|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: objective/subjective morals/conscience? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Objective and absolute morality cannot exist unless we can know the mind of God. If you are a Believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, read 1 Cor 2. The Solomon test you propose is not realistic. Hospitals/doctors have to make decisions like this all the time. It is a "team decision", not a moral decision, based on who is the most needy candidate who is able to receive and not reject the organ. I don't play hypothetical games with unbelievers, and neither does the Lord. Blessings
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
You didn't answer Huntard's question.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
You didn't answer Huntard's question. God's children know the voice of Jesus as He declares in John 10:27, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
God's children know the voice of Jesus as He declares in John 10:27,
So, basically, you have no way to tell. Thanks for clearing that up. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me" Though I find it highly dangerous you would act on any voice in your head. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, 10:10.
10:10 writes: I don't play hypothetical games with unbelievers, and neither does the Lord. I beg to differ. Have you ever heard of something called a "parable?" Basically a "parable" is a story that Jesus tells, and, afterwards, He asks His audience (frequently "unbelievers," like Pharisees and Sadduccees) how it applies to real life. Jesus says to some unbelievers: "Let's say there was a man who was beaten up on the side of the road, and three people saw him, but only one stopped to help him. Which do you think is neighbor to that man?" (Luke 10). The only difference between Jesus' parables and Straggler's "hypothetical game" is that Straggler doesn't know what the correct answer to his "hypothetical game" is. At any rate, I am not an unbeliever. Will you play hypothetical games with another believer? -----
10:10 writes: The Solomon test you propose is not realistic. Funny that you should choose a Bible story as the label for something you regard as unrealistic. -----
10:10 writes: Hospitals/doctors have to make decisions like this all the time. It is a "team decision", not a moral decision, based on who is the most needy candidate who is able to receive and not reject the organ. Don't muddy the waters: the analogy isn't about a hospital any more than the "Parable of the Ten Virgins" is about a wedding. Like any parable, analogy or "hypothetical game," it's the principle, not the details, that are important. But, since you can't handle that, let's try it another way: If there are two equally-needy and equally-compatible heart-injury victims, neither of whom will survive another hour without a heart, and only one heart to give, who do you give it to? The essential question is, "How do you choose who will live and who will die?" This is one of very few questions that I'm sure everybody in the world will agree is a moral issue. Edited by Mantis, : Added last sentence. I'm Bluejay. Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2330 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined: |
Mantis (aka Bluejay) writes: If there are two equally-needy and equally-compatible heart-injury victims, neither of whom will survive another hour without a heart, and only one heart to give, who do you give it to? The essential question is, "How do you choose who will live and who will die?" Actually, if the two victims are both conscious and aware of what is going on, I think that the essential question should be: How do you provide a basis for the two of them to reach a consensus choice among themselves? The most moral solution to the dilemma would be the one that the affected parties can both agree to. If one or both victims are not conscious or aware enough to make this choice, then the decision should involve the person(s) most attached to the victims by relation, dependency of affection. (In the absence of such proxies, the doctor(s) involved must do their best to pick the one who has the best chances for immediate success in the procedure, and longer productive life after the procedure; any judgment based on perceived benefit to the rest of society may be going too far.) It strikes me as entirely possible that the notions of altruism and self-sacrifice to a greater good can be elicited from average people, even in such a life-or-death situation. And this can be true even when the people involved are not Christians of any variety. Of course, it's just as likely (probably more so) that such a consensus could not be reached within the allotted hour, in which case... who knows? If they really both die at the same time, perhaps there is a third potential recipient around somewhere -- both gambled on a possibility of outlasting the other and both proved wrong, and it's their own fault that they both died. If one does go first, well, it looks to me like a form of natural selection, which operates outside of any moral code.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Otto.
