (521618)
08-28-2009 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Stile
08-28-2009 8:54 AM


Clarification
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Stile, posted 08-28-2009 8:54 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Stile, posted 08-28-2009 9:45 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 75 of 161 (521623)
08-28-2009 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Modulous
08-28-2009 9:19 AM


Re: Clarification
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Modulous, posted 08-28-2009 9:19 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Perdition, posted 08-28-2009 11:04 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024