Questions to Atheists about Morality based on reducing harm

All right atheists, I've got a series of questions here for you on morality being based on reducing harm

It's a common answer that atheists will give that morality is based on what reduces harm.

I have 33 questions here And I'd like to read them and also I'll be producing at the bottom of the screen here the

URL here at the beginning at the end of the video To the the list of questions that you can can go to on the

Karm website and hopefully if you want to answer them you can have them listed out and you can respond and if you do please respond to the actual questions instead of just insulting or Offering red herrings talking about something that's not even addressed here, please if you're going to respond

Please focus on the questions now. I have like I said 33. Here's question number one

If you as an atheist say that what is morally good is what? Reduces overall harm then on what basis do you validate that assertion as being a proper moral standard?

number two If you say that reducing harm is a valid standard because it is what people want

Then how are you not committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying that what people want is what makes something morally, right?

If you say that reducing harm is a valid standard of morality because it is what people want

Then how are you not promoting an arbitrary standard since it is based on people's feelings and desires which change?

Question number four if reducing overall harm is the standard of morality then should a nation

That is being attacked by another nation not practice self -defense since by defending itself

It would increase overall harm to both nations If you say that such a nation has the right of self -protection

Which overrides the principle of reducing harm then? How are you not saying there's a greater standard of morality to which the moral standard of reducing harm must be subject?

number six If there is a greater standard of morality than reducing overall harm

Then why do you affirm that what is good is what reduces harm as a standard of morality and not this greater standard as the?

One by which right and wrong are judged Number seven if you say that the nation being attacked should not defend itself lest it increases overall harm to both societies

Then how are you not? Advocating the systematic takeover of nations by those nations that don't hold to your moral standard

Number eight if reducing harm is the standard of morality then is it okay to?

Sexually assault a comatose person if no physical or emotional harm is suffered and the person is never aware of it number nine

If reducing harm is the standard of morality then is it okay for people to lie and Commit adultery as long as others don't find out about it, and there's no physical or emotional harm incurred by anyone

Number ten if you answered yes to one or both of the two previous questions about rape and adultery

Then aren't you approving of these acts as long as no one is harmed? Number eleven if you answered no to one or both of these questions on rape and adultery

Then how is your position consistent with the what is good is what reduces harm standard since no harm was suffered by anyone

Number twelve if reducing suffering is what is morally good then if a society decides to incarcerate

Christians because it deems them harmful to the society would that then be the morally right thing to do

Number thirteen Likewise if reducing suffering is what is morally good and a society decides to incarcerate

Atheists because it deems them harmful to society would that be the morally right thing to do?

number fourteen if incarcerating Christians and or atheists Because society says it reduces overall harm is really not the morally right thing to do

Then why is it not right since it would be that society's attempt at reducing overall harm

Fifteen if Incarcerating Christians and or atheists becomes the morally right thing to do because society decides it will reduce overall harm

Then can you legitimately complain against the actions of the Nazis and the Jews of the Old Testament since both?

Societies also wanted to reduce overall harm to themselves and preserve their societies Sixteen if reducing harm is the standard of morality then what do you do with those people who are perfectly normal?

Perfectly normal productive members of society who also just happen to like harming themselves

Seventeen are those who like to harm themselves excluded from your moral standard about reducing harm since they like to suffer harm

Eighteen if they are excluded then how is your standard that what is good is what reduces harm really a valid standard?

Nineteen however if people are wrong for wanting to harm themselves then why are they wrong?

Twenty However, if people are wrong for wanting to harm themselves, then should you judge them as being mentally unhealthy?

Twenty -one if you don't judge them as being mentally unhealthy. How is your standard that what is good is what reduces harm really valid?

Twenty -two if you do judge those If you excuse me, if you do judge that those who like to suffer harm are being mentally unhealthy

Do you have the moral obligation to force your standard or of reducing harm upon them and stop them from harming themselves?

Twenty -three if you do not force your standard of reducing harm on them, then how is your standard a proper standard of morality?

Twenty -four But if you do force your standard on those who like to suffer

Then aren't you doing the same thing that you complain about regarding God in the Old Testament who also forced his morals on people?

Twenty -five If you say that reducing harm is good only when the consent of an individual is not violated

Why is that a standard that must be used? Twenty -six if you say that reducing harm is good only when the consent of an individual is not violated

How is this not committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying that what people want is what makes something morally, right?

Twenty -seven If you say that reducing harm is good only when the consent of an individual is not violated

Then is it good for people to suffer harm when they consent to being harmed? Twenty -eight

If you say that reducing harm is good only when the consent of an individual is not violated Then is it okay to forcibly stop someone from attempting suicide or taking harmful drugs when neither?

Gives you consent to intervene Twenty -nine If you do intervene against a person's will and stop him from harming himself

Then how is your action not contradictory to your standard about not violating a person's consent when reducing harm?

Thirty If you do not intervene against a person's will and stop him from harming himself

Lest you violate his consent, then how is your standard of reducing harm really good? Thirty -one

If you say that the standard of morality you use is neither good or bad But just something that people agree to then how can it be a standard of morality since morality deals with what is good and bad?

Thirty -two if you say that the standard of morality you use is not a standard of what is good and bad

But just something that people agree to then how can you legitimately complain against any society that does something you don't agree with?

such as the Jews of the Old Testament and Finally number thirty -three If what is good is what reduces harm?

Then shouldn't you as an atheist just ignore all these questions since they might harm your worldview on morality?

Well, dear atheist, I'm sure I'll be modifying the written form of these questions So if you are interested,

I check them out every now and then as responses come in I may add or subtract to them and adapt but I do hope that if you respond whether in text here in In YouTube or by email or by anything else by video response that you would actually seriously