I got 20% Let's see if I can bullshit my way out of these.
"You agreed that:
There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God
And also that:
To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible
These two beliefs together generate what is known as 'The Problem of Evil'. The problem is simple: if God is all-powerful, loving and good, that means he can do what he wants and will do what is morally right. But surely this means that he would not allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly, as he could easily prevent it. Yet he does. Much infant suffering is the result of human action, but much is also due to natural causes, such as disease, flood or famine. In both cases, God could stop it, yet he does not."
I agreed that the second act is morally reprehensible in the case of human morality. You can't ascribe human morality to God. He's got bigger things going on in His head. Let's say hypothetically that He could alleviate that innocent child's suffering, but doing so would put that child in a position where he would likely go to Hell. In that sense, alleviating that child's suffering is immoral. One could argue semantics day and night, but my basic response to this is that God is above human morality because our Earthly suffering is minute compared to the kinds of things He has to worry about.
"You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead"
For me this was an issue of semantics. In general, the second one is a good rule, but it's not an absolute rule. One has to, within the context of their own situation, decide if it's important to take the train or whatever or not. There are cases where one simply needs to drive, even if it is not, within a certain context, "necessary". For example, perhaps the subway is available to someone for transportation, but the station is in a bad part of the neighborhood and one's safety is in danger when they use it. The option is available, but no one would call it immoral for the person to value their safety enough to take the car.
"You agreed that:
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form
These two beliefs are not strictly contradictory, but they do present an awkward mix of world-views. On the one hand, there is an acceptance that our consciousness and sense of self is in some way dependent on brain activity, and this is why brain damage can in a real sense damage 'the self'. Yet there is also the belief that the self is somehow independent of the body, that it can live on after the death of the brain. So it seems consciousness and selfhood both is and is not dependent on having a healthy brain. One could argue that the dependency of the self on brain only occurs before bodily death. The deeper problem is not that it is impossible to reconcile the two beliefs, but rather that they seem to presume wider, contradictory world-views: one where consciousness is caused by brains and one where it is caused by something non-physical."
I view consciousness and self as non-physical aspects of the person, tied to their soul, not their mind or body. That said, we inhabit a body, and so long as we do we use our mind to understand that consciousness and self. Without it, we can no longer possess them in a full sense. Once we no longer have a body and exist as pure spirit, we will no longer require a brain to act as a filter between body and soul.
take that test!
