Understanding atheist perspective

I really, really , really don’t think that God would want someone to let his child get killed in the situation we discussedz

Handing a child over to his killer is the very opposite of love.

When a moral system leads to inhuman conclusions there is something wrong with it.

Which is why I said that neither consequentialism nor Kant’s moral imperative is really Christian.

1 Like

…unless they ride along with other traits. The folly, IMHO, is assuming a system geared toward favoring “what we would like our world to be” vs. “how it is” is necessarily unsustainable. I see it first as the classic ‘is/ought’ fallacy and second, on assigning much higher level of selection and isolation to a trait.

1 Like

True, but a novel detrimental trait (like true self-sacrifical altuism) is only expected to ride along with other genetic traits if the overall effect on the fitness of the organism is not too severe. And given that, by definition, true altruism involves increasing the fitness of a competitor at the expense of one’s own fitness, the detriment of such a trait is high.

Massively so. Plato built a foundation for his Republic out of “certain noble lies” that were designed to keep people content with their assigned place in the social order. By his own arguments elsewhere, that meant there was destruction built into the system – which has made me wonder if perhaps Republic was meant as satire.
Lying to protect family is social tactics, not strategic underpinning.

1 Like

Or as in a case from WWII where the children were in a hole excavated under the kitchen, the mother said, “They’re under the table” – entirely true, but entirely misleading.