-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
"Wanting to remove the ability to suffer at all by going Dr. Frankenstein on people, is not the same as wanting to alleviate existent suffering."
I think you misunderstand Dr. F's program... it eliminates existent suffering, and removes the possibility of future suffering... this would be a good thing if the only goal of a morality was to reduce suffering. It would be the way to have the greatest reduction!
"It is to some degree, in everyone."
Reference or source?
"...some in ways that are twisted, for instance, wanting to burn people's brains to stop them having any ability to suffer..."
Whether it's twisted or not it a matter of opinion... Be logical, here... if the goal is to reduce suffering, then eliminating suffering brings the greatest reduction.
"I don't base my morality off a desire to survive, I continue to live because I desire to survive."
The question is not why do you continue to live, it's what you base your morality on. I understood you previously to be implying that if everyone died, that would be bad. Good and bad are moral issues. So, I understood you to be making a moral judgement, that it would be bad if everyone died.
Actually, if everyone died, that would also produce the greatest reduction in suffering... but now there's two, so I should change the 'greatest' above to 'one of the greatest'...
I think you misunderstand Dr. F's program... it eliminates existent suffering, and removes the possibility of future suffering... this would be a good thing if the only goal of a morality was to reduce suffering. It would be the way to have the greatest reduction!
"It is to some degree, in everyone."
Reference or source?
"...some in ways that are twisted, for instance, wanting to burn people's brains to stop them having any ability to suffer..."
Whether it's twisted or not it a matter of opinion... Be logical, here... if the goal is to reduce suffering, then eliminating suffering brings the greatest reduction.
"I don't base my morality off a desire to survive, I continue to live because I desire to survive."
The question is not why do you continue to live, it's what you base your morality on. I understood you previously to be implying that if everyone died, that would be bad. Good and bad are moral issues. So, I understood you to be making a moral judgement, that it would be bad if everyone died.
Actually, if everyone died, that would also produce the greatest reduction in suffering... but now there's two, so I should change the 'greatest' above to 'one of the greatest'...
So either, you have empathy, or you care about your own life.. both of these are good things to have, some people don't care about any of that, some people don't know any other way, you would have to be familiar with that world to see what drugs or money could do to a person, how God comes into action with these kinds is because when you live fast, you either crash hard or die young, so when one hits the wall or the " bottom " they start questioning and searching themselves and God to see what they actually " care " about, who can help them out of these situation and if or when we decide to call on God, Christ is there listening and will heal us, make us whole and lead us in to all truths, truth is a funny thing though..
One has to have God fully behind them to accept it all, a lot of people know the world is dysfunctional but they don't know the who's and why all of it is happening, when we turn to the Messiah, He magnifies what we are searching for. So it isn't just about being moral, but being healed, given peace, love, real joy, understanding, and things you wouldn't think are possible to happen... Happens.. What God is good at .. the impossible
One has to have God fully behind them to accept it all, a lot of people know the world is dysfunctional but they don't know the who's and why all of it is happening, when we turn to the Messiah, He magnifies what we are searching for. So it isn't just about being moral, but being healed, given peace, love, real joy, understanding, and things you wouldn't think are possible to happen... Happens.. What God is good at .. the impossible
Truthfully, it frequently happens the other way around. I even have Christians coming to my door to try and convert me. I often tell people on forums that I don't have any real interest in disproving the existence of God. I do think it important, however, that people accept modern science. Unfortunately, too many conservative Christians see science as undermining God and they react strongly against it. It is this anit-science push back that brought people such as Richard Dawkins into the discussion and is the principle reason I also visit religious forums.
How do they make you feel embarrassed?
PS. Welcome to the forum.
How do they make you feel embarrassed?
PS. Welcome to the forum.
Whatever works, yes? I agree with Human, but our temperance is also built upon empathy. Do you recall the incident in 1996 when a 3 year old fell into a gorilla pen at a zoo in England. A 400 pound adult gorilla rushed over, picked up the unconscious boy, cradled him, and then carried him to the exit where he lay the child down and stood guard till zoo attendants arrived. I am sure the gorilla did not act this way out of a desire for reciprocity. Probably it simply experienced a sense of empathy and so acted to assist the injured boy. I propose that most of us assist others simply because we feel it is the right thing to do. It is in our nature to be helpful when we see others in distress. It is in the nature of the great apes as well to exhibit empathy, so probably this is a characteristic that evolved with as a species.
