Evidence for God from Science

Hey, all, it's been a looooooong time. Hope everyone's well.

Now, interesting title, eh? I would think most people would find moral relativism to be, ahem, a, stupid philosophy. Guess what? I'm wrong. (No, said people are not on this forum. I'm talking about somewhere else)

Now, I can defend absolutism in general terms. Now the argument has swung to "murder". How should I define murder, in reasonable terms?

More updates as the other forum thread progresses

Book choice-Moral Relativism, Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air

Trust me, I have plenty of absolutists books. Peter Kreeft, anyone?

I think I might need direct help... If one has times, maybe you could look at the thread itself. If one does, please do not "jump" into the debate. Just some... advice for me would be handy

http://terrouge.com/forums/index.php?ac ... ntry263059

Forge wrote:Trust me, I have plenty of absolutists books. Peter Kreeft, anyone?

I think I might need direct help... If one has times, maybe you could look at the thread itself. If one does, please do not "jump" into the debate. Just some... advice for me would be handy

http://terrouge.com/forums/index.php?ac ... ntry263059

Well let me ask you, lets say your a train operator and there was a catastrophe taking out a bridge. At that very moment the train is approaching, if you switch the tracks the train will be saved but there are workers on the opposite track who will die.

Do you switch the tracks?

As I am trying to save the train, and the workers dying would be an unavoidable, unintentional accident because of my desire to save them, I would swtich tracks.

This assumes you didn't know the workers would die?

Forge wrote:As I am trying to save the train, and the workers dying would be an unavoidable, unintentional accident because of my desire to save them, I would swtich tracks.

Ok, good. Now lets add a twist.

Same situation the bridge just blew out but now in order to save the train you have to push a worker into the path of the train.

Don't ask how this saves the train this is a hypothetical thought experiment.

This is hard. I would like to say, because we are not obligated to perform a wrong action for good ends, that I would not push the man... but...

BGood, stop giving forge false dilemnas. Throwing a guy to his death won't stop a train...and workers on the safe track could easily get out of the way-blow the freaking horn, end of story

And forge, which guy are you?

If you're not Bracken...point out that his definitions are off-you would be MURDERING a petty criminal if he were going to jail...

Shadow's Forge

And how would I define murder. Is my definition "off"?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:BGood, stop giving forge false dilemnas. Throwing a guy to his death won't stop a train...and workers on the safe track could easily get out of the way-blow the freaking horn, end of story

And forge, which guy are you?

If you're not Bracken...point out that his definitions are off-you would be MURDERING a petty criminal if he were going to jail...

So you don't like thought experiments? Are you not open to ideas and philosophy? Are you incapable of abstract thought?
Would you rather have a more concrete example?

There is a medical crisis in a hospital where you are the only hope. You are the medical expert and you are involved in a car accident. Your child is dying. But if you don't get to the hospital many people will die. What do you do?

A man's brother has just stolen the life savings from his neighbor an elderly woman. His neighbor's son comes to his house in a murderous rage. The man can protect his brother by killing this man or reveal to him the location of his brother. What do you do?

Forge wrote:As I am trying to save the train, and the workers dying would be an unavoidable, unintentional accident because of my desire to save them, I would swtich tracks.

As you can see this is an example of rationalization, because it is impersonal the mens deaths can be termed accidental or unavoidable.

Forge wrote:This is hard. I would like to say, because we are not obligated to perform a wrong action for good ends, that I would not push the man... but...

However in this case it is too personal so the train and everyone on it is doomed to destruction.

This is crux of the matter. This is the origin of moral-relativism.
Not that I am a proponent, only trying to provoke thought and understanding.

So you don't like thought experiments? Are you not open to ideas and philosophy? Are you incapable of abstract thought?
Would you rather have a more concrete example?

No, I don't like you painting Forge, and now me, into a corner with a false dilemna.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

So you don't like thought experiments? Are you not open to ideas and philosophy? Are you incapable of abstract thought?
Would you rather have a more concrete example?

No, I don't like you painting Forge, and now me, into a corner with a false dilemna.

Just a thought experiment, not meant as an attack.

I apologize.

Hey, Bgood, can you explain what your thought experiments has to do with moral relativism?

All of your scenarios are no-win scenarios, so whatever choice someone makes in that position can be construed as the wrong one. However, in order to say that either choice is wrong, you would still need to appeal to a higher moral authority.

August wrote:Hey, Bgood, can you explain what your thought experiments has to do with moral relativism?

All of your scenarios are no-win scenarios, so whatever choice someone makes in that position can be construed as the wrong one. However, in order to say that either choice is wrong, you would still need to appeal to a higher moral authority.

Well from these simple thought experiments it can be shown what the foundation of the idea for moral relativism came from.
As moral relativists beleive there is no absolute good or evil, but that rather it is the situation, culture, personal experiences, or historical references of the individual which determines wrong and right.
Is this in the wrong thread?
=(

I don't think they are no-win situations. I would do what is humanly possible to save everyone involved. And in the second case of course pushing the man into the train is not an option. I think having the intent to do something is good, and doing nothing is evil.

As you can tell I am not a moral-relativist.