Jasper wrote:
I never said that this system would be desirable in anyway. I also never said that it was in any way achievable. The world isn't perfect, nor is any one person. I only said that the most moral way to act is to prevent death. I've been known to do some things that are even more immoral than letting people die, how can I be expected to live my life completely for them? I'm perfectly content knowing that my life is filled with immorality in that system because, if there's a God, that won't be his criteria for entering heaven, as he'd probably be more inclined to create his own rules, and if there is no God, and as such no heaven, nobody around here is going to hold me accountable for failing to uphold a system that they themselves can't uphold.
...
Like, WTF, mate?
First) This was supposed to be a discussion on morals, what the hell does your personal transgression have to do with it? Please clarify
Second) By definition, God (with the capital "G" [that means the Judeo-christian God, for anyone who doesn't get the more sublte hints]),
does judge on moral standards, and His standards define morality. You can't say that there's the objective moral standards, and then there are God's standards.
Third) The sum total of your highest moral doctrine remains:
[quote]Hmm... somewhere out there, there's a chance that someone's dying. Death is the worst thing that can happen, so I've gotta go do whatever I possibly can, at the expense of everything save my own life, to make sure that person doesn't die.[/i]
Garbage, hokem, bobagem, trash. This leads to the scenario which I described above, in which the most moral world would be one of stagnation and misery, all those not in danger of immediate death slaving away for the sake of those who are.
_________________
Quote:
"In real life, you don' have a Subterfuge skill above one." - Phill
"What?! You spent THREE YEARS believing that I didn't masturbate!" - Steven