You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A Moral Dilemma
- Thread starter daniel_m
- Start date
Actually God has already given every individuals a reasonable ability consisting of analytical, rational, logical, ethical, compassionate, etc. capabilities to solve real-life problems, independently.
When some people give up or don't use these God-given capabilities, instead relying/believing on the written rules/dogmas/conventions/etc. designed/invented by others, sometimes on behalf of God's name, that could be really a real morality issue!
When some people give up or don't use these God-given capabilities, instead relying/believing on the written rules/dogmas/conventions/etc. designed/invented by others, sometimes on behalf of God's name, that could be really a real morality issue!
Last edited:
imo, people should not spend time to consider this kind of hypothetical scenarios about moral dilemma if a scenario is illogical, or its probability is slim or approaching zero.
1. There's literally no way the guy knew the upcoming run-away train is driverless.
2. There's literally no way the guy knew the children are playing in the tunnel.
3. There's literally no way the guy knew a worker is working in another tunnel.
4. There's literally no way the guy knew the possibilities/alternatives that he could divert the train by whatever means. And the consequences in advance! Or even doing any reasonable guesses.
5. The guy is practically impossible to know all the above situations simultaneously, in advance.
Can we physically talk to God requesting timely answers for whatever practical real-life morality questions we would like to ask? How about abortion?
On abortion:
imo, the emotion capability naturally given by God to every individuals of human beings should be given the highest priority for decisions, based on analytical results of scientific research, statistical analysis, medical professional rationality, psychological test/survey on individuals, etc.!
Rather than merely a firm and fervent belief about morality based on some concepts/perceptions from any outdated books written by a few old-age humans! Without thoroughly considering/analysing the underlying reasons why that kind of outdated concepts/writings can be still believable in modern days!
Q
http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...-threat-than-muslim-extremists.296192/page-14
piezoe said:
Human life begins at conception of course. But a human embryo is not a human being any more than a chicken embryo is a chicken. Repeat this to yourself over and over all day long, and it is possible that eventually it will sink in and you'll have that Ah'Ha moment!
Good points!
A hen must prepare a setting combining with willingness and enough time in order to incubate her eggs.
Not only her willingness involved is important, but also her feeling/attachment that is created/generated after a minimum time spent with the eggs for her desire wanting the eggs to become chicken.
There should be a statistical data abut the psychology of a pregnancy regarding how much minimum/average time a potential mother would initially created/generated her feeling/attachment for the fertilized human egg. As a general guideline of standard time.
There should be also a psychological test to confirm an individual's feeling/attachment before this standard time, to ensure sometimes reconsideration should be carefully made by a pregnant lady.
Just 2 cents!
piezoe said:
Here is my opinion:
"But of course a fertilized human egg is not a human being any more than a fertilized chicken egg is a chicken. But today we actually have millions of people who call themselves human beings and think that a fertilized human egg is a human being. Why is that? It is quite obviously because some crackpot religious leader, like the Pope, has told them that a fertilized human egg is a human being. It is pretty much the same group of people that think that Mary became pregnant by shacking up with God, or by parthenogenesis, whichever came first. Either way, it is a pretty damn good miracle if you ask me."
I stand by the above which is my opinion regarding religious leaders preaching that an embryo is a human being.
I am not interested in opening a debate on the subject of abortion. That's been debated and the Court has ruled. I am content with the court's view .
Since you are an educated person, you'll have no difficulty recognizing that the statement "a fertilized human egg is not a human being any more than a fertilized chicken egg is a chicken" and the statement "human life begins at conception" are NOT Incompatible statements.
It is the confusion caused by religious leaders in both their own muddled minds and the minds of their followers when they say, "human life begins at conception" , that has created the mess.
UQ
Last edited:
On same-sex morality:
One of the great leaders in the world's compassionate-love business now finally realised the kind of long-time suffering, unfair inequality and silent resilience experienced by some same-sex oriented human beings, like Turing who died aged 41 due to wrong medical/psychological treatments!
