1518 Live Or Die Choices

If there’s a choice between saving my child or a million people, I would pick my child. The logic being: if there is a god and he thinks those people are worth saving then he’ll save them; and if there isn’t a god then the universe is random and can’t be predicted; I certainly would only be guessing about what would happen to those people, and it would be hubris to act otherwise, hence I’ll make the choice that means the most to me. This justification applies to all the moral dilemmas that propose saving 2 lives rather than 1; you should not act to save any because God will take care of it. The question then becomes are you the tool God was intending to use to save the life? If God only has 1 option, then he’s not much of a god; he can leave you out of it, and you don’t have to be beating yourself up about being responsible one way or the other. In fact, all moral conflicts in life can be solved with this basic premise: you can’t predict the future but God can. This brings up the uncomfortable option that there is no god; that only you can act to save anybody, especially yourself: it’s called free agency. There are no morals if there is no god. The reason someone is a hero for rescuing a life at the risk of his own is because there is no moral obligation to do so. A world without God or morals wouldn’t be much different than the one we have now where half the population wants the other half dead for simply sharing a different opinion than them. It’s certainly not the first time in history something like this has happened, and those wise enough to recognize it came up with the God & morals indoctrination to prevent it.