er. accidental essay

[Beware the talking cat]

Well, I was writing some material for a story, and somehow it turned into a short essay on morality.
I can't really use it in its current form, but I spent too long on it to just throw it out, so I'll throw it on here just to feel like I did something not worthless.
Note this has zero editing, so if it makes no sense or jumps around topics, sorry.

How are we to define a good person? Some define it by intention, others by result, but can either of those encapsulate a measure of “goodness”? Surely one cannot call a fiend who creates an accidental miracle good, by any means, but can we truly describe one who wreaks havoc with kindness in their heart as a good person either?
And yet, we cannot rob the well-minded of their kindness—even if it comes out poorly, inflicting evil accidentally is not evil—it's an accident. At the very least, we can say one who does evil accidentally to not be acting against their goodness, even if those well intentioned acts cause grave harm.
Shall we place them then with those who do nothing, then? Not the lethargic or inactive but those who act without any net credit or curse, to say the good intentions and evil actions cancel out, giving a net result of zero. No. This would also be a disservice to the kind-hearted, placing them below their place for their poor results, despite their efforts. Surely effort is worth something more than to cancel out its own effect.
Perhaps, then, the good-intentioned end up in their own group. A group above those who do evil or nothing yet below the completely good—on the good side, just closer to the center. Should the same then be done for the converse group—those who do good while intending vice? To take one who intends evil and place them below those who do nothing, even though they actually do good?
Certainly our western justice system does just this—attempted murder is a grave crime, yet less critical than true murder. However, one must remember law, at least in most western countries, is intended not as punishment but as reform, or at least protection. Punishments are not vindication but keeping the harmful from inflicting harm—in this manner, attempted murder may be construed as punishable even without actual harm being caused.
Note, this is not to say attempted murder should be unpunished—certainly governments have a right to protect their citizens—but to say it is not a direct evil. Although it may have inflicted other harm—fear, hatred, assault, physical injury, distress, worry, or the like—it deals no direct evil. That is to say, a careful, unnoticed, and most importantly, failed, murder attempt is actually a neutral act, not an evil one.
Even the western justice system could be said to agree on this—is not innocence presumed until guilt is proven? Without an evil result, there is no proof any potential evil existed, and therefore, it did not.
Does this, then, not appear to be a contradiction? To allow good intentions the benefit of the doubt yet evil ones be indifferent? Why should good intentioned acts be considered good if they end in evil yet poorly intentioned ones only be indifferent?
This, here, this key point is the difference between good and evil. For good, though a pleasant result is preferable, only intent is realized, while for evil, both intent and result are requisite. Why should good be given this privilege? Who is to say?
There are two possibilities: moral relativism and moral absolutism. To call it moral relativism is not entirely unfair, in this one case. However, it could also be seen as moral relativism being a misguided consequence of this distinction. In order to explain why evil acts may be considered neutral based on the intent of the actor is perhaps the heart of moral relativism.
However, evil does not cease to be evil simply by intent. Moral relativism may be tempting on the surface, but it leads toward an appalling problem—what you view is evil, if I view it good, is good. Acts become not neutral, but both good and evil simultaneously.

[b0mb3r]

i've never heard what is "moral relativism" until i studied it last month. Before i never knew what to called these type of difficult moral principles. I usually called it the Perpetrator's Perspective of Preferences or PPP. Meaning good and evil is only viewed through the eyes of the beholder. I find child rape and forced "cleansing" of woman where they are forced to have sex 3 times a day immoral, in other cultures is a tradition. I also question my own judgment of what "rights" do I even have to judge other culture that has been living more than I have.

Again there is an issue with "rights". Do we even have rights at all even without human laws? I usually think the basic right to live is food, water, shelter and air and the only violations is to deny them to those who need to survive on this planet. Yet torture is violating these "human rights" for the "better good" in protection for others. This comes in if the means justify the end or if one life is not valued as the whole community.

The danger i hear from moral relativism is that everyone has their own preferences of what is right. We have war fought over principles as everyone who fought wars usually think they are right. The other issue is genocide because what Hitler did or what happened at Rwanda means they did it within their own morality, so what rights do we have to judge them?

