My problem with such examples is that it seems more like Dark Arts emotional manipulation than actual argument.
What your mind hears is that, if you’re not believing in God, people will come to your house and kill your family—and if you believed in God they wouldn’t do that, because they’d somehow fear the God. I don’t see how is this anything else but an emotional trick.
I understand that sometimes you need to cut out the nuance in morality thought experiments, like equaling taxes to being threatened to be kidnapped, if you don’t regularly pay a racket. But the opposite thing is creating exciting graphic visions. Watching your loved one raped is not as bad as losing a loved one—but it creates a much better psychological effect, targeted to elicit emotional blackmail.
My problem with such examples is that it seems more like Dark Arts emotional manipulation than actual argument. What your mind hears is that, if you’re not believing in God, people will come to your house and kill your family—and if you believed in God they wouldn’t do that, because they’d somehow fear the God. I don’t see how is this anything else but an emotional trick.
I understand that sometimes you need to cut out the nuance in morality thought experiments, like equaling taxes to being threatened to be kidnapped, if you don’t regularly pay a racket. But the opposite thing is creating exciting graphic visions. Watching your loved one raped is not as bad as losing a loved one—but it creates a much better psychological effect, targeted to elicit emotional blackmail.
So, if we were to follow that line of argument, should we not allow philosophy on television? Is it too dangerous for the public to be exposed to? :)