Atheistic morality

[mrswdk]

Conflict minerals are used in some of the componentry in pretty much every computer and phone out there.

[crispybits]

I'd quite like to know how someone who takes their morals from some ancient religious text would deal with this one:

You are a doctor and the hospital you work in is suddenly overwhelmed by people seeking medical assistance. You fill all the beds and more people keep arriving, so you start using every available bit of usable space to treat as many people as you can. Then the floodwaters start rising and the ground floor of the hospital floods, meaning that you can no longer get any new deliveries of medical supplies. Then the power goes out meaning that you only have enough emergency power to run essential equipment. Then the army arrive, and tell you that the hospital needs to be evacuated because it is not safe for anyone to remain there.

You have limited staff, so you know you can only evacuate a small proportion of the patients. You will have to get them through a mostly flooded area, so moving anyone requiring any sort of machine to keep them healthy in the short term will require more resources to move. You are running dangerously short on all sorts of supplies.

How does the Bible/Koran/Torah/whatever say we should deal with this kind of moral dilemma? Assuming that everyone in the hospital is a devout and genuine follower of the religion of choice, how do you decide which people unable to move themselves will be abandoned in the unsafe hospital and probably die, which will receive the attention of the staff and so have a better chance of survival, which will get the limited supply of medical supplies to aid their survival, which will have to try and get themselves to a safe place without help at all? I'd love to see chapter and verse in any holy book giving instructions for any situation remotely close to that (and please note I'm not looking for the opinions of religious people, I'm looking for the scripture that gives the necessary criteria by which to make these kinds of decisions)

(and before you say that's an extreme example, that situaion was almost exactly what faced the staff in several hospitals in New Orleans in the days after Katrina before the rescue missions really kicked in.)

[shickingbrits]

Maybe if they weren't so busy using the disaster to implement economic policies, such as privatizing the schools and forcing the poor from the city center and sent in relief and aid, then the problem wouldn't have been so tragic.

Why does a nation with so many resources let the people of New Orleans suffer for their own agenda?

[crispybits]

Maybe if your head wasn't so far up your ass, you could actually answer a straight question....

Why does a person who claims access to an absolute moral code let such a simple request for information go unanswered for their own agenda?

[BigBallinStalin]

Maybe if they weren't so busy using the disaster to implement economic policies, such as privatizing the schools and forcing the poor from the city center and sent in relief and aid, then the problem wouldn't have been so tragic.

Why does a nation with so many resources let the people of New Orleans suffer for their own agenda?

The charter program, what some people mistakenly call 'privatiziation', started after the crisis. In one sense, the hurricane was a good thing because it provided the city a new means of better educating people--including the poor.

The decision to cram people into the Superdome was a political decision, and their means of control was unsurprisingly counter-productive. The decision to run too many canals through the southern coast was also a political decision which enabled the few market entities to dig those canals. The ongoing oversight and design of the levees was conducted by an unaccountable and inherently incompetent political organization.

The continual reluctance to understand historical facts and how the entanglement of markets and government organizations can result in crummy outcomes is a decision made by morons, who probably drank too much fluoride during their childhood.

[shickingbrits]

Don't give everything to the devil and expect something in return. That's a straight answer.

Create a society that is based on helping people and you might get help. Create one that is motivated by profit and business gets help while the unfortunate suffer.

You have given your government the power to do these things, don't get mad at me for pointing it out.

[dwilhelmi]

It is a demonstrably false statement, it would seem, that atheists are incapable of moral behavior. There are plenty of atheists who are good people and do good things. Furthermore, as a Christian, I do not solely get my morality from the Bible - were I to turn my back on my faith, I would in no way suddenly revert to baby killing. I believe everyone has an internal moral compass, not that an individual person only gets their morality from belief in God.

