Notices
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Morality of a Feat of Logic

  1. #1 Morality of a Feat of Logic 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    I wasn't sure whether this belonged in philosophy or religion... I chose to place it here in philosophy because it is a philosophical riddle of sorts even though it draws context from a religious beliefs.

    First of all, I will make some assumptions:

    1. All children are born innocent and remain so until they learn the difference between right and wrong.
    2. All innocents and righteous persons shall go to heaven.
    3. All non-repentent sinners shall go to hell.
    4. Those who help sacrifice for others do righteous work.

    Now I will begin my path of logic.

    1. A man is born into a religion.
    2. This man strays from the religious beliefs into the realm of logic.
    3. The man logically investigates the 'rules' of his religion and isolates the previoius assumptions.
    4. The man concludes that if he were to personally exterminate all newborn infants for the rest of his life, he will 'save their souls' and sacrifice only his own to hell.
    5. He willingly does this action, and 'saves' millions of souls over his lifetime.


    My question: If he did this because he really believed it would save the souls, does he go to heaven for saving them? Or does the fact that he also reasoned out his redemption through sin condemn him to hell?

    All thoughts are welcome.


    I may not yet have learned all that I want to, but I can think up alot on my own...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    Oh, and if a forum moderator would rather see this in religion, I will gladly move it. Wherever it is, I just want to know people's views.


    I may not yet have learned all that I want to, but I can think up alot on my own...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Morality of a Feat of Logic 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathwiz8390
    I wasn't sure whether this belonged in philosophy or religion... I chose to place it here in philosophy because it is a philosophical riddle of sorts even though it draws context from a religious beliefs.

    First of all, I will make some assumptions:

    1. All children are born innocent and remain so until they learn the difference between right and wrong.
    First, with logic and philosophy, you should know that right/wrong are subjective. The child doesn't learn this subjectivity for some time. It only goes by empathy for a while.

    So you compare "innocence" to "learning something subjective"?

    2. All innocents and righteous persons shall go to heaven.
    3. All non-repentent sinners shall go to hell.
    4. Those who help sacrifice for others do righteous work.
    This is more religious, but it's philosophically set up for the following, so it's good.

    Now I will begin my path of logic.

    1. A man is born into a religion.
    2. This man strays from the religious beliefs into the realm of logic.
    3. The man logically investigates the 'rules' of his religion and isolates the previoius assumptions.
    4. The man concludes that if he were to personally exterminate all newborn infants for the rest of his life, he will 'save their souls' and sacrifice only his own to hell.
    5. He willingly does this action, and 'saves' millions of souls over his lifetime.


    My question: If he did this because he really believed it would save the souls, does he go to heaven for saving them? Or does the fact that he also reasoned out his redemption through sin condemn him to hell?

    All thoughts are welcome.
    Well, it's a confliction. He saved all of them, yet killed all of them (thou shalt not kill).

    However this action is non-biblical, and against "preaching" and convincing people to be saved by jesus (not killing them to).

    Two possiblities: He'll go to purgatory (neutral), or hell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    True. He disobeyed the ten commandment immeasurable times. However, he found a religous 'loophole' if you will. So do you not think that cleanses him? For he saved 100% by his sacrifice whereas had he gone the conventional way, there would have been no where near as much success and far more bloodshed.



    Then again, if by pointing out the loophole, doesn't he NEED to pay the consequence? Or else was it really a sacrifice?






    (By the way, based on the christianity views of religion.)
    I may not yet have learned all that I want to, but I can think up alot on my own...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathwiz8390
    True. He disobeyed the ten commandment immeasurable times. However, he found a religous 'loophole' if you will. So do you not think that cleanses him? For he saved 100% by his sacrifice whereas had he gone the conventional way, there would have been no where near as much success and far more bloodshed.



    Then again, if by pointing out the loophole, doesn't he NEED to pay the consequence? Or else was it really a sacrifice?

    (By the way, based on the christianity views of religion.)
    That's just it, he did both. Therefore, he's neutral. Hence why I said purgatory.

    However, he did it fully knowing it was a sin. Thus hell.