The usual standard in this world is not to kill, not to steal, and not to lie. Yet you had to steal food to survive or you do it for the greater good like Robin Hood did. You may not lie but if your life is on the line who can say? Tortured people had to lie to stop the pain. Some are innocent yet their lies may either get them killed or crucified for their fictional tales. How about when smugglers are transporting humans through borders whose lives are target by extremist gov't? And kill is a biggy. Is easier to kill when something personal is inflicted upon to you when emotional attachment rioted you up.

But how about this example. A mother had to killed her baby due to his crying to save other children as they hide under a bunkers from solider. Was her baby death justified to save other kids? If she didn't those soldiers may have certainly heard it and killed them. So what is right? What is wrong? I am example of good intentions but i cause accidental harm to others. For example I gave food to a beggar but her pride was so huge she threw it back to my face. I praised fellow art peer of mine but she misunderstood it and got her friend to punched me. I guess the Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions.

What is your definition of moral relativism or what is your moral principles?

[ben1234]

i've never heard what is "moral relativism" until i studied it last month. Before i never knew what to called these type of difficult moral principles. I usually called it the Perpetrator's Perspective of Preferences or PPP. Meaning good and evil is only viewed through the eyes of the beholder. I find child rape and forced "cleansing" of woman where they are forced to have sex 3 times a day immoral, in other cultures is a tradition. I also question my own judgment of what "rights" do I even have to judge other culture that has been living more than I have. Again there is an issue with "rights". Do we even have rights at all even without human laws? I usually think the basic right to live is food, water, shelter and air and the only violations is to deny them to those who need to survive on this planet. Yet torture is violating these "human rights" for the "better good" in protection for others. This comes in if the means justify the end or if one life is not valued as the whole community. The danger i hear from moral relativism is that everyone has their own preferences of what is right. We have war fought over principles as everyone who fought wars usually think they are right. The other issue is genocide because what Hitler did or what happened at Rwanda means they did it within their own morality, so what rights do we have to judge them? The usual standard in this world is not to kill, not to steal, and not to lie. Yet you had to steal food to survive or you do it for the greater good like Robin Hood did. You may not lie but if your life is on the line who can say? Tortured people had to lie to stop the pain. Some are innocent yet their lies may either get them killed or crucified for their fictional tales. How about when smugglers are transporting humans through borders whose lives are target by extremist gov't? And kill is a biggy. Is easier to kill when something personal is inflicted upon to you when emotional attachment rioted you up. But how about this example. A mother had to killed her baby due to his crying to save other children as they hide under a bunkers from solider. Was her baby death justified to save other kids? If she didn't those soldiers may have certainly heard it and killed them. So what is right? What is wrong? I am example of good intentions but i cause accidental harm to others. For example I gave food to a beggar but her pride was so huge she threw it back to my face. I praised fellow art peer of mine but she misunderstood it and got her friend to punched me. I guess the Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions.

What is your definition of moral relativism or what is your moral principles?

Paragraphs... learn to use them

[b0mb3r]

Paragraphs... learn to use them

my bad, my bad just got a bit heated up to comment on BttC's essay. I'm the type of guy who can write 10 pages essay without paragraph breaks cause i want to write down my ideas 1st before any grammar check.

[Dan]

So if I shot with intent to kill you and you lived, no evil was done?

To address the key issue, a person's intent, I would say you need to examine what "good" is in the first place. Enslaving people used to be okay, Hitler thought he was doing the human race a favor, and Eskimos killed their female children because they weren't as productive as male children. Good intentions, but at their core they are evil acts.

[b0mb3r]

So if I shot with intent to kill you and you lived, no evil was done?

To address the key issue, a person's intent, I would say you need to examine what "good" is in the first place. Enslaving people used to be okay, Hitler thought he was doing the human race a favor, and Eskimos killed their female children because they weren't as productive as male children. Good intentions, but at their core they are evil acts.

i have said earlier: The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions. It is important to examine everything. Not only the intention but whether the act itself is good, the consequences it bares, and the circumstance circulating it. Cause and Effect. Action and Reaction. Is not theoretical but its practicality is shown in reality. Though as an observer is obvious when the event itself occurred but those within the circle do not know the future. We just make the decision we think is best, not right.

