The Horner Man's Salvation

[Slartibartfast]

So we basically agree with each other then.

Not sure yet.

Do you believe actions themselves are intrinsically wrong or right regardless of intention?
If yes then I dont agree with you.

No. I believe there are some actions that are intrinsically bad (i.e. they bring harm) but can be carried out to attain a net reduction in harm in a given situation making the action itself, though bad, the right thing to do.

Objectively Bad even though it's subjectively the right thing to do?

Yeah. Like cutting off someone's leg is bad as it brings them harm. However if they sustained an injury and their leg became gangrenous and you needed to amputate it or let them die (they are unconscious and cannot partake in the decision making). The right thing to do would be to amputate their leg if you are sure it would save heir life.

This is what I call a bad situation because all available choices are bad because all choices will bring harm. The difficult part of a bad situation therefore is making the right decision.

[MD Marketers]

SBF,

You are going to find this a bit annoying, & I apologize in advance.
Any claims you make I am going to subject them to the process of logical deduction & reasoning.

[Slartibartfast]

No prob. Fire away. This is how a lot of good ideas are born.

[MD Marketers]

Consider This:

1. We live in a society where monogamy is taboo
2. Polygamy is expected of you once you enter into a sexual relationship
3. You enter into a sexual relationship with the intention to be polygamous & both parties agree
4. You met someone that, after talking to them and considering your feelings for your polygamous partner, you choose not to be polygamous any more.
5. Your partner finds out. They absolutely despise what you have done & may continue to do as it is not what you agreed to do. It is not what society expects of you. They threaten to not have any more relationship with you.
6. You apologise and explain it was a moment of weakness, that it will never happen again
7. Your partner forgives you and you both start back being polygamous again
8. You eventually transgress and stop being polygamous again, but hid it from them
9. One of their friends realized you were hiding your monogamous lifestyle and told your partner
10. They dump you for embarrassing them and breaking your promise. How could you?


Question: Are you wrong or right for doing what you did & why?

The points are deliberately worded in such a way that you can interchange polygamy with monogamy. Do it and see what happens

Note that I am answering this before reading your answer so that I would not be influenced by it in anyway.

1-3
- In the beginning they were both openly in a polygamous relationship. Here there is nothing wrong.
- This is also the socially accepted norm. This has no direct bearing on right or wrong. However, norms can influence what is considered emotionally good and bad (i.e. what brings emotional harm because it is offensive).

4.
- Hear you made a choice. This choice is a personal preference and cannot be seen as good or bad by itself.

5.
- By saying your partner finds out, I assume you did not tell him/her. This is the first instance of wrong. Hiding something this big from your partner will cause more harm in the long run. Again this is a moral grey area and it can be considered the right thing to do if you were both really old and her finding out will just cause her unnecessary emotional pain. To keep things simple however, I will assume the two of you are young and healthy individuals with your whole life ahead of you.

6-8.
You made a big decision and hid it from them. Wrong. They forgave you. You led them to believe that it was a one time thing and would not happen again. Then you did it again and hid it from them again. Wrong.

9-10 and Summary
You had your chance, came clean and were forgiven. You then went back and did what you knew your partner disapproved of behind their back. You were completely wrong in the situation. If you knew you could not live a polygamous lifestyle you should have told your partner that this is who you are and cannot change it. It was not a moment of weakness. If you guys broke up then so be it. The right thing to do would be to find someone that could accept you and out outlandish monogamous lifestyle (them being polygamous or not doesn't matter as long as you both understand and accept each other)

[MD Marketers]

So we basically agree with each other then.

Not sure yet.

Do you believe actions themselves are intrinsically wrong or right regardless of intention?
If yes then I dont agree with you.

No. I believe there are some actions that are intrinsically bad (i.e. they bring harm) but can be carried out to attain a net reduction in harm in a given situation making the action itself, though bad, the right thing to do.

Objectively Bad even though it's subjectively the right thing to do?