Our technological world could become much more advanced today if he can live another 20 years longer!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/26/world/pope-apologize-gays/
Pope says Christians should apologize to gay people
By Delia Gallagher and Daniel Burke, CNN
June 27, 2016
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/08/europe/vatican-pope-family/
Pope to church: Be more accepting of divorced Catholics, gays and lesbians
By Richard Allen Greene, CNN
Updated April 8, 2016
One of the great leaders in the world's compassionate-love business now finally realised the kind of long-time suffering, unfair inequality and silent resilience experienced by some same-sex oriented human beings, like Turing who died aged 41 due to wrong medical/psychological treatments!
Our technological world could become much more advanced today if he can live another 20 years longer!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
Recognition and tributes
A biography published by the Royal Society shortly after Turing's death, while his wartime work was still subject to the Official Secrets Act, recorded:
Three remarkable papers written just before the war, on three diverse mathematical subjects, show the quality of the work that might have been produced if he had settled down to work on some big problem at that critical time. For his work at the Foreign Office he was awarded the OBE.[2]
Since 1966, the Turing Award has been given annually by the Association for Computing Machinery for technical or theoretical contributions to the computing community. It is widely considered to be the computing world's highest honour, equivalent to the Nobel Prize.[119]
A blue plaque marking Turing's home at Wilmslow, Cheshire
On 23 June 1998, on what would have been Turing's 86th birthday, his biographer, Andrew Hodges, unveiled an official English Heritage blue plaque at his birthplace and childhood home in Warrington Crescent, London, later the Colonnade Hotel.[120][121] To mark the 50th anniversary of his death, a memorial plaque was unveiled on 7 June 2004 at his former residence, Hollymeade, in Wilmslow, Cheshire.[122]
On 13 March 2000, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines issued a set of postage stamps to celebrate the greatest achievements of the 20th century, one of which carries a portrait of Turing against a background of repeated 0s and 1s, and is captioned: "1937: Alan Turing's theory of digital computing". On 1 April 2003, Turing's work at Bletchley Park was named an IEEE Milestone.[123] On 28 October 2004, a bronze statue of Alan Turing sculpted by John W. Mills was unveiled at the University of Surrey in Guildford, marking the 50th anniversary of Turing's death; it portrays him carrying his books across the campus.[124]
Turing was one of four mathematicians examined in the BBC documentary entitled Dangerous Knowledge (2008).[125] The Princeton Alumni Weekly named Turing the second most significant alumnus in the history of Princeton University, second only to President James Madison. A 1.5-ton, life-size statue of Turing was unveiled on 19 June 2007 at Bletchley Park. Built from approximately half a million pieces of Welsh slate, it was sculpted by Stephen Kettle, having been commissioned by the American billionaire Sidney Frank.[126]
Turing has been honoured in various ways in Manchester, the city where he worked towards the end of his life. In 1994, a stretch of the A6010 road (the Manchester city intermediate ring road) was named "Alan Turing Way". A bridge carrying this road was widened, and carries the name Alan Turing Bridge. A statue of Turing was unveiled in Manchester on 23 June 2001 in Sackville Park, between the University of Manchester building on Whitworth Street and Canal Street. The memorial statue depicts the "father of computer science" sitting on a bench at a central position in the park. Turing is shown holding an apple. The cast bronze bench carries in relief the text 'Alan Mathison Turing 1912–1954', and the motto 'Founder of Computer Science' as it could appear if encoded by an Enigma machine: 'IEKYF ROMSI ADXUO KVKZC GUBJ'.
Turing memorial statue plaque in Sackville Park, Manchester
A plaque at the statue's feet reads 'Father of computer science, mathematician, logician, wartime codebreaker, victim of prejudice'. There is also a Bertrand Russell quotation: "Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty — a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture." The sculptor buried his own old Amstrad computer under the plinth as a tribute to "the godfather of all modern computers".[127]
In 1999, Time magazine named Turing as one of the 100 Most Important People of the 20th century and stated, "The fact remains that everyone who taps at a keyboard, opening a spreadsheet or a word-processing program, is working on an incarnation of a Turing machine."[3]
In 2002, Turing was ranked twenty-first on the BBC's poll of the 100 Greatest Britons following a UK-wide vote.[128] In 2006, British writer and mathematician Ioan James chose Turing as one of twenty people to feature in his book about famous historical figures who may have had some of the traits of Asperger syndrome.[129] In 2010, actor/playwright Jade Esteban Estrada portrayed Turing in the solo musical, ICONS: The Lesbian and Gay History of the World, Vol. 4. In 2011, in The Guardian's "My hero" series, writer Alan Garner chose Turing as his hero and described how they had met whilst out jogging in the early 1950s. Garner remembered Turing as "funny and witty" and said that he "talked endlessly".[130] In 2006, Alan Turing was named with online resources as an LGBT History Month Icon.[131] In 2006, Boston Pride named Turing their Honorary Grand Marshal.[132]
Alan Turing memorial statue in Sackville Park, Manchester
The logo of Apple Inc. is often erroneously referred to as a tribute to Alan Turing, with the bite mark a reference to his death.[133] Both the designer of the logo[134] and the company deny that there is any homage to Turing in the design.[135][136] Stephen Fry has recounted asking Steve Jobs whether the design was intentional, saying that Jobs' response was, "God, we wish it were."[137] In February 2011, Turing's papers from the Second World War were bought for the nation with an 11th-hour bid by the National Heritage Memorial Fund, allowing them to stay at Bletchley Park.[138]
The Turing Rainbow Festival, held in Madurai, India, in 2012 for celebrating the LGBT and Genderqueer cause, was named in honour of Alan Turing by Gopi Shankar of Srishti Madurai.[139] Also in 2012, Turing was inducted into the Legacy Walk, an outdoor public display that celebrates LGBT history and people.[140][141]
The francophone singer-songwriter Salvatore Adamo made a tribute to Turing with his song "Alan et la Pomme".[142] Turing's life and work featured in a BBC children's programme about famous scientists – Absolute Genius with Dick and Dom – first broadcast on 12 March 2014.
On 17 May 2014, the world's first work of public art to recognise Alan Turing as gay was commissioned in Bletchley, close by to Bletchley Park where his war-time work was carried out. The commission was announced by the owners of Milton Keynes-based LGBT venue and nightclub Pink Punters to mark International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. The work was unveiled at a ceremony on Turing's birthday, 23 June 2014, and is placed outside Pink Punter's alongside the busy Watling Street, the old main road to London where Turing himself would have passed by on many occasions. On 22 October 2014, Turing was inducted into the NSA Hall of Honor.[143][144]
Government apology and pardon
In August 2009, John Graham-Cumming started a petition urging the British Government to apologise for Turing's prosecution as a homosexual.[167][168] The petition received more than 30,000 signatures.[169][170] Prime Minister Gordon Brown acknowledged the petition, releasing a statement on 10 September 2009 apologising and describing the treatment of Turing as "appalling":[169][171]
Thousands of people have come together to demand justice for Alan Turing and recognition of the appalling way he was treated. While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time and we can't put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him ... So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan's work I am very proud to say: we're sorry, you deserved so much better.[169][172]
In December 2011, William Jones created an e-petition[173] requesting the British Government pardon Turing for his conviction of "gross indecency":[174]
We ask the HM Government to grant a pardon to Alan Turing for the conviction of "gross indecency". In 1952, he was convicted of "gross indecency" with another man and was forced to undergo so-called "organo-therapy" – chemical castration. Two years later, he killed himself with cyanide, aged just 41. Alan Turing was driven to a terrible despair and early death by the nation he'd done so much to save. This remains a shame on the British government and British history. A pardon can go to some way to healing this damage. It may act as an apology to many of the other gay men, not as well-known as Alan Turing, who were subjected to these laws.[173]
The petition gathered over 37,000 signatures,[11][173] but the request was discouraged by Lord McNally, who gave the following opinion in his role as the Justice Minister:[175]
A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offence. He would have known that his offence was against the law and that he would be prosecuted. It is tragic that Alan Turing was convicted of an offence that now seems both cruel and absurd—particularly poignant given his outstanding contribution to the war effort. However, the law at the time required a prosecution and, as such, long-standing policy has been to accept that such convictions took place and, rather than trying to alter the historical context and to put right what cannot be put right, ensure instead that we never again return to those times.[176]