[ainsoph9]

Well, I was writing some material for a story, and somehow it turned into a short essay on morality.
I can't really use it in its current form, but I spent too long on it to just throw it out, so I'll throw it on here just to feel like I did something not worthless.
Note this has zero editing, so if it makes no sense or jumps around topics, sorry.

How are we to define a good person? Some define it by intention, others by result, but can either of those encapsulate a measure of “goodness”? Surely one cannot call a fiend who creates an accidental miracle good, by any means, but can we truly describe one who wreaks havoc with kindness in their heart as a good person either?
And yet, we cannot rob the well-minded of their kindness—even if it comes out poorly, inflicting evil accidentally is not evil—it's an accident. At the very least, we can say one who does evil accidentally to not be acting against their goodness, even if those well intentioned acts cause grave harm.
Shall we place them then with those who do nothing, then? Not the lethargic or inactive but those who act without any net credit or curse, to say the good intentions and evil actions cancel out, giving a net result of zero. No. This would also be a disservice to the kind-hearted, placing them below their place for their poor results, despite their efforts. Surely effort is worth something more than to cancel out its own effect.
Perhaps, then, the good-intentioned end up in their own group. A group above those who do evil or nothing yet below the completely good—on the good side, just closer to the center. Should the same then be done for the converse group—those who do good while intending vice? To take one who intends evil and place them below those who do nothing, even though they actually do good?
Certainly our western justice system does just this—attempted murder is a grave crime, yet less critical than true murder. However, one must remember law, at least in most western countries, is intended not as punishment but as reform, or at least protection. Punishments are not vindication but keeping the harmful from inflicting harm—in this manner, attempted murder may be construed as punishable even without actual harm being caused.
Note, this is not to say attempted murder should be unpunished—certainly governments have a right to protect their citizens—but to say it is not a direct evil. Although it may have inflicted other harm—fear, hatred, assault, physical injury, distress, worry, or the like—it deals no direct evil. That is to say, a careful, unnoticed, and most importantly, failed, murder attempt is actually a neutral act, not an evil one.
Even the western justice system could be said to agree on this—is not innocence presumed until guilt is proven? Without an evil result, there is no proof any potential evil existed, and therefore, it did not.
Does this, then, not appear to be a contradiction? To allow good intentions the benefit of the doubt yet evil ones be indifferent? Why should good intentioned acts be considered good if they end in evil yet poorly intentioned ones only be indifferent?
This, here, this key point is the difference between good and evil. For good, though a pleasant result is preferable, only intent is realized, while for evil, both intent and result are requisite. Why should good be given this privilege? Who is to say?
There are two possibilities: moral relativism and moral absolutism. To call it moral relativism is not entirely unfair, in this one case. However, it could also be seen as moral relativism being a misguided consequence of this distinction. In order to explain why evil acts may be considered neutral based on the intent of the actor is perhaps the heart of moral relativism.
However, evil does not cease to be evil simply by intent. Moral relativism may be tempting on the surface, but it leads toward an appalling problem—what you view is evil, if I view it good, is good. Acts become not neutral, but both good and evil simultaneously.

Although "How to Be a Mentsh (& Not a Shmuck)" by Michael Wex is recommended reading for a funny response about good and evil whether intentional or unintentional, the basic question here seems to stem from moral absolutes versus moral relativism. To begin, a morally absolute system generally stems from the idea that humans are held accountable to something or someone, who is generally more powerful in some fashion than they. Usually, this thing or being is not human. (Governments and other human organizations do not count because political science would say that such entities derive their power from another higher source.) In addition, the power described, although usually put in natural terms or terms that are fairly simple for most to grasp, tends to become spiritualized fairly quickly by many. Regardless of who or what this entity is, that entity has the final say, despite whether or not people deem that entity as benevolent or malevolent, as having authority over them, etc.

Compare this idea to moral relativism, which ultimately allows for no accountability to anything or anyone for any action done. Oddly enough, the idea of something known the human conscience still exists outside of such an idea of moral relativism. In addition, people generally know when they have been "wronged" or had an action done to them that is not in their favor at the very least. So, it seems out of place for moral relativism to say that no accountability should exist for any given action. After all, moral relativism says that good for one can become evil for another and vice versa. The human conscience's existence seems to contradict this. Certain ideas, no matter how they are explained or explained away with, seem all too common in humanity to not be true. These ideas become benchmarks for actions and for reality. So, ultimately, the ideas of not murdering, not stealing, etc. become ways for people to share a common reality that goes against a moral relativism that says everyone is a lone wolf going somewhere without knowing where that destination is.