    It's a cliff-hanger decision.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    You seem adamant in the decision of hell. And I must say I don't know much about purgatory, but I had thought it was a temporary resting place between heaven and hell. However, I was hoping for more of a discussion on the sacrifice and reward as opposed to the exploitation of a loophole.
    I may not yet have learned all that I want to, but I can think up alot on my own...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathwiz8390
    You seem adamant in the decision of hell. And I must say I don't know much about purgatory, but I had thought it was a temporary resting place between heaven and hell. However, I was hoping for more of a discussion on the sacrifice and reward as opposed to the exploitation of a loophole.
    Not so, it's just the fact my knowledge of the bible suggests that he could still go to hell while exploiting that loop hole. Especially since it breaks more rules that "thou shalt not kill," while he is only exploiting one rule.

    Thus, the scales tilt more towards hell.

    Also, purgatory is a middle-ground (to some philosophers). When one cannot go to heaven, nor hell. Then they are sent back to earth to try again. (an online comic uses that philosophy)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    130
    Ask a Christian.
    I am.
    You can't deny it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    lets say this was the only act in the mans life.
    if he came across this dilema and could not decide either way whether it was right or wrong after weighting up the logic and then chose to commit to the act anyway, doesn't that make him innocent by the 'rules'?

    he knew not whether it was right or wrong so how could he be condemned for it?

    but then again we could go one step further to say that since there is no absolute definition of what is right and wrong that all people agree on we could arrive at a couple of conclusions:
    1) Heven and Hell do not exist because there is no absolute right and wrong to judge people by.
    2) everyone goes to Heaven because all are innocent as they lack the complete understanding of whats right and wrong.
    3) People Judge themselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Purgatory is where you get to if you sin, undependent on how much you do so. Hell was probably a misstake, you cannot torture a man more then what he has sined. Heaven is a place where people want to feel safe, only safe people are let in -They do not sin. Sin is joy, if you want to be joyless then heaven is the place for you. I do not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    This sounds similar to Oskar Schindler. His factory helped to kill more innocent civilians and solders than he saved, Yet we judge him to be a good nazi. It would be interesting though to hear what the christians think about it.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3
    Haha funny post.

    Let me start by saying that I have no religious beliefs and therefore most of your post is meaningless because the premises are just arbitrary.

    Morality is just the golden rule - or else. It is realized by the animal sense of power. The idea of the golden rule becomes the alpha wolf for intelligent beings, but this statement is deceptive because the alpha wolf wasn't alpha in the animal kingdom, but rather the idea of might makes right was.

    If you do something to benefit yourself at the expense of others, those others will stop you. We teach children this by spanking them when they do something selfish, or by other children fighting them when they steal their crayons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: Morality of a Feat of Logic 
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathwiz8390
    3. The man logically investigates the 'rules' of his religion and isolates the previoius assumptions.
    Wow..you must be a mind reader. I tried to write a thread yesterday entitled "when did the rules change" about the rules of the religion I was raised to believe. I never got it like I wanted it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathwiz8390
    1. All children are born innocent and remain so until they learn the difference between right and wrong.
    2. All innocents and righteous persons shall go to heaven.
    This was one of the "rules" I was talking about in my thread. In the Southern Baptist faith, it's called "the age of accountablity". It makes sense, in the SB faith, there is no purgatory, it's all or nothing, paradise or eternal damnation. It doesn't seem fair to send a cute little baby to burn in hell..just because they never got old enough to accept Christ. But there's another "rule" that seems to conflict this.

    There's also something called "original sin". I was always told that even if you lived your whole life and never sinned, you would still need salvation because of some left-over sin we inherit from Adam and Eve called "original sin". Because we are stained with sin, we cannot be in the presence of God without being "cleansed" first.

    It seems to me, these two conflict. Babies (however cute) should be stained with original sin, and should not be able to go straight to Heaven, Does God just magically cleanse them? and if so...why doesn't he do it for all of us?


    As for your original question, I don't think any god would approve of the killing of babies...but logic just doesn't work in these situations.
    This is one reason I am currently a member of "The Church of Mac"...anyone wanting to attend, we hold services in the "big screen" room at the local sports bar during major sporting events.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •