Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Religious moral dilemma

Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 12:19:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Assume for a second that a non-religious society will bring more happiness, less violence, more productivity and more advancement. While a religious society will bring the opposite. If our world is permeated with religious people, would it then be morally correct to commit a religious genocide to end all religious genocide for the greater good?

I'm interested in seeing responses to this question.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 3:49:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 12:19:26 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Assume for a second that a non-religious society will bring more happiness, less violence, more productivity and more advancement. While a religious society will bring the opposite. If our world is permeated with religious people, would it then be morally correct to commit a religious genocide to end all religious genocide for the greater good?

I'm interested in seeing responses to this question.

If I stay inside your box, then it's tough to give you any answer than the one you expect.
The society must do what is best for the society in order for the society to continue unchanged by the religious tenets.

To me it's a more interesting question if we assume that the non-religious society in the question has decided that all things will be better without religion.

So, I'd want to know:

Why would the society be happier without religion?
Why would there be less violence.
More productivity, more advancement?

What constitutes advancement?

Then there's this:

Your question seems to imply that all non- religious people would agree with one another as to what makes them happy, and what direction their advancement would take.

There is a lot of bad that has come from both religion and non-religion, and there's a lot of good that has come from both.
I have a feeling that a world without religion would not be the best of all worlds.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 5:20:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 3:49:13 PM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
At 2/3/2014 12:19:26 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Assume for a second that a non-religious society will bring more happiness, less violence, more productivity and more advancement. While a religious society will bring the opposite. If our world is permeated with religious people, would it then be morally correct to commit a religious genocide to end all religious genocide for the greater good?

I'm interested in seeing responses to this question.

If I stay inside your box, then it's tough to give you any answer than the one you expect.
The society must do what is best for the society in order for the society to continue unchanged by the religious tenets.

To me it's a more interesting question if we assume that the non-religious society in the question has decided that all things will be better without religion.

So, I'd want to know:

Why would the society be happier without religion?
Why would there be less violence.
More productivity, more advancement?

What constitutes advancement?

Then there's this:

Your question seems to imply that all non- religious people would agree with one another as to what makes them happy, and what direction their advancement would take.

There is a lot of bad that has come from both religion and non-religion, and there's a lot of good that has come from both.
I have a feeling that a world without religion would not be the best of all worlds.

Assume for a second that a non-religious society will bring more happiness, less violence, more productivity and more advancement.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 5:44:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 12:19:26 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Assume for a second that a non-religious society will bring more happiness, less violence, more productivity and more advancement. While a religious society will bring the opposite. If our world is permeated with religious people, would it then be morally correct to commit a religious genocide to end all religious genocide for the greater good?

I'm interested in seeing responses to this question.

Depends how debauched the religious people are, I guess.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 6:24:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 5:20:28 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/6/2014 3:49:13 PM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
At 2/3/2014 12:19:26 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Assume for a second that a non-religious society will bring more happiness, less violence, more productivity and more advancement. While a religious society will bring the opposite. If our world is permeated with religious people, would it then be morally correct to commit a religious genocide to end all religious genocide for the greater good?

I'm interested in seeing responses to this question.

If I stay inside your box, then it's tough to give you any answer than the one you expect.
The society must do what is best for the society in order for the society to continue unchanged by the religious tenets.

To me it's a more interesting question if we assume that the non-religious society in the question has decided that all things will be better without religion.

So, I'd want to know:

Why would the society be happier without religion?
Why would there be less violence.
More productivity, more advancement?

What constitutes advancement?

Then there's this:

Your question seems to imply that all non- religious people would agree with one another as to what makes them happy, and what direction their advancement would take.

There is a lot of bad that has come from both religion and non-religion, and there's a lot of good that has come from both.
I have a feeling that a world without religion would not be the best of all worlds.

Assume for a second that a non-religious society will bring more happiness, less violence, more productivity and more advancement.

Yeah, I did do that. I even answered it, with this:

If I stay inside your box, then it's tough to give you any answer than the one you expect.
The society must do what is best for the society in order for the society to continue unchanged by the religious tenets.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 11:20:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
No. (My translations are quite bad; apologies for those. You could look up better but probably copyrighted translations on the Internet.)

Confucius refused to speak of the paranormal, force, disorder and gods. (Analects 7.19)

If force is used to make people follow, their hearts will not follow, so force is not sufficient; if morality is used to make people follow, their hearts are content and they will follow sincerely, just as the seventy disciples followed Confucius. (Mencius 3.3)

People should be talked into abandoning religion using moral principles, rather than conducting a religious genocide.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 1:02:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 12:19:26 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Assume for a second that a non-religious society will bring more happiness, less violence, more productivity and more advancement. While a religious society will bring the opposite. If our world is permeated with religious people, would it then be morally correct to commit a religious genocide to end all religious genocide for the greater good?

I'm interested in seeing responses to this question.

Oh pulease, religious genocide? Get real.

The fact is, most of the worst genocides of mankind where directed by men with mustaches, Jozef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Yakubu Gowon, Leopold II, Tojo, Pasha, Mariam, they all had mustaches.

It would be morally correct to have a worldwide genocide of people with mustaches for the greater good.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 1:08:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No.

If raping women would be for some ultimate greater good would raping women be morally justified?

The ends do not justify the means.
Nolite Timere
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 4:40:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 12:19:26 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Assume for a second that a non-religious society will bring more happiness, less violence, more productivity and more advancement. While a religious society will bring the opposite. If our world is permeated with religious people, would it then be morally correct to commit a religious genocide to end all religious genocide for the greater good?


No, it wouldn't be. I believe morality is objective. Any killing is wrong. Violence is also wrong, but violence is objectively less wrong than murder.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 12:23:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 4:40:55 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/3/2014 12:19:26 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Assume for a second that a non-religious society will bring more happiness, less violence, more productivity and more advancement. While a religious society will bring the opposite. If our world is permeated with religious people, would it then be morally correct to commit a religious genocide to end all religious genocide for the greater good?


No, it wouldn't be. I believe morality is objective. Any killing is wrong. Violence is also wrong, but violence is objectively less wrong than murder.

Do you also believe it's wrong to purposely leave a society unhappy, violent, with no productivity and no advancement? There is no correct answer really. Each option leaves us with something bad.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA