tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post115386013918906632..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The value of valuesRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1153924171555081322006-07-26T10:29:00.000-04:002006-07-26T10:29:00.000-04:00PS: I should say, that you can extract Biblical p...PS: I should say, that you can extract Biblical principles which are not subjective to your interpretation, or arbitrarily exclude certain verses or passages in favor of others.<BR/><BR/>Since I'm basically going it alone against a lot of you, I may have to step back the posting soon.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1153924098945804572006-07-26T10:28:00.000-04:002006-07-26T10:28:00.000-04:00Steve and others,I have been on the "defensive" in...Steve and others,<BR/><BR/>I have been on the "defensive" in justifying foundational tenets of a non-theistic worldview for a while now.<BR/><BR/>What I would love to see is the Christian solution and justification to the Trolley Car Problem, or in Steve's dilemma, the sinking of the Titanic.<BR/><BR/>I find it hard to believe that you can extract some sort of "Biblical support" for these dilemmas with more surety than I possess for non-Biblical ethical approaches.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the sinking of the Titanic -- there is only room for two on a rescue raft, and a father, mother, and child will perish unless they jump aboard. Does the father sacrifice himself? The mother? According to the Bible, the man is the "head" of the family, but does this imply that he is responsible to take the fall, or that the woman is subservient and of less value? Should the man sacrifice the wife, since women are treated as baby factories by most of the OT ethic? (I esp. love Num 31:17 where non-virgin women are worthy of death but virgins are kept as "spoil") If the man is ultimately responsible for the child's welfare, shouldn't he be the one to go on and make sure it is raised properly?<BR/><BR/>Does everyone act altruistically at all times? Is this practical, or reasonable?nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1153911830798270042006-07-26T07:03:00.000-04:002006-07-26T07:03:00.000-04:001) I'm confused as to how there is "secular vs Chr...1) I'm confused as to how there is "secular vs Christian" warrant. Perhaps I misunderstand your position Steve, but you seem to imply that certain levels of proof/evidence/support are necessary in one worldview, and different in another, with special pleading.<BR/><BR/>If X is necessary for Y, and Y is a normative ethic, then X is subsumed as a part/component of Y. Thus X becomes a necessary means to the ethical end.<BR/><BR/>In considering your position, this would be akin to God's command to "keep the Sabbath" -- the <B>means</B> of which are not working, but on any other day of the week, not working is not an ethical imperative. Context and necessity exist within your ethical framework and I see little value in labeling "secular vs Christian".<BR/><BR/>2) Survival of existing life cannot be equivocated as an "obligation" to reproduction or nonentities.<BR/><BR/>3) THis is a very good question. I have been reading a little bit on social contracts, and it appears to me that any tenable <I>ethos</I> is set up such that individual rights and freedoms are established as a foundation upon which societies and social contracts are framed. In this sense, we <I>a priori</I> rule against the infringement of basic rights (life, liberty, property), <B>unless</B> the person forfeits their claim to the protection of the contract by breaking its terms (breaking a law). <BR/><BR/>Now, we can get bogged down in particulars about questions of "eminent domain" or the <A HREF="http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0044-0094(198505)94%3A6%3C1395%3ATTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M" REL="nofollow">trolley car problem</A>. In cases where we have <B>no choice</B> but to lose life, or lose property, and the question is "how much, and how many", then I suppose one word is key -- <B>minimal</B>.<BR/><BR/>Do you want me to reinvent the wheel of utilitarian thinking? I can't. In cases where an individual may die in order to save many others, we would have to get specific. Does the individual have a choice? What is the dilemma? Whose responsibility is it for getting into the dilemma? If you want me to answer these questions, it would probably be futile for me to generalize, as I attempted to do above. Let's get down to the "nitty gritty"nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1153880255135196852006-07-25T22:17:00.000-04:002006-07-25T22:17:00.000-04:00So, obligation does not use suction cups? How then...So, obligation does not use suction cups? How then does it "attach to actual agents"? Scotch tape? Superglue? Covalent bonding? Electro-static cling? Little fingers? How?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1153875760406461132006-07-25T21:02:00.000-04:002006-07-25T21:02:00.000-04:00Thanks, Ted.You never fail to rise to your level o...Thanks, Ted.<BR/><BR/>You never fail to rise to your level of mediocrity.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1153874734621031272006-07-25T20:45:00.000-04:002006-07-25T20:45:00.000-04:00Moreover, obligation attaches to actual agentsHow?...<I>Moreover, obligation attaches to actual agents</I><BR/><BR/>How? With suction cups?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com