Originally posted by scorpion666Not only does it have nothing to do with chess, it has nothing to do with the discussion taking place in this thread. Other threads would be more appropriate for discussing the current war in Iraq. Now I know how rwingett feels when free will enters the debate.
i wanna post a message about the war on Iraq i know it has nothing to do with chess what do u think of it guys??? me personally i think Bush after declaring this war is as criminal as Saddam himself😞
Originally posted by bbarrIf it was for fun, then it would fall under ethical egoism in that the torturer is doing so for their own benefit and amusement. Whether it is "moral" or not can for the torurer depends upon his reactions before, during, and after the action takes place. The reason the individual takes the action would be the determining factor in its classification (egoism, divine, etc.). The cause for the immoral label is dependant upon the individuals reacion to their own actions.
I said torture innocents purely for fun, not torture innocents so they can become enlightened.
An example would be if I killed an animal and afterwards felt badly about it, then my actions were immoral to me. If I kill an animal and display it on my wall out of pride, then my actions are moral for me. Action and reaction acting as a pyramid for the moral structure of the individual. From the moment of birth, the events and decisions taken form the whole of the persons conscience.
The key principle is that morality lies in the perception of the individual, and that the discerment between the two is dependant upon the events that have occured in that individuals life and how they reacted towards them.