However, when used properly, that is not what is claimed by the morality argument for God. That argument simply points out that "right" and "wrong" as universal values can not exist if there is no divine being. You can still act in ways that you personally find right or wrong, or in ways that the society that you are in find right or wrong, but it would be nonsensical to look at another society and claim that they were doing something wrong. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a nonsensical document under an atheistic worldview, because there is no source for those human rights rather than consensual agreement.

To go back to the ol' Hitler example, it would make no sense to say that our society is better than the Nazi society, unless you had some objective measuring stick separate from society to compare the two with. The most you can realistically do, from an atheistic worldview, is claim that you personally find our society preferable to the Nazi society.


The moralistic argument is simply stating that if you feel, as I do, that right and wrong are real things, independent of personal preference and society, then that is good evidence that some form of deity exists. It has nothing to do with how you personally choose to act.

Well argued.Can I ask why you think right and wrong are 'real things' and what that even means?It seems to me that even if they are personal or societal preferences they are still real ie they exist.

Thanks! When I say right and wrong are real things, I mean that they exist as something separate from personal or societal preferences. In other words, right and wrong are their own concepts that exist in their own right, separate from these other concepts of personal preference. I believe, for example, that killing someone solely for the fun of it is wrong, even if every person in a society, or even if every person in every society, feels that it is OK.

As for why I believe this, I can only point to anecdotal evidence. For example, when we are given the chance to look in on societies like that in movies or books, such as 1984 (mind control, invasion of privacy, etc) or planet of the apes (apes killing humans freely), we are able to agree that the behavior in question is wrong despite the fact that the people in question and the societies they live in say otherwise. Likewise, for a more real example, we can all say that the Nazi society and the people in it were wrong, despite the fact that the Nazis and their society both claim otherwise. Sorry to go back to the Nazis again, but they just make for such a perfect example!

[crispybits]

It's not my government. I am not a citizen of the US, nor have I ever had any opportunity beyond discussions on forums such as this to have any influence whatsoever over the American political system.

Yet if I had qualified as a doctor and moved over there just before Katrina, I could have faced this dilemma within days of arriving in the country. Where is the guidance within scripture for how I act?

You have stated that:

On a Christian chart, you will not find a person who may be classified as both Christian and immoral if they are adhering to the tenets of Christianity.

So, what tenet of christianity even remotely engages the moral dilemma I posted and gives the doctor proper guidance on how to solve it? What verse of scripture nominates which people should be left to die, which should be left without assistance, which should be left without adequate supplies, and which should be granted either supplies or assistance or transportation? You have 100 patients and you have to choose 25 of them to leave to die - how do you choose?

[dwilhelmi]

I'd quite like to know how someone who takes their morals from some ancient religious text would deal with this one:

You are a doctor and the hospital you work in is suddenly overwhelmed by people seeking medical assistance. You fill all the beds and more people keep arriving, so you start using every available bit of usable space to treat as many people as you can. Then the floodwaters start rising and the ground floor of the hospital floods, meaning that you can no longer get any new deliveries of medical supplies. Then the power goes out meaning that you only have enough emergency power to run essential equipment. Then the army arrive, and tell you that the hospital needs to be evacuated because it is not safe for anyone to remain there.

You have limited staff, so you know you can only evacuate a small proportion of the patients. You will have to get them through a mostly flooded area, so moving anyone requiring any sort of machine to keep them healthy in the short term will require more resources to move. You are running dangerously short on all sorts of supplies.

How does the Bible/Koran/Torah/whatever say we should deal with this kind of moral dilemma? Assuming that everyone in the hospital is a devout and genuine follower of the religion of choice, how do you decide which people unable to move themselves will be abandoned in the unsafe hospital and probably die, which will receive the attention of the staff and so have a better chance of survival, which will get the limited supply of medical supplies to aid their survival, which will have to try and get themselves to a safe place without help at all? I'd love to see chapter and verse in any holy book giving instructions for any situation remotely close to that (and please note I'm not looking for the opinions of religious people, I'm looking for the scripture that gives the necessary criteria by which to make these kinds of decisions)

(and before you say that's an extreme example, that situaion was almost exactly what faced the staff in several hospitals in New Orleans in the days after Katrina before the rescue missions really kicked in.)