For today's world, a schism exists where everyone wants freedom, but they want it without a price and accountability. People tend to want this freedom often at the expense of others all in the name of becoming happy. Yet, when people define themselves over and against others in a manner that is at the other's expense, it is odd to note that most people are not happy. Rather, statistics around the world show that people who live in place with a morally relativistic lifestyle tend to have higher crime and suicide rates along with many other social problems. While one may argue that such people mean well or that they had their own circumstances to do such acts, a system of law still is in place. Law seems to indicate that a definite moral good and evil exist. Yet, when that law itself is not based on an absolute authority, chaos tends to exist still. (See the idea of natural law for an example. Many governments are based on this, but countries that have such a philosophy also tend to have many "interesting" problems.) So, while these people and institutions may run their lives and existences on "good intentions," those "good intentions" are apparently not enough to make the world work in perfect harmony. Rather, it would seem that true good intentions would matter when someone or something would know the intent before the act in the first place. (As the often quoted saying goes, "All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to stand by and do nothing.") However, since humans do not know the exact intentions of others beforehand, humans cannot say for sure if the intent was good to begin with. Hence, people must judge the actions themselves, which attests that a moral good and evil must exist outside of any given individual at any time and place. Therefore, it would seem that a greater shared reality in the community of humanity exists that allows for a certain degree of freedom with a price and accountability. The concept of community seems to indicate that one can only do so much without harming another. To violate that principle would mean that a price must be exacted by an authority higher than the individuals or groups involved.

i've never heard what is "moral relativism" until i studied it last month. Before i never knew what to called these type of difficult moral principles. I usually called it the Perpetrator's Perspective of Preferences or PPP. Meaning good and evil is only viewed through the eyes of the beholder. I find child rape and forced "cleansing" of woman where they are forced to have sex 3 times a day immoral, in other cultures is a tradition. I also question my own judgment of what "rights" do I even have to judge other culture that has been living more than I have.

What are they teaching kids these days? Ugh.

Again there is an issue with "rights". Do we even have rights at all even without human laws? I usually think the basic right to live is food, water, shelter and air and the only violations is to deny them to those who need to survive on this planet. Yet torture is violating these "human rights" for the "better good" in protection for others. This comes in if the means justify the end or if one life is not valued as the whole community.

The idea of "rights" derives from the idea of morals existing. Generally speaking, for rights to be functional, authority needs to exist. Without this, anarchy is only a step away.

The danger i hear from moral relativism is that everyone has their own preferences of what is right. We have war fought over principles as everyone who fought wars usually think they are right. The other issue is genocide because what Hitler did or what happened at Rwanda means they did it within their own morality, so what rights do we have to judge them?

The question seems to assume that the only authority is human and errant. I will answer with another question. When someone dies or is injured, does it not hurt others around them?

The usual standard in this world is not to kill, not to steal, and not to lie. Yet you had to steal food to survive or you do it for the greater good like Robin Hood did. You may not lie but if your life is on the line who can say? Tortured people had to lie to stop the pain. Some are innocent yet their lies may either get them killed or crucified for their fictional tales. How about when smugglers are transporting humans through borders whose lives are target by extremist gov't? And kill is a biggy. Is easier to kill when something personal is inflicted upon to you when emotional attachment rioted you up.

Forgive the religious reference here, but not all religions, philosophies, or beliefs systems hold that one may never lie under any circumstances at all. Judaism is an example of this. As for the idea of lying, chapter 11 of "Words That Hurt, Words That Heal" is a good read that discusses these questions more in detail.

But how about this example. A mother had to killed her baby due to his crying to save other children as they hide under a bunkers from solider. Was her baby death justified to save other kids? If she didn't those soldiers may have certainly heard it and killed them. So what is right? What is wrong? I am example of good intentions but i cause accidental harm to others. For example I gave food to a beggar but her pride was so huge she threw it back to my face. I praised fellow art peer of mine but she misunderstood it and got her friend to punched me. I guess the Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions.

