999
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 435:
Line 435: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Is religion morally wrong? (view source)
Revision as of 20:13, April 25, 2007
, 20:13, April 25, 2007→Questions and Answers
[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
.
.
==Trying to parse some of this==
:Since I consider myself a good communicator I will try and communicate with you.
:Okay, you said: "Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?" How could one do anything that helped society that didn't help oneself? Maybe I should try and explain that by asking is there really anything that one can do that helps society, yet hurts the self? If one takes an action that helps society, like picking up garbage alongside the road, does not that act help society? And if we agree that it does, how is one harmed by it?
:A reasonable person might say that the individual could get a sunburn. The individual could be hit by a truck. These are true statements, but the probability of these things happening is low (for the truck) and not that dangerous (for a sunburn). But what is the value of picking up debris left by less reasonable citizenry? Do we not gain as a society by having less trash by the roadside?
:A reasonable person might also say, yes, but must I pick up all the debris along the roadside? My answer would be no. The responsibility for cleaning up roadsides is spread equally between us all. We have a shared responsibility to do this because it helps the individual ''and'' the society.
:Now, you also mention examples like Hitler who reasoned that murdering Jews would benefit him. But is Hitler an example of a reasonable man? Honestly? Hitler was more likely sociopathic, which is a disorder that affects one's ability to reason. If we rely on reason to tell us that what is of the greatest benefit for society is of the greatest benefit for the individual, then opposing someone like Hitler, or another damaged person, is reasonable. Thus, we not only have a right to oppose them, we have an obligation to oppose them. Just as we have an obligation to oppose trash on the roadways.
:I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children? Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?
:Finally, why do you feel the need to paint me as something less than moral? I have explained this repeatedly yet you do not understand. Is the failure to communicate really mine then? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)