Originally posted by FMFIf you don't agree that absolute truths exists you cannot claim that it always wrong to rape someone. So is it or isn't it?
No I didn't. It's you who keeps peddling your opinions as "universal" or "absolute" truths, not me. If I have, as you've stated, "claimed to agree certain absolutes do exist", copy paste the post where I made the claim here in your your reply to this.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkOh for goodness sake, what are the scenarios? You seem to be deliberately conflating two distinct scenarios about saving children and deliberately equating separate and different acts of violence as well as misrepresenting the nature and behaviour of the victims. Unless you correct these casual gimmicky deceptions, I will just take it that you are trolling.
Another human being.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkCopy paste the post where, as you have asserted, I supposedly, made the claim that my analysis of the moral dilemmas in question is an "universal" or "absolute" truth. I'll wait for you to do this.
If you don't agree that absolute truths exists you cannot claim that it always wrong to rape someone. So is it or isn't it?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk"The last resort"? Who decides if it is the "last resort" or not?
Naturally we value our own lives more than others and in cases where we feel our own lives are threatened we may to forced to take another life, but I feel that should be the last resort because life if precious.
Originally posted by FMFKilling an intruder who is threatening your life is morally sound. And raping someone to save your children's lives is not morally sound. Correct?
Oh for goodness sake, what are the scenarios? You seem to be deliberately conflating two distinct scenarios about saving children and deliberately equating separate and different acts of violence as well as misrepresenting the nature and behaviour of the victims. Unless you correct these casual gimmicky deceptions, I will just take it that you are trolling.
Originally posted by FMFSo in another galaxy, killing an intruder who is threatening your life is not morally sound? Or is it always morally sound?
Copy paste the post where, as you have asserted, I supposedly, made the claim that my analysis of the moral dilemmas in question is an "universal" or "absolute" truth. I'll wait for you to do this.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou have ignored me tackling you on your self-aggrandizing use of terminology for 20-25 pages. And now you attribute the vocabulary to me and assert that I made claims using the vocabulary. Show me where I made such a claim. Paste the post here.
So in another galaxy, killing an intruder who is threatening your life is not morally sound? Or is it always morally sound?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI have already told you what I think the sources of my moral sensibilities are. And I wrote two or three long posts laying out what it means to be a moral being and how one arrives at making moral decisions. You simply ignored them
Why do you think life has intrinsic value? And what gives you the right to decide that one life is more valuable than another?
Originally posted by FMFOk so if the atrocities of the holocaust are not universally wrong, you believe that in some situations they may be justified. Understood.
You have ignored me tackling you on your self-aggrandizing use of terminology for 20-25 pages. And now you attribute the vocabulary to me and assert that I made claims using the vocabulary. Show me where I made such a claim. Paste the post here.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAt the risk of incurring BigDoggProblem's wrath, here is the post of mine you have blanked out: You seem to be deliberately conflating two distinct scenarios about saving children and deliberately equating separate and different acts of violence as well as misrepresenting the nature and behaviour of the victims. Unless you correct these casual gimmicky deceptions, I will just take it that you are trolling.
You asked me for the two scenarios, I gave them.
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFBut since you don't claim to believe in universal truth, your views on morality are not cast in stone anyway. So today an act can be immoral and tomorrow the exact same act can be moral. What a great way to live. Why do you insist on me copying and pasting a post from the past when what applies yesterday may not apply today?
At the risk of incurring BigDoggProblem's wrath, here is the post of mine you have blanked out: You seem to be deliberately conflating two distinct scenarios about saving children and deliberately equating separate and different acts of violence as well as misrepresenting the nature and behaviour of the victims. Unless you correct these casual gimmicky deceptions, I will just take it that you are trolling.