God's moral code

[skitz]

Follow up question:

 

Do the atheists here on MTC agree? DB is a theist and subscribes to the God Moral Code -- theists (majority of us) believe this to be so. This follow up question is not intended for the theists. The only reason why HIV/AIDS carriers should be allowed to live is because GOD told men that killing indiscriminately is wrong. Without this, I can see no reason why all of humanity should be put at risk when only a very small minority (before it spread globally) was infected. They should have been exterminated, or at the very least, ISOLATED from the rest of the world. Even now, what is the moral justification of allowing a small percentage risk infecting the entire world?

 

Since ATHEISTS, logically, should not believe in a GOD MORAL CODE. Either you support the contention that all HIV/AIDS carrier be killed immediately, or create a moral justification why they should be allowed to live (and not use the God moral code).

 

Judging from an atheist last post here, they've already abandoned LOGIC as the backbone of their moral code. I wonder what they would come up with next?

[JHP]

Ah, Skitz, i'm sure our esteemed acquaintance VHeR will have a response in verse. i think he's been trying to say that morality is rooted in nature. Something like that. And it's all on youtube.

[artvader]

It would be too expensive. HIV testing costs a lot, so you can't possibly test the whole population for HIV/AIDS.

 

Killing known infected people would just make other diseased individuals more difficult to find as they'll surely just entrench themselves even deeper. Even if a single individual escapes the culling, that would undermine the whole operation and survivors might just go crazy and/or desperate and infect the rest of the population (via tainted syringe or some other method) as a form of revenge.

 

It would be easier to just accept them into society and make them come out on their own so that the rest of the public would know who to avoid having coitus with. At the same time, we assure them of their safety to ensure that they are psychologically stable enough to be responsible for the sake of humanity.

[dungeonbaby]

It would be too expensive. HIV testing costs a lot, so you can't possibly test the whole population for HIV/AIDS.

 

Killing known infected people would just make other diseased individuals more difficult to find as they'll surely just entrench themselves even deeper. Even if a single individual escapes the culling, that would undermine the whole operation and survivors might just go crazy and/or desperate and infect the rest of the population (via tainted syringe or some other method) as a form of revenge.

 

It would be easier to just accept them into society and make them come out on their own so that the rest of the public would know who to avoid having coitus with. At the same time, we assure them of their safety to ensure that they are psychologically stable enough to be responsible for the sake of humanity.

 

Good point. But that's assuming that a society operating without a moral code would have a problem with huge collateral damage. Besides, it's expensive, too, to look for a cure and take care of the infected in the interim, while the disease continues to spread.

 

The argument here is that there is no practical side to hoping people will do the right thing and announce to a Godless world that they have HIV/AIDS. Where there is no moral code, you don't hope that people will be selfless, you ENSURE they will be.

[skitz]

Artvader,

 

In a meritocracy, the general population does not need to know what the learned men running the government are doing. The "dumb" populace is on a need to know status. Killing off HIV infected patients need not be known to anyone but those running the government. Killing off a few to prevent the infection of the many is practical and logical and serves the majority/humanity best. There is simply no logic to allow the existence of an individual or a minority of individuals that can potentially endanger the lives of EVERYONE ELSE. Atheists, show me one logical reason why HIV infected patients (before the new drugs have been discovered) should be allowed to live.

 

 

(Again, I emphasize, this is in a god-moral-code-less society)

Edited December 7, 2010 by skitz

[artvader]

I don't think you can keep killing a few diseased individuals a secret... no matter how hard you try. They'll just wikileak it somehow. People belonging to a certain group have ways to know what is happening to each other.

 

If there's a reason to keep them alive, then it would be for research. Even if it's not to find a cure, then at least to gain understanding how to prevent similar future diseases from taking root. A frozen lab sample is good, but a live subject would offer better understanding how the disease mutates depending on the host.

[CerebralScorpion]

I would not k*ll everyone with HIV in order to curb the spread of the disease, since those people can still contribute to society. Quarantine them and let them work the fields or something, away from the rest of the population so they can't infect anyone else, but at the same time contribute something for the betterment of everybody else.

 

Killing them is the simple solution, but most of the times, the simple solution is wasteful.

[JHP]

This is from VheRR's siganture:

 

We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.

Richard Dawkins (1941 - )

British ethologist.

The Selfish Gene

 

Hmmmm, wonder what the logical implications are, with respect to a moral code that would be consistent with Mr. Dawkins' statement above. Aber, friend VheRR, i'm sure you can logically reconcile this with your most recent posted verses.