On 26 July 2012, a bill was introduced in the House of Lords to grant a statutory pardon to Turing for offences under section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, of which he was convicted on 31 March 1952.[177] Late in the year in a letter to The Daily Telegraph, the physicist Stephen Hawking and 10 other signatories including the Astronomer Royal Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society Sir Paul Nurse, Lady Trumpington (who worked for Turing during the war) and Lord Sharkey (the bill's sponsor) called on Prime Minister David Cameron to act on the pardon request.[178] The Government indicated it would support the bill,[179][180][181] and it passed its third reading in the Lords in October.[182]
Wikinews has related news: Alan Turing given posthumous pardon
Before the bill could be debated in the House of Commons,[183] the Government elected to proceed under the royal prerogative of mercy. On 24 December 2013, Queen Elizabeth II signed a pardon[10] for Turing's conviction for gross indecency, with immediate effect. Announcing the pardon, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said Turing deserved to be "remembered and recognised for his fantastic contribution to the war effort" and not for his later criminal conviction.[9][11] The Queen officially pronounced Turing pardoned in August 2014.[184] The Queen's action is only the fourth royal pardon granted since the conclusion of the Second World War.[185] This case is unusual in that pardons are normally granted only when the person is technically innocent, and a request has been made by the family or other interested party. Neither condition was met in regard to Turing's conviction.[186]
In a letter to Prime Minister David Cameron after announcement of the pardon, human rights advocate Peter Tatchell criticised the decision to single out Turing due to his fame and achievements, when thousands of others convicted under the same law have not received pardons.[187] Tatchell also called for a new investigation into Turing's death:
A new inquiry is long overdue, even if only to dispel any doubts about the true cause of his death – including speculation that he was murdered by the security services (or others). I think murder by state agents is unlikely. There is no known evidence pointing to any such act. However, it is a major failing that this possibility has never been considered or investigated.[188]
Actually God
Is Actually presupposition.
Basing morality on an antecedents like God, not grounded in fact, have proved to invite decisions that are less than moral.
http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...-is-a-child-abuser.297007/page-3#post-4230754
On morality about physically punishing kids is allowed at home by some religious parents (who may not want teachers do the same), even the state laws and educators say No and shouldn't!
Do people living in a culturally advanced and legally civilised country in the whole world really require more guns per person on average for a better protection of human liberty?
Does more guns per person make people, both others and ourselves included, make people much more polite and gentle, safer and securer, willingly or fearfully or naturally or forcefully?
Considering more powerful guns can be always obtained by other morally criminally minded! Do we unintentionally and unknowingly want to become equally one of them?
Why? What are the most common sources of acts?
Some questions:
1. Set example: His daughter now learned hitting others is somehow OK, subject to certain conditions. What are the conditions? Who decides the conditions? Are the conditions objective? Or subjective?
2. Is it legally OK, hitting one's own child? Do you feel happy when a teacher , or an unknown person, hitting your child, for whatever reasons? If not, ...
3. How about if hitting another person's child, for wanting to educate the child something just you like? OK or not? If not, why not?
4. If a believer says OK to hit one's own child because the Bible says so, then how about the Bible also says a lot of things about love, patience, consideration, passionate, peace, joy, education by setting example, sharing responsibility, etc. etc.
5. How young or how old a parent should be still allowed to hit a child? Who decides the age threshold - hitting is OK until age 3, the parents? Why age 3, why not age 13 or 30?
6. How about individual child's response psychologically? Perhaps not even a child professional, medical/psychological, can easily ascertain the long term and short term effects affecting the child hit by parents!
7. How about your child mentioning/reporting your hitting to her/his teacher, a social worker, a police, a judge, ...? Teach/instruct her/him not to mention/report anything to anyone, right? Or denying any hitting, a lie?
8. ...
9. ...
No wonder so many wars, violences, etc still exist in the world nowadays!
Q
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_women
Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, declared in a 2006 report posted on the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) website that:
Violence against women and girls is a problem of pandemic proportions. At least one out of every three women around the world has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime with the abuser usually someone known to her.[5]
UQ
I don't know how many alternatives creatively (perhaps unlimited) would be available/learned (from other practitioners or specialists/ professionals) as better options and tried each one of all of them with enough attempts, before physical punishment as the last resort is "Forced" to actually carry out.
Was it due to my own anger so I want to quickly make the last resort working well as expected?
Did I explain or educate the child not to do the wrongdoing beforehand?
Nowadays not even any civil court would implement physical punishment on adults! Why on kids?
I rest my case!
Worth not even 2 cents!
On morality about physically punishing kids is allowed at home by some religious parents (who may not want teachers do the same), even the state laws and educators say No and shouldn't!