Yeah. Like cutting off someone's leg is bad as it brings them harm. However if they sustained an injury and their leg became gangrenous and you needed to amputate it or let them die (they are unconscious and cannot partake in the decision making). The right thing to do would be to amputate their leg if you are sure it would save heir life.

This is what I call a bad situation because all available choices are bad because all choices will bring harm. The difficult part of a bad situation therefore is making the right decision.

[supercharged turbo]

*yawn*

[Slartibartfast]

Well we can't stop a bad situation from being bad nor can we tell it not to be bad.
So knowing wrong from right is useless as far as the situation is concerned.

We are talking about Morally Right or Wrong here.
Knowing the right action to take is useful.

Good that you agree on that. I purposefully choose a situation where morality did not come into play so that I could make sure we are on the same page. So far, morals aside, you acknowledge that there can be a right and wrong decisions in a bad situation where both decisions cause harm.

Now let's make it more interesting. I'll give this example a bit more depth since that is what you same to favour.

1. You have a friend that is an amazing doctor and has asked you to come and volunteer with him in a remote Kenyan village where there has been an outbreak of some unknown disease. You have no medical training but he just needs an extra set of hands to help. The village is not large enough for the UN or any large foreign body to take an interest in it but you friend has been there before and has an emotional connection to the people of the village. This makes him the only doctor that anyone would get to go to the village to save the lives of the people.

2. On the plane to the African continent, you and your friend begin talking. He tells you how amazingly smart, wise, fun, warm and polite these people are. He then tells you how last time he was there he ended up sleeping with the village leader's wife but the village leader did not know.

3. You guys reach and set up everything (you friend got sponsorship for all the medicine and tents and stuff). The sick villagers start pouring in. They look like they are at different stages of sickness. Some have a slight cough and some look like they are already on the verge of death. You friend tells you some villagers have died from the outbreak already.

4. The village leader and two supporters walk in with an AK-47's that he kept from years ago when he was in a militia. The village leader says that his wife was pregnant with a child after your friend left and that his wife said it wasn't the village leader's own. She said that she had been raped by your friend. Although the village leader tried to be understanding, she still ended up killing herself and the baby out of shame

5. Knowing what is about to happen, all of the villagers move away from your friend. The two supporters force you to stand next to your friend or they will shoot you.

6. The village leader says that the actions from your friend caused the loss of a life close to him and that he must repay in kind.

7. Under normal circumstances, the leader of the village would shoot your friend dead on the spot but he understands that your friend is needed to help save his people. So he decides that taking a life close to your friend would be acceptable.

8. Seeing that you are the only alternative, he turns to you to make the decision. You must therefore choose whether to let the village leader kill you so that your friend can go ahead and save the lives of the villagers or kill your friend thereby allowing you to live but risking the death of all the villagers. To make things interesting, you also have a gun under your shirt that you can use at anytime but once you make any threatening move everyone with guns would start shooting risking the death of you, your friend and any number of villagers.

9. You suggest postponing the decision until after the villagers are cured but the village leader is hysterical and says "No! This happens now!". He let's you know that if no decision is made he will kill your friend and hold you (as the person closest to the doctor) responsible for the lives of his people. He will not listen to any reasoning beyond this as your tell him that you are not a doctor.


P.S. Your friend has already told you that the disease is not contagious and you brought all of your own food, water and supplies so you are at no risk of getting or dying from the disease.

P.P.S. Your friend tries telling the leader that the sex was consensual but the leader knows that that is exactly what a guilty man would say.

So MD, what is the morally right decision for you to make in this scenario and why?
Would you make that decision?
If not, what decision/course of action will you take and why?

Note, there is no answer for this that I consider wrong or right. Just curious to hear your views.

P.P.P.S I think it may be time to change the title of this thread to something more relevant.

[Slartibartfast]

So the part where he chose polygamy over monogamy wasn't wrong?
Only when they started to hide it was it considered wrong the first time?

I don't know if you mistakenly or intentionally switched up the terms polygamy and monogamy in your question. But either way my answer is "yes" with the following explanation.