I think it is quite silly to say that any book can deal with every possible moral scenario that might come up. Such a book would have to be infinitely large! Have you actually met someone who claimed that their holy book had a specific answer to every possible moral dilemma?

To answer your specific question, no, the Bible does not specifically call out how to handle the moral situations faced by the staff of hospitals after Katrina. That would be because the Bible is not the source of morality, but rather a nice guideline (morally speaking) to help us along the way. The source of morality is God - belief in Him doesn't enter the question.

[crispybits]

Thanks! When I say right and wrong are real things, I mean that they exist as something separate from personal or societal preferences. In other words, right and wrong are their own concepts that exist in their own right, separate from these other concepts of personal preference. I believe, for example, that killing someone solely for the fun of it is wrong, even if every person in a society, or even if every person in every society, feels that it is OK.

As for why I believe this, I can only point to anecdotal evidence. For example, when we are given the chance to look in on societies like that in movies or books, such as 1984 (mind control, invasion of privacy, etc) or planet of the apes (apes killing humans freely), we are able to agree that the behavior in question is wrong despite the fact that the people in question and the societies they live in say otherwise. Likewise, for a more real example, we can all say that the Nazi society and the people in it were wrong, despite the fact that the Nazis and their society both claim otherwise. Sorry to go back to the Nazis again, but they just make for such a perfect example!

There's a really easy way round this though without needing any god figures. And it also fits with our basic instincts about right and wrong.

The most moral society is one which has the characteristics of having been designed by rational people who have no knowledge of the position they will fill within that society.

So, to use the Nazi analogy because it is an easy one - we can see that the Nazi system is immoral because it is not one you would design if you knew you were then going to be placed into it but you didn't know if you would be an Aryan-blooded German or a Polish Jew.

It applies to the "killing for fun" example too. Would a rational person design a moral system where people can be killed for fun if they did not know if they would be the killer or the victim, or would they design a system where killing for fun is prohibited?

Slavery? Well if you didn't know if you would be a slave or a slave owner you probably wouldn't think that was a good idea right? Rape? Rapist or victim? Theft? Thief or victim? etc etc.

It's basically the golden rule, but applied to the rules of society as a whole and ruling out all preconceptions of current status. I have yet to see anyone make a convincing argument that would lead to something immoral being written into the rules of a society if this principle were to be followed.

[crispybits]

I think it is quite silly to say that any book can deal with every possible moral scenario that might come up. Such a book would have to be infinitely large! Have you actually met someone who claimed that their holy book had a specific answer to every possible moral dilemma?

To answer your specific question, no, the Bible does not specifically call out how to handle the moral situations faced by the staff of hospitals after Katrina. That would be because the Bible is not the source of morality, but rather a nice guideline (morally speaking) to help us along the way. The source of morality is God - belief in Him doesn't enter the question.

So what you're saying then is that religious people must use their own moral judgement to deal with real world situations?

See, the criticism of "atheist morality" (which doesn't exist any more than "atheist mathematics" exists btw) is that there is no grounding for moral claims without some objective moral standard. Everything is relative and subjective. But if you need to use your own judgement as a religious person, based on some innate sense of right and wrong, and I use my own judgement as a non-religious person, based on my innate sense of right and wrong, then aren't we doing the same thing?

[dwilhelmi]

Thanks! When I say right and wrong are real things, I mean that they exist as something separate from personal or societal preferences. In other words, right and wrong are their own concepts that exist in their own right, separate from these other concepts of personal preference. I believe, for example, that killing someone solely for the fun of it is wrong, even if every person in a society, or even if every person in every society, feels that it is OK.