So if you think morality is built into the fabric of the universe, I would have to say no, but I think it was built into us and our great ape cousins through the course of evolution. He who demonstrates empathy contributes to the survival of the group and passes on more genes. That is what Darwin called survival of the fittest.
So if you think morality is built into the fabric of the universe, I would have to say no, but I think it was built into us and our great ape cousins through the course of evolution. He who demonstrates empathy contributes to the survival of the group and passes on more genes. That is what Darwin called survival of the fittest.
Hunger is suffering. Without hunger, people wouldn't eat. Thirst is suffering, without thirst, people wouldn't drink. Giving someone water is not the same as removing their ability to thirst. Again, you're compartmentalizing the means from the outcome. You're looking at the two outcomes (removal/alleviation of suffering) and saying one is as justifiable as the other because of the outcome itself, regardless of the means. It's kind of like saying removing a person's pain caused by their broken hand by amputating their arm is just as valid as giving them painkillers and surgery to fix the break. They aren't the same though.
Removing a person's ability to suffer at all is not the same as alleviating instances of suffering that arise.
Everybody has a level of restraint; everybody. Even the Hitlers and the Stalins had a level of restraint.
Again, you're compartmentalizing the end from the means, and at this point you're also removing the very important inidividual psyche and trying to argue a moral premise that only looks at the outcome not taking into account human will, emotion, empathy or survival instinct; you're not paying attention to any of the instrinsic psychological qualities that precede moral thought. Look, I don't want to die unconsensually. My empathy dictates that others do not want to die unconsensually. Thus, making everyone die unconsensually to reduce their suffering is antithetical to my moral foundations, and would be against the survival instincts of billions.
Stop thinking black and white!
Removing a person's ability to suffer at all is not the same as alleviating instances of suffering that arise.
Everybody has a level of restraint; everybody. Even the Hitlers and the Stalins had a level of restraint.
Again, you're compartmentalizing the end from the means, and at this point you're also removing the very important inidividual psyche and trying to argue a moral premise that only looks at the outcome not taking into account human will, emotion, empathy or survival instinct; you're not paying attention to any of the instrinsic psychological qualities that precede moral thought. Look, I don't want to die unconsensually. My empathy dictates that others do not want to die unconsensually. Thus, making everyone die unconsensually to reduce their suffering is antithetical to my moral foundations, and would be against the survival instincts of billions.
Stop thinking black and white!
It's a good thing to be kept in check if you can't keep yourself in check. If a person thinks that without God they should just murder and rape (and they actually want to murder and rape) then yes, I would say it is a good thing to be kept in check, considering that I don't particularly want to be murdered or raped, nor have I a desire to murder and rape.
You, like others, are compartmentalizing motive, means and outcome. But they are inter-related and in my moral perspective interdependent. You're implying that a surgeon performing a painful surgery (motive being to help someone who has been in an accident live) can be morally equivalent to someone murdering, raping and pillaging (which was the context in which I asked the question you replied to) without the consent of victims. That is grossly erroneous.
As for suffering being necessary to avert an evil, I can understand and even condone it in matters of self-defense if a person so wishes to defend themselves by inflicting suffering upon another person (since the defender never gave his consent to be attacked, obviously), but in other cases it becomes a matter of trying to predict the future and torturing others to potentially save others and becomes awfully messy and risky. In my opinion, the latter isn't justifiable simply because the probability of outcome cannot be calculated; it is inflicting intense suffering for wishful thinking.
I don't necissarily agree that focusing on suffering is looking at things the wrong way round. ''Well-being'' is wooly. The deaths of a few million contributed to Stalin's mental well being (in that he didn't have to then deal with having those potential detractors running around fuelling his paranoia), but that came at the cost of millions of lives, and at grave suffering to the victims. The basic idea here is personal empathy regarding suffering. I do not like to suffer unconsensually, therefore I should not endeavour to make others suffer unconsensually. Obviously, motivations play a role in this too. What I should have said is that I should not cause others to suffer unconsensually where my motivations are maliceful in any way towards the individual upon whom I would inflict suffering (and that's important, because it removes the loophole to 'torture people for good ol' USA').