Do people living in a culturally advanced and legally civilised country in the whole world really require more guns per person on average for a better protection of human liberty?
Does more guns per person make people, both others and ourselves included, make people much more polite and gentle, safer and securer, willingly or fearfully or naturally or forcefully?
Considering more powerful guns can be always obtained by other morally criminally minded! Do we unintentionally and unknowingly want to become equally one of them?
Why? What are the most common sources of acts?
http://www.kidspot.com.au/parenting...ho-fatally-shot-two-daughters-was-a-gun-lover
"I have 10 guns": Mum who fatally shot two daughters was a gun lover
Laura Aubusson | June 27, 2016
Last edited:
Is Actually presupposition.
Basing morality on an antecedents like God, not grounded in fact, have proved to invite decisions that are less than moral.
We can simply read God = Nature!
I should have typed God/Nature, or even better GOD(=Totality Gods of various religions while removing all superstitions, as mentioned before)/Nature, but I was just lazy, as usual!
Last edited:
We can simply read God = Nature!
I should have typed God/Nature, or even better GOD(=Totality Gods of various religions while removing all superstitions, as mentioned before)/Nature, but I was just lazy, as usual!
Except God isn't generally read that way.
Your "better" doesn't work either, for once you remove superstition from religion and God, then poof...they've gone anyway.
I appreciate by sitting on the fence that way you're trying to slot God in there alongside morality, but it really doesn't work.
I think we agree morality is relative.
The highest and strongest morals must be those which differentiate between right and wrong in their own rights, by their own sakes. Not by supposed dictate of an assumed and presupposed God.
Handing morality off that way is always going to be less than completely moral and in my view is what's lazy.
I would suggest taking personal and collective cultural responsibility for properly justified standards of morality, is the moral thing to do.
1. God=Nature, that was an ancient concept. Perhaps since existence of humans. Not new at all!
However, some fundamentalists of (non-)believers or atheists may dislike this ancient old concept!
2. Basically all the major religions (organised institutions) nowadays are actually quite young relatively, comparing to our human history.
3. imo, morality is an orderly system among the individuals within a (sub)set of humans. They define their morals for common goodness. That, the expectations of goodness, hence laws and legal systems, can be dynamically changed according to their experience along their time line/span. New laws replace old laws.
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft_Acts
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-17/northern-territory-to-ditch-their-witchcraft-law/4894086
Northern Territory government to repeal centuries-old witchcraft, tarot card law
By Stephanie Smail, staff
Updated August 18, 2013
However, some fundamentalists of (non-)believers or atheists may dislike this ancient old concept!
2. Basically all the major religions (organised institutions) nowadays are actually quite young relatively, comparing to our human history.
3. imo, morality is an orderly system among the individuals within a (sub)set of humans. They define their morals for common goodness. That, the expectations of goodness, hence laws and legal systems, can be dynamically changed according to their experience along their time line/span. New laws replace old laws.
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft_Acts
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-17/northern-territory-to-ditch-their-witchcraft-law/4894086
Northern Territory government to repeal centuries-old witchcraft, tarot card law
By Stephanie Smail, staff
Updated August 18, 2013
Last edited:
http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...-is-a-child-abuser.297007/page-3#post-4230754
On morality about physically punishing kids is allowed at home by some religious parents (who may not want teachers do the same), even the state laws and educators say No and shouldn't!
Do people living in a culturally advanced and legally civilised country in the whole world really require more guns per person on average for a better protection of human liberty?
Does more guns per person make people, both others and ourselves included, make people much more polite and gentle, safer and securer, willingly or fearfully or naturally or forcefully?
Considering more powerful guns can be always obtained by other morally criminally minded! Do we unintentionally and unknowingly want to become equally one of them?
Why? What are the most common sources of acts?
In schools only? Or beyond schools?
https://newmatilda.com/2016/06/28/t...-death-of-corporal-punishment-in-our-schools/
Conclusion
Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) on December 17, 1990 and has stated that it does not condone the use of corporal punishment in schools.
However, 25-years later, it has yet to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 (2) of the UNCRC, which requires governments to take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity.
Incidentally, as of June 2015 there were 125 countries that had abandoned the use of corporal punishment in schools. This year Mongolia and Uganda have also joined that list.
Are our politicians really that callous and indifferent to our children’s rights?