As for why I believe this, I can only point to anecdotal evidence. For example, when we are given the chance to look in on societies like that in movies or books, such as 1984 (mind control, invasion of privacy, etc) or planet of the apes (apes killing humans freely), we are able to agree that the behavior in question is wrong despite the fact that the people in question and the societies they live in say otherwise. Likewise, for a more real example, we can all say that the Nazi society and the people in it were wrong, despite the fact that the Nazis and their society both claim otherwise. Sorry to go back to the Nazis again, but they just make for such a perfect example!

There's a really easy way round this though without needing any god figures. And it also fits with our basic instincts about right and wrong.

The most moral society is one which has the characteristics of having been designed by rational people who have no knowledge of the position they will fill within that society.

So, to use the Nazi analogy because it is an easy one - we can see that the Nazi system is immoral because it is not one you would design if you knew you were then going to be placed into it but you didn't know if you would be an Aryan-blooded German or a Polish Jew.

It applies to the "killing for fun" example too. Would a rational person design a moral system where people can be killed for fun if they did not know if they would be the killer or the victim, or would they design a system where killing for fun is prohibited?

Slavery? Well if you didn't know if you would be a slave or a slave owner you probably wouldn't think that was a good idea right? Rape? Rapist or victim? Theft? Thief or victim? etc etc.

It's basically the golden rule, but applied to the rules of society as a whole and ruling out all preconceptions of current status. I have yet to see anyone make a convincing argument that would lead to something immoral being written into the rules of a society if this principle were to be followed.

The problem is, though, that you have no basis for that claim, any reason why such a society is the most moral society. I agree that the proposed rubric would seem pretty effective, but it is still arbitrary. In other words, it still comes down to your preference - you would prefer such a society, but on what grounds can that viewpoint be applied to others? What right do you have to punish the Nazis for killing the Jews, if they have a preference different from your own?

Furthermore, the rule wouldn't always work. For example, if you were to talk to a Nazi who was very extremist, he might in fact say that it would still be right for Aryan-blooded Germans to kill Polish Jew, even if they were to be born a Polish Jew. Some people believe in their cause so much that it goes beyond their own comfort or even their own lives. So if that were the case, by your rubric, said Nazi would be morally in the right, wouldn't he? You could perhaps make the claim that said person is not rational, but then you must come up with some objective measuring stick of rationality. And again, what if someone disagrees with you on what is rational? Who gets to be the judge?

[dwilhelmi]

I think it is quite silly to say that any book can deal with every possible moral scenario that might come up. Such a book would have to be infinitely large! Have you actually met someone who claimed that their holy book had a specific answer to every possible moral dilemma?

To answer your specific question, no, the Bible does not specifically call out how to handle the moral situations faced by the staff of hospitals after Katrina. That would be because the Bible is not the source of morality, but rather a nice guideline (morally speaking) to help us along the way. The source of morality is God - belief in Him doesn't enter the question.

So what you're saying then is that religious people must use their own moral judgement to deal with real world situations?

See, the criticism of "atheist morality" (which doesn't exist any more than "atheist mathematics" exists btw) is that there is no grounding for moral claims without some objective moral standard. Everything is relative and subjective. But if you need to use your own judgement as a religious person, based on some innate sense of right and wrong, and I use my own judgement as a non-religious person, based on my innate sense of right and wrong, then aren't we doing the same thing?

Yes! Absolutely! That is the misconception of the argument of morality that so many people veer off on. Christians and atheists alike can act in moral ways. The question boils down to how morals exist at all.

The thing is, I agree there must be some objective moral standard, otherwise everything is relative and subjective and discussions of "morality" are pointless. I think the misunderstanding here, though, is what that objective moral standard is - it is not the Bible. Rather, it is God Himself. Furthermore, belief in God is not required for us to know if something is right or wrong - however, I think it can be argued that existence of God is required in order for right and wrong to make any sense.

