A dillema for the "moral" Absolutist...

[cursuswalker]

Do you have a point to make? Or are you just gonna be stupid from the sidelines?

Luke 15:3-7

Which of you men, if you had one hundred sheep, and lost one of them, wouldn’t leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one that was lost, until he found it? When he has found it, he carries it on his shoulders, rejoicing. When he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’ I tell you that even so there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, than over ninety-nine righteous people who need no repentance.

There would come a point at which it is no longer sensible to look for that sheep. And if one such sinner is worth so much then why create a sin which can never be forgiven?

Luke 13:6-9

He spoke this parable. "A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it, and found none. He said to the vine dresser, ‘Behold, these three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree, and found none. Cut it down. Why does it waste the soil?’ He answered, ‘Lord, leave it alone this year also, until I dig around it, and fertilize it. If it bears fruit, fine; but if not, after that, you can cut it down."

Where is the moral in this? Since the Master usually represented God in these parables (and endorseent of clavery if ever there was one) all we learn from this is that god can be too hasty and that lesser men can know better.


Jesus admits that his parables are intended to confuse people:

Mark: Those that do not understand the parables should not be helped to understand on this logic.

4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Matthew: Jesus destroys the livelihood of poor farmers just to make a dramatic point.

8:30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
8:31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
8:32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
8:33 And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.
8:34 And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.

Luke: Jesus acknowledges that the wise and prudent will not be convinced by him.

10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Incidentally, what must one do to be saved?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/saved.html

 

[Nathon Detroit]

There would come a point at which it is no longer sensible to look for that sheep. And if one such sinner is worth so much then why create a sin which can never be forgiven?

Wow. I mean..... wow.

Every time you open your mouth you prove beyond any doubt that you haven't a clue.

Dear cursuswalker

 

[Quincy]

Convenient--and I thought of this, since I carry--but the hypothetical didn't provide fighting back as an alternative.

Same here, I thought in terms of being bound by his proposal.


As far as fighting back goes, it would be something I wanted to do. Yet, the likelihood that I can kill the band of terrorist before they all got me is slim. So I would still be weighing that into account. Say I get 2 or 3 then I get gunned down. Where does that leave the other 11, being without the person charged with deciding their future? They would all most likely be shot in the commotion or the aftermath. Deducing the logical outcomes, I would still ask that the ten be set free.

Then as they walked out the door........then I draw my gun.

 

[koban]

I'm a bit perplexed here. Could someone explain why people seem to think that the existence of a scenario where every available course of action involves some committing some degree evil is an argument against the existence of moral absolutes?

Good question. Perhaps they were bored and thought they'd try to back somebody into a corner?

 

[Granite]

Same here, I thought in terms of being bound by his proposal.


As far as fighting back goes, it would be something I wanted to do. Yet, the likelihood that I can kill the band of terrorist before they all got me is slim. So I would still be weighing that into account. Say I get 2 or 3 then I get gunned down. Where does that leave the other 11, being without the person charged with deciding their future? They would all most likely be shot in the commotion or the aftermath. Deducing the logical outcomes, I would still ask that the ten be set free.

Then as they walked out the door........then I draw my gun.

Trying to be a hero is one thing but what's heroic about failing and ensuring the deaths of a room full of people?

I understand why hypotheticals like this drive people nuts--I'm no big fan myself--but at least they're provocative, even if they're not totally realistic or likely.

 

[Punisher1984]

God.

Which now leads to the Euthyphro Dillema...

A Christian Answer to Euthyphro's Dilemma

I believe I already pointed out how this "answer" is less than stellar...

 

[Punisher1984]

Children are starving to death in Africa at this very moment. Are you responsible for their deaths?

It's not my place to save them - I have niether the means or the motivation to end the political turmoil in that part of the world (which is the root of the famines we often hear about), unlike the scenario I posited where the individual has direct influence over the outcome.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Trying to be a hero is one thing but what's heroic about failing and ensuring the deaths of a room full of people?

Because sometimes doing the right thing results in death.

I would rather be murdered... than become a murderer.

 

[Granite]

Because sometimes doing the right thing results in death.

I would rather be murdered... than become a murderer.

...and I'd rather save the life of my beloved than see her get butchered along with some other strangers.

Do you consider the sonderkommandos to be cowards and murderers, or even accessories? Or were they simply men and women in a hellish situation trying to survive? Judgment calls like this, even when we're dealing with a little hypothetical on the web, are awfully easy to make despite the horrible nature of the thought experiment.

 

[The Berean]

Because sometimes doing the right thing results in death.

I would rather be murdered... than become a murderer.

Your post reminded me of Roger Young, a WW II Army Infantryman that gave his life to save his fellow soldiers.

From the United States Army's Medal of Honor List

Rank and organization: Private, United States Army, 148th Infantry, US 37th Infantry Division. Place and date: On New Georgia, Solomon Islands, 31 July 1943. Entered service at: Clyde, Ohio. Birth: Tiffin, Ohio. G.O. No.: 3, January 6, 1944.

