richardhutnik said:
Anything harmful you don't want to hold accountable as a moral failing you can call "stupid" and end up saying isn't a moral issue. Same with divorce and failing to find a proper partner. Or, if his drinking did end up destroying the marriage and saying it doesn't work, then you end up also dodging the issue. Again, what is seen as "moral" or "immoral" are just dodges. If you believe your personal conduct has no impact on others, then you have a moral system that is lacking in considering all the ramifications of one's own conduct. Do you bot think, if Hitchens was THAT morally good and beneficial for others, that him shortening his own life ends up harming others from what they ideally could of experienced? Or is it that Hitchen's life wasn't significant enough that him shortening it prematurely really doesn't matter to others at all. Maybe very much you think the later. |
Hitchens shortening his life did of course affect others. However, so did his reporting career. I am responding to this statement of yours:
"Hitchens argues that atheism is morally superior, but fails to shows in practice, particularly his life, that it is so."
Are you implying that he has to live his life like some kind of ascetic monk to prove that not having a belief is moral? This goes both ways. The catholic church claims catholisism is morally superior but fails to show so in their actions when they fight birth control and cover up child molestation. Protetstants claim protestantism is morally superior when protestant armies impale babies during the thirty years war.
This is all further complicated by the fact that morals are subjective to some degree. I have no moral objections to marriages ending in devorce, they could still produce something positive for the people involved, such as life experience, children, etc.
I LOVE ICELAND!