|
MrRodgers -> RE: Violent Myammar Buddhist Persecuting Muslims (7/5/2016 10:18:06 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Staleek
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
While convincing or believable and making sense...not on point. The point is not thinking about religious doctrine but acting on religious doctrine. If they merely think they are going to paradise and get 72 virgins for dying in martyrdom, then that's their business but to carry that Islamic doctrine to believe that if they act on that thought, if they do kill themselves blowing up the infidel...and they are actually going to paradise and get 72 virgins, then that's clearly immoral behavior or an immoral act based in their belief and acting on that belief in the Islamic doctrine.
Just to make sure this is clear, the 72 virgins thing is a myth, and besides, most terrorism is secular. Terrorists commit terrorism because they think they have justification, not because they think they'll be rewarded.
That aside, this is fine and logically consistent, as long as you reciprocate. In other words, you yourself don't act or ask others to act on your own ideas of morality.
But then...
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Clearly taking lives for ANY reason beyond self preservation...is an immoral act. So a good man all of his life, does nothing but then reads something from ISIS or another group or Imam and then acts on it, is a good person clearly doing evil and as an act on a doctrine that took over his moral compass and made him act immoral or evil.
You have defined morality there. Taking lives for ANY reason beyond self preservation.
So what of people who die under the surgeons knife? What about people who die due to neglect or exposure because the society around them doesn't help them? And, according to your logic, suicide is the ultimate immoral act that a person can commit. You have just made those people deeply immoral.
R v Dudley and Stephens!
Back in 1884 there was a trial in Britain. A ship had sank, and 4 men managed to get onto a lifeboat. Stranded at sea 1600 miles from South Africa, with nothing more than two tins of turnips to go around and no fresh water. They made the turnips last a few weeks, and they were drinking their own urine to survive. But the 17 year old cabin boy, Parker, was drinking sea water in desperation. He became pretty ill, so a decision was reached.
Killing Parker before he actually died would be better, they decided, because they were thirsty and his blood would help. So on the night of 25th of July, with Stephens holding Parker down, Dudely slit the throat of Parker with a pen knife. They then commenced with their meal.
According to your moral code, if I in a helicopter and I crash at sea, with one other survivor who is wearing a life jacket, I have the moral obligation to hold his head under the water until he drowns, and then take the life jacket from him for myself - for the preservation of my life. This would make me a good person.
Also, you really need to explain why you think this is a moral value at all. The Christians at least have the ten commandments, where is your commandment for this?
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Those acts are facts that reflect an instant or a sudden overriding of one's morality or changed even for just that act...one's moral values.
As I've just demonstrated, they're not facts, they're values.
Yes, it is in our own mind that we are allowed to conduct ourselves according to the terms of living a normal life. All I need is my own intellect, sympathy, empathy and the right to simply live my (a) life.
Suicide can be judged either a moral or an immoral act particularly in view of the fact that any immorality of that act creates no victims other than the perpetrator...and by his own hand.
Dying by accident or by one's own neglect reflects in immorality beyond a society preoccupied by its own survival and where many have argued that to allow those 37,000 children per day (world-wide) to die of malnutrition that could be prevented, is the most egregious collective immorality upon society.
Killing for one's own survival from natural causes or an accident...is an immoral act. That act and the ones to which I've referred, are indeed...facts.
I need no ten commandments to act morally. How is it that in the 2nd no less, making god in a 'craven image' is an immoral act ? Really ? Then all Christian societies are blatantly immoral and are going to burn in hell.
Do I need the ten commandments to tell me I should not steal, lie or kill or bear false witness ? No !! If it is an immoral act which in reality only a thought, to covet thy neighbor's, things, wealth let alone his wife ? Am I to believe that by this doctrine that that...is a thought crime and to even think it means I burn in hell for all eternity ? Hardly.
Religion soon becomes a brand of fascism with the god of your life commanding you, your actions, your thoughts any violation of which can send you...to eternal hell. BULLSHIT !!
How is it that any god sat on his fucking hands and watched homo sapien for 100,000...200,000 (take your pick) years of tribalism, butchery, murder, cannibalism, i.e., blatant immorality where as recently as say 8-10,000 years ago, where slavery of all immoralities, (even 'faithfully' sanctioned for centuries more) was man's 'improvement' over cannibalism, only to then step in and act on, gee...time to put a stop to this shit and picked ignorant peasants in the desert upon which to then inflict 'his' order ?
It all strains the limits of credulity and yes...beyond any belief.
|
|
|
|