1. At the moment of choosing, his choice is just a thought. Personally I do not believe that morality applies to thought as having thoughts that some may consider morally wrong can give rise to a better understanding of some problems. Also, sometimes it is impossible to stop a thought before it happens.

2. Now choosing a polygamy over monogamy is an easier scenario to work with as you know the moment he starts hiding it is the moment he cheats on his partner. That action is wrong. However, in your topsy turvy universe, I don't see how one can decipher when that moment of switching to monogamy occurs. To move the argument forward I would say it would be the first time that he refused sex with someone he wanted to have sex with that also felt the same way about him.

Now just a quick side note on why your polygamy/monogamy switcheroo scenario doesn't work. In your world where polygamy is the norm, he can just go back and sleep with the person, therby making things right again. Under normal circumstances, you cannot go back and unsleep with someone you already slept with. However, I still tried to give as much of an answer to work with as possible but there were clearly some assumptions made that will make the answer slightly inconsistent. Just fyi.

[MD Marketers]

So the part where he chose polygamy over monogamy wasn't wrong?
Only when they started to hide it was it considered wrong the first time?

I don't know if you mistakenly or intentionally switched up the terms polygamy and monogamy in your question. But either way my answer is "yes" with the following explanation.

1. At the moment of choosing, his choice is just a thought. Personally I do not believe that morality applies to thought as having thoughts that some may consider morally wrong can give rise to a better understanding of some problems. Also, sometimes it is impossible to stop a thought before it happens.

2. Now choosing a polygamy over monogamy is an easier scenario to work with as you know the moment he starts hiding it is the moment he cheats on his partner. That action is wrong. However, in your topsy turvy universe, I don't see how one can decipher when that moment of switching to monogamy occurs. To move the argument forward I would say it would be the first time that he refused sex with someone he wanted to have sex with that also felt the same way about him.

Now just a quick side note on why your polygamy/monogamy switcheroo scenario doesn't work. In your world where polygamy is the norm, he can just go back and sleep with the person, therby making things right again. Under normal circumstances, you cannot go back and unsleep with someone you already slept with. However, I still tried to give as much of an answer to work with as possible but there were clearly some assumptions made that will make the answer slightly inconsistent. Just fyi.

Yes I intentionally switched it.
The trick was to get you to see that the very same act of polygamy can be considered the right thing given a change in perspectives.
You will observe now that everything you pointed out was wrong had to do with intentions and not the "act absent intent".

An intention to do wrong without committing the act is still wrong.
However;
An act committed absent any intention to do wrong cannot be wrong.

[Slartibartfast]

Lol. Not much of a trick as I saw what you were trying to do from the start (look back at my first answer).

Now what about answering my scenario. There aren't any tricks in it. Just tried to make it as morally grey as I could.

[MD Marketers]

Lol. Not much of a trick as I saw what you were trying to do from the start (look back at my first answer).

Now what about answering my scenario. There aren't any tricks in it. Just tried to make it as morally grey as I could.

Before I answer your question I just want to point out you haven't said the act (blanking sex) was wrong. All you said was hiding his intentions was bad.
This is correct because an act isn't good or bad without knowing the intention. You don't even need to commit the act for it to be a bad intention.
Also sleeping with the other person would not change the fact that he intended monogamy before. So it cannot be unintended.

It just goes to prove that an action as blatant as polygamy cannot even be an absolute wrong because perspectives can change.
It can only be subjectively wrong"
Every action you can possibly fathom can only be placed under subjective Morality.
In fact there is only one thing in life that is objectively real to anyone that thinks about it.
Can you guess what that is?

If you are an atheist the next few statements I make are going to piss you off.

See my next reply below

[Slartibartfast]

1. Polygamy by itself does not cause harm and therefore I do not see it as inherently bad.

2. You are basically saying what I have been saying since page 2.

PS. On Page 2 I stated "The argument I am putting forth now is that there are some actions that are objectively wrong." I would like to update the statement to say objectively "bad"
Side argument. There are some actions that are inherently bad (not "wrong" as I said previously). This means that these actions bring harm to an individual. Like killing someone (physical harm).

