the Death Penalty

<< < (7/8) > >>

Hermes (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.
brianvds (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. :-)
The Vulcan (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.
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.

Hermes (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.
The Vulcan (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...


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page