[JHP]

I don't think you can keep killing a few diseased individuals a secret... no matter how hard you try. They'll just wikileak it somehow. People belonging to a certain group have ways to know what is happening to each other.

 

If there's a reason to keep them alive, then it would be for research. Even if it's not to find a cure, then at least to gain understanding how to prevent similar future diseases from taking root. A frozen lab sample is good, but a live subject would offer better understanding how the disease mutates depending on the host.

 

From your statement, it can be inferred that it would be ok to k*ll them if it could be kept secret.

 

Also, you would keep them alive as long as they have a utility to other people. So if it turned out there was none (i.e. turns out they have no value as research specimens), it would be ok to k*ll them.

 

You would not keep them alive because of the innate sacredness of their lives, to which i subscribe from the moral code proceeding from my belief in God.

[JHP]

I would not k*ll everyone with HIV in order to curb the spread of the disease, since those people can still contribute to society. Quarantine them and let them work the fields or something, away from the rest of the population so they can't infect anyone else, but at the same time contribute something for the betterment of everybody else.

 

Killing them is the simple solution, but most of the times, the simple solution is wasteful.

 

Same thing. If they could not "contribute something for the betterment of everybody else" then it would be ok to k*ll them. Killing them as "the simple solution" would then no longer be "wasteful," so it would be ok to do so.

 

Just pursuing logic here, based on premises inferred.

Edited December 8, 2010 by JHP

[artvader]

From your statement, it can be inferred that it would be ok to k*ll them if it could be kept secret.

 

Also, you would keep them alive as long as they have a utility to other people. So if it turned out there was none (i.e. turns out they have no value as research specimens), it would be ok to k*ll them.

 

You would not keep them alive because of the innate sacredness of their lives, to which i subscribe from the moral code proceeding from my belief in God.

 

I'm sorry, but you arrived at the wrong conclusion.

 

1) In the real world it can't be kept a secret. I think I made that clear.

 

2) Also in the real world, they'll always have a purpose as research subjects or whatever. That will never go away.

 

3) In a god-less moral code, it doesn't matter if the reason they're alive is because of the "sacredness" of the human life or not. As long as they're alive.

[vheRR]

A repost:

 

If there is no God, then the most important reality is one's self, one's survival, one's well-being, one's success, one's fulfillment. Sure,we are interdependent as social beings. We need to exchange goods and services to sustain life. We need to fornicate for the propagation of the species. We need to make nice, so living together will be comfortable and pleasant. But in the end, without God, the foundation of a moral code is the self. Sheer logic and reason would dictate that. Society is important only insofar as it works for me, don't tell me it's more important than me. Therefore, if push comes to shove, if we ever need to get into the lifeboats, #&k the rest of you, i come first.

 

This post has been edited by JHP: 31 October 2010 - 11:15 AM

God's moral code is founded on love of God expressed in love of neighbor. There is a rising beyond one's self and unselfishness. Without that moral code, the self is most important. Thinking otherwise would be illogical.

 

 

 

Ows?

 

 

Hindi nga ba't ang PUNDASYON ng MORALIDAD na IPINAGPIPILITAN NYONG NAGMULA sa DIOS NYO ay…

 

… ay ang "SARILI"?

 

… ang "MAKASARILING SARILI"?

 

 

… WALANG-HANGGANG-BUHAY na GANTIMPALA,

 

… PAGKA-IMPIYERNO na PARUSA,

 

… PAGSUNOD AYON sa UTOS ng DIOS,

 

… PAGGAWA sa mga GAWAING KA-LUGOD-LUGOD sa DIOS,

 

… MAGPAKAMATAY PARA sa DIOS,

 

… PUMATAY PARA sa DIOS,

 

 

… hindi nga ba ang "MAKASARILING SARILI" ang PUNDASYON ng MORALIDAD?

Edited December 8, 2010 by vheRR

[vheRR]

Ah, but JHP, you don't get it. The so called atheists here would abandon even logic if it does not support their contention. Such is their fanaticism to their (anti) religion.

 

:lol:

 

 

Ang SANGGOL ba…

 

… "INIISIP MUNA kung ANO ang LOHIKAL na GAWIN" kapag ito'y NAGUGUTOM?

 

 

 

PAANO MO ba NALAMAN…

 

… na ang LOHIKAL na DAPAT GAWIN KAPAG NAGUGUTOM ay ang KUMAIN?

[vheRR]

QUESTION:

 

Minus the God moral code, what would have been the most efficient/practical way to solve the HIV/AIDS problem before it became a global pandemic?