We may use the words a little differently (see my definitions for good, bad, right and wrong stated earlier) but it seems like you are basically saying the same exact thing as me.

Lastly I know what I said... I was there when I said it. Now if you are satisfies that we are more or less on the same page let's move on to my more interesting example.

[MD Marketers]

Continued from my previous reply...

Here is the answer.

The only thing you can know for certain is that your thoughts exist, because "you are aware, therefore your thoughts must exist". What you perceive yourself to be is another question.

Here is why the above answer is considered the Atheist Cryptonite:

I can't even prove that I nor anyone else exists other than as a mere thought.
If you were to take the atheist stance that only in light of provable evidence should we believe that something exists outside of a thought, then all Atheist should be Solipsistic.
In fact for an Atheist to believe anyone else is real (outside of a thought) is to exercise "Blind Faith".
This would make Atheists Hypocites
This is the reason why being Agnostic on the matter of how God exists (outside of a thought) makes the most sense from a logical perspective.
Therefore it can be absolutely proven that everything exists in the form of a thought, even though I cannot prove that they exist other than as a thought

Thoughts are real. Absolute fact.
What else outside of this can be absolutely proven regardless of perspective and thus claim the title of an absolute fact?

[Slartibartfast]

I am an atheist and that does not piss me off. That seems religious so I won't discuss it further outsode of the religion thread. Anything else you want to get out of the way before you respond to my questions?

[MD Marketers]

Religion & Atheism is just a game we play to keep ourselves happy.
They are both unreal

Is it ok if I change games regularly depending on the mood I am in?
Today I'm gonna play Anglican.
Friday Sunni Muslim
Saturday Seventh Day Adventist
Sunday Roman Catholic
Monday feels like an Atheist day
Tuesday & Wednesday I will be Hindu so I can pretend I reincarnated

Any Atheist want to play? We will call it a Decathagion.

[Slartibartfast]

Hahaha. Feel free. I do it all the time out of boredom. I am emotionally attached to neither (which I think is important) so I won't take offence.

FYI I am atheist because everything about God and religion seems like man made constructs so far. I therefore place thebsame belief and importance on it as every other fictional story. Therefore, along with being an atheist I am an alordoftheribgsist an aharrypotterist and an adontbeamenacetosouthcentralwhiledrinkingyourjuiceinthehood...ist.

I only partake in the discussions because I am facinated that seemingly sane individuals actually believe in these fictional stories. What is more facinating is that I believed I was seemingly sane when I believed in them just a few years ago. At most, I find theism amusing.... you know, when they not hanging boys in public for breaking their fast and stuff.

Now on to my example. Feel like you don't want to tackle it at all.

[MD Marketers]

Payday I will be Jewish
When I'm broke I will be Amish
When I'm mad I will be Fundamentalist Muslim

[Slartibartfast]

Can I be Buddha? I feel bloated and happy like a Buddha today.

[MD Marketers]

When I feel high I will be Rasta

[MD Marketers]

What religion represents the underpaid?

When I feel alone I will be Solipsist.

When I feel starved I will be a fasting muslim

When I feel to be annoying I will be a Jehovah Witness or something resembling Bluesclues worldview

When I feel to be real I will practice MGMAN Atheism

When I want to be disrespectful & troll I will adopt ZR's worldview

[MD Marketers]

Well we can't stop a bad situation from being bad nor can we tell it not to be bad.
So knowing wrong from right is useless as far as the situation is concerned.

We are talking about Morally Right or Wrong here.
Knowing the right action to take is useful.

Good that you agree on that. I purposefully choose a situation where morality did not come into play so that I could make sure we are on the same page. So far, morals aside, you acknowledge that there can be a right and wrong decisions in a bad situation where both decisions cause harm.

Now let's make it more interesting. I'll give this example a bit more depth since that is what you same to favour.