If I cause an individual to suffer, in the brilliant example you mentioned of a surgeon performing a surgery, say without anaesthetic since there is not any at hand (war-zone medic perhaps) then this is motivated by a desire to save that individual's life. Malicefully inflicting suffering by some imagined merit based on uncalculable predictions (he might give us information that'll save who knows how many lives, or he might know nothing whatsoever) is not the same. Neither is, of course, raping and pillaging.
I suppose we can surmise now that these are the personal criteria for the moral system I live by:
1. Empathy in regards to suffering. By my estimation, I do not like to suffer unconsensually, thus others do not like to suffer unconsensually.
2. From that empathy, comes a desire to alleviate or reduce physical suffering in another individual as it arises, as well as a desire not to actively cause suffering in another individual. It is impossible to reduce present existent suffering in a particular individual by the infliction of present suffering on that individual, nor is it logical to reduce suffering by contradicting their survivial instincts as understood by my own (I want to live, thus killing everyone to reduce their suffering would be non empathetic).
2b. I can, however, inflict a necessary level of suffering on an individual in medical circumstances where it is absolutely the only way to help, or in the case of self-defence of oneself or of innocents, which does require a level of willingness to inflict harm. These are warranted because in empathy I know survival is important thus operating on the individual is the right course of action, and that self defense is warranted because I did not consent to being attacked, neither did innocents, however, this infliction of suffering (either in self defense or medicine) should ideally not be of a level of unnecessary force (shooting a man who attacks with his fists, for instance, or cutting off the arm when you can just pop the shoulder back in).
3. Apart from as in point 2b, I should never cause suffering in an individual to reduce suffering in them; this is oxymoronic. I do however believe in the right of painless euthanasia in circumstances where intense unbearable physical pain and suffering cannot be alleviated by any other means, as, for instance, in the case of a person with untreatable illness causing such intense agony that it cannot be helped with painkillers. (The recent case of the eight year old girl in Great Ormond Street Hospital who would scream day in night in agony regardless of the morphine given her, whose illness was incurable and for all intents and purposes untreatable).
5. Apart from in self defence, maliceful motivations must not be present in any moral endeavour in any context whatsoever.
Now, this is my morality, and I don't believe you or anybody else has to live by this moral code, but for me, it is the one I've chosen and weighing up the options it seems the best one, to my reasoning.
As for suffering being necessary to avert an evil, I can understand and even condone it in matters of self-defense if a person so wishes to defend themselves by inflicting suffering upon another person (since the defender never gave his consent to be attacked, obviously), but in other cases it becomes a matter of trying to predict the future and torturing others to potentially save others and becomes awfully messy and risky. In my opinion, the latter isn't justifiable simply because the probability of outcome cannot be calculated; it is inflicting intense suffering for wishful thinking.
I don't necissarily agree that focusing on suffering is looking at things the wrong way round. ''Well-being'' is wooly. The deaths of a few million contributed to Stalin's mental well being (in that he didn't have to then deal with having those potential detractors running around fuelling his paranoia), but that came at the cost of millions of lives, and at grave suffering to the victims. The basic idea here is personal empathy regarding suffering. I do not like to suffer unconsensually, therefore I should not endeavour to make others suffer unconsensually. Obviously, motivations play a role in this too. What I should have said is that I should not cause others to suffer unconsensually where my motivations are maliceful in any way towards the individual upon whom I would inflict suffering (and that's important, because it removes the loophole to 'torture people for good ol' USA').
If I cause an individual to suffer, in the brilliant example you mentioned of a surgeon performing a surgery, say without anaesthetic since there is not any at hand (war-zone medic perhaps) then this is motivated by a desire to save that individual's life. Malicefully inflicting suffering by some imagined merit based on uncalculable predictions (he might give us information that'll save who knows how many lives, or he might know nothing whatsoever) is not the same. Neither is, of course, raping and pillaging.
I suppose we can surmise now that these are the personal criteria for the moral system I live by:
1. Empathy in regards to suffering. By my estimation, I do not like to suffer unconsensually, thus others do not like to suffer unconsensually.
2. From that empathy, comes a desire to alleviate or reduce physical suffering in another individual as it arises, as well as a desire not to actively cause suffering in another individual. It is impossible to reduce present existent suffering in a particular individual by the infliction of present suffering on that individual, nor is it logical to reduce suffering by contradicting their survivial instincts as understood by my own (I want to live, thus killing everyone to reduce their suffering would be non empathetic).