 

 

without a moral code -

 

killing anything and everything that shows even the remotest sign of having the disease or having the ability to spread the disease.

 

something straight out of a post-apocalyptic scifi novel. something horrible especially in light of present survival rates.

 

 

Follow up question:

 

Do the atheists here on MTC agree? DB is a theist and subscribes to the God Moral Code -- theists (majority of us) believe this to be so. This follow up question is not intended for the theists. The only reason why HIV/AIDS carriers should be allowed to live is because GOD told men that killing indiscriminately is wrong. Without this, I can see no reason why all of humanity should be put at risk when only a very small minority (before it spread globally) was infected. They should have been exterminated, or at the very least, ISOLATED from the rest of the world. Even now, what is the moral justification of allowing a small percentage risk infecting the entire world?

 

Since ATHEISTS, logically, should not believe in a GOD MORAL CODE. Either you support the contention that all HIV/AIDS carrier be killed immediately, or create a moral justification why they should be allowed to live (and not use the God moral code).

 

Judging from an atheist last post here, they've already abandoned LOGIC as the backbone of their moral code. I wonder what they would come up with next?

 

 

"IKAW", BILANG isang "MAKASARILING TAO"…

… na "IKAW MISMO" ay MAY HIV/AIDS,

 

… what would have been the most efficient/practical way to solve the HIV/AIDS problem before it became a global pandemic?

"IKAW", BILANG isang "MAKASARILING AMA"…

… na "MAY ANAK" na MAY HIV/AIDS,

… what would have been the most efficient/practical way to solve the HIV/AIDS problem before it became a global pandemic?

"IKAW", BILANG isang "MAKASARILING ANAK"…

 

… na "MAY MAGULANG" na MAY HIV/AIDS,

 

… what would have been the most efficient/practical way to solve the HIV/AIDS problem before it became a global pandemic?

"IKAW", BILANG isang "MAKASARILING KAMAG-ANAK"…

… na "MAY KAMAG-ANAK" na MAY HIV/AIDS,

 

… what would have been the most efficient/practical way to solve the HIV/AIDS problem before it became a global pandemic?

"IKAW", BILANG isang "MAKASARILING KAPITBAHAY"…

… na "MAY KAPITBAHAY" na MAY HIV/AIDS,

 

… what would have been the most efficient/practical way to solve the HIV/AIDS problem before it became a global pandemic?

 

"IKAW", BILANG isang "MAKASARILING PILIPINO"…

… na "MAY KABABAYAN" na MAY HIV/AIDS,

 

… what would have been the most efficient/practical way to solve the HIV/AIDS problem before it became a global pandemic?

... at ang MORALIDAD,

... HINDI NAGMULA sa DIOS MO,

... DAHIL ang DIOS MO,

... PRODUKTO lang ng ISIP ng TAO,

 

 

 

 

... ang MORALIDAD,

 

... "LIKAS" sa TAO.

[vheRR]

Empathy and Violence Have Similar Circuits in the Brain, Research Suggests

 

ScienceDaily (Apr. 11, 2010) — Researchers from the University of Valencia (UV) have investigated the brain structures involved with empathy -- in other words, the ability to put oneself in another person's position -- and carried out a scientific review of them. They conclude that the brain circuits responsible for empathy are in part the same as those involved with violence.

 

"Just as our species could be considered the most violent, since we are capable of serial killings, genocide and other atrocities, we are also the most empathetic species, which would seem to be the other side of the coin," says Luis Moya Albiol, lead author of the study and a researcher at the UV.

 

This study, published in the most recent issue of the Revista de Neurología, concludes that the prefrontal and temporal cortex, the amygdala and other features of the limbic system (such as insulin and the cingulated cortex) play "a fundamental role in all situations in which empathy appears."

 

Moya Albiol says these parts of the brain overlap "in a surprising way" with those that regulate aggression and violence. As a result, the scientific team argues that the cerebral circuits -- for both empathy and violence -- could be "partially similar."

 

"We all know that encouraging empathy has an inhibiting effect on violence, but this may not only be a social question but also a biological one -- stimulation of these neuronal circuits in one direction reduces their activity in the other," the researcher adds.

 

This means it is difficult for a "more empathetic" brain to behave in a violent way, at least on a regular basis. "Educating people to be empathetic could be an education for peace, bringing about a reduction in conflict and belligerent acts," the researcher concludes.

 

Techniques for measuring the human brain in vivo, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging, are making it possible to find out more about the structures of the brain that regulate behaviour and psychological processes such as empathy.

