Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

Re:Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test... by tspiteri on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @04:28AM (#1590859)

Well, it's a bit like this:

1. Is it justifiable to walk into a shop?

2. John Does walked into a shop and murdered all present. Was he justified in walking into the shop?

Answering yes to 1 and no to 2 is a contradiction in the same way. But, is it really valid to separate the action of walking into the shop with the murder of those present? Is it really valid to separate Sutcliffe's belief from his actions?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test... by cwp on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @07:05PM (#1593222)

To answer your questions, yes and yes. It's clearly possible to walk into a shop without killing anyone, and the analogy to Sutcliffe holds: it's possible to believe that God wants you to rape and murder prostitutes, without actually doing it.

Condoning rape and murder only comes into play if you also answer that God is the source of all morality. In that case, doing God's will is by definition moral, and if he wants you to rape and murder, well, you bite the bullet.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test... by waqf on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @08:34PM (#1593404)

That question often bothers me in the following form:

1. Is it justifiable to speak freely?

2. John Doe announced that a crowded theatre was afire, and people died in a resulting stampede. Was he justified in speaking?

Nobody ever addresses the separability issue you describe.

[ Parent | on HN ]