Unlimited children; If a moral [when practiced by all] makes bad things happen, is it an evil moral?

[Amorphos]

Unlimited children; If a moral [when practiced by all] makes bad things happen, is it an evil moral?

The other night I was watching ‘the other side’ [a religious debate show], and on it a jewish chap mentioned that he had 15 children, and that there is nothing wrong with it because god wants us to have as many children as we can.

If we all had 15 kids, then the world population would go up 7.5 times I.e. from 6 billion [6,790,062,216] to 45 billion in a single generation!
...Then in the following generation; 337.5 billion! etc, etc.

Estimates according to current trends…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates

Now someone correct me if I am wrong, but the world simply cannot sustain that kind of population. If we all went by that moral and were peaceful etc [also abrahamic philosophy], there would be somewhere near 45 billion people all using up the earths resources and increasing pollution, there would eventually be mass starvation and civilisation would fall to its knees.

1. Maybe you disagree with some of the particulars here, but the basic idea is that we should be responsible in the amount of children we have [like most people are]. People should not have exhaustive amounts of children for ulterior motives be it religion or to get more benefits ~ or any other reason.

2. If a moral denotes such an expansion of the population then that moral is plainly WRONG!

I just wanted to point out no’s 2 because religious people always think they are right and that their religion is according to gods word. So I ask if gods word leads to evil, is that really an ethic a wise god would teach?

[Monarchist]

This is assuming that deeply religious people have babies because they believe that God wants them to "be fruitful and multiply". If that is the case in this theoretical situation, then the events on Earth wouldn't matter; everyone would be too focused on the next life. It's not technically immoral to let people starve as long as they are baptised (Christian) or circumsized (Jewish). After that, and if they keep strong in the faith they were christened into, they'd be more worried with getting to Heaven than saving lives on Earth.

Irony.

[Sir Winston Churchill]

Oh that's just, as a brit chap would put it, poppycock. Yes, God wants us to have children, he loves children, children (usually) make you responsible... but then people like this guy go all-out and interpret it word-for-word and take it to mean they should have as many children as possible.

This is both illogical on the religious and just plain basic concepts. There is no way you can have that many children and not have problems within and out of the family. Not to mention the costs most sky-rocket. This isn't good for anyone. I mean look at the Octo-mom! If we were to interpret as this man has, shouldn't she be a saint of fertility?

No, N, o, No. This man is a little wonkers. I don't think this means it's an evil moral, children are the light of the world, I just think it's a misinterpreted and therefore malpracticed moral.

[Amorphos]

if they keep strong in the faith they were christened into, they'd be more worried with getting to Heaven than saving lives on Earth.

Yet the moral leads to a great human catastrophe irrespective of other factors, so the moral is wrong.

Its probably self contradicting too, as such an even would not be very goof for the earth, all animals would be eaten and the earth would be worn out by overuse trying to feed such populations.
____________

No, N, o, No. This man is a little wonkers. I don't think this means it's an evil moral, children are the light of the world, I just think it's a misinterpreted and therefore malpracticed moral

many people follow it, albeit to a lesser degree e.g. 7-8 children. the moral remains evil.

[Monarchist]

Yet the moral leads to a great human catastrophe irrespective of other factors, so the moral is wrong.

I don't see how it leads to a catastrophe. If all the children got into Heaven, their bodies wouldn't mean anything. It's the final condition of the soul which worries religious people; sure, we want to limit suffering while on Earth, but the prime goal is what comes after. A world population explosion of 345 billion people, all born to God-fearing parents, would ensure that everyone starves to death and goes to Heaven. Don't you want people to go to Heaven, you meanie?

[Arch-hereticK]

I don't see how it leads to a catastrophe. If all the children got into Heaven, their bodies wouldn't mean anything. It's the final condition of the soul which worries religious people; sure, we want to limit suffering while on Earth, but the prime goal is what comes after. A world population explosion of 345 billion people, all born to God-fearing parents, would ensure that everyone starves to death and goes to Heaven. Don't you want people to go to Heaven, you meanie?

