If Hitchen's challenge is correct, then why are there ethical lapses?

[SlayerRondo]

richardhutnik said:

KungKras said:

richardhutnik said:

badgenome said:

richardhutnik said:

In regards to Hitchens, one could argue there is ONE thing that religious people, like say Mormons, are able to do which he seemed to not be able to do, and that is avoid smoking and drinking which shorten one's life.  Hitchen confessed that his smoking and drinking caused him to get cancer:

I am not religious. I don't drink, and I have never smoked. There are religious people who do both. What point are you even trying to make anymore?

Hitchens argues that atheism is morally superior, but fails to shows in practice, particularly his life, that it is so.

It was not immoral for hitchens to smoke and drink as much as he did. You may call it stupid, since he shortened his life, but he didn't hurt anyone but himself. Also, him staying in a marriage that didn't work would be immoral, him getting a divorce was the most moral thing he could do (or his wife, depending on who wanted to separate). In other words, you fail at pointing out immoral acts that he did.

On the moral side though, he did a lot of good for the world during his career as a reporter, so much that it would net him a lot of plus on the morality scale. In other words, your argument double fails.

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.

You could also make the argument that anyone who spend's anytime enjoying themselves is imoral because they could be out there doing good things for other people. If someone does anything that may result in a shorter lifespan are they immoral because they have deprived others of their continued existence? By even existing many people are possibly contributing to global warming thus harming others, does that make them immoral?

Their is no such thing as a completely moral person, but Christopher Hitchen's was up there.