I always jest with my circle of friends that hypothetical problems require hypothetical resolutions. But allow me this time to go out from that norm and take this bull by the horns. Personally, I can relate with the neighbor as I had been victim of my friends "ethical justifications" to save their butts first.

I can understand that they'd taken Judas' way considering the mouths they have to feed. As a matter of fact, given a similar situation, I would likely to follow their path. Yet something in me rebel. My safety, my work, my presence, my relevance, all these may be significant in bringing "more life" to my family and relatives that would ensure their bright future. But I doubt that because I took the decision to step on my neighbor so that my family would live life fully is a moral one. Such is graver than feeding them with something that comes from immoral source.

The Christian teaching remains relevant though: To give up one's life that others may live--including my family's and relatives'.

So I won't sign the paper, my mind and heart tell me. I'll just pray that God grants me the courage to accept the verdict afterward.

Quote:

Reality may display itself in a way we might not desire.

Quote:

This seems to be the rule rather than the exception.

God has nothing to do with this. If he gave you courage, he would grant you salvation from this predicament. Courage comes from man and we all would like to think we have the courage to do the right thing. Reality may display itself in a way we might not desire.

God has nothing to do with this.

To acknowledge there is a god, i believe would entail he has something to do with everything? That would be the exception with sin, so courage is a sin?

God has nothing to do with this. If he gave you courage, he would grant you salvation from this predicament.

seems to me you did......

In any debate that asks questions about a proposed god the agnostic has to approach the debate with idea that he answers the questions posed as if the description of this god is wrong or right. You must understand, if the description is correct then the god exists. In my opinion there is no description of the creator, we can not comprehend its existance.

What's your moral duty?

Do you sign the paper or do you refuse to sign it?

If you sign it, can you justify your choice as the ethically right thing to do?

How so?

In my humble opinion, any debate between a believer and an agnostic would entail a lot of "dying" and "bloodshed" or to put it in my cultural context, a lot of "bottle of beers to carouse".

Be that as it may, pure logic or pure science for that matter, (although they would complement with) would never meet with faith. For it is only with faith that we can "grasp" the existence of the divine; without our leaping from the realm of pure logic and pure science into the chasm of the unknown, we will never be able to apprehend clues of God's existence.

While man wants to be superman, logic and science keep on knocking him down into his finiteness. With faith, man is "a little less than a god", an "adopted son" of God, Father and Creator of all things both seen and unseen. It may be a humbling experience for us to admit that we can't change reality when it displays itself in a manner we don't like. Yet with faith, a courage and a resolve once undiscovered and untapped awaken us to move mountains. We've done it during the repressive years of dictators and martial law. We were conditioned that we're a weak people with a corrupted culture and yet by our sheer faith, arms with flowers and rosaries, we braved the storms and faced an army in full battle gear.

So going back to that dilemma; still, I would refuse to sign the paper, and having considered the likely consequences, I would pray to God that I would always remember despite the threat, the pain and torture that it is in my nature to be courageous to do the right thing.

The following is a hypothetical situation, and highly unlikely ... but what if it happened? What would you do?

Somewhere in the future a new government takes over the nation in which you are a citizen.

All civil liberties are suspended.

The state secret police are roaming the streets, like mad dogs, ready to pounce on and rip apart anyone who shows any indication of retaliation against the new dictatorship. Malcontents are being rounded up and executed publicly and citizens are being asked to turn in traitors under the penalty of death.

Your neighbour has voiced to you his discontent and vows that he will do all he can to resist this new dictatorship. Agents of the secret police knock on your door, stating that they know your neighbour has voiced his discontent and they need you to sign a paper stating that you overheard your neighbour speaking treason. You know that signing the paper will result in the immediate execution of your neighbour. If you don't sign the police will arrest you and you will be executed instead for refusing to cooperate.

What's your moral duty?

Do you sign the paper or do you refuse to sign it?

If you sign it, can you justify your choice as the ethically right thing to do?

How so?

If not built on the rock of logic it will and can fail. Men walk behind many banners to fight their cause, its the warrior not the banner that decides his worth.

There are very few who would give their lives for their friends. Morality has very little to do with duty.Either choice is immoral.