But then everyone will starve in heaven, when will it end?

[Amorphos]

A world population explosion of 345 billion people, all born to God-fearing parents, would ensure that everyone starves to death and goes to Heaven. Don't you want people to go to Heaven, you meanie?

Yes I want a ‘continuing’ amount of people to go to heaven. …and I dnt want a world for our children that has no animals and all land has been converted to arable, and is destined for destruction. I just don’t want that amount of people in the world, it would be horrible.

the ethic is still wrong.

[Monarchist]

Yes I want a ‘continuing’ amount of people to go to heaven. …and I dnt want a world for our children that has no animals and all land has been converted to arable, and is destined for destruction. I just don’t want that amount of people in the world, it would be horrible.

the ethic is still wrong.

You silly person! I'd rather that everyone dies and goes to Heaven than feed everyone on Earth. My point is that feeding people isn't necessary when they've become religious.

But then everyone will starve in heaven, when will it end?

Our physical bodies don't exist in Heaven, my friend.

[Amorphos]

not making sense.

[Monarchist]

not making sense.

Why not? If everyone is dead and in Heaven, we don't need to feed them. Isn't it as simple as that? Everyone living in Salvation = no one needs to be fed, because their souls have left the body. It surely isn't a very popular way of treating human affairs, but... well, but nothing.

To make myself absolutely clear: I just want everyone to die and go to Heaven. Now!

[Denny Crane!]

For something to be moral it has to be testable not just dictated so clearly this isn't moral.

[Arch-hereticK]

Our physical bodies don't exist in Heaven, my friend.

Oh yeah, it's the other part of us that exists in heaven.

[Amorphos]

If everyone is dead and in Heaven, we don't need to feed them. Isn't it as simple as that?

It makes no difference to the ethic as it is one which only effects us on earth, equally the ethic demands that we create more souls for god, a cessation of human existence denies this.

To make myself absolutely clear: I just want everyone to die and go to Heaven. Now!

And you grandchildren, and their grandchildren?
__________________

For something to be moral it has to be testable not just dictated so clearly this isn't moral.

Its simple math and limits.

[Denny Crane!]

Quez what are you saying constitutes a moral?

[Taiji]

God needs to send another prophet quick!

(I agree with the OP)

[Monarchist]

It makes no difference to the ethic as it is one which only effects us on earth, equally the ethic demands that we create more souls for god, a cessation of human existence denies this.

And you grandchildren, and their grandchildren?

Don't you see my point? In this, I don't want there to be anymore grandchildren or great-grandchildren. Literally everybody will be dead. It's called apocalypse.

[Amorphos]

Quez what are you saying constitutes a moral?

same as dictionary;
> adjective: concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles

____________

God needs to send another prophet quick!

___________

Don't you see my point? In this, I don't want there to be anymore grandchildren or great-grandchildren. Literally everybody will be dead. It's called apocalypse.

Yes but the moral stands for this world, if the apocalypse really occurs and it doesn’t refer to an unveiling [?_!!!], and there is a heaven, then your point still fails in that heaven would no longer receive any souls. Hence the moral of giving unto god more souls is contradicted by the apocalypse!

don’t you see that none of this matters! The moral stands by itself, you cannot refute it with other ethics which give an escape clause, because for a start they don’t, and also they don’t deny the ethic for what it says it literally is.

[Denny Crane!]

If there is to be a morality that can be accepted as anything but relative and thus meaningless there has to be some kind of objectivity relating to either a deity or a universal standard that is testable and objective.

[Amorphos]

If there is to be a morality that can be accepted as anything but relative and thus meaningless there has to be some kind of objectivity relating to either a deity or a universal standard that is testable and objective.

Its not relative if it is simple math, the universal standard is that if the moral is applied universally, it breaks itself and or causes ‘evil’ suffering etc in the world ~ which it demonstratably does.

[Denny Crane!]

Its not relative if it is simple math, the universal standard is that if the moral is applied universally, it breaks itself and or causes ‘evil’ suffering etc in the world ~ which it demonstratably does.

Then it is neccessarily immoral yes I would agree.