I think we all have a sense, some intuitive understanding, of that objective moral standard. That is why we can rationally agree that our society is better than the society of Nazi Germany - we understand inside us, we just know, that their society was wrong and ours is better. We also still intuitively know that our society is not perfect, that it can still improve. That sort of measurement implies that there must be some sort of standard for what makes a society "good".

[crispybits]

You're applying preconceptions already though.

You have to remember that the person knows nothing about their place in society. So it's not "I am a Nazi, therefore no matter where I come out in that society I will always believe in Naziism." It's "do I want a society where one group of people are allowed to kill another group of people based on religious/philosophical ideas about superiority/purity of bloodline?"

You don't know where you'll come out, so the Nazi in your example wouldn't know if it was Aryan-blooded Germans allowed to kill Polish Jews, or Polish Jews are allowed to kill Aryan-blooded Germans.

And if such a person said that they valued purity of bloodline to such an extent that they think the pure bloodline should be allowed to kill all the other bloodlines regardless of which bloodline turns out to be "pure", then they would have to give a rational description of how we determine which bloodline is pure (and remember, no referencing elements of society/culture/geography/religion, they are only allowed to make general statements). How do you describe a "pure" bloodline if you can't reference any of the differences between any given groups of people?

I agree by the way that objective moral truths exist, in much the same way that objective mathematical truths exist (i.e. as concepts that describe the nature of reality) but I think there's a gap in your reasoning somewhere between "objective moral standards exist" and "therefore God exists". Can you elaborate on that bit in particular and show me how you get from the first to the second?

[mrswdk]

we understand inside us, we just know, that their society was wrong and ours is better.

So your benchmark for morality is 'I get a funny feeling in my stomach'?

Both of you seem to have confused 'what I want' with 'how things ought to be'.

[mrswdk]

I agree by the way that objective moral truths exist, in much the same way that objective mathematical truths exist (i.e. as concepts that describe the nature of reality

Except fields such as mathematics, physics and chemistry are studies of the physical world around us, whereas morality is not. Morality is different from rocks or bridges in that it does not exist outside of the human mind.

[BigBallinStalin]

You're applying preconceptions already though.

You have to remember that the person knows nothing about their place in society. So it's not "I am a Nazi, therefore no matter where I come out in that society I will always believe in Naziism." It's "do I want a society where one group of people are allowed to kill another group of people based on religious/philosophical ideas about superiority/purity of bloodline?"

You don't know where you'll come out, so the Nazi in your example wouldn't know if it was Aryan-blooded Germans allowed to kill Polish Jews, or Polish Jews are allowed to kill Aryan-blooded Germans.

And if such a person said that they valued purity of bloodline to such an extent that they think the pure bloodline should be allowed to kill all the other bloodlines regardless of which bloodline turns out to be "pure", then they would have to give a rational description of how we determine which bloodline is pure (and remember, no referencing elements of society/culture/geography/religion, they are only allowed to make general statements). How do you describe a "pure" bloodline if you can't reference any of the differences between any given groups of people?

I agree by the way that objective moral truths exist, in much the same way that objective mathematical truths exist (i.e. as concepts that describe the nature of reality) but I think there's a gap in your reasoning somewhere between "objective moral standards exist" and "therefore God exists". Can you elaborate on that bit in particular and show me how you get from the first to the second?

Are y'all relying on the 'veil of ignorance' approach?

[BigBallinStalin]

I agree by the way that objective moral truths exist, in much the same way that objective mathematical truths exist (i.e. as concepts that describe the nature of reality

Except fields such as mathematics, physics and chemistry are studies of the physical world around us, whereas morality is not. Morality is different from rocks or bridges in that it does not exist outside of the human mind.

Does metaphysics exist within the mind or outside the mind? What does it mean for an idea to exist "outside the mind"?

[crispybits]

I agree by the way that objective moral truths exist, in much the same way that objective mathematical truths exist (i.e. as concepts that describe the nature of reality

Except fields such as mathematics, physics and chemistry are studies of the physical world around us, whereas morality is not. Morality is different from rocks or bridges in that it does not exist outside of the human mind.

