Third Child Shall Walk the World Blind

But they do cut funding to health charities in Africa, unless the "safe" sex practice of abstinence is taught.

 

Your assumption that none here who have expressed their opinion on poking out the eyes of every third child have examined or fixed themselves renders your apprehension void.

As for the being part of the problem part, surely you'd have an opinion on humans eating humans even if you sold salt and pepper to cannibals, wouldn't you?

 

Not true, to him only other people's morals are relative. Selective relativism.

 

We are not talking about me, my community, my country, or the region I live in.

I have a very simple and direct question. Which has two answers. One answer will be based on the importance of human well being. The other dismisses the importance of human well being under the hat of relativistic morals.

So if a holy book and culture embraces the vicious removal of an infants eyes, is it just?

 

It's difficult for me to find any justification for removing a child's eye. It is very unjust.

 

No, you do not have a simple question.

You have a made up question about a scenario that exists no where but in your mind. Additionally, you WANT people to answer it in a certain way for what appears to be little more than a esire to bait someone and belittle them if they do happen to answer the question the way you desperately want them to.

Has it occured to you that that there might be a reason that you have asked the same rediculous question in two spearate threads and not a single person has answered the question the way you obviously think they should?

Has it occured to you that just maybe people are not quite as stupid and simple minded as you thing? That maybe you are the over generalizing and over simplifying something, indeed, as several posters have pointed out, that context matters? That just maybe you might be wrong?

Well, here is a clue, the premise of yoru question is stupid. There is no doctrinal basis for yoru question anywhere in our doctrine. The rules that are set in our faith, or guidance given, are ALL given with respect to circumstance and context. They can all be reasoned through.

Your, however and in sharo contrast, is neither wise nor is it contextually or reality based in the slightest.

So, if you are looking for an example of moral relativism, I believe that making up absurd standards and fousting them off on entire communities who cleary are not in agreement with such statement - and repeatedly demand that THEY accept YOUR interpretation of their values - that I believe fits the bill of moral relativism pretty well.

Its a debate forum, so deal with the fact that not a single Christian has stepped into your rather obvious trap. People do not think the way you clearly think they do ... and now it is up to you to figure out why your prediction has not resulted in the predicted result. Well a rationa person would anyway.

 

if you could only ask an intelligent hypothetical question.

 

Hmmmmmm.... I don't see the issue with the question.

Very simple.

Very straight forward.

A question that is devastating for the moral relativists, hypocritical Christians, and those who reject the notion of a somewhat universal human well being.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTKf5cCm-9g"]Sam Harris: The Moral Landscape - YouTube[/ame]

 

a question with no basis.

 

In what ways?

Either the act is morally object able or it is acceptable. The question is so extreme that it removes the many "well, its ok if..." diversions that would otherwise take place. Either there can be a lean towards a somewhat universal human well being, a well being that could then be used to dismiss such vulgar and violent religious and cultural acts, or a completely relativistic moral landscape were anything can be justified.

 

I find that to be an extremely vague "code." Is it moral, under this allegedly universal moral code, to initiate suffering in order to prevent suffering?

 

Sounds like the trolly problem.

I am not sure if there is a definite right or wrong answer to that particular question without more specifics.

 

"such vulgar and violent acts" ?
the word such implies that similar "vulgar and violent religious and cultural acts" exist. Which ones would those be ?

maybe the vulgar violence is only vulgar and violent when measured against your personal moral code.

 

Are you saying that removing an infants eyes, for no other reason than for religious and cultural adherence, could somehow be acceptable?

 

what are the other "such" violent acts that you speak of ?
Poking out the eyes is singular. Such acts is plural.

 

Any number of acts. Honor killings. Refusing your children life saving medical treatment because god will heal them. etc.

 

Agh, so, the biased sample fallacy again. The extremists represent exactly how we ALL think. So what if we regularly condem it?

THree monkeys.

 

Oh, God initiates suffering does he? Or is consequence for your own decisions somehow unjust?

Yep, if you allow choice, that means some people do bad things with their choice. Teh alternative is enraptured slavery. Either way, atheists will find a way to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

I think it was a simple question. If, as you say, it is a universal moral code to prevent suffering, is it moral, within that code, to cause someone to suffer in order to prevent that person or others from suffering?

 

Like I said, your issue is akin to the Trolly problem. I guess it depends on what suffering is inflicted for the prevention of what suffering. Your question is very vague.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

 

I hear that Atheists practice dark rituals and steal Christian babies and drink their blood.

 

and who will decide which suffering will be prevented and which suffering will be inflicted ?


honor killing and withholding medical care are not other "such" acts.

 

I suppose that it might depend. This is why I would not go so far as to say that there is a universal moral code to prevent suffering, as it's not only vague, but likely to lead to all sorts of contradictions from the start, not the least of which is whether or not any person can really cause another person to suffer.

 

I was not referring to the Trolly Problem in my post to you, you are taking two different topics and combining them.

Honer killings, denying children medical treatment on religious grounds, are "such acts". They are acts committed on religious or cultural grounds.

 

I prefer the phrase somewhat universal. There are multiple peaks in the landscape of human well beings, and similar peaks may not be better than each other, but be just as beneficial as the next. These peaks trump the need to preserve a cultural or religious standard if those standards result in human suffering.

Your question is a bit different then what I referred to in the OP. Your question is akin to the Trolly Problem, and I suppose the answer would require a specific situation to consider and answer.

I suppose using the fat man to stop the train is the moral thing to do if it saves more lives, however the hitch is the act of actually pushing man in front of the train. That is when the moral issues arise.