The question being asked seems to be another way of asking if an almighty being can create a rock that is too heavy to lift (also known as the "Train on a Railroad Tracks" problem). The short answer is "Yes. It is justifiable to kill the baby to save the kids, and no, it is not justifiable to kill the baby to save the kids."

As for having good intentions with accidental harm to others, a Yiddish word describes this problem well. The word is "shmazel," which means "a guy with bad luck." Sometimes, we fall flat on our faces despite out best intentions and actions. Things happen. Yet, what we do after that is probably more important. It also could be that be that a person is a "shmuck" or "jerk." (literally, "a shamisen") As Michael Wex cheekily puts it, "There are people out there, millions of them, who act as if they still believe everything that their mothers told them in the first six months of their life: they're the nicest, most beautiful, most promising and intelligent bags of flesh ever to walk the earth, and anybody who can't see it is a jealous fool." This is not meant as a personal attack or critique, only a bit of an explanation. Personally, I have been in these kinds of situations numerous times as most honest people would be willing to say. Life is complex; things happen; we move on afterward.

What is your definition of moral relativism or what is your moral principles?

My answer would be banned instantly, if this post does not get me banned.

[b0mb3r]

What is your definition of moral relativism or what is your moral principles?

My answer would be banned instantly, if this post does not get me banned.

Why would you get banned for an expression of free speech? Is the NSA watching you or something?

The statistic you point out, excused me if I stated the obvious, but isn't it because we have a higher population that we have higher suicide and crime rate? I think the cause is that we don't have a "God" to rely on based on a realistic belief. The reason religious people feel comfortable is because there is a “Father Figure” to keep them safe. It is their source of comfort and love when no one else provide. Atheists now have to rely on themselves than some sort of outer-authority as they are responsible for their own choice and consequences. My beef with religions is that I have seen its believers do things that are “good” for the sake of getting into heaven and not for the sake of “good”.

Another hard debate is whether the idea of an objective morality system on good and evil exist outside human conscience. This may lead to Solipsism, Existentialism, and Nihilism. Are moral truly objective or is it truly subjective to the individual? Or are morals as biological as it our need to reproduction to passed down genetic codes? For example when I see a child hurt by another being what complies me to stop it? Maybe is a community trait that we inherit. Morals only works when there are individual beings there to witness it and judge it. I could live an island alone and just survive with no human comprehensive. So what does even mean to do the “right thing” when we don’t what is objectively "right" or its origin being questionable?

So whatever people called me, whether if it holds up to a objective universal truth or not, I just gonna do my thing and work with people whose beliefs that aligns with mine and helped my community. There are times when we need question things and the need to do things, so life has to be some sort a balance.

[Beware the talking cat]

So if I shot with intent to kill you and you lived, no evil was done?

Er...no. By my argument, since I was shot, there would be the evil of you shooting me, there just would be anything for attempting to murder me. It would be a case of inflicting physical harm rather than murder.

The question being asked seems to be another way of asking if an almighty being can create a rock that is too heavy to lift (also known as the "Train on a Railroad Tracks" problem). The short answer is "Yes. It is justifiable to kill the baby to save the kids, and no, it is not justifiable to kill the baby to save the kids."

This is always a tough question. It's been argued to death, but I'll take a stab at it.
Killing an innocent, who would shortly die anyway, with his or her consent would be euthanasia. So this action of killing one child to protect the rest might be seen as forceful euthanasia. However, if we compare this to a starvation scenario, where we could kill one child to save food for the others, and just let them live, it would clearly be immoral to directly kill the child, even if not necessarily so to withhold food. Thus, I would have to argue it would be immoral to kill the child, as otherwise I would be arguing for infanticide in poor communities.

As for the "stone too heavy to list question," I've always thought it makes the most sense that by most definitions, God can do anything, so he can make a stone too heavy for himself to lift. However, since he can do anything, he can likewise lift the stone.

