She will not be fooled by simulated baby torture. Her only vulnerability, the only thing that will get her to talk, is that her baby isn't suffering.
INFINITE REGRESS UNDER DURESS HOW TO
Let's say there's a woman who knows how to prevent a nuclear bomb from detonating. It would take a pretty unlikely hypothetical situation, but if torturing a baby were the less harmful alternative then it would not be the wrong thing to do. I still have my own questions about such an idea and that, while I do accept that it is society that determines most of what we feel is right and wrong, it just seemed to me that torture, baby torture, and baby rape were exceedingly heinous and unjustifiable.ĭepends on the situation. I mean objectively wrong in that there is no justification for such an action and every circumstance that arises involving such an action is always wrong. If I can try to explain myself to anybody else that might read this or might not have gotten a response from me (and I'm finally done responding, for now) then I should state that my original intent was to raise my own suspicion that I think specific actions could be classified as objectively wrong. Thanks for taking the time out to ponder my query. The neurons continue to fire, however, attempting to formulate arguments.ĮDIT 2: Does baby rape make any qualitative difference to the argument? Or are you going to say "what if I need to rape a baby to stop a nuclear bomb from exploding?" I'm still working on this argument.ĮDIT 3: Let me try to summarize the experience I've had submitting this argument to you people: awesome.
However, I feel more comfortable in the strength of the belief that, while I may find it so morally reprehensible as to never be a desirable action, its objective wrongness is not so straight-forward. But I was always troubled with the idea of torture. I've understood for a long time that human morality for me is dependent on how we humans perceive reality and how to resolve human empathy with the need for our species to survive and reproduce. I really have taken everything into consideration. Y'all up here in r/DebateAnAtheist are badasses, giving me some killer feedback.
My question is for the atheist that typically does not believe in any objective morality, whether it is contingent on deistic claims or not.ĮDIT: Hoo-wee! I love to debate. I understand that some atheists actually do believe in objective morality that is not contingent on deistic claims. I understand this question is not strictly religious. Or, if you really want to justify, for example, waterboarding as a means to obtain information that may save human lives, I will rephrase the question: isn't torturing babies objectively wrong?
0 kommentar(er)
