Originally posted by FMFI don't think lying would be the only way to protect your family in this situation, you could tell the truth and say there are not here (referring to the room you are in), that way your would be telling the truth.
FMF: [b]House-invading thieves and rapists come into my house and ransack the ground floor. My wife and daughters are hiding upstairs. The head thug asks me where my wife and daughters are, and lie to him ~ I swear on their lives that they are away in the next town visiting relatives. The house-invaders leave with their loot.
I don't think my actions in this situation would have been morally unsound.
BUMP for Fetchmyjunk
Do you agree?[/b]
Fetchmyjunk,
Morality isn't about memorizing, internalizing, and regurgitating. It's not about doctrine. Morality is about comprehending, deciding, acting, and taking responsibility. It's about our exercising our humanity.
Morality, for me, is essentially about not harming, not deceiving, and not coercing. But it's also about having the moral faculties to discern and decide when these things are justifiable in the pursuit of some greater or broader moral good or to confront something "evil".
Morality isn't about declaring one's own ideology to be absolutely, objectively, universally, brutally, non-negotiably, unalterably, inflexibly, and supernaturally true, like you do.
It's about having the capacity to figure out what is the right thing to do in given situations, to do so the best you can, and then take full responsibility for what you do.
Morality isn't about having to agree with people like Fetchmyjunk on message boards who abdicate personal responsibility about morality to some sort of external supernatural being they imagine exists or to some sort of supernatural communication that they insist they have been party to.
Morality is about exercising our individual consciences as best we can in our interactions with a complex world.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI think you are just taking the piss. Honestly, I do.
I don't think lying would be the only way to protect your family in this situation, you could tell the truth and say there are not here (referring to the room you are in), that way your would be telling the truth.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI've already told you what I believe to be the sources of the moral sensibilities that underpin the morality or otherwise of our actions. It would seem you want to go round the houses again. Ignore-ask again ignore-ask again ignore-ask again.
If someone else were in your shoes and the carried out the act, and by carrying out the act were able to save their family, would you consider their act to be immoral? Also why do you think committing the act of murder would be justifiable and not the act of rape? Do you believe the act of rape is more morally repulsive that the act of murder?
I've had a look back at the last 20 or so pages and there are literally dozens of observations, comments, viewpoints and questions ~ my side of the conversation ~ that you have just blanked out.
I seem to be wasting my time typing stuff out for you. You have ground me down.
So, if you think I am "incoherent" about morality, so be it.
Originally posted by FMFBut I thought you said morality is not merely about personal preference. Now it really sounds like you are saying it is.
Fetchmyjunk,
Morality isn't about memorizing, internalizing, and regurgitating. It's not about doctrine. Morality is about comprehending, deciding, acting, and taking responsibility. It's about our exercising our humanity.
Morality, for me, is essentially about not harming, not deceiving, and not coercing. But it's also about having the moral faculties to ...[text shortened]... t exercising our individual consciences as best we can in our interactions with a complex world.
Originally posted by FMFYou believe killing someone to save your children is ok but raping someone to save your children is not ok. So I think it is a reasonable question to ask why you think rape is worse than killing.
I've already told you what I believe to be the sources of the moral sensibilities that underpin the morality or otherwise of our actions. It would seem you want to go round the houses again. Ignore-ask again ignore-ask again ignore-ask again.
I've had a look back at the last 20 or so pages and there are literally dozens of observations, comments, viewpoints a ...[text shortened]... r you. You have ground me down.
So, if you think I am "incoherent" about morality, so be it.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt's not hard to think of examples where premeditated murder 'isn't' morally wrong, and where such an act would actually save the lives of others. (Once again blowing your 'absolute' nonsense out of the water).
Which is more dangerous, believing that premeditated murder is always morally wrong, or believing that nothing is ever always wrong?
For example, lying in wait for a terrorist walking around with a machine gun, planning on how best to crack him over the head with your baseball bat.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYours is more dangerous as it could prevent you taking necessary action to save the lives of others. (As given in the example above). Nothing is absolute.
You said you find my kind of thinking (that certain things are always wrong) to be dangerous. Now I ask you whose thinking is more dangerous, me believing that premeditated murder is always wrong, or someone else believing that nothing is ever always wrong?