Moral responsibility.

by nicolaou 168 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  nicolaou

  No subtlety here, it's going to be obvious where I'm going with this. Please consider the following scenario.

  You're seated on a railway platform bench waiting for your train. A high speed intercity is about to hurtle through without stopping when you see a small child running to the platforms edge! Thankfully, disaster can be averted. You don't even have to get up off the bench, just put out your arm and scoop up the child.

  But you don't. You watch as the little boy falls onto the tracks and is pulverised by 185 tonnes of metal.

  My question. What responsibility do you bear for the child's death?
• 

  cofty

  I know it's a thought experiment but I would need to know if the person had any reason for failing to act to save the child's life.

  If there is no sensible reason (I was distracted and it was too late when I realised what was happening for example) I would say the person bears a weighty moral responsibility - probably no legal liability though.
• 

  nicolaou

  There's no reason for inaction Cofty. Acting to prevent the child's death would incur no penalty or injury to you.

  And I understand what you say about legal liability but put that to one side, it's just the moral responsibility I'm interested in.
• 

  stan livedeath

  and the child's parent? All too often i see young mothers engrossed in their phone conversation oblivious to what their kids up to. The sperm donor is long gone.
• 

  slimboyfat

  There's no reason for inaction

  This is assuming the conclusion you’re driving at. We don’t know there is “no reason” why God allows things to happen. There might be a reason, there might not be a reason. We are not in a position to say with certainty.
• 

  nicolaou

  Stan, I'm not ignoring parental responsibility, guilt can lay with several individuals all at once, it's the inaction of the observer I'm asking about.

  Whether anyone else has failed to care or not would you be guilty if you'd failed to act?

  Slim', you have of course seen where I'm going with this so c'mon, give me a good reason for God's failure to act?
• 

  cofty

  There's no reason for inaction Cofty. Acting to prevent the child's death would incur no penalty or injury to you.

  Then there is no possible excuse and the person is morally responsible for a child's death.

  I assume you are drawing a parallel with god's abject failure to prevent suffering?
• 

  nicolaou

  You assume correctly.
• 

  nicolaou

  Cofty: Then there is no possible excuse and the person is morally responsible for a child's death.

  I agree. That's the only conclusion I can arrive at.
• 

  cofty

  Consider that Jesus revealed that his Father is love and he both taught what that love means and demonstrated it by example. The love of god, that his followers are to imitate, is to be shown in practical actions to the benefit of others.

  Except that reality shows the exact opposite.

  It is not so much that evil proves there can be no god - it shows that the god revealed in Jesus cannot exist. The central narrative of Christianity is impossible.