CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

In light of CAA's recent test drive with theological discussion, I thought I might share this article with you guys. It's written by Donald Miller, author of Blue Like Jazz, and has a lot of good things to say about discussing ideas with others. Here is the article in its entirety, and here's an excerpt that I thought might be particularly helpful for everyone to read, read again, and apply to the way all of us approach controversial topics on the board.

[SIZE="4"]"H[/SIZE]ere are a few ways I’ve had to train myself to not think in black and white. And it’s been one of the hardest thing I’ve had to do:

1. Disengage your ego from your ideas: Our ideas aren’t really ours, they are just ideas. They may be true ideas, which makes them important, but they aren’t our true ideas, and people should have the free will to either agree with them or not. It is very difficult to be honest with ourselves about whether our egos are involved, but it’s the territory of a better thinker.

2. Understand there is much you don’t understand: We begin to think in black and white when we assume we know everything. But this is an illogical assumption. Especially if we are young. Those who think in black and white and defend their camps will have a hard time engaging new and valuable information because they have already built their home halfway across the desert. Admitting something else is true means admitting we were wrong, and that’s a very difficult thing to do.

3. Walk away from black-and-white conversations: When the conversation becomes about defending one's identity, it’s time to politely move on. If the conversation is calm, and nobody is defending their ego, you’d be amazed at what information unfolds in the discussion. (I often respond to comments on my blog, but I won’t get into black-and-white arguments for this very reason. These discussions go nowhere and don’t help me find truth.) Winston Churchill said it this way: “A fanatic is someone who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

Use these phrases often: "At this point," "I’ve come to believe" or "I’ll never stop learning, but I’m attracted to the idea that …" Some will read these statements as weak, and wonder at what point we should take a stand, but I see these as strong and humble statements. When you make statements like this, your listener hears that you are objective and have sought truth. You are, as such, thought of as more trustworthy, and your argument is given more weight."

What do you all think? Discuss!

Moreover, we begin to believe whatever thought-camp we subscribe to is morally good and the other morally bad, thus demonizing a threatening position, further stunting our ability to think and find truth.

This. Yeah, I've been wrestling a lot with this lately. The "I'm right" and "You're wrong" struggle. Theology debates and discussion are my life, as a theology major. It's been hard to take a look at the text and learn what the text is saying for itself, instead of applying my own principles and ideologies and modern-day culture alongside any needs or wants that I may have into it.

It's been all the more difficult in relationships. I'm a stubborn introvert. I don't like being told I need to change. I've known I need to change, and being pressed forward to do something about it has helped me get up and do what needs to be done, but that doesn't change the fact that in doing so, I was crushed and hurt. Everything I have ever taught myself on the Bible was simply...not Biblical. To relearn everything that I thought I knew has been difficult. I am a generally happier and joyous person now, but it came through great suffering, and even greater pain.

I've been in this journey for two months, since I allowed myself to go back to the basics, back to day zero, back to the beginning when the new school year began. It's not an easy journey, finding God through renewed eyes. The closer I draw near, the more I recognize my own failing, my shortcomings, my sin... the more I want those things dead and gone so I can rejoice in such a powerful and almighty God. I've come to know that 'Jesus is my only option' and within that, am learning to give myself up and away for those in need. He is so much higher, so much stronger than I could ever be. And if all my logic is in black and white, where's my ability to discern truth? It's not as we think, and we need to recognize this and learn from where we've shut down portions of our mind.

I disagree. There is right. And there is wrong. It's very defined, but not always in the ways us people would try to define it. But it's not our job to convict others of right and wrong, we are only obligated out of Charity to warn others of the consequences of Black.

And if all my logic is in black and white, where's my ability to discern truth?

... I don't understand. There is no discerning truth if it is grey, aka untruth and truth. To discern, is to separate one from the other, right? Mebbe pm, I'd like to know your thinking on this. n.n

Rusty Claymore (post: 1432562) wrote:I disagree. There is right. And there is wrong. It's very defined, but not always in the ways us people would try to define it. But it's not our job to convict others of right and wrong, we are only obligated out of Charity to warn others of the consequences of Black.

Yeah, he does say in the article that he doesn't see everything as a gray area, and I think that's important to the essentials of the Christian faith; it's why we call ourselves Christians! What he's basically saying is that when it comes to the non-essentials and the things we often disagree on (especially within the Church), we should approach these topics with humility, rather than an "I know it all" attitude. Having the latter attitude is off-putting, while the former welcomes intelligent discourse and reinforces the idea that we're only human and we cannot claim to know every corner of the mind of God. "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" (Rom. 11:34)

Rusty Claymore wrote:I disagree. There is right. And there is wrong.

Admitting that there are morally ambiguous areas does not change the fact that right and wrong exist. That's like saying "The color green exists, therefore yellow and blue do not exist."

The fact is that there are definitely gray areas that can't be covered by black and white thinking. The best and most cliched example is you are in Nazi Germany, hiding Jews in your house. The SS shows up and asks if you are hiding any Jews. Do you lie to protect them?

Or actually, let's go to the Bible itself. Romans 14. Great chapter. Is it right or is it wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols? Paul says it's a gray area. If one person thinks it's okay, then they can eat it no problem. If another person thinks it's sinful, then they can't eat it. If a person who thinks it's okay tempts a person who thinks it's sinful into eating it, then it's also wrong. How can it be both right and wrong at the same time unless it's a gray area? The point is, it can't, so the Bible itself admits that gray areas exist in morality.

Or here's another one. A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing? Which action is wrong? Which action is right? Is there a right or a wrong action?

There are more questions that are difficult or impossible to answer in a clear black/white view of morality, but I'll save them for later. But again, admitting there are gray areas of morality does NOT mean black and white do not exist. Black and white clearly and obviously exist, but there are situations where right and wrong are not discernible, that is for sure.

This is a great article.

I think that what we should be taking away from it is that despite there existing black and white areas in our ideology, we need to be willing and open to rational debate that may show us that we are wrong.

Basically, we should not tie our ideas into who we are. We should do our best to not feel personally attacked just because someone disagrees with us.

Hmm, I'm going to say I disagree (sort of) with Miller on this one partly because the article he wrote is and example of Black and White thinking. I understand that he goes on to say somethings are Black and White, but I don't think he intended this topic to be one of them but was instead focusing on the major (or essential or identity) issues in theology.

I think the biggest issue when it comes to thought is a combination of closed mindedness towards criticism and a lack of critical thinking. Actually, I probably shouldn't distinguish those two points and instead say the problem with thought is a lack of critical thinking. In critical thinking, you look at a large number of possibilities for something including the evidence for and against each of them and then narrow down those possibilities to what you think is most likely. This means that you can get people who posit a Black and White set of ideas about something and ally with one side over the other. This doesn't mean they are closed minded it just means they think two positions are stronger then the other positions and they've chosen one position to support, granted, rather vehemently. The final part of this process is opening yourself up to criticism. Like art, thought needs to be picked apart and criticized if it's going to improve. It's important for both us and those around us to recognize the flaws in our own thought systems and others since it is the only way we as a species will improve in this aspect.

I should mention that this is rather difficult. There have been studies done on American college graduates who have their bachelor degrees and have not developed critical thinking skills. It takes work and it takes effort. I can attest to this because I have been trying to work towards this type of thinking for a few months now (and to a lesser degree, a few years) and its not easy to get a hold of. Anyway, those are my thoughts and that's about it.

Edit: I also forgot to mention that there is an issue with defining what are the essentials or, as I call them, major issues in theology. There has been and will continue to be a huge amount of disagreement over what these are and nothing seems to be safe. For instance, the Jesus Seminar would call themselves Christians but would not hold the belief that Jesus is divine or rose from the dead. Since they disagree with that tenet and have a pretty good argument for how they are still Christians, it could be argued that neither Jesus' divinity or resurrection are essential issues in Christian theology. Personally, I try to get around this by pushing these ideas to an identity level, thus giving it a more secular definition but the problem still remains.

Cool article. I find it kind of annoying how the moment I mention something other poeple don't agree with, they often will instantly start tearing it apart.

@Nate: I understand where you are coming from, although:
Nazis: Corrie Ten Boom's book has examples of people hiding Jews, being confronted, and not lying. It doesn't always work in the sense that you get off scott free, but Neeshack, Radshack, and Benny believed they were going to burn in Nebachanezzar's furnace.
Romans: Paul is not talking about meat sacrificed to idols, he's talking about the spiritual strength of those who eat it. Some who are weak take offense, so in our Christian Charity in looking out for that person, we refrain from eating perfectly good meat out of consideration of that weaker brother. What's right or wrong here is: Are we causing a brother to stumble?
The trolly: What is right is to do everything in your power to avoid as many casualties as you can. Like de-railing the trolly. It's crowded out? Then we've already been killing people with the trolly. The wrong thing to do, is to not do your best to do what is right.

One thing I see here is we all differ on what we are referring to when we say "morality". To me, morality isn't something we bump up against when we must make a choice. Lying to the Nazis is inherently wrong. Standing by while Nazis murder people is wrong. If morality, or right and wrong rather, was merely A or B, then there is no right answer. Morality to me is the framework from which I make a choice, and in that sense there is no choice, since before hand it's set to what I'll do. (I speak in theory here, being a sinful and imperfect being, never the less that is my goal) Lying or accomplice to murder? One can say many things without conveying any information, and then if it comes down to it, die fighting. The ultimate reasoning being:
God is in control, and He has everything set for what is Truly best. All we can do in that case is what we know He has shown us to be right. And that is Right.

We'll, that's prolly really confusing, but that's my approach. There is always a right answer, and as situations change, so does what we are required to do. If you don't agree, call me an idiot and ignore me. You're prolly right. n.n/)

I'm a huge fan of Miller (Searching for God Knows What > Blue Like Jazz, BTW), and I know what he's getting at. Alot of times people are close minded, and this is exactly the kind of things he says that make me think more and see broader (especially growing up in a conservative, Baptist, Bible Belt home). People must be willing to listen and learn from each other instead of stating they are right and sticking to that without changing or even listening and trying to learn what the other party has to say.
As Frank Zappa said, "A brain is like a parachute, it has to be open to work."
However, when something is obviously opposite of what the Bible says, then you're treading on dangerous ground.

KagayakiWashi (post: 1432611) wrote:However, when something is obviously opposite of what the Bible says, then you're treading on dangerous ground.

I think that this is something that we also need to be careful about, though. What we think the Bible says may not always be what it actually says or means, so we should also be open to hearing other opinions on what the Bible has to say.

I think also in areas like this LOVING others is still very important. I'll use an example from an experience I learned from.

On Easter Sunday, while attending a class on missions, We had a mystery speaker come talk to us. We had no idea what the expect prior to that day...and when we entered, we learned that our speaker was a muslim. (After all the women were seperated from the men, told to wear scarves on our heads and sit on the floor)

The words this man was saying, were really harsh. He said things like "I wish I could wish you a happy Easter, but I can't because it didn't happen..." Obviously this got a lot of the class (of both old and college age students) a bit riled... including myself. Thoughts of "Why on earth would this Christian class allow someone to speak such utter contempt for our Savior?"

More and more things were said, and then finally, after answering some questions the man took off his Shiek outfit and said "I'm a Christian, and this was a lesson on how to treat others of different faiths."

...and we failed at it. Because we didn't LOVE, we were so wrapped up in this "Right and Wrong" Thing, that we failed to do exactly what we are called to do, and that is to LOVE.

I know that's a little off topic, but I was trying to make my point XD. When we put ourselves aside, and discuss, not argue. Then a lot of things can be learned.

For instance, I have a tattoo, and I believe that the verses that speak against it are grey areas. Others believe that it's black and white that we aren't supposed to have them.

It is at this point that you have to consider, "Do I engage in this conversation? Are they calling ME out specifically, or just making a general statement? What can be gained by discussing this, and does it really matter in the long run?" Kind of thing.

My mom always told me, "Pick your battles." and while I'm not always good at that, it's a pretty good lesson to be learned.

Rusty Claymore wrote:If you don't agree, call me an idiot and ignore me.

I won't, because I don't think you're an idiot. I just think you're wrong. You can be wrong without being an idiot.

Nazis: Corrie Ten Boom's book has examples of people hiding Jews, being confronted, and not lying.

That's pretty awesome. However, the fact that this is pretty amazing is because it was so inconceivable that it would ever happen. In other words, it's the exception, not the rule.

I know people who have gotten into horrible car crashes without a seatbelt on, and they lived. However, I'm always going to wear my seatbelt when I get in my car. Why? Because them surviving a horrible wreck without a seatbelt was a fluke. It wasn't the norm. It was miraculous.

And to say "I won't wear my seatbelt to have another miraculous event happen!" is well, pretty stupid.

The fact is, most people, had they told the truth to the Nazis, would have been signing the death warrants for the Jews they had been hiding. They may even be betraying their friends, or even loved ones, by not lying.

Lying to the Nazis is inherently wrong.

I disagree entirely. I think it is inherently right. I think it is praiseworthy and laudable. I think the people who lied are heroes and should be looked up to.

If some people were able to protect others without lying, that's great! No shame in that. However, it does not make the people who did lie wrong.

I just can't imagine God saying "Wow, you let the Nazis beat and torture you, you gave up your life, sacrificed yourself, to protect these people. Because of you, these people were saved from dying, you kept them from harm and did it without regard to your own safety. That's...oh wait you lied to do it, never mind, you're evil and horrible and wrong."

Romans: Paul is not talking about meat sacrificed to idols, he's talking about the spiritual strength of those who eat it.

Whoops! Okay, I got the verses wrong. I was thinking of 1 Corinthians. D'oh! However, I was right in the message even if I was wrong in the description. Verse 14 of Romans 14 says:

As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

So right there, Paul says if someone thinks something is wrong to eat, then it is...for that person. It is not wrong for someone else to eat it if that person thinks it's okay to eat. So we have the exact same act, let's say, eating pork (since pork was considered unclean). If one person thinks eating pork is wrong, then it's wrong for him to eat it. But if I think eating pork is totally cool, then it's totally cool for me to eat it.

But how can the exact same act be both right AND wrong at the same time unless there are moral gray areas? Now obviously it's not both right and wrong for one person, but I'm talking about the act itself. Paul restates this at the end of Romans 14:

But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith]The trolly: What is right is to do everything in your power to avoid as many casualties as you can. Like de-railing the trolly.[/QUOTE]
Derail it with what, exactly? All you have is the switch, and you ain't strong enough to pull a switch out of the ground to derail it.

But okay, let's assume you can derail the trolley. Then you have the problem of what about the people IN the trolley? Let's say six people will die and 10 more will be badly injured if you derail the trolley. Now what do you do? Do you save the one, save the five, or save the six but kill six others and badly injure 10 more?

What is right in that situation? What is wrong? A completely black and white view of morality would be useless in such a situation.

While the trolley question is interesting, it'll probably never play out in real life (though again, black and white morality is fairly useless to answer it), but there are situations where you have to make a choice that cannot be simply answered by such a view. Such as...

There is always a right answer

I have heard stories of people forced to make horrific choices, I remember one guy who was in an accident and could only save either his wife or his son. Due to the specifics, it was impossible for him to save both, so he had to make a choice of which one to save...I think he ended up saving his wife if I remember correctly.

Was that the "right" choice? Was there a right choice and a wrong choice? Which one was right and which one was wrong, then? How do you determine that? What if he had been so paralyzed with fear, so horrified by the decision, that he lost his chance and ended up saving neither? Would that have been wrong?

Put simply, which is the right answer in the question "You can only save your wife or your son"?

Sometimes, there is no right answer.

I like to bring up Dietrich Bonhoeffer for this. He was a theologian and pastor that went back to WWII Nazi Germany because he felt called there. He worked with the underground churches (i.e. minority) that was against Hitler's Third Reich regime.

A famous example brought by Bonhoeffer is the very example which you have brought up. Lying to Nazis to save Jews. As my professor once brilliantly put: "My no to the Nazis, is my yes to Jesus."

We can try to alter the ethics of this by adding extra contextual variables. For example, things such as "the good act did more harm in the end!" is a often cited but very important counter-argument brought up. While it may not fit well in this case, it can apply to many other examples (i.e. Mother Theresa).

Now what is interesting about Bonhoeffer is that he was part of a plan to assassinate Adolf Hitler. However, we all need to know that he chose to do so with heavy deliberation. It was not an easy for him to do, but he did not know what else to do.

So even in a case such as Bonhoeffer, we see inconsistency. But this was inconsistency which Bonhoeffer accepted because in his heart, he had compassion towards those that were disempowered and oppressed.

It's questions like these which morality begins to blur. And this is the biggest flaw, in my opinion, of Christians who uphold strict deontological ethics (where the focus is always on the initial action itself, with no consideration for the end result). By contrast, teleological ethics is essentially a "ends justify the means/initial action".

However. The beauty is this. Christ is neither deontological nor is he teleological. He transcends both of these types of normative ethics.

Put simply, which is the right answer in the question "You can only save your wife or your son"?

I can't say universally which one is right but I know saving neither is wrong. If you decide the world would be better with one then the other, then that would be the right one to save. Now this is a very painful judgement that I hope nobody else has to make, but it's still the case that if you decide saving one is better, and then you save the other, you've done the wrong thing by your own judgement. If the tragedy happens too fast for you to make a judgement, and you save one by your reflexes, you have not made a right or wrong decision because you have not made a decision at all.

Similarly in the trolley example, if your only choices are the death of five people and the death of one, then assuming it's better to have people alive than dead, your choice should be to save the five people. Now if you have extra information, like that the five are criminals sentenced to death or something, things may be different, but I can say with a fair degree of certainty that someone who chooses to sacrifice five total strangers to save one total stranger has done the wrong thing, and that someone who saves the five instead of the one has done the right thing. I've heard people say you can't apply logical thought in this situation, but that seems like the logical conclusion to me.

Mr. SmartyPants (post: 1432635) wrote:A famous example brought by Bonhoeffer is the very example which you have brought up. Lying to Nazis to save Jews. As my professor once brilliantly put: "My no to the Nazis, is my yes to Jesus."

I'm going to disagree with this for one reason, if we are called to love all people then we should love the Nazis as well. We know from Romans 13:9 that all of the commandments are tied to the idea of love God and love people. So, lying towards Nazis is in no way showing love towards them and in that way is a no to both the Nazis and Jesus. Now, before you jump on me for sending innocent Jews to their doom, let me finish this by saying that while I think the idea of Third Way Ethics (or that there is always a way to avoid sinning in any ethical dilemma like this one) is true that many times it is not practical. The trolley example Nate gave is a perfect example of this. Sure, you could press the switch so the trolley is headed for the one person but manage to free him before it got their or just derail the trolley but, in all likelihood, you won't have the necessary tools on hand to do so. I'm saying all of this just to say that in the case of saving Jews from Nazis, I think the noble thing to do is sin for the sake of the Jews and (in the words of Luther) sin boldly. You can always ask for forgiveness later or just live with it and assume God won't hold it against you. Honestly, I don't buy into the idea that if you sin before your death your doomed to eternal punishment anyway so I don't think whether such an act is or isn't a sin is as big of a deal as people make it out to be.

There's the example of Rahab the harlot who lied to save the lives of the spies sent into Jericho. Yes, she lied, but because she saved the lives of the spies and helped them get out of the city, her household was spared the devestation of Jericho --and she was included in the geneology of Christ. So I agree with Peanut in this matter --sometimes you just do what you have to to do what is right overall --even if it means doing something wrong in the process.

Like --a small and unrelated example--if I have a friend who is having a crisis and needs help. I can tell him/her that I have class and say that I'll pray that help comes to them. Or I can skip my class and go help my friend (say, he/she needs a ride to the hospital because a family member has been rushed there.) Yes, skipping class is wrong by most standards, but helping my friend through a crisis situation would trump that for me. I can always get the notes I missed later.

Rusty Claymore (post: 1432562) wrote:I disagree. There is right. And there is wrong. It's very defined, but not always in the ways us people would try to define it. But it's not our job to convict others of right and wrong, we are only obligated out of Charity to warn others of the consequences of Black.

... I don't understand. There is no discerning truth if it is grey, aka untruth and truth. To discern, is to separate one from the other, right? Mebbe pm, I'd like to know your thinking on this. n.n

To put it simply, I feel that if truth is black and white, it's already been figured out and handed to us as is, but if it is grey, then we still have the ability to separate it for ourselves as what is black and what is white. This is what I've been doing in my theology classes, by picking out what the text says in context as opposed to what I want it to say. And then finding a medium that is truthful between the two, developing my own ideology about what the text says, in context and to myself.

I'm not sure if it makes sense...I've found out recently that I have an extremely difficult time translating what is in my head into conversation.

Are we having an argument about arguing? Control your tangents children! These guidelines are wonderful, I should like to read them several times. That stated, I think I will take its advice and "Walk away from black-and-white conversations".

Everyone has some really good thoughts here. Although truthfully my head is starting to spin... But I think it's cause I'm over-tired and have been trying to see the practical applications of everyone's imput. n.n'

Midori wrote:I can't say universally which one is right

That was what I was getting at, was Rusty seemed to be implying (and correct me if I am mistaken) that there is always a universal "This is objectively the right thing to do" in every situation. So that's why I asked if you were forced to choose between saving your wife or your child, which is the objectively correct answer to the question?

And I think I would be physically ill if someone actually tried to answer that with reasons or evidence.

it's still the case that if you decide saving one is better, and then you save the other, you've done the wrong thing by your own judgement.

I'll agree with this as well, although I'm frightened to think of how a person would arrive at a conclusion as to which one is "better" to save. Just thinking about it makes me uncomfortable, and I don't even have a girlfriend, let alone a kid.

if your only choices are the death of five people and the death of one, then assuming it's better to have people alive than dead, your choice should be to save the five people.

Oooh, utilitarian ethics!

Just kidding. XD I think I agree with you (I'd rather save five people than one if it came down to it) although in my situation I'd probably be so paralyzed with fear and confusion that I'd probably do nothing, so...but yeah on a basic level I would agree that flipping the switch is probably the preferable option (though again, not right or wrong).

Now if you have extra information, like that the five are criminals sentenced to death or something, things may be different

Eh...it doesn't to me. Although this isn't a good parallel at all, all I can think of is that scene in Dark Knight with the two ferries, one full of criminals and the other with average citizens, and the Joker saying one of them has to choose to blow up the other, or they'll both get blown up. And people on the regular ferry resorted to that logic. "They're criminals! They've had their chance! We haven't done anything wrong, so clearly it's better for them to die!"

In the end of course Batman saved them both but I still don't know if I would choose the one over the five, even if the five were criminals. I mean hey, who's to say the criminals wouldn't be touched by my kindness and repent and become better members of society? And who's to say that if I saved the one guy, that he wouldn't grow up to be a serial killer worse than the five criminals put together?

But now, we're getting out of the scope of the question and going a bit overboard with the hypotheticals, and we could play that game all day probably. XD I'd still probably elect to save the five over the one, that is, assuming that I would be able to do anything at all.

I can say with a fair degree of certainty that someone who chooses to sacrifice five total strangers to save one total stranger has done the wrong thing, and that someone who saves the five instead of the one has done the right thing.

Eh...I still disagree. I don't think there is a definitively right or wrong answer in that situation. Even if a person chooses to not throw the switch and save the one person, they have still saved a life. I don't think that can be classified as "wrong." It's kinda like Monster. Was Doctor Tenma wrong to save that kid's life, knowing what the kid grew up to be like? I don't think he was.

Black and White seems to infer that one choice is 100% correct and moral while the other choice is 100% wrong and immoral.

At times, this may be applied in our conduct, like in murder. However, in cases of ideas I'd say that "ideas" are grey until proven either black or white or a mixture of both. I don't think this article is really talking about more universal morals such as, "don't murder, don't rape, forgive others, show love, etc." but rather about those opinions we have on everyday issues like entertainment and politics.

For example, let's say that I presented the idea that we should increase the fines on littering because littering is destroying the earth. You could say my idea is good because people who litter are scum and their practice is killing the earth. Or you could say my idea is filth because littering has no effect on the earth and I am merely persecuting law abiding people who litter.

Or you could say my idea has elements of black and white and is therefore grey.

(My ideas probably don't seem that well developed at the moment. I'm tired and I just felt like adding something to the conversation).

Nate wrote:(and correct me if I am mistaken) that there is always a universal "This is objectively the right thing to do" in every situation.

This is where it gets sticky... Like Midori said, we all would agree that the absolute wrong thing to do is nothing. So, that follows that the right thing to do is act, and to act to the best of your ability, and the maximum of your potential. So you are mistaken, in the sense of "Always make left turns" objective choice for everything, but not mistaken in the sense that in every situation there is a path that earns a "Well done, good and Faithfull servant".

I think I sidetracked here though, since I think the original thrust here wasn't nescessarily having to do with morality, and more to do with the fact that we don't know all the facts, and should behave accordingly... Sorry folks, I've been really tired lately...

Rusty Claymore wrote:Like Midori said, we all would agree that the absolute wrong thing to do is nothing.

That's not exactly what he said though. He said that the wrong thing to do would be to CHOOSE to do nothing. If you were paralyzed by fear or horror and unable to act, and ended up doing nothing, he said that would not be wrong (because you didn't make a decision).

I agree with him as far as the wife/child scenario, but I disagree that choosing to do nothing in the train scenario is the wrong thing either because again, even if you consciously choose to do nothing, you are still saving a person's life.

It's hard to take a utilitarian view of ethics to say "Saving more people is objectively better" because of well, embryonic stem cells. Which I'm sure most people here think is absolutely wrong to harvest stem cells from fetuses (feti?), but if we were to sacrifice one fetus, we could save thousands of people potentially. Under the "Saving more people is better" utilitarian view, it would be better to harvest the stem cells since more people would be saved.

I hope this doesn't turn into a debate about that, I'm just saying that going solely by numbers doesn't always work.

So you are mistaken, in the sense of "Always make left turns" objective choice for everything, but not mistaken in the sense that in every situation there is a path that earns a "Well done, good and Faithfull servant".

Okay, I'll agree with that. What you're saying is that, for example, in the above wife/child scenario, it would be good to save either one of them, but it would be objectively wrong to consciously choose to save neither. I think you're right about that.

I feel like I may be stepping into a mine field here lol

Radical: thanks for posting this btw. It obviously brings up interesting points and opinions.

I especially like this:

2. Understand there is much you don’t understand: We begin to think in black and white when we assume we know everything. But this is an illogical assumption. Especially if we are young. Those who think in black and white and defend their camps will have a hard time engaging new and valuable information because they have already built their home halfway across the desert. Admitting something else is true means admitting we were wrong, and that’s a very difficult thing to do.

For me this is very true. Ultimately black and white thinking (I'm not going on morality) can lead to a lot of judgments. This is especially so when it comes to judgments we place on ourselves. The "all or nothing" thinking can really take its toll on interactions.

As #2 paragraph pointed out, when you are in black and white mentality there is no real growth because you already have those walls.

For instance, in my own life, I used to either trust entirely (even if i only knew them for a few days) or not trust at all. The result led me from being very isolated and lonely to ending up in some not good situations. Now that I'm learning about some of the gray areas in life, I can learn to build trust up versus being in that extreme mentality and behavior.

I have more thoughts on this, but it would end up going more into my personal life.

Again if this didn't make sense, I'm out of it lol