DILEMMA-I want to do a short piece tonight over a couple of moral situations that really made me question what right and wrong truly are all about. If you consider yourself a moral absolutist, then look no further than the Ten Commandments. Murdering is absolutely wrong, in any place and at any time. Stealing is wrong in any situation, and worshipping the Judeo-Christian God is number 1 on the list. But are there exceptions? I'll start out easy, but I can almost guarantee you'll be a little uneasy by number 3.
Question 1. Would torturing a terrorist's wife to get him to divulge information, which included, but not limited to murder and rape, be wrong if it were the only way to save thousands of innocent people?
Question 2. If your child had a degenerative pain disorder that caused immense suffering that would last for years and had no cure, would killing them be wrong? (I don't have a source for this, but one of my professor's said this was a true story: a guy killed his daughter to stop the suffering by putting her in the car and starting it in the garage. He was convicted of murder.)
Question 3. If a mother was pregnant with a child, and you knew the child would grow up to commit a violent crime against you or your family, would you still be against (if you are) abortion? Sidenote: Did you know that crime has drastically been reduced since the inception of Roe v. Wade in 1973? And the reason........a lot of criminals aren't being born. The poverty-stricken mothers that prostitute themselves out are aborting the child that is statistically likely to become a future criminal. (Levitt and Dubner 2005)
Levitt, Steven D., and Stephen J. Dubner. Freakonomics. First Ed. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2005. Print.
5 comments:
That's why we are ALL sinners in the flesh. Who can honestly say that they have never or would never break one of the ten commandments. I believe morals come from the heart, and in deciding whether or not someone has broken good morals should be based on their heart's intentions. I seen a documentory on the History Channel about the ten commandments that was very interesting. According to their research and evidence, those laws were needed for Moses to lead the Israelites those 40 years in the desert. For instance, the commandment to not lie, was actually "to not to bear false witness" against someone. Because at that time a person could be stoned to death if 2 or more people swore that someone had committed adultry or broken some other rule. So in reality that commandment wouldn't apply to us today. I think the commandments offer good advice for living, but are not required. God knows our hearts and our intentions.
Question 1 – It would absolutely be wrong. No question. You do not torture or murder innocent people. That one is easy.
Question 2 - Yes, killing them would be wrong. No question. You do not torture or murder innocent people. That one is easy.
Question 3 – You cannot know that a child will grow up to commit a violent crime. Therefore the question is a logical fallacy and cannot be answered. The founder of Planned Parenthood which does the majority of abortions in this country was a racist whose primary purpose to abortion was to kill blacks and other “lower” segments of our society. You do not kill those that have a potential to be violent. You provide a better environment and have government encourage Christian beliefs which is what our founders believed and taught.
I wanted to add that you should notice that all three were easy to answer for exactly the same reason. You do not intentionally torture or murder innocent people.
Well obviously, you didn't get my point about what these questions were all about. The point is the fact that losing 1 life could have an overall positive effect if it saved a thousand lives. Just something to think about. So, I see it's all black and white for you. Treat a terrorist with respect even though they are about to kill many people. In and of itself, that is a good philosophy to teach. The golden rule. Or, as I like, the silver rule that was from Confucious, but it's just not that simple. If the terrorist was about to kill your family, you might have a different approach.
And after re-reading your comment, you think the terrorist is an innocent person? This just shows that you (hopefully) just skimmed over my questions because you already have an absolute position in mind (aka closed-mindedness) that stems from your obvious "supreme intellect" that stems from your apparent display of religious dogma. And where's the reply from my last comment? What if it were YOUR family that was going to be killed if you didn't get the terrorist to divulge the information??? Religion and morality are inseparable right? Even when it comes to your loved ones? You would give up your family for some "faith" when your loved ones are REAL people that actually exist. But no, you choose your tooth-fairy God stories over your physical, seen, actual family. Morality through religion is great huh? And since you don't mind throwing MY CHILD in the mix, I'm glad I'm not YOUR child in this terrorist situation. You would choose your invisible friend Jesus over your flesh and blood.
Post a Comment