Are Doomsday predictions morally wrong?

Personally, I think that they are. People are buying things and using there money in ways that they normally wouldn't, for something that is not going to happen. I think people should keep their predictions to themselves.

If they are correct, then no. Global warming/peak oil disasters are realistic right?

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

Theres a difference between warning people that we need to stop shitting up our earth, and going "GAWD IS GONNA KILL US ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!"

Spreading a doomsday prediction in which one does not believe is certainly morally wrong — that's lying.

If one is honestly convinced, though... well, I'd not really consider it morally wrong. Mistaken, sure, but nothing else.

Well, these are not really doomsday predictions. They are warnings about objective, threatening phenomena which could endanger the survival of the human species (at least the first one you mention).

edited 20th May '11 12:08:34 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I'm referring to the ones that are not based on measurable quantities, like the one that will supposedly be happening tomorrow, or the Mayan calender one.

Conviction is not an excuse for knowingly bringing about another person's suffering.

edited 20th May '11 12:09:50 PM by Fish1

Yes, mistaken, if they're sincerly convinced. You can be sincere in your beliefs, and I commend that, but one can also be sincerely wrong. But that's just my take. As for what God Himself feels about it, we'll have to see what is spoken at Judgment Day when the works of the believers are tested. Those of straw will be burned, those of gold will remain, yadda yadda.

Of course, it remains to be seen if he's sincere, or just trolling. Bible talks about false teachers in the last days, but the Church has had a history of false teachers pretty much since its foundation, so nothing new here.

I do feel bad for believers who get duped by this sort of thing, though. (and, I'm now wondering what bits of false doctrine I've accepted. Since no Church has 100-percent perfect dictrine, I'm sure there's something....)

^ I'd add a bit about false prophets. There's clear scripture about that sort of thing. He's been wrong before - wether that was a prophesy or a mere prediction, though, is up for discussion. Which is it this time?

edited 20th May '11 12:14:38 PM by pvtnum11

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

Well, he is not claiming that he made a new prophecy, only that he found the correct interpretation of an old one.

The keyword here is "knowingly". If someone was sincerely convinced that tomorrow the world would end, and did his best to get the most people that he or she can to repent and save their souls before the final judgment, then this person would not be morally wrong. He or she could actually be pretty damn noble.

Even though they would still be wrong, and their actions would probably cause suffering.

edited 20th May '11 12:19:42 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Morality depends on your intent. If you honestly believe the world is going to end tomorrow, and the only way to save yourself is to do X, Y and Z, then it's morally right to warn as many people as possible. Whatever suffering they undergo doing X, Y and Z is nothing to their suffering if the world ends without them being prepared.

Reality is irrelevant to morality - what's relevant is the person's perception. Now, reality is quite relevant to 'what you should do', but that's a different issue.

If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.

Frankly, if you are moronic enough to spend every last penny you have, quit your job and take out a tonne of loans based on someones prediction that the world is ending soon, you're not going to get a lot of sympathy from this corner.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Of course, all this is moot to those who live right and are more or less ready to go. Could be tomorrow, could be twenty years, who knows? Live right, love others as yourself, trust in God, and don't worry about it. I think it is morally right to point out that this sort of prediction has a very high chance of being false, especially to those who are suseptible to falling for these sorts of things.

Is leaving a blatant doctrinal error uncorrected morally wrong? I think so.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

All right then...Do I consider this to be against my morals? No. Unless you don't actually believe it. In which case you're a liar. But hey we have to take into account the circumstances, your intentions, and the results of your actions before we can truly judge your action. So that gets you a huge maybe. I appreciate some good trolling and so on.

Now running around saying that the world is going to end on ENTER OVERLY SPECIFIC DATE HERE without having any actual proof or at the very least a very good reason to believe it...That's foolish. No "I had a dream about it" or "The man in my church said so" is not good enough. Nor are earthquakes and the news.

But what is a good reason? I dunno. I somewhat doubt there is one.

And now we have the issue of the noble fool...Just like "bad" "good" must be defined by circumstance, intention, action, and result. If you convinced your friend to sell their home and live with you in the woods or some shit because you think the world is ending and it doesn't I am not going to think well of you in this matter. Now I won't hate you for it or condemn you, but you'll be getting a good smack on the head and a "WHY THE FUCK".

edited 20th May '11 12:40:16 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

I'll get in line for doling out the head smacking...

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

I suppose the thing that gets to me is that this Harold Camping fellow seems like a vile and pathetic human being who gets off on the fact that 6,719,655,040 people are going to be tortured forever.

I'm not sure about this, it's just a vibe I felt from reading an interview of his.

edited 20th May '11 12:46:59 PM by Fish1

Also, Doing The Research before raising an alarm of this kind is perhaps a moral duty.

If the doomsayer made a honest mistake, that's one thing; but if he could have paid more attention and noticed the mistake, then he should have done that.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I don't think it's morally wrong to predict the end of the world if you sincerely believe that to be the case, especially if you believe that people can do something to avoid certain doom (usually by repenting their sins and so on). You may or may not be factually correct, but I can't see how it's immoral.

It gets more morally dubious if what you're saying is just "You're all DOOMED! DOOMED I TELL YOU! YOU CAN DO NOTHING AND WILL ALL BURN IN HELL! AND THE SAVED WILL LAUGH AT YOUR AGONIES FROM HEAVEN!BWAHAHHAHAHA!" That is just rubbing it in, although some very famous Christians have done exactly that.

"Well, it's a lifestyle"

They aren't morally wrong, they're usually just stupid. That being said, I'm probably going to be fearing for my life through out 2012 because of the off chance someone is going to go nuts and try to go out in a blaze before the "end of the world".

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Ask Cassandra.

Also FAQ for exams

edited 20th May '11 1:36:07 PM by blueharp

I thought this was the Giant in the Playground forum for a minute there.

What Captain Brass said. It's one thing to predict the end of the world. That's probably fine. But to rejoice in it? Holy crap that's sick and twisted.

It's par for the course for these types of predictions. But still.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

The people who believe this shit and legitimately prepare for them are idiots. I don't really care about them in the first place.

Anyone who doesn't look at these people and mock them/ignore them really needs to get themselves checked for head trauma.

edited 21st May '11 6:51:00 AM by Barkey

So do you actually believe what you wrote in the opening post? Is this thread just an overreaction to Harold Camping's character flaws? The way I see it, anyone who believes in the "eternal torture" version of hell but doesn't believe God Is Evil is the enemy. But I'm not concerned with the content of their predictions, or what gullible people do about them. I'm concerned with the intellectual honesty of them. I'm on the fence as to the extent to which people who persist in making irrational arguments should be treated as lying to themselves rather than victims of genuine ignorance.

No, I believed it long before I heard of Harold Camping.

The people who believed his predictions may be fools, but some of them have children who are going to suffer for this through no fault of their own.

edited 21st May '11 8:05:06 AM by Fish1

If you make doomsday prediction to scam people, it's morally wrong. If you believe in impending apocalypse though, it's morally right to warn people about it. The belief itself is morally neutral, although in most if not all cases stupid

"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey

Is there any particular reason why people think the world's ending tomorrow?

Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.

Harold Camping supposedly found magic numbers in the bible saying the rapture would be on May 21,2011.