1. You have a friend that is an amazing doctor and has asked you to come and volunteer with him in a remote Kenyan village where there has been an outbreak of some unknown disease. You have no medical training but he just needs an extra set of hands to help. The village is not large enough for the UN or any large foreign body to take an interest in it but you friend has been there before and has an emotional connection to the people of the village. This makes him the only doctor that anyone would get to go to the village to save the lives of the people.

2. On the plane to the African continent, you and your friend begin talking. He tells you how amazingly smart, wise, fun, warm and polite these people are. He then tells you how last time he was there he ended up sleeping with the village leader's wife but the village leader did not know.

3. You guys reach and set up everything (you friend got sponsorship for all the medicine and tents and stuff). The sick villagers start pouring in. They look like they are at different stages of sickness. Some have a slight cough and some look like they are already on the verge of death. You friend tells you some villagers have died from the outbreak already.

4. The village leader and two supporters walk in with an AK-47's that he kept from years ago when he was in a militia. The village leader says that his wife was pregnant with a child after your friend left and that his wife said it wasn't the village leader's own. She said that she had been raped by your friend. Although the village leader tried to be understanding, she still ended up killing herself and the baby out of shame

5. Knowing what is about to happen, all of the villagers move away from your friend. The two supporters force you to stand next to your friend or they will shoot you.

6. The village leader says that the actions from your friend caused the loss of a life close to him and that he must repay in kind.

7. Under normal circumstances, the leader of the village would shoot your friend dead on the spot but he understands that your friend is needed to help save his people. So he decides that taking a life close to your friend would be acceptable.

8. Seeing that you are the only alternative, he turns to you to make the decision. You must therefore choose whether to let the village leader kill you so that your friend can go ahead and save the lives of the villagers or kill your friend thereby allowing you to live but risking the death of all the villagers. To make things interesting, you also have a gun under your shirt that you can use at anytime but once you make any threatening move everyone with guns would start shooting risking the death of you, your friend and any number of villagers.

9. You suggest postponing the decision until after the villagers are cured but the village leader is hysterical and says "No! This happens now!". He let's you know that if no decision is made he will kill your friend and hold you (as the person closest to the doctor) responsible for the lives of his people. He will not listen to any reasoning beyond this as your tell him that you are not a doctor.


P.S. Your friend has already told you that the disease is not contagious and you brought all of your own food, water and supplies so you are at no risk of getting or dying from the disease.

P.P.S. Your friend tries telling the leader that the sex was consensual but the leader knows that that is exactly what a guilty man would say.

So MD, what is the morally right decision for you to make in this scenario and why?
Would you make that decision?
If not, what decision/course of action will you take and why?

Note, there is no answer for this that I consider wrong or right. Just curious to hear your views.

P.P.P.S I think it may be time to change the title of this thread to something more relevant.

I would tell the leader he should shoot himself and the problem would be solved.
There is no problem, he set his own rules & my friend nor I agree to them.
The problem isn't that the rules were broken, it's that no one else but him agreed to his dumb rules.

Before I shoot him I would say to everyone else:
What good is killing me or my friend if your leader is dead?
This is personal so don't get involve or there will he repercussions after my death.

[Slartibartfast]

Telling the leader he should shoot himself is not enough to convince him to do so. It just aggravates him further.

As soon as you open fire on to him (let's assume you shot and killed him with your first shot) his two supporters opened fire, killing you, your friend and several other villagers. The rest of villagers end up succumbing to the disease.

Considering the repercussions do you consider you decusion to be morally right? If yes or no state why. If no, what would your decision be?

[MD Marketers]

Are you asking me this question after the fact?
If you are going to continue to assume omniscience in all your questions I am going to stop playing this game. It's getting boring.

At the point in question:
I will tell him he should kill himself because he created his own mental problem.
I will ask his workers what good will killing me after his boss is dead accomplish. A few seconds later I will aim the gun at him & fire with or without an answer.

There is reasoning behind my responses & it will affect the outcome.
If you cannot see the reasoning nor the resulting effect, then just ask me to explain it. Don't assume omniscience of the outcome or this discussion becomes pointless.

[Slartibartfast]

Explain. Leave no detail out.