| ▲ | joshuamcginnis 3 hours ago | |||||||
The problem is that if moral absolution doesn’t exist then it doesn’t matter what you do in the trolly situation since it’s all relative. You may as well do what you please since it’s all a matter of opinion anyway. | ||||||||
| ▲ | yunnpp 2 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||
No, it's not black and white, that's the whole point. How would you answer to the case I outlined above, according to your rules? It's called a paradox for a reason. Plus, that there is no right answer in many situations does not preclude that an answer or some approximation of it should be sought, similarly to how the lack of proof of God's existence does not preclude one from believing and seeking understanding anyway. If you have read the Bible and derived hard and clear rules of what to do and not do in every situation, then I'm not sure what is it you understood. To be clear, I am with you in believing that there is, indeed, an absolute right/wrong, and the examples you brought up are obviously wrong. But humans cannot absolutely determine right/wrong, as is exemplified by the many paradoxes, and again as it appears in Genesis. And that is precisely a sort of soft-proof of God: if we accept there is an absolute right/wrong, but unreachable from the human realm, then where does that absolute emanate from? I haven't worded that very well, but it's an argument you can find in literature. And, to be clear, Claude is full of BS. | ||||||||
| ||||||||