2b. I can, however, inflict a necessary level of suffering on an individual in medical circumstances where it is absolutely the only way to help, or in the case of self-defence of oneself or of innocents, which does require a level of willingness to inflict harm. These are warranted because in empathy I know survival is important thus operating on the individual is the right course of action, and that self defense is warranted because I did not consent to being attacked, neither did innocents, however, this infliction of suffering (either in self defense or medicine) should ideally not be of a level of unnecessary force (shooting a man who attacks with his fists, for instance, or cutting off the arm when you can just pop the shoulder back in).
3. Apart from as in point 2b, I should never cause suffering in an individual to reduce suffering in them; this is oxymoronic. I do however believe in the right of painless euthanasia in circumstances where intense unbearable physical pain and suffering cannot be alleviated by any other means, as, for instance, in the case of a person with untreatable illness causing such intense agony that it cannot be helped with painkillers. (The recent case of the eight year old girl in Great Ormond Street Hospital who would scream day in night in agony regardless of the morphine given her, whose illness was incurable and for all intents and purposes untreatable).
5. Apart from in self defence, maliceful motivations must not be present in any moral endeavour in any context whatsoever.
Now, this is my morality, and I don't believe you or anybody else has to live by this moral code, but for me, it is the one I've chosen and weighing up the options it seems the best one, to my reasoning.
"It's one facet of a moral standard built on empathy"
So... empathy is the standard for morality, not reduction in suffering... granted, there's some overlap, but not the same.
"...therefore a realization that others' suffering is just as unpleasant as mine is."
It's unpleasant to them, it doesn't have to be unpleasant to you.
I agree that reducing suffering is a possible moral standard. It's an opinion, and other people might have a different opinion. We can say, "Based on my opinion, that person is morally wrong. Of course, based on their opinion, they're right." Myself, I'm happier when I feel that I have a moral standard that's not based on an opinion.
So... empathy is the standard for morality, not reduction in suffering... granted, there's some overlap, but not the same.
"...therefore a realization that others' suffering is just as unpleasant as mine is."
It's unpleasant to them, it doesn't have to be unpleasant to you.
I agree that reducing suffering is a possible moral standard. It's an opinion, and other people might have a different opinion. We can say, "Based on my opinion, that person is morally wrong. Of course, based on their opinion, they're right." Myself, I'm happier when I feel that I have a moral standard that's not based on an opinion.
duh one can only write about something after it happens .....unless you are predicting the future. If a man invent a gadget leaves it in his basement forgets about it eventually....some years after someone finds the gadget and lay claim to it's invention with evidence to show he is the inventor...who is the real inventor?...it was written long after it did not happen after....
let us supposes someone chooses a code directly opposed to your code but at the same time say...Now, this is my morality, and I don't believe you or anybody else has to live by this moral code, but for me, it is the one I've chosen and weighing up the options it seems the best one, to my reasoning.......When conflict arise between those two parties how do we determine whose morality supersedes and why? or do they simply accept each other's morality ....for instance ...your morality say it is wrong to kill the other person morality say it is ok to kill so the other person kills your son because it is a cool thing to do because of his morality...what do you do ???do you accept his code or do you now invent a sub code to say it is ok to kill someone who kills your son? since your morality says it is wrong to kill...which would be ok with his morality but you live by your morality...or do you now live by his morality?
Cycel, I see that. I see that you remember those comments from family. .
I have seen evidence of your social skills. I think that church financial accounts might have been healthy under your leadership.. But, I'm also glad that you didn't get involved in activities that would have gone against your convictions.
.I have seen evidence of your social skills. I think that church financial accounts might have been healthy under your leadership.
. But, I'm also glad that you didn't get involved in activities that would have gone against your convictions.Actually, it does. I don't find anybody's suffering NOT unpleasant.
What you're trying to assert here is that God's morality is objective and absolute. I'm afraid it isn't, though, its subject to the plethora of variable interpretations that lead sometimes to drastically different moral conclusions. All morality is essentially subjective. It seems to me that the problem you guys have with that statement is 'how do we know what's right and wrong then?'