Medal of Honor Citation: On July 31, 1943, the infantry company of which Pvt. Young was a member, was ordered to make a limited withdrawal from the battle line in order to adjust the battalion's position for the night. At this time, Pvt. Young's platoon was engaged with the enemy in a dense jungle where observation was very limited. The platoon suddenly was pinned down by intense fire from a Japanese machine gun concealed on higher ground only 75 yards (69 m) away. The initial burst wounded Pvt. Young. As the platoon started to obey the order to withdraw, Pvt. Young called out that he could see the enemy emplacement, whereupon he started creeping toward it. Another burst from the machine gun wounded him the second time. Despite the wounds, he continued his heroic advance, attracting enemy fire and answering with rifle fire. When he was close enough to his objective, he began throwing hand grenades, and while doing so was hit again and killed. Pvt. Young's bold action in closing with this Japanese pillbox and thus diverting its fire, permitted his platoon to disengage itself, without loss, and was responsible for several enemy casualties.

 

[reformed]

If someone is going to die

If someone is going to die

I agree with the person who said to fight back.
I will take matters in my own hands and try to kill at least one bad person especially if someone's going to die, might as well go down in glory! And there is no guarantee that they won't kill me later anyway. Never view anything as either/or.

 

[LosingMyReligion]

Which now leads to the Euthyphro Dillema...




I believe I already pointed out how this "answer" is less than stellar...

You did indeed. But they were never going to accept an answer. I just posted my response today. By the lack of activity from Bob, I doubt I'll get a reply. But go take a look when you get a chance.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I know that among most people who ascribe to themselves an absolute "moral" system in our culture human life is viewed as something that is of great intrinsic value - it's held up as such that the preservation of it takes priority over anything else. In short, it's often taken for granted that one can't put a price on it. To this assertion, I vehemently disagree and wish to point out that one can put a price on human life - even the vaunted "moral" absolutist.

Consider the following scenario: you are in a public place (mall, office, school, church, etc...) with some one close to you (a parent, sibbling, best friend, significant other, etc...) and suddenly a group of armed lunatics bursts in takes everyone in this gathering place hostage. For amusement, they randomly take ten people you don't know out of the group and place them on their knees - and then take that person of importance to you (parent, sibbling, friend, etc...) and put him/her on the floor apart from the others and then ask you to make a decision...

1. Say the word and the ten strangers will immediately be released to go home, but the person close to you will be shot to pieces as they walk out the door.

2. You and the one close to you can leave immediately, but only after the ten strangers have been killed.

I always carry some sort of weapon, so I would attack.

Note: fighting back is out of the question as there are too many of them and you can't match their firepower.

So what? I'd attack anyway. If their guns are pointed at me, they can't shoot anybody else. Besides -- I might be able to take a few of them with me.

So is stalling for time, as the gunmen give you only so much time to reach a decision before they simply eliminate you and the two parties in question.

To the "moral" absolutist I ask you - what is your final answer?

Attack immediately.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'd shoot the lunatics, with my concealed gun.

 

[skeptech]

Consider the following scenario: <snip>

I agree with Granite -- me and mine live.

But I think that Knight's position, jerk though he is, is valid for an absolutist who believes that life here and now is worthless when compared to what we'll have after we die. If this life is some kind of test for a magically wonderful afterlife, then what could be better than ace-ing an extra-credit problem and dying at the same time, bringing a few worthy friends along with us?

:idea: Hey, here's an idea! How about if we round up all the absolutists in a room. Then give each a choice to agree that morality is relative, and he/she can leave (thereby sending their previous beliefs to their "death"); or maintain their absolutism and we kill him/her. Then everyone wins! :banana:

 

[Gerald]

I thought I'd re-animate this thread, with a question for the moral absolutists.

Are there any circumstances under which you would resort to perfidy, as defined thus:

The 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Protocol I) specific prohibition on perfidy:

“ Article 37.-Prohibition of perfidy
1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
(a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(c) The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
(d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

If perfidious means would win you the fight, would you resort to them? If not, why not?

 

[Granite]

Yes, of course.

 

[Quincy]

Trying to be a hero is one thing but what's heroic about failing and ensuring the deaths of a room full of people?

I understand why hypotheticals like this drive people nuts--I'm no big fan myself--but at least they're provocative, even if they're not totally realistic or likely.

I know, I'm glad they aren't likely. I'm always paranoid of large crowds because I always attract crazy people. I'm rather sure I'd know something is going down and in reality me and my love would be long gone. As they say, he who lives to fight another day.....

 

[Quincy]

If perfidious means would win you the fight, would you resort to them? If not, why not?

Well C&D are irrelevant because we are civilians and I doubt any of us have access to uniforms or ids. I would be afraid they would kill me if I did A, so that leaves me with B. As anyone who has battled me on a World of Warcraft battleground, I am not one to shy away from feigning death. :chuckle:

 

[Punisher1984]

If perfidious means would win you the fight, would you resort to them? If not, why not?

If it means victorty over a foreign invader - or a not-so-foreign one - so be it: I'll use any tactic at my disposal international law be damned.

Of course, I wonder how an absolutist would respond...