Hitler

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
What exactly have you said that I have ignored?

Do you have any response to this:

To spare someone's feelings (as in the example I gave); to protect my family from harm; to stop or divert someone from doing something morally unsound; to postpone discussing the truth until a more opportune time; to anyone threatening me or trying to coerce me with violence or some other kind of damage (for example); to not disturb community sensibilities or avoid a pointless debate; stuff like that, and that's just off the top of my head as I type here. Aside from such scenarios, I think lying is morally unsound but the above examples would be exceptions in my view.

Originally posted by FMF
I am not interested in your clumsy attempts to superimpose your subjective terminology onto the crystal clear responses and observations on morality I am offering. You once argued that a person getting angry with their sibling was "equally as evil as" murdering 6,000,000 people and you cited that as a "universal truth". So spare me your ludicrous terminology.

I never cited that as a universal truth it I was merely giving my interpretation of a particular verse in the Bible. You are just using this as another red herring because you don't want to admit that you believe in a universal truth.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I never cited that as a universal truth it I was merely giving my interpretation of a particular verse in the Bible. You are just using this as another red herring because you don't want to admit that you believe in a universal truth.

I am not interested in your terminology. You asking the same questions about terminology over and over and over and over again is getting you nowhere.

While doing someone harm, deceiving them, seeking to coerce them, or reneging on a promise, might be morally justifiable under certain circumstances ~ despite these behaviours comprising the essence of morally unsound actions in almost all cases ~ I cannot think of any circumstances whatsoever in which rape and the sexual abuse of children would not be utterly intolerable moral atrocities.

Unlike with instigating harm, deception, coercion, I cannot envisage any scenario in which rape and sexual abuse of children might be morally justifiable. That answers your question. If you can't understand it or refuse to engage it, or even acknowledge it, so be it. If you want to attach the labels "real", "absolute", "actual", "perfect", "true" or "objective" to anything, do what you want.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you have any response to this:

[b]To spare someone's feelings (as in the example I gave); to protect my family from harm; to stop or divert someone from doing something morally unsound; to postpone discussing the truth until a more opportune time; to anyone threatening me or trying to coerce me with violence or some other kind of damage (for example); to n ...[text shortened]... s, I think lying is morally unsound but the above examples would be exceptions in my view. [/b]

Lying is either intrinsically bad or it isn't. From what you have said it seems like you believe lying isn't intrinsically bad since you believe there are cases where lying is acceptable. Therefore it seems it like the action of lying in itself has no inherent moral value which means it is not objectively bad. Yet on the other hand it seems like you do believe that certain actions like raping children are objectively bad. So how do you decide whether an action is objectively bad or not?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Lying is either intrinsically bad or it isn't. From what you have said it seems like you believe lying isn't intrinsically bad since you believe there are cases where lying is acceptable.

Perhaps you might be willing to state whether you agree that there are cases where lying is morally acceptable.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Therefore it seems it like the action of lying in itself has no inherent moral value which means it is not objectively bad.

If you think that lying is "objectively bad", you should perhaps just say so, and maybe explain why. You already know what I believe.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Yet on the other hand it seems like you do believe that certain actions like raping children are objectively bad.

I am not interested in your terminology. I told you that I cannot think of any circumstances in which the rape and the sexual abuse of children would not be intolerable moral atrocities. Do you still not understand what my view on the morality of rape and sexual abuse of children is, even after me stating this?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So how do you decide whether an action is objectively bad or not?

I have already repeatedly told you what I think the sources and substance of my moral sensibilities and actions are. You have simply ignored it every single time, as far as I can remember.

Originally posted by FMF
I am not interested in your terminology. You asking the same questions about terminology over and over and over and over again is getting you nowhere.

While doing someone harm, deceiving them, seeking to coerce them, or reneging on a promise, might be morally justifiable under certain circumstances ~ despite these behaviours comprising the essence of morally ...[text shortened]... ls "real", "absolute", "actual", "perfect", "true" or "objective" to anything, do what you want.

This is not my terminology. It is commonly used when discussing ethics. You have admitted that you believe in at least one moral absolute.

"Moral absolutism is an ethical view that particular actions are intrinsically right or wrong."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
This is not my terminology. It is commonly used when discussing ethics. You have admitted that you believe in at least one moral absolute.

If you cannot understand what my views on morality are from what I post here, then so be it. What I know about your morality is that you got it from a "holy" book and you think a supernatural being has issued you with some sort of instructions... and, furthermore, you seem temperamentally or perhaps intellectually incapable of discussing morality in good faith with anyone whose moral sensibilities are not rooted in the same things you purport to root yours in.

Originally posted by FMF
I have already repeatedly told you what I think the sources and substance of my moral sensibilities and actions are. You have simply ignored it every single time, as far as I can remember.

If the sources and substances that you have mentioned are not intrinsically wrong in themselves then it makes no logical sense to say something else is wrong because of them. For example you say adultery is wrong if it involves deception. But deception is not intrinsically wrong since you believe that deception in the form of lying is acceptable under certain conditions.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
"Moral absolutism is an ethical view that particular actions are intrinsically right or wrong."

I've told you what I think the moral dimensions of deception, adultery and rape are. You may attach whatever labels you want to them. I don't give a hoot. If you ever feel like acknowledging and addressing what I think the moral dimensions of deception, adultery and rape are, then that would be something you could opt for. Up to you.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If the sources and substances that you have mentioned are not intrinsically wrong in themselves then it makes no logical sense to say something else is wrong because of them.

If my views on morality "make no logical sense" to you, I think I can live with that.

Originally posted by FMF
I've told you what I think the moral dimensions of deception, adultery and rape are. You may attach whatever labels you want to them. I don't give a hoot. If you ever feel like acknowledging and addressing what I think the moral dimensions of deception, adultery and rape are, then that would be something you could opt for. Up to you.

If the acts of adultery and lying are not intrinsically wrong, then the parameters whereby adultery is acceptable is open to interpretation and then it becomes a matter of personal preference. You have given me your personal preference, someone else might give me theirs. What makes your preference any more accurate than someone else's preference? Take murder for example, if it is not intrinsically wrong, what makes your interpretation of when it is ok any better than Hitlers?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If the acts of adultery and lying are not intrinsically wrong, then the parameters whereby adultery is acceptable is open to interpretation and then it becomes a matter of personal preference. You have given me your personal preference, someone else might give me theirs.

Is your "personal preference" to rely on ancient Hebrew folklore, the writings of early Christians, and your insistence that a supernatural being has communicated with you?