[ainsoph9]

So whatever people called me, whether if it holds up to a objective universal truth or not, I just gonna do my thing and work with people whose beliefs that aligns with mine and helped my community. There are times when we need question things and the need to do things, so life has to be some sort a balance.[/quote]

Why would you get banned for an expression of free speech? Is the NSA watching you or something?

Not exactly. Last time I said something religious or anything of the sort I got flamed and threatened to be banned though.

The statistic you point out, excused me if I stated the obvious, but isn't it because we have a higher population that we have higher suicide and crime rate? I think the cause is that we don't have a "God" to rely on based on a realistic belief. The reason religious people feel comfortable is because there is a “Father Figure” to keep them safe. It is their source of comfort and love when no one else provide. Atheists now have to rely on themselves than some sort of outer-authority as they are responsible for their own choice and consequences. My beef with religions is that I have seen its believers do things that are “good” for the sake of getting into heaven and not for the sake of “good”.

Higher population does not directly correlate with higher suicide and crime rate. It seems somewhat counterintuitive, but that is statistics for ya. As for having a higher authority, the larger problem is that people do not accept human authority, let alone a supernatural higher authority. This is because nowadays thanks to Post-Modernism can only relate to how they personally experience things. If it is not within their realm of experience, it cannot be true, and therefore, it is not true. The effects of Post-Modernism are so prevalent that even the world's major religions are awash in it. This quite ironic, given that for the three major monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, rely on a central figure of authority. Yet, when one examines what is happening, some of the members of these religions and others are not trying to seek true authority from what they worship. Instead, they are going off on lone wolf missions by trying get "holy" or "be holy" by themselves without a communal backing while doing it at the expense of others. So, even if it was "Father Figure" to make them feel safe, they are not even relying on that "Father Figure." Ultimately, no authority exists for them or for their leaders because they are not working together for something they say they believe in. Even though in conversation such people may say that they feel more comfortable, happier, etc., one must question if they that way because they are submitting to authority or because they think they are submitting themselves to authority. It is not a question of whether if what they feel is true or not because it is true. One can question others ideas but not their feelings. However, in a culture where feelings and ideas are seen as the same thing, this is almost impossible without the questions or comments becoming personal. It becomes a personal attack, not a dialogue at that point. Still, these kinds of people are not serving others, only themselves, with their self-righteous "goodness." So, it is understandable that many feel disenchanted with religion when the members of the religion are not being good representatives of what they believe to be true.

Another hard debate is whether the idea of an objective morality system on good and evil exist outside human conscience. This may lead to Solipsism, Existentialism, and Nihilism. Are moral truly objective or is it truly subjective to the individual? Or are morals as biological as it our need to reproduction to passed down genetic codes? For example when I see a child hurt by another being what complies me to stop it? Maybe is a community trait that we inherit. Morals only works when there are individual beings there to witness it and judge it. I could live an island alone and just survive with no human comprehensive. So what does even mean to do the “right thing” when we don’t what is objectively "right" or its origin being questionable?

Another way to word this debate would be an objective morality system versus relativism reformulated under the guise of human conscience. One must remember what has been argued previously here. Human conscience can vary from person to person, although this goes outside of the ideal of everyone having a single idea of what that conscience would dictate. Hence, the human conscience can become relative. One is forced to see that for an objective moral system to exist, one must adhere a truly objective system, where all understand and share a single common reality. Therefore, if one harms another, all involved will understand that compensation needs to be made for any losses as the thing to be done on a moral level at the very least.

Going to the idea of morals being biological, this is still another form of the objective morality system versus relativism system. For the sake of argument, let us assume the evolution is true for a moment. The human species, which is the only species that has a complex system of morals on this planet, goes extinct. Another species arises to the same level of humanity in terms of cognitive thought and is practically the same in almost every other area of life. Yet, going by such an argument that morals are passed down genetically, a species that did not have morals cannot have morals arise nihilo ex nihilo. This violates some of the very tenants of science itself! (Interestingly enough, arguing that morals arise nihilo ex nihilo results in the belief of intelligent design.) As a result, one must conclude that morals must exist objectively in reality for that species to have morals. Once more, the idea of an objective "right" must come from a higher authority that exists outside of humanity and the human experience (i.e., limited cognitive and physical ability). Yet, this does not mean that one cannot question what is true and the origins of truth. Life is not a destination; it is a journey that all must go on. We more or less determine where that destination is (unless one is a Calvinist (Look for an article on pre-destination to get the joke)). That is one of the beautiful things about life. We strive in the journey through these uncertainties to embrace truth and ultimately the uncertainty itself, even if we do not like it one bit.