 

http://www.scienceda...00409093405.htm

 

 

 

 

 

Racial Bias Clouds Ability to Feel Others' Pain, Study Shows

 

ScienceDaily (May 27, 2010) — When people witness or imagine the pain of another person, their nervous system responds in essentially the same way it would if they were feeling that pain themselves. Now, researchers reporting online on May 27th in Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, have new evidence to show that that kind of empathy is diminished when people (black or white) who hold racial biases see that pain is being inflicted on those of another race.

 

The good news is that people continue to respond with empathy when pain is inflicted on people who don't fit into any preconceived racial category -- in this case, those who appear to have violet-colored skin.

 

"This is quite important because it suggests that humans tend to empathize by default unless prejudice is at play," said Salvatore Maria Aglioti of Sapienza Università di Roma.

 

In the study, conducted in Italy with people of Italian and African descent, participants were asked to watch and pay attention to short films depicting needles penetrating a person's hand or a Q-tip gently touching the same spot while their empathetic response was monitored. (The researchers specifically measured a feature known as sensorimotor contagion, as indicated by changes in the corticospinal reactivity assessed by transcranial magnetic stimulation.) The results showed that people watching the painful episode responded in a way that was specific to the particular muscle they saw being stimulated when the film character was of the same race. But those of a different race didn't evoke that same sensorimotor response.

 

In further studies, the researchers tested individuals' responses to pain inflicted on models with violet hands. Under those circumstances, participants' empathetic responses were restored.

 

"This default reactivity of human beings implies empathy with the pain of strangers (i.e., a violet model) if no stereotype can be applied to them," said Alessio Avenanti of the Università di Bologna. "However, racial bias may suppress this empathic reactivity, leading to a dehumanized perception of others' experience."

 

The new findings expand on previous studies that have primarily looked at the neural underpinnings of racial bias based on facial expressions, thus emphasizing people's emotional reaction to the pain of others, the researchers said.

 

"To the best of our knowledge, our study is the only one that has tested the reactivity to hands and thus hints at the existence of general processes for separating the self from the others that may be largely independent from specific emotions," the researchers explained.

 

Based on the findings, the researchers suggest that methods designed to restore empathy for people of other races might also help in dealing with racial prejudice.

 

http://www.scienceda...00527122141.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Less Empathy Toward Outsiders: Brain Differences Reinforce Preferences For Those In Same Social Group

 

ScienceDaily (July 1, 2009) — An observer feels more empathy for someone in pain when that person is in the same social group, according to new research in the July 1 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience.

 

The study shows that perceiving others in pain activates a part of the brain associated with empathy and emotion more if the observer and the observed are the same race. The findings may show that unconscious prejudices against outside groups exist at a basic level.

 

The study confirms an in-group bias in empathic feelings, something that has long been known but never before confirmed by neuroimaging technology. Researchers have explored group bias since the 1950s. In some studies, even people with similar backgrounds arbitrarily assigned to different groups preferred members of their own group to those of others. This new study shows those feelings of bias are also reflected in brain activity.

 

"Our findings have significant implications for understanding real-life social behaviors and social interactions," said Shihui Han, PhD, at Peking University in China, one of the study authors.

 

Other recent brain imaging studies show that feeling empathy for others in pain stimulates a brain area called the anterior cingulate cortex. Building on these results, the study authors tested the theory that these empathic feelings increase for members of the same social group. In this case, the researchers chose race as the social group, although the same effect may occur with other groups.

 

The researchers scanned brains areas in one Caucasian group and one Chinese group. The authors monitored participants as they viewed video clips that simulated either a painful needle prick or a non-painful cotton swab touch to a Caucasian or Chinese face. When painful simulations were applied to individuals of the same race as the observers, the empathic neural responses increased; however, responses increased to a lesser extent when participants viewed the faces of the other group.

 

Martha Farah, PhD, at the University of Pennsylvania, a cognitive neuroscientist and neuroethicist who was not affiliated with the study, says learning how empathic responses influence our behavior in many different situations is interesting both practically and theoretically. "This is a fascinating study of a phenomenon with important social implications for everything from medical care to charitable giving," she said.

 

But the finding raises as many questions as it answers, Farah said. "For example, is it racial identity per se that determines the brain's empathic response, or some more general measure of similarity between self and other?" she said. "What personal characteristics or life experiences influence the disparity in empathic response toward in-group and out-group members?"

 

The research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

 

http://www.scienceda...90630173815.htm