God's moral code

[vheRR]

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.

 

 

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

 

 

[JHP]

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?

 

Nope. On the contrary, the moral code that i try to uphold no matter how imperfectly, based on believing in God, stresses self-denial. Not the "makasariling sarili." So speak for yourself, VheRR. And my moral code doesn't include "pumatay para sa Dios" (hahaha, where the heck did that come from?).

[JHP]

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.

 

Statements 1 and 2 are so convenient because they beg the question. But for the sake of argument, what if the killing of people with HIV/AIDS could be kept secret and what if they really serve no useful purpose? My own moral code provides an answer for that. What answer does your moral code provide? That's what i'm interested in.

Edited December 9, 2010 by JHP

[artvader]

Statements 1 and 2 are so convenient because they beg the question. But for the sake of argument, what if the killing of people with HIV/AIDS could be kept secret and what if they really serve no useful purpose? My own moral code provides an answer for that. What answer does your moral code provide? That's what i'm interested in.

 

Your reasoning is irrational. You live in a world of impossibilities.

 

If you're an individual who can predict all of that with absolute certainty, wouldn't that make you God?

[vheRR]

Nope. On the contrary, the moral code that i try to uphold no matter how imperfectly, based on believing in God, stresses self-denial. Not the "makasariling sarili." So speak for yourself, VheRR.

 

Weeh?

... "self-denial"?

... ng "WALANG PANSARILING KAPAKINABANGAN"?

... PAANO?

... PAANO ba GAWIN ang "SELF-DENIAL" ng "WALANG PANSARILING KAPAKINABANGAN"?

... WALA nga bang "PANSARILING KAPAKINABANGAN" ang "PAG-SUNOD sa UTOS"?

... WALA nga bang "PANSARILING KAPAKINABANGAN" ang "PAG-GAWA sa mga GAWAING KALUGOD-LUGOD sa PINANINIWALAANG DIOS"?

 

And my moral code doesn't include "pumatay para sa Dios" (hahaha, where the heck did that come from?).

 

Iyan ay ayon sa MORAL CODE "MO"...

 

... ang KASO,

 

... ang MORAL CODE MO ba,

... ay KATULAD ng MORAL CODE ng "IBA"?

[skitz]

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.

 

This, without a god moral code, is indeed a practical solution. However, personally, I would only keep around a thousand for research purposes. Keeping more than that, I believe, is superfluous. Using the SICK for cheap labor is not cost effective.

[skitz]

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

How many in North Korea knows that communism has been dead all these years except in their own country and Cuba? You can't keep something a secret in the world as we know it right now. But in another system, a meritocracy, where the learned men CONTROLS everything, what is broadcast by the government is what is true.

 

 

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

 

All right. Keep a thousand for research purposes. More than that is superfluous.

 

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.

 

No. You either debunk my premise or create your own moral code (that is what this exercise is all about). According to my version of "meritocracy", what is good for humanity is what is true. If you are no longer contributing to what is good for humanity, and in fact, is now a THREAT to all of humanity, your existence is no longer required. And because you are a THREAT, your termination is in fact GOOD FOR HUMANITY.

[skitz]

Daming pi-nost ni vherr, wala akong ma gets kung ano ang point. Ano ba? Anong moral code ba dapat vherr? Do we k*ll HIV infected patients or not? Give the reason or a moral code to support your answer. Yun lang. Wag nang mag copy paste ng mga OPINION ng ibang tao. Pakita mong meron kang sariling pag-iisip.

[artvader]

How many in North Korea knows that communism has been dead all these years except in their own country and Cuba? You can't keep something a secret in the world as we know it right now. But in another system, a meritocracy, where the learned men CONTROLS everything, what is broadcast by the government is what is true.

 

I disagree. As I said before, you CANNOT control everything. Unless you're God.

 

Secrets will come out even in those countries you speak of. Surely you've heard of people defecting from said communist countries because they know that they're more free there?

 

All right. Keep a thousand for research purposes. More than that is superfluous.

 

That's fine... in an ideal world. A world without chaos.

 

No. You either debunk my premise or create your own moral code (that is what this exercise is all about). According to my version of "meritocracy", what is good for humanity is what is true. If you are no longer contributing to what is good for humanity, and in fact, is now a THREAT to all of humanity, your existence is no longer required. And because you are a THREAT, your termination is in fact GOOD FOR HUMANITY.

 

If it's a visible threat, then there's no problem. Do we have ways to monitor ALL of the HIV infected people out there? That's the dilemma we're facing here. If you systematically k*ll them off, but fail to exterminate ALL of them (and believe me, there are much more HIV positive people out there than we know), you'll be left with infected people waging a silent war that could augment the rate of infection.

[skitz]

So what you are saying is that your moral code is based on LOGISTICS? Ahm. ok.

Edited December 10, 2010 by skitz

[skitz]

Look Artvader, in the current justice system (moral code), armed robbery will forfeit your right to freedom. That the law enforcement authorities are not able to jail all armed robbers, that in fact, most of them are in hiding and are desperate that they are liable to shoot anyone who tries to find them DOES NOT CHANGE the moral code that they should be jailed.

 

Ano ulit and moral justification mo bakit dapat buhayin pa ang HIV positive patients (without the God moral code)?

Edited December 10, 2010 by skitz

[skitz]

Look people. There is a LOGICAL part of me that is an ATHEIST(agnostic), as I have stated time and again. And believe me, if I didn't believe in God, I would really support the total extermination of all HIV patients, especially in the early 80s when the infection was still limited to a few (and the Philippines was without one single incidence). Ang hindi ko ma-gets, kung talagang ATHEIST ka nga, at naniniwala sa LOGIC, PRACTICALITY, PRAGMATISM, etc, why can't you embrace the fact that this is the logical conclusion to that problem?

 

Are you just like that confused girl-atheist on youtube who turned to atheism because "the church does not allow gay marriages"? SCIENCE, LOGIC, REASONING, etc. You do not make CLAIMS to these attributes -- you DEMONSTRATE these attributes.

[CerebralScorpion]

This, without a god moral code, is indeed a practical solution. However, personally, I would only keep around a thousand for research purposes. Keeping more than that, I believe, is superfluous. Using the SICK for cheap labor is not cost effective.

 

In the given situation, there is always a use for everyone, even those who are so sick that they can no longer move. The 'make them work the fields' is just one thing they can do, which is why I also added 'or something'.

 

Those who can work, will work in isolation, it does not even need to be hard labor. Those who are not able to work anymore, will be cared for and given everything they need. Why? A nation is most productive if their citizen are happy. If the people see that their government cares for all of them, even to those dying of AIDS, they will work harder for their country.

 

One can always find something practical to do with a person as long as they live.

[skitz]

Well, ok. Work them till they drop dead. Make sure they don't infect anyone else. Then use them as fertilizer.

[dungeonbaby]

lol i feel your pain.