I was very careful to choose maths and not physics or chemistry, because maths is different. Logical truths also exist in the same way that moral truths do imo. Are you starting to see the distinction yet? You can't go and catch the number 7 actually existing, just as you can't go and find me a particle of the law of non-contradiction, and you'll never be able to be able to show me a waveform of good or evil.

It's like the difference between the rules of how chess pieces move about a board and the strategies by which you play skillful chess.

[crispybits]

Are y'all relying on the 'veil of ignorance' approach?

Why not?

I think I've presented it as somewhat simplified, because I don't think that the veil can really design some utopian society in which the moral choices are always clear to every agent, however I think it does stand as a first principle by which we can base moral decisions (which is why I said it blurs in with the golden rule) and judge proposed systems of society or actions against something objective. I agree that it is arbitrary, we just have to accept the assumption that our best reasoning will produce our best possible society, however I think that arbitrariness at this meta-level is something it shares with all moral systems and is not a unique criticism. Even arguing that morality is objective because God made it so is arbitrary because of the unprovable assumption that God is a perfect moral agent (and that's before we get into all the other problems you have establishing a basis for that system).

The vast majority of the criticisms are of the kind presented by dwihelmi when he said a person that is a staunch Nazi would still vote for Naziism. But as I said he didn't distil it enough. Naziism (vastly simplified) is the belief that there is a pure bloodline, and that this bloodline is morally correct to do anything it needs to in order to gain control and mastery of society, including elimination of other bloodlines. But once you put the veil on the philosophy becomes meaningless, because you cannot even define what a "pure bloodline" is.

As for the "you're saying what we want, not necessarily what should actually happen". I would argue that the two are inseparable. It is impossible to take an immoral action against a rock. Morality is a bunch of concepts that describe how we should act in our interactions with other conscious beings (including those downstream of us like our great-great-great-great grandchildren), and it is something which I think should be thought of as like the strategies in chess - there are ways in which we can act as individuals and societies which optimise our chances of success (the metric of which I haven't defined because it changes depending on the decision being made behind the veil)

The goal of an objective moral system, imo, isn't about writing a rulebook and saying "this book contains the instructions for how to act morally in every situation", removing the need for moral decisions and resulting in an authoritarian dogma, but to describe a process by which a moral decision may be evaluated in a manner which produces the most moral outcome possible in any given situation.

[shickingbrits]

We are eternal beings. The people in the hospital will never die, whether religious or not. I would say that those most in balance with life should be those that should be let go.

On the other hand, it is a social problem. There is no reason that our society needs to look as it does. Becoming a doctor shouldn't cost $200,000 and being a doctor shouldn't be based on money.

Engineering illness and withholding cures isn't a very good idea either. But all is for profit. Cancer's a business and business is good. When GDP is the measure of a country then attempting to cut GDP by curing cancer is an act of war. Not maximizing the profit off Katrina is an act of war. Therefore when each of your citizens uses 10-14 cancer causing products on their bodies everyday, it is beneficial. Giving student loans to increase the price of education is a good thing, and if doctors were qualified and offered a cheap competitive service, it is a bad thing.

Katrina cannot be taken out of the context in which it was set. It was set in an atmosphere where a crisis is used for profit. We had equipment to help, but we didn't, because the profit wasn't in helping.

The US had many options for providing less dependent energy. ORNL set up thorium energy 50 years ago. What is so special about it? Well the plant that they had required no observation, couldn't meltdown, has an abundant supply of raw material available and is cheap. India is building a thorium plant at the moment. So what happened to ORNL? They are focused on climate change research. Instead of working on a solution (thorium) they are engaged in proving how bad things are going to be because we don't have thorium.

We have the tech, we just don't have the motive to use it. Using raw milk, mushrooms or hemp oil to cure cancer is not justified by GDP. Thorium is a security threat. Hemp is an economic threat.

Treating those patients according to our society means we would treat the most profitable patients at the highest possible rate. There is nothing moral in this before, after or during Katrina. You can't put lipstick on a pig.

Our scarcity is by design. It is not a problem, but a GDP solution imposed by the government for their own purposes based on the "morality" that if we can make them pay, we must make them pay for the good of society. And we should be putting people in a position to make them pay. Well, we paid, so where fore art thou surprised?

[crispybits]

I struggle to see how any of that answers my question except the first line

"I would say that those most in balance with life should be those that should go" (which I assume means that the sickest are left and the healthiest, those with the best chance of surviving the journey to a working hospital, are given all the resources in an effort to maximise their chances of making the journey). But where is this principle in theistic scripture? If you are going to claim that atheists have no basis for morality, then surely theism should give some clear (if generalised) basis for the principle you just applied? If not, then you have to admit that theism has the same fundamental flaws and appeals to it are irrelevant when discussing morality, in the same way that appeals to a physics text book are irrelevant to how to play skillful chess.

Please note that under the "veiled" system I propose as an objective basis for secular morality, I don't even have to define the metrics by which we measure if something is good or bad up front. Part of the process of reasoning, without knowing where in the resulting reality you end up, about whether something is good or bad is to define what good and bad mean in that context. It's not an authority to refer to, but an integral part of the discussion. In the context of the doctor dilemma it's about life and death and limited resources, so moral judgements would be made within that context. Value judgements would be made about if it is preferable to be alive or dead, whether it is better to make every attempt to save everybody or if we should maximise the chances of survival of some at the cost of any tiny hope of survival for others, etc etc. But these values are meaningless if the moral dilemma is "should I tell my friend that his wife cheated on him once ten years ago?"

The rest of your post seems to be saying that "maximising GDP is a flawed value judgement for assessing universal morality" and I would fully agree with that. I haven't ever said that it is a good metric. I haven't said that ANYTHING is a good metric. I've simply proposed a basis for objectively discussing moral value judgements without the need for any god(s). This was the point of the thread was it not? You claim atheists have no basis for moral value judgements - I say you're wrong and here's why. If you want to win this debate, you shouldn't be attacking any individual moral value judgements within examples I make, but showing me where the process I propose would produce incorrect value judgements, or how the process I propose is somehow not possible without an appeal to a theistic authority.

[shickingbrits]

No, I'm not saying those with the best chance of survival should be saved, I'm saying those least likely to reach heaven should be saved.

The idea is quite simple. In accepted scripture, Jesus is seen to be sacrificed for the greater good. Jesus has the highest chance of reaching heaven and therefore he is not sacrificing anything but a mortal coil. If those with the most likely chance of reaching heaven were "sacrificed" there would be the least lost.

There are many examples of this in the works and words of Jesus. Jesus is going forth to make a path for us to follow. Those at the hospital most likely to reach heaven are joining the welcoming committee.

If we go outside of accepted scripture, we see that Jesus set-up his own betrayal. How some people can reject this idea is quite interesting, but that they can reject most of the words and works of Jesus is another story. In this, Jesus is intentionally sacrificing himself so that the rest of us have a greater chance to reach heaven.

Were those in the hospital trying to emulate Jesus, being Christian, then they would follow his example. This is not suggesting that people commit suicide. Life is a gift to be cherished, but not cherished beyond God and other lives. In this a Christian may act towards the greatest good, the most people reaching heaven which is the goal of Christianity.

[crispybits]

Then you didn't read the dilemma properly. I clearly stated:

"Assuming that everyone in the hospital is a devout and genuine follower of the religion of choice"

(or I could similarly say "assume that everyone in the hospital has an identical religious status" - they could all be atheists or christians or muslims or whatever, but religion cannot be used as a deciding factor however you look at it - this is without addressing the problem of how you judge if someone is more or less prepared for heaven - two guys are in comas, neither has any tattoos or came into the hospital carrying any items which identify their religious values)