> DOUG had said:
> What nonsense. Xians claim that the bible contains absolute moral
> values, that it is a handbook for moral conduct, etc., and yet the xian
> cannot explain whether or not killing babies is wrong.
>
> RH then said:
> Whether a Christian can explain that killing babies is wrong is not the issue
> here. The issue is whether a non-Christian can explain why killing babies is
> wrong. It appears from your response that you cannot. Can the non-Christian
> world explain why killing babies is wrong?
DOUG says:
There are many views which are non-xian, so you, of course, not being an idiot, cannot expect there to be a single answer as to why killing babies, on the non-xian view, is wrong. Interestingly, I have no doubt but that many xians would disagree with YOUR reason as to why killing babies is wrong, if, indeed, given what one finds in Deuteronomy, Joshua, etc., it can in any way be considered wrong.
In any case, here are some BRIEF responses which various non-xian views would support. (Of course, all of these views are very complex. I suggest that you get an introductory book to ethical theory and study it.)
W.D. Ross's Intuitionism:
People can just search their intuitions about right and wrong. Sometimes these intuitions conflict. Where it seems that, with regard to a particular act, one has no doubt but that the action is wrong, one ought not to perform that action. Any morally sensitive person who searches his or her intuitions about killing babies, ceteris paribus, will be aware that it is wrong.
Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative:
As a moral agent, you are aware that all other moral agents should be treated as ends and not as means. To kill babies would not be respecting them as ends. Thus, it is immoral.
Another way: can only act on those maxims which you can consistently will that they become a universal law (i.e. that everyone else can do it too). However, you cannot universalize a maxim which would allow you to kill the babies. It would have allowed someone to kill you as a baby, and all other babies, and then there would not be people alive to universalize the maxim. Thus, it ends in contradiction. Your intentions, the consequences, and such, for Kant are irrelevant. The action is immoral.
Utilitarianism (hedonistic version), extreme version:
Pleasure and pain are the only things worthy of being called good and bad, respectively. As you go through life, you are morally obligated to perform only those actions which produce more pleasure by their consequences than pain. (This does not mean pleasure or pain for the agent himself/herself, but pleasure and pain as a whole, in the world.) Killing babies, in this circumstance (hypothetical: a crazed person full of rage against the world, say), would bring about more pain than pleasure, so it is immoral.
An exception would be, for example, if a bunch of aliens, a la Independence Day, came to earth and said: Kill all those babies in that day care center and we'll leave you alone. If you do not, then we'll kill all humans on this planet. Then, the consequences of NOT killing the babies would cause more pain than pleasure, and it would allowed to kill the babies. Note that this is an extreme kind of case. It would only be allowed (even obligatory) under extreme circumstances. This is still a better scenario for exceptions than the bible's pathetic excuse: We want your land. They could have taken the land without killing babies.
Utilitarianism (hedonistic version), restricted version:
Same as the latter, but one does not decide with regard to each individual action, but, instead, with regard to each class of actions. One cannot morally perform those actions in a class of actions which in certain circumstances TEND to produce more pain than pleasure, and conversely OUGHT to perform those in the class of actions which tend to produce pleasure. Killing babies in this case is one of those actions of a class which tends to produce more pain than pleasure, so it is immoral.
Virtue-based theories:
These theories, although descended from Aristotle, are relatively new on the ethics scene in their present form. These views tie human morality in with the notion of human flourishing. Certain qualities of the human experience, such as love, courage, maturity, etc. are taken to be of fundamental importance because they allow each person to be the best person he or she can be. Actions which allow human beings to flourish are either morally permissible or morally obligatory. Those actions which do not allow the best qualities of humans to flourish are forbidden. Ceteris paribus (all other things being equal; under ordinary circumstances), the killing of babies would be an act which would not allow the best qualities of humans to be brought out. In that sense, it is self-defeating. It would prevent the promotion of the virtues. Thus, it is immoral.
There are many other views, each one better than the divine command theory, and each one of which denounces the killing of babies under ordinary circumstances or under all circumstances.
And what can the divine command theorist say about killing babies? Nothing. Mr. X: "I just heard that some guy dressed up in camo killed all the babies in a local day care center! Isn't that horrible?" Divine command theorist: "Not so fast there, X. Who ordered this?" Mr. X: "I don't know! Maybe nobody. But what does that matter? A bunch of babies were just killed!" DCT: "Well, it matters a lot. I can't tell whether this is a bad act or a wonderful act. If god ordered it, it is wonderful! Hooray! God's will is being done!" Ms. W: "Hey, did you hear about the killings in the day care center? The looney says that god told him to do it!" DCT: "Hooray! Praise the Lord!" Ms. W: "Hey, how do you know that god really DID order that? Maybe the guy is just nuts or mistaken." DCT: "Hmm. You're right. I guess we'll never know the moral status of this act. Without being able to tie it in with orders from god, there is NO WAY to assess the moral status of this act."