South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

November 16, 2019, 03:11:18 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

the Death Penalty

 (Read 14589 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #30 on: May 02, 2015, 15:27:11 PM »

How can people say euthanasia and abortion is wrong and immoral and yet support the death penalty? How does this promote well being?

There are different genera of moral systems, the most recognized three being deontological morality, consequential morality and virtue morality. 

Deontological moral systems rely on a prescribed set of laws, such as the Ten Commandments in Christianity.  Adherents tend to regard such laws as infallible and immutable.  The aim of their moral system is obedience to these laws as far as possible.

Consequential moral systems weigh the consequences of actions or omissions to determine the most desirable outcome and then act in accordance.  Adherents typically consider the wellbeing of fellow humans and other sentient beings as desirable.

Virtue-based moral systems value virtues of character such as wisdom, honesty, bravery, and then deduce associated behaviour.

It would appear that you argue from a consequential perspective whereas your friends do from a deontological one.  Their morals are not driven by the wellbeing of fellow humans.
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +13/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1854



WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 03, 2015, 05:11:41 AM »

It would appear that you argue from a consequential perspective whereas your friends do from a deontological one.  Their morals are not driven by the wellbeing of fellow humans.

Yup. These are also the kind of people who think atheists must of necessity be completely immoral, seeing as they do not have a set of rules to live by. You even now and then hear them argue that the fact that they are moral is proof of the existence of God. :-)
Logged
The Vulcan
Shipmate
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 230



WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 03, 2015, 10:42:43 AM »

Sure, I can understand that, but I'm a bit hesitant of categorizing people that way, because, wouldn't thinking like that mean your setting yourself up for an us them scenario? Wouldn't that make me guilty of tribal mentality as well?

I think we share much the same common values and christians for the most part, are just trying be good people, the problem is that many people claim to hold beliefs I don't think they've really thought through or really believe when you press them on it, that's why if you mention any specific example, like the case with Robin, people readily and easily make him the "exception to the rule" or people who are supposedly pro-death penalty condemning the recent executions in India.
on
This is what I don't understand, why be so vehemently opposed and outspoken against these types of laws they are actually okay with on a human level, yet because of ideological differences people somehow think they prove they are good christians by being pro-life, anti-gay creationist racists?

Once you tell someone you're bi or once you actually bring home someone of a different colour, people are less bigoted and more accepting, once you actually know a terminally ill person and see the way they go, people are more compassionate and make all these "exceptions"

It's like you bring a black friend to your party, people are like, "he's not like the other blacks" or when you talk about a teen girl needing an abortion, they go:'o jeesh, she has her whole life ahead of her" and go on to make another exception to the rule.

Why do people stand in the way of other peoples rights out of ideologies, but once you humanize the situation, they make up all sorts of excuses why this or that situation isn't what they are talking about?

Take the euthanasia example, when discussing that, people usually object to making it legal for terminal patients by changing the argument and jumping to absolutes like the law permitting you to put your old people to sleep or depressed people getting euthanized.

Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #33 on: May 03, 2015, 20:09:57 PM »

By distinguishing between deontological morals and consequential morals you are not catogerizing people, you are categorizing moral systems.  An individual will seldom exclusively abide by only one moral system.  Only the most fundamentalist members of a religion will adhere to religious prescripts without at least some consideration given to the consequences.  When people suspend adherence to religious prescripts on humanitarian grounds, but they do not admit that those prescripts are inherently fallible, then those people are not entirely honest with themselves.  And good intentions do not equate sound morals.
Logged
The Vulcan
Shipmate
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 230



WWW
« Reply #34 on: May 04, 2015, 12:22:30 PM »


That is right, Hermes and that is what I was trying to get at, people are just bullsh%%ing themselves when they try to hold the bible up as their moral code while also trying to sound politically correct and not bigoted when making all these BUT statements - if you go into specifics, I find people concede points on these kinds of topics easily as long as they get to qualify it with a BUT, it really stops a discussion dead in it's tracks right there, people can see the merit of e.g. euthanasia, but can't get around their religious holy books, why people feel the need to stand up for the bible's flawed moral teachings, I don't know.

Just this morning, justice minister, Masutha talked on morning live about why he is against euthanasia, and to his credit, avoided the religion aspect for the most part and focused on all the same arguments that is so old and useless in responding with rhetoric we haven heard before... but in the end, he still brought the discussion to an end when he said that god should be the one who decides when you must go...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuy6yZrqlbE
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3114



« Reply #35 on: May 04, 2015, 12:59:01 PM »

This is all good old-fashioned Cognitive Dissonance, and IMHO one of the most fundemental, deep, unresolvable problems that lie at the heart non-founded belief systems (such as religion): The inevitable contradictions.

I can't claim I "don't understand" why or how people hold such beliefs because I used to engage in the same activity, and here's the thing: YES, I was operating in a system of belief/morality that was at it's best vague and myopic. I saw the world in such blurred terms that I just thought it was all too complicated to possibly make sense of and kinda gave up trying to. Once I de-converted though, I was stunned at the sudden clarity that came to my views and to the order of the world. The sudden crystal clear insights and deductions I could make once I discounted all the magical beings clouding the issue.

This is the thing, the brain can operate without absolutes... while holding contradictory beliefs. I was religious and didn't condemn homosexuals. As a child I at once believed in liberty and apartheid in the same breath. It's AMAZING what a person can do with a bit of rationalisation.

Quote from: The Vulcan
[...] he still brought the discussion to an end when he said that god should be the one who decides when you must go...

Great, I see our justice minister still reads entrails to determine the law in this country. I'm so glad. </sarcasm>
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3114



« Reply #36 on: May 04, 2015, 13:05:59 PM »

Take the euthanasia example, when discussing that, people usually object to making it legal for terminal patients by changing the argument and jumping to absolutes like the law permitting you to put your old people to sleep or depressed people getting euthanized.

Take this for example: If you simply frame this in regards to personal liberty the counter to this is simple: Each person has complete control over what happens to their own body. If someone wants to die, they should be free to die. However this choice cannot be forced upon them.

So, the assumption being made can be said to be invalid: What's immoral about suicide in the first place?
Logged
The Vulcan
Shipmate
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 230



WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 04, 2015, 13:50:02 PM »

It is funny how much more unmuddled things become when you drop your wizardry and become a muggle, I also remember how I used to try and overcomplicate things and then opted for the oversimplified bible answer to tough questions as I tried to make the bible fit what I thought anyway...

Take this for example: If you simply frame this in regards to personal liberty the counter to this is simple: Each person has complete control over what happens to their own body. If someone wants to die, they should be free to die. However this choice cannot be forced upon them.


Exactly and many depressed and bankrupt people already jump off buildings, or find other ways of offing themselves, but euthanasia for terminally ill people isn't just about killing yourself, it's minimizing the pain of the terminally ill person and it's for the benefit of your loved ones not having to clean up after you, after having been with and shared your pain, to clean up your brain matter and to deal with that whole ugly sight on top of having to deal with what the cancer has already done to you.

When you are dying of cancer you start to think a lot about the life and people you will leave behind and this differs from depressed people who I reckon focus more on their own issues while still having a glimmer of hope for things to change.



So, the assumption being made can be said to be invalid: What's immoral about suicide in the first place?

Don't you know? Because of the bible and you'll go to Hell  Tongue
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Up
  Print  
GoogleTagged: google com yahoo skeptic


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.444 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page May 08, 2019, 06:44:13 AM
Privacy Policy