Otto Tellick writes: Of course, it's just as likely (probably more so) that such a consensus could not be reached within the allotted hour, in which case... who knows? If they really both die at the same time, perhaps there is a third potential recipient around somewhere -- both gambled on a possibility of outlasting the other and both proved wrong, and it's their own fault that they both died. If one does go first, well, it looks to me like a form of natural selection, which operates outside of any moral code. Interesting observation: you can find subjective morals anywhere! But, I don't think the patients get to decide if they're on the top of the list or not: such a decision is definitely better placed in the hands of the hospital staff (an unbiased third party). Likely, the two patients wouldn't even be told about each other unless absolutely necessary. And, the conditions of the analogy were pretty unrealistic, anyway: it's highly unlikely that you'll run into such a tough decision. But, the point of the analogy isn't to represent something in practical terms, but to get at something that's hard to demonstrate with practical terms. ----- Let me reiterate that the hospital analogy is still just an analogy. We can debate about how to make the analogy better, or we can debate about the principle behind the analogy. Both are important components of logical debate, but, in this case, further discourse on the analogy would likely only detract from the main issue, which is whether morality has an ultimate, objective source. I'm Bluejay. Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2330 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined: |
Mantis writes: Interesting observation: you can find subjective morals anywhere! I'm sorry, I really don't understand the intent of this remark. Could you explain what you mean by this? How does it relate, exactly, to the bit you quoted? autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The fact is that that believers in Christ often come to opposing moral conclusions. This is obviously and innately relevant to the idea of the God given absolute morality that you espouse. By ignoring and evading this fact you do your faith a disservice......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
So, basically, you have no way to tell. Thanks for clearing that up. Though I find it highly dangerous you would act on any voice in your head. No, it's the other way around. You have no way to tell. As for me, just as I learned to listen and respond to the love of my earthly parents as I grew up, I've learned to listen and respond to the love of my heavenly Father as revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ. Those that have entered into the new birth relationship with the Lord as He explains in John 3:3-7 can hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:27). The danger is in not following Him. Blessings
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Jesus does not say "let's say there was a man going down from Jerusalem to Jericho."
Jesus says there was "a man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers." This was a real life happening, not some hypothetical teaching Jesus was giving to Jews who despised Samaritans.
If there are two equally-needy and equally-compatible heart-injury victims, neither of whom will survive another hour without a heart, and only one heart to give, who do you give it to? I'm sure you think you've found the perfect moral delimma to which there is no answer. But on earth we all live with imperfect people with imperfect bodies. There is no such thing as "two equally-needy and equally-compatible heart-injury victims," as you have described. As I said, a "hospital team" would make the best decision based on the need of person and the ability of the person not to reject the new heart, commending both into the hands of God for continuing life or death.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
John 10:10 writes:
Really? You know what I am able to tell or not? You don't even know me, so kindly take your assumptions elsewhere. No, it's the other way around. You have no way to tell. Since it is you who has failed to supply any way of telling whether the voices he hears are actually the voice of god, I'd say you're the one with the problem, not me.
As for me, just as I learned to listen and respond to the love of my earthly parents as I grew up, I've learned to listen and respond to the love of my heavenly Father as revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ.
No you didn't. You assume you did, but since you can't point to a single way of telling, you actually can't.
Those that have entered into the new birth relationship with the Lord as He explains in John 3:3-7 can hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:27).
You just think you do, and since you can't supply a method of distinction, you are a very dangerous individual.
The danger is in not following Him.
The danger is in not being able to tell if it really is him who is talking to you. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Otto.
Otto writes: Mantis writes: Interesting observation: you can find subjective morals anywhere! I'm sorry, I really don't understand the intent of this remark. Could you explain what you mean by this? How does it relate, exactly, to the bit you quoted? Well, it doesn't, really: not directly, anyway. Just to the overall gist of your post. You discussed patients getting together and making decisions, and then one patient holding out, hoping to outlast the other... clearly these are several different moral choices being made by consulting different moral compasses. I'm Bluejay. Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
As for me, just as I learned to listen and respond to the love of my earthly parents as I grew up, I've learned to listen and respond to the love of my heavenly Father as revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ. No you didn't. You assume you did, but since you can't point to a single way of telling, you actually can't. The danger is in not being able to tell if it really is him who is talking to you. Your contention is not with me, but with Jesus who declared His children can know His voice and follow Him (John 10:27). All you are proving is that you are not one of His children.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
John 10:10 writes:
No, my contention is with you, and with your inability to provide a way with which to tell if the voice you are hearing actually is the voice of god. Your contention is not with me, but with Jesus who declared His children can know His voice and follow Him (John 10:27). You have provided nothing, not one single bit of the mechanism you use to determine whether or not the voice you hear is the voice of god, no matter how many times you claim you did. What if you heard two voices, one would command you to feed the needy all Sunday long, and the other would command you to go help the sick all Sunday long. Which would you follow, and why? And don't come up with that same drivel you fed Mantis about hypothetical situations. They are there to illustrate a point. Now, for you to illustrate your point, all you'd have to do is say: "I'd do this, and these are my reasons". That would make it clear. Failing to answer the question will make only one thing clear, namely, that you have no way to tell if god is speaking to you. And that, quite frankly, will make you very dangerous.
All you are proving is that you are not one of His children.
I thought all humans were god's "children"? I hunt for the truth
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024