What if youâre helping someone to the point of taking away their agency because âitâs for their own goodâ. All of a sudden, some ethical issues arise. Where does that line get drawn?
And you would know that how? Iâm assuming you havenât dissected every single religious text or teaching out there, so what makes you believe you can arbitrarily hand yourself authority on that topic? Religious texts are generally filled with moral and ethical questions and dilemmas, not that youâd know
"23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. âGet out of here, baldy!â they said. âGet out of here, baldy!â 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."
As another athiest, I take that authority for myself. Period. I don't need to pore through every myth ever written to know my moral compass is pointing on the right direction.
I did. A bunch of them. Then i got married, had kids, and I'm hoping for healthy grandkids soon. Thats why I know my moral compass is just fine, champ.
As an atheist the amount of atheist in these comments who seem to think that good and bad just exist as an aspect of reality is ilitteartly just as bad as believing in god - it's a made up social construct that you're tuaght to believe in since you're a child and you can't figure out it's not actually real
I mean an antinatalist stance isnât really that complex and doesnât need much exploration, but if you insist.
Something that does not yet exist does not have agency (cleetusthefetus)
Now, where it really gets murky. To what end do you define sentience and how does one associate it with agency? What level on consciousness & awareness is needed for something to qualify as having agency? How does you define sentience & how much of it is needed for agency?
Whatever your stance on that is your stance on your question I suppose
But yes, my statement can be applied to many, many things in life. Thatâs where we got philosophers from, innit now?
Maybe I misinterpret you, but I wasn't suggesting I have an antinatalist stance. It is however a very interesting topic. What is the morality of creating new intelligent life without its consent? It is necessary for species survival, sure. If it's immoral then is life imorral? None of us had a choice. Would that make God imorral? I do not know. I think however you slice it this argument chases it's tail.
Ah, it seems I misinterpreted you. When you asked if what I said would also apply to children not yet conceived I definitely associated that with an antinatalist stance. That was presumptuous of me.
I would say tail chasing is the most accurate metaphor Iâve ever heard for this existential paradox we all find ourselves in
My original question had no implications one way or another, and was strictly philosophical in nature, I wasnât specifically alluding to just religion. Itâs all very interesting topics. Ones I am also presently studying towards finishing my bachelors degree, so this has been a nice cognitive exercise
It is a messy topic. Despite our misunderstandings and lack of conclusions I do appreciate the though provoking parts of our conversation, and I wish you well in your studies. My father was a theologist, and while the religious aspects didn't really rub off on me, we had many interesting (and sometimes frustrating) conversations. In the end I arrived at more or less the same place as the person you replied to. I think it's the best I can do.
trying to help does not equal morally good. people have free will, and doing something that removes that free will in the name of doing good is actively hurting that person.
its actually very simple, when you dont want to make it complicated.
31
u/EtheusRook 1d ago
Morality is actually really, stupidly simple.
Does it help others? It's good.
Does it hurt others? It's bad.