But you do know what's right and wrong, you already know. You know that what is unpleasant (in the sense of causing you pain) to you is unpleasant to others. You know that all living things have a desire to live, just as you do. You know that no living thing desires to suffer just as you don't. And you know that if you are to infringeupon these desires in others then you leave a door open for another to infringe upon the same desires in you.
There can be no moral integrity in being willing to do to other people the things you would not like done on yourself. And this is the intrinsic sense of morality innate in human beings; empathy is the foundation of the conscience.
You know this. We're arguing intellectualisms and playing semantics games and compartmentalizing the means from ends and you're saying God's morality is universal and I'm saying no it changes depending on interpretation, but when we get down to it and inter-relate all the facets of morality -- that is, the sociological implications, the psychology of morality, the colour of perception, conditioning, emotion, circumstance, cause, effect, outcome and motivation -- an empathetic morality is inextricable from almost every human society, even when God is not involved. Your conscience existed before you ever picked up a bible, and so did mine.
What you're trying to assert here is that God's morality is objective and absolute. I'm afraid it isn't, though, its subject to the plethora of variable interpretations that lead sometimes to drastically different moral conclusions. All morality is essentially subjective. It seems to me that the problem you guys have with that statement is 'how do we know what's right and wrong then?'
But you do know what's right and wrong, you already know. You know that what is unpleasant (in the sense of causing you pain) to you is unpleasant to others. You know that all living things have a desire to live, just as you do. You know that no living thing desires to suffer just as you don't. And you know that if you are to infringeupon these desires in others then you leave a door open for another to infringe upon the same desires in you.
There can be no moral integrity in being willing to do to other people the things you would not like done on yourself. And this is the intrinsic sense of morality innate in human beings; empathy is the foundation of the conscience.
You know this. We're arguing intellectualisms and playing semantics games and compartmentalizing the means from ends and you're saying God's morality is universal and I'm saying no it changes depending on interpretation, but when we get down to it and inter-relate all the facets of morality -- that is, the sociological implications, the psychology of morality, the colour of perception, conditioning, emotion, circumstance, cause, effect, outcome and motivation -- an empathetic morality is inextricable from almost every human society, even when God is not involved. Your conscience existed before you ever picked up a bible, and so did mine.
I'm kind of late to the party here, so I'll keep this short.
Life is short. Life is precious. We need to live our lives to the fullest, because this is our one chance here on this earth. Both atheists and Christians would more or less believe in those sentiments. Furthermore, if this life is all there is, then our lives on earth arguably carry more meaning from an atheist's perspective than they would from a Christian perspective, where there is an eternal afterlife to follow. Christians will sometimes call our lives on earth a "temporary home" and that we are "just passing through." But to an atheist, this is all there is.
A lot of different factors played into it. Discovering the fallibility of the Bible through historical criticism. Realizing the scientific realities of the world and how they clash with the Christian worldview. The problem of evil, specifically unjust suffering, inconsistent responses to suffering, and eternal hell. There are other things as well.
In my situation, I wanted to believe but I no longer could. I struggled for 2 and a half years to keep my faith. It was a slow, painful process losing my faith, and I will say it is hard envisioning a scenario where I gain it back. But what I will say is that I am always learning. Conversation and debate help increase knowledge and understanding. Not only is it an opportunity to learn of other perspectives, but also to research and confirm your own perspectives.
Life is short. Life is precious. We need to live our lives to the fullest, because this is our one chance here on this earth. Both atheists and Christians would more or less believe in those sentiments. Furthermore, if this life is all there is, then our lives on earth arguably carry more meaning from an atheist's perspective than they would from a Christian perspective, where there is an eternal afterlife to follow. Christians will sometimes call our lives on earth a "temporary home" and that we are "just passing through." But to an atheist, this is all there is.
A lot of different factors played into it. Discovering the fallibility of the Bible through historical criticism. Realizing the scientific realities of the world and how they clash with the Christian worldview. The problem of evil, specifically unjust suffering, inconsistent responses to suffering, and eternal hell. There are other things as well.
In my situation, I wanted to believe but I no longer could. I struggled for 2 and a half years to keep my faith. It was a slow, painful process losing my faith, and I will say it is hard envisioning a scenario where I gain it back. But what I will say is that I am always learning. Conversation and debate help increase knowledge and understanding. Not only is it an opportunity to learn of other perspectives, but also to research and confirm your own perspectives.