This is always a tough question. It's been argued to death, but I'll take a stab at it.
Killing an innocent, who would shortly die anyway, with his or her consent would be euthanasia. So this action of killing one child to protect the rest might be seen as forceful euthanasia. However, if we compare this to a starvation scenario, where we could kill one child to save food for the others, and just let them live, it would clearly be immoral to directly kill the child, even if not necessarily so to withhold food. Thus, I would have to argue it would be immoral to kill the child, as otherwise I would be arguing for infanticide in poor communities.

As for the "stone too heavy to list question," I've always thought it makes the most sense that by most definitions, God can do anything, so he can make a stone too heavy for himself to lift. However, since he can do anything, he can likewise lift the stone.

The larger problem here is not whether one is forced to choose a greater good. The problem is the question itself. The question forces one to think in terms of Choice A and Choice B. In the struggle to look at things from the conjunctive Choice A and Choice B, one often fails to miss the idea of Choice C or Choice D, etc. Choice C might allow for all to survive or maybe prevent the scenario in the first place. Yet, when one traps themselves in such a scenario, one thinks that an illusion of only Choice A and Choice B existing. The other choices never truly went away; we choose to eliminate them for some reason. Also, in the scenario presented earlier, the mother could try leaving her children to go find food while the eldest child takes care of the rest. So, Choice C can exist.

Two other options exist for the stone problem. How about being able to not make a stone too heavy to lift? Or, how about being able to not make a stone that is not too heavy to lift? I know that seems odd, obtuse, and confusing, but why not? Western culture uses an ancient Greek style of thinking that says, "If not A, then B" or "If not B, then B." It fails to consider the other options available and creates its own box. Another style of thinking is called block thinking. It allows for these options to become available and does not have a problem with contradictions. Contradictions can become expressions of saying the same thing in different ways through points of contact. If one can find these points of contact, one can reconcile the differences often times. I have seen it done; it is beautiful to see after the fact, but it is also hard to follow at times.

[b0mb3r]

Yet, going by such an argument that morals are passed down genetically, a species that did not have morals cannot have morals arise nihilo ex nihilo.

What the heck is nihilo ex nihilo? Sounds like a food for a machine or something.

Contradictions can become expressions of saying the same thing in different ways through points of contact. If one can find these points of contact, one can reconcile the differences often times. I have seen it done; it is beautiful to see after the fact, but it is also hard to follow at times.

I like in stories when the antagonists forces the situations onto the Main. C. to choose under his rules but instead the Main make his own choice and kick his ass. You said you seen this before I would like to read some examples from you.

[ainsoph9]

Nihilo ex nihilo is Latin for "nothing from nothing." In other words, things that come into existence out of nothing appears to violate the laws of science, especially that of the Laws of the Conservation of Mass and Energy.

Here is a somewhat well-known example: Two fathers and two sons go fishing together; yet, there only three people. How is this possible?

Spoiler! :

The one father is the father of the first son. The first son is also the father of the second son. The second son is the grandson of the first father and the son of the second father. Hence, we have a story of a grandfather, a father, and a grandson all going fishing together.

This is an example of lateral thinking, but it is one that illustrates an apparent contradiction, where most would say that one situation must exist and not the other.

Many other examples exist as well, but most of them tend to become incredibly difficult quite quickly as well as heavily philosophical and religious. The problem of "nihilo ex nihilo" is an example of that as well. Again, I would be happy to supply other examples, but that is if no one objects to them becoming philosophical and religious.

[b0mb3r]

Here is a somewhat well-known example: Two fathers and two sons go fishing together; yet, there only three people. How is this possible?

That one is easy.

Again, I would be happy to supply other examples, but that is if no one objects to them becoming philosophical and religious.

Something harder please.

[ainsoph9]

That would depend on what one considers "hard."

[b0mb3r]

^ just spit one out that you subjectively think is "hard" okay?

ps. nothing sexual related you perv!