Moral Dilemma

[Restlesshiker]

Originally Posted by xris

In any debate that asks questions about a proposed god the agnostic has to approach the debate with idea that he answers the questions posed as if the description of this god is wrong or right. You must understand, if the description is correct then the god exists. In my opinion there is no description of the creator, we can not comprehend its existance.

In my humble opinion, any debate between a believer and an agnostic would entail a lot of "dying" and "bloodshed" or to put it in my cultural context, a lot of "bottle of beers to carouse".

Be that as it may, pure logic or pure science for that matter, (although they would complement with) would never meet with faith. For it is only with faith that we can "grasp" the existence of the divine; without our leaping from the realm of pure logic and pure science into the chasm of the unknown, we will never be able to apprehend clues of God's existence.

While man wants to be superman, logic and science keep on knocking him down into his finiteness. With faith, man is "a little less than a god", an "adopted son" of God, Father and Creator of all things both seen and unseen. It may be a humbling experience for us to admit that we can't change reality when it displays itself in a manner we don't like. Yet with faith, a courage and a resolve once undiscovered and untapped awaken us to move mountains. We've done it during the repressive years of dictators and martial law. We were conditioned that we're a weak people with a corrupted culture and yet by our sheer faith, arms with flowers and rosaries, we braved the storms and faced an army in full battle gear.

So going back to that dilemma; still, I would refuse to sign the paper, and having considered the likely consequences, I would pray to God that I would always remember despite the threat, the pain and torture that it is in my nature to be courageous to do the right thing.

[validity]

Originally Posted by Shostakovich

What's your moral duty?

Do you sign the paper or do you refuse to sign it?

If you sign it, can you justify your choice as the ethically right thing to do?

How so?

I would first start by reasoning with the state secret police that there is no need for a witness statement if my neighbour is willing do all he can to resist this new dictatorship i.e. tell them to their face.

Failing that, based on the description given, my neighbour is willing do all he can to resist this new dictatorship. If this includes his own death, then he should of been more careful with his words. This forms a basis of why I can consider that I have no moral duty.

Hypothetically that is

[xris]

Originally Posted by Restlesshiker

In my humble opinion, any debate between a believer and an agnostic would entail a lot of "dying" and "bloodshed" or to put it in my cultural context, a lot of "bottle of beers to carouse".

Be that as it may, pure logic or pure science for that matter, (although they would complement with) would never meet with faith. For it is only with faith that we can "grasp" the existence of the divine; without our leaping from the realm of pure logic and pure science into the chasm of the unknown, we will never be able to apprehend clues of God's existence.

While man wants to be superman, logic and science keep on knocking him down into his finiteness. With faith, man is "a little less than a god", an "adopted son" of God, Father and Creator of all things both seen and unseen. It may be a humbling experience for us to admit that we can't change reality when it displays itself in a manner we don't like. Yet with faith, a courage and a resolve once undiscovered and untapped awaken us to move mountains. We've done it during the repressive years of dictators and martial law. We were conditioned that we're a weak people with a corrupted culture and yet by our sheer faith, arms with flowers and rosaries, we braved the storms and faced an army in full battle gear.

So going back to that dilemma; still, I would refuse to sign the paper, and having considered the likely consequences, I would pray to God that I would always remember despite the threat, the pain and torture that it is in my nature to be courageous to do the right thing.

If not built on the rock of logic it will and can fail. Men walk behind many banners to fight their cause, its the warrior not the banner that decides his worth.

[Elmud]

Originally Posted by Shostakovich

The following is a hypothetical situation, and highly unlikely ... but what if it happened? What would you do?

Somewhere in the future a new government takes over the nation in which you are a citizen.

All civil liberties are suspended.

The state secret police are roaming the streets, like mad dogs, ready to pounce on and rip apart anyone who shows any indication of retaliation against the new dictatorship. Malcontents are being rounded up and executed publicly and citizens are being asked to turn in traitors under the penalty of death.

Your neighbour has voiced to you his discontent and vows that he will do all he can to resist this new dictatorship. Agents of the secret police knock on your door, stating that they know your neighbour has voiced his discontent and they need you to sign a paper stating that you overheard your neighbour speaking treason. You know that signing the paper will result in the immediate execution of your neighbour. If you don't sign the police will arrest you and you will be executed instead for refusing to cooperate.

What's your moral duty?

Do you sign the paper or do you refuse to sign it?

If you sign it, can you justify your choice as the ethically right thing to do?

How so?

There are very few who would give their lives for their friends. Morality has very little to do with duty.Either choice is immoral.

[Unconqured]

Originally Posted by xris

If not built on the rock of logic it will and can fail. Men walk behind many banners to fight their cause, its the warrior not the banner that decides his worth.

Is there worth in a banner that fails to stand on logic? If no, then some men hold false banners and or think they hold a banner but not at all. If yes then How can it stand if it "will and can fail"?

---------- Post added 11-12-2009 at 04:04 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Elmud

There are very few who would give their lives for their friends. Morality has very little to do with duty.Either choice is immoral.

both choices are immoral? could you elaborate?