Reply With Quote
You contaminated the thought experiment. Any answer you get is worthless since you biased the outcome in your favor by providing precognition to the reader but only for one of the choices. What happens if you don't tell your friend?
This is a cynical position, and I get it, you don't like people operating from a religious framework. But you're being reductive in thinking a Christian can't learn to do charitable acts for their own sake because they are inherently good. People don't think that one dimensionally, i.e. "I'm giving to charity because I want to be like Christ. That's it. Nothing else matters." It's probably more like, "I'm giving to charity to be like Christ and I care deeply about the less fortunate and want them to live good lives."
You contaminated the thought experiment. Any answer you get is worthless since you biased the outcome in your favor by providing precognition to the reader but only for one of the choices. What happens if you don't tell your friend?
So you think it's possible your kid will never find out that Santa is fake?
If the person had to consult the bible to get the take on charitable giving, they aren't doing it naturally. They are taking instructions.
"In Christianity, the importance of charity stems from the fact that according to the Bible Jesus identified himself with the poor and excluded, and said that Christians will be judged not on the beauty of their altars, but on the way that they treat others."
Christians accept they are sinners, not saints. They strive to be like Christ but they fall short and they know it. The best they can do is to mimic his acts - "take up thy cross and follow me" isn't a command to blaze your own trail based on whatever your heart tells you.
you also have to recognize that a lot of christians believe that objective morality is specifically determined by god/bible. so nothing is "inherently good" unless the bible says it is.
its a curious position that leads to all sorts of questions including uncomfortable ones about slavery, but its one that many take nonetheless
No I didn't. There's two choices.
A: Tell friend truth, he kills his wife.
B: Tell friend you believe his wife isn't cheating, happily ever after.
So you want an option C?
C: Shrug your shoulders and keep quiet, same outcome as option B.
But "saying nothing" is still "lying" because you have knowledge of the facts, so it doesn't make any difference. If you say you didn't lie, you just said nothing, you still didn't tell the truth, so saying nothing, in this context, is also more "valuable" than the truth. End of the day, you didn't tell the truth. Again, the point of this thought experiment is to challenge the idea that telling the truth is ALWAYS the best course of action, no matter the situation. I think that's a narrow minded position.
Lol nobody has the ability to see the future so the experiment is already no good.
It's also a false dilemma. There are more options available than just those two.
What about options D, E, F, etc
He might. But I'm not going to be the one to hasten his suicide. I'll try to prevent it the best I can. And I take it you bounded the thought experiment, which I agree with, so we avoid the whole, well I could this or that or this. That's not what thought experiments set out to do. They try to simplify an dilemma to show tenability of a position.
In the real world, I would obviously try to get my child some kind of counseling.
But you don't know if you're preventing or hastening it by lying though. That's the point. There are too many variables at play.
Without omniscience, there's no rational way to justify lying.
And tbh, now it sounds like you're lying to put your own mind at ease
Sorry I call bull on this one. I’ve lost count of how many Christians I’ve seen argue that Christianity and the values it instills in people are the only thing stopping people from raping and murdering each out in the streets. If the “without religion we wouldn’t know right from wrong” applies there then it applies here too.
It's a thought experiment. They don't work like that. You have to bound choices or the exercise becomes useless.
Cheating wife isn't "happily ever after". I wouldn't be happy knowing my friend's wife was cheating on him, that I know and that I lied to him in an effort to guide his life for him because I know better. My happiness is important too.
I'm not trying to be a smartass, but are you familiar with philosophy? Thought experiments often feature scenarios that aren't possible in the real world in order to examine the tenability of a position. I'll refer to a common thought experiment examining utilitarianism that proposes if it's "moral" to torture a man for eternity if it guarantees eternal happiness for every one else. This situation is obviously implausible, but it makes you think about the consequences of utilitarianism. There's no option C, D, E, F, ex. "Well, maybe we could torture 1 person every year." "Maybe we can do this instead, or this, or this." Again, thought experiments are bounded.
yes I'd do it as long as it wasn't me being tortured.
yep. its not exactly a fringe minority either. one of the tenets of their belief system is that objective morality comes from god himself and we have no room to question it
No, it sounds like you're trying to cheat at the thought experiment to try and rescue the idea that telling the truth is ALWAYS the preferred action. I'm cool with you prioritizing the truth above all else, but don't pretend that telling the truth can't have very negative consequences. It doesn't always inherently lead to "good outcomes." If you want a more realistic thought experiment (about weighing telling or revealing the truth vs. the consequences it might have), here's one I posted earlier.
Or how about situation in the real world where there's a scientific discovery that 100 percent proves a race/ethnic group is inherently less intelligent than others (no, I don't believe this will ever be the case, but it's a thought experiment). Given humanity's tendency toward bigotry and discrimination, this is a fact that should probably be suppressed. Humanity isn't yet collectively compassionate enough to treat these citizens with dignity and respect, especially given our narrow definition of "intelligence" that links it to how well you perform in a capitalist society. There's a considerable amount of more wrongs that can emerge from broadcasting those facts than there are rights.
Bunch of ing nerds in here ...
could also be deemed compassionate to acknowledge that inherent disadvantage and then figuring out the best way to address it, instead of ignoring it
Is Evangelical Christianity the only form of Christianity you consider in these debates? Other denominations have tweaked their belief system in a variety of ways throughout their development. Example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_c...n_Christianity
Evangelical Christianity doesn't define the whole of Christianity. Perhaps in the US, but throughout the world. I actually find Evangelical Christianity at odds with much of Christianity, since they have a stupid narrow focus on gays and abortion, but pretty much throw the Christian framework out when evaluating other moral dilemmas (like immigration, universal healthcare, etc).
no, it's not just the evangelicals who believe that morality comes directly from god. although the number is declining, as recently as 2017 over 40% of americans said a belief in god is required to be a moral and good person
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...d-to-be-moral/
even if i WAS limiting the discussion to evangelicals, that's still roughly 25% of the country, a insignificant number
Sure, but depends on your individual faith in humanity. I'm not cynical about humanity, but I don't have much faith that revealing that truth would lead to positive consequences given humanity's penchant for discrimination. It doesn't mean we couldn't eventually be compassionate enough to deal with that fact, but in today's iden y politic climate, that has seen a troubling rise in white nationalism, I wouldn't want to roll the dice.
Oh you mean like being bound to the rational premise that you can see the future.
Sorry but I'll go with useless exercise
Doesn't that graph prove my point that the majority of Americans (and majority of Americans are Christian) say it's NOT necessary. And do you have a world poll polling Christians about this?
No kidding let's talk about law and legal precedents like the cool kids do
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions