"IT'S HYPOTHETICAL", What you would be morally is what you are like as a person

The hypothetical and thought experimentation is good for testing if our moral mores are as good or as true or as valid as they say they are or as we say they are.


The hypothetical is not a mere thought experiment. It impacts on the kind of person you want to be. If you would kill for money that may be hypothetical but it does not make you any better as a person. It makes you bad. The hypothetical shows what you are in your heart. It shows the kind of person you are underneath it all.  It shows what you would do if the hypothetical became reality.


It shows that the alleged link between God and the validity/objectivity of morality is a lie.  "If hypothetically it were moral to drop God entirely and just have morality, I should drop God."  And the argument that God and morality go together amounts to, "Good is God and God is good.  So evil is the absence of God.  Therefore God is good for he does not make evil.  He is the light that exposes it."  This incoherent mess overlooks that a person cannot be good any more than they can be 1 plus 1 is 2.  Good is not a thing.  The argument by calling it a thing is absurd.


There is more.

A baby suffers horrendously and there is nothing anybody can do except God.  Imagine you were forced to choose between two things.

1  Do you say the suffering should not happen? This choice leaves God out.

2  Do you say it should when God lets it happen and that God knows best? This choice is about God.

That you are not forced is not the point. We are talking about what you would do IF YOU WERE and what this "would" says about you.

It is inhuman to say the child should suffer so that you may have faith in God. God is not faith. Faith is about you even if there is a God.


Many people blame God for suffering children.  What if blaming God was good for us?  What if it motivated us best to help suffering?  Clearly then it would be good to blame God and condemn him!  But God goes with the idea that even then it is wrong to blame God even if we suspect he should be blamed.  Belief in God goes with the notion that I should sacrifice the happiness of others for him. 


Suppose you choosing either


1  to take the side of the baby's wellbeing and not God


2 or to honour God by saying he knows what he is doing.


Pretend that making you choose one or the other is not forcing.  It is but this is hypothetical.  Again it is clearly horrible to prefer a creator who is not suffering and does not suffer over a vulnerable baby.  What if you were choosing between a man who steals from gardens and a baby that has never done any wrong?  It would be terrible to chose the man over the baby.




The hypothetical may be hypothetical but it still shows us what kind of people we are. If hypothetically a foetus only a few weeks old had to be aborted now to save the mother from a cruel or even fatal disease what then? Surely you would see how evil it is to argue that all life is sacred and the foetus cannot be touched!  Christianity makes a grown woman equal to something that can barely be seen and that is insane or evil depending on your perspective!


Chimps have nearly all our DNA. It is 99%.  A woman is pregnant and so is a chimp.  What if abortion was needed or either of them wanted one?  Surely then a chimp foetus that is a month older than the human would should take preeminence if there has to be a choice?




An army unit is strictly expected to act as a unit. No private is allowed to sacrifice himself even for the rest for that risks acting without knowing for sure if there was an alternative. It is one failing to act for the whole unit.

Private Jones finds a bomb is planted in the camp. Rather than risk the whole unit he grabs it and leaps as far as he can away from the camp and it explodes. He loses his legs.

He is not acting above the call of duty for he has broken his duty.

He did not sacrifice his legs for the group for the bomb was going to detonate and perhaps kill him and the others.

If he dies he did not sacrifice his life if he was going to die anyway.

Jones is not entitled to any honours. The honours he gets would be mere lies. A honour has to be sincere and real or it is not an honour.


The lesson is that maybe all the sacrifices that impress us are not sacrifices but show us how fake we in fact are.




If a gang goes about killing people at random should we say that if they get caught then giving them a prison sentence however light is unjust?

Why would we say that?

If Nolan is its leader then how can he go to jail for they were responsible for obeying his order to kill?


We will tend to blame Nolan the way we would Hitler despite knowing that people like that are not on their own but only figureheads of a killing machine, speakers for and representatives of a bad group.

How can you justify making his sentence heavier when he killed nobody personally?

You may say his gang were not thinking for themselves and he was doing it for them. That is infantalising them. They still chose to let him do the thinking.

How do you decide how much accountability each participant has and how do you apply fair treatment to them?


Plus they will be handled by a lying justice system. Being punished by the corrupt will only make their bad side more ingrained.


It is very serious if we are saying love and justice and respect are valid when we can only make educated guesses about how to handle very harmful people.




Men decide to have one last feast on a ship that is adrift on the ocean and there is no chance of being found. They will all be dead soon. They have amazing delicacies. A woman lost at sea finds the ship and clings to it. She cannot climb on. Do they help her aboard and give her some of the food? Or do they just leave her and thus keep the food for themselves telling themselves that it is not their fault she needs help and they are all going to die anyway? They can say the food is theirs.  If morality is not as loving as it is portrayed as for real solid love is based in truth and morality is full of lies and assumptions then you cannot argue that their "morality" is any worse than yours.

No Copyright