1. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    21 Jan '09 23:142 edits
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    [b]…what are you talking about, if someone came along and punched you on the nose for no reason, would you not then quite quickly form a sense of morality,
    .…


    No, I would quickly form a sense of anger and hate that I would then want to suppress (which, by the way, I am very fortunate at being good at doing).
    I would also obviously want to ...[text shortened]... f “REASONS” are you referring to in this context? -give me an example of one of these “REASONS”.[/b]
    according to your reasoning then, the person doing this, bopping you on the nose every time he passed you by was simply expressing his emotion as well, it was not unjust, it was not morally wrong for by your own definition there is no such thing, it was a simple matter of self expression, you have no recourse to complain, other than you would rather feel no pain, he on the other hand would state, i like giving pain, its a form of emotional self expression, and you , because you have no concept of morality would have to agree with him, and get punched on the nose every time he felt like it, for that is what you are saying!

    Nuremberg trials

    Principle IV

    The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

    you will note the expression moral choice, if, as you are claiming there is no such thing, then the perpetrators of horrific acts of injustice could merely claim, i was just following orders, however, the learned gentlemen in the Nuremberg trials realized that this was not the case, that regardless of the reasons given for such and such a course of action, there was a higher and more profound moral law which superseded that of orders of state, this was an innate human faculty and came under the jurisdiction and the exercise of human conscience, that it was reasonable to expect someone to form a moral judgment as to a course of action, whether it was right or wrong. if they had reasoned as you do, and also others who do not recognize morality, then this could not have been the case, Hess, Goering and the other Nazis would simply have recourse to their stance that they were simply following orders, quite clearly this was not the case!
  2. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    22 Jan '09 09:483 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    according to your reasoning then, the person doing this, bopping you on the nose every time he passed you by was simply expressing his emotion as well, it was not unjust, it was not morally wrong for by your own definition there is no such thing, it was a simple matter of self expression, you have no recourse to complain, other than you would rather ...[text shortened]... rse to their stance that they were simply following orders, quite clearly this was not the case!
    …according to your reasoning then, the person doing this, bopping you on the nose every time he passed you by was simply expressing his emotion as well, it was not unjust, it was not morally wrong for by your own definition there is no such thing, it was a simple matter of self expression
    .…


    Correct.

    …you have no recourse to complain, other than you would rather feel no pain,
    ..…


    Why wouldn’t the fact I hate pain not be “sufficient” reason to complain?

    ….he on the other hand would state, i like giving pain, its a form of emotional self expression, and you , because you have no concept of morality would have to AGREE with him,.… (my emphasis)

    “ AGREE with him” about what?
    -that he does indeed want to give me pain -yes.
    -that he “should” give me pain as a result of wanting to give me pain? -no -for I don’t think there is such thing as “should” in this context because this would be a “moral” context i.e. “should” means “morally should” and I don’t think there is such thing as “moral”.

    ….and get punched on the nose every time he felt like it, for that is what you are saying! ..…

    No. that is not what I am saying. I would not think it is “ok” from the point of view of MY emotions and I would, of course, try and stop him.
    It does not logically follow from the fact that I do not think there is such thing as “moral” that I am emotionally ok with the idea of somebody causing me pain.

    …Nuremberg trials

    Principle IV

    The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a MORAL choice was in fact possible to him.
    ..…


    I see that as a flawed statement simply because I don’t think there is such thing as “MORAL”. Now if they just replace the word “MORAL” in the above with “practical” and also replace the word “responsibility” with “legal responsibility” in the above so it becomes:

    “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from legal responsibility under international law, provided a practical choice was in fact possible to him. “

    -then that would not only make perfect sense to me but I would be in perfect emotional agreement with it.

    What you said next is flawed because you didn’t understand this.
    Logically, I have no more “logical reason” to agree with what the nazis did than you do.
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    22 Jan '09 11:263 edits
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    …according to your reasoning then, the person doing this, bopping you on the nose every time he passed you by was simply expressing his emotion as well, it was not unjust, it was not morally wrong for by your own definition there is no such thing, it was a simple matter of self expression
    .…[/b]

    Correct.

    …you have no recourse to complai this.
    Logically, I have no more “logical reason” to agree with what the nazis did than you do.
    No No Mr.Hamilton, you cannot change the wording just because it does not suit your definition, the article clearly states moral judgment, clearly!

    if YOU want to disagree with established international law, envisioned, implemented and upheld, by the jurisdiction of some of the greatest legal minds of the twentieth century, them be my guest, for to be sure, it is a practice that avowed evolutionist have made their mainstay over time, 'oh the fossil record did not show a gradual mutation of species as Darwin had predicted!', they wept, 'oh then, let us make up the theory of punctuated equilibrium for the facts do not fit our theory!', yes yes, habits of a lifetime are hard to change.

    you are missing the entire point of principle IV, they were not judged and found wanting because they had a legal responsibility, although they did, for the same could have been argued that they had a legal responsibility to carry out orders(which they tried to argue), but they were found wanting of the greater crime, crime against humanity, which had as its basis a sense of morality! I thank God and Christ for this, for it negates all pretense and reference to so called logic, for it has been clearly established, once and for all time that humans are essentially moral beings, for in order for them to make a moral choice as envisioned by the principle, then they would of necessity have to exercise the god given attribute of conscience, regardless of how others may construe it!
  4. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    22 Jan '09 11:52
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    No No Mr.Hamilton, you cannot change the wording just because it does not suit your definition, the article clearly states moral judgment, clearly!

    if YOU want to disagree with established international law, envisioned, implemented and upheld, by the jurisdiction of some of the greatest legal minds of the twentieth century, them be my guest, for ...[text shortened]... to exercise the god given attribute of conscience, regardless of how others may construe it!
    …No No Mr.Hamilton, you cannot change the wording just because it does not suit your definition, the article clearly states moral judgment, clearly!


    Yes, of course it does -and I am not pretending it doesn’t! I am not twisting there words by giving another “interpretation” of their moral proposition because I am not giving an alternative “interpretation” of their moral proposition, I am merely pointing out a structurally similar but AMORAL proposition that I COULD agree with -that is all!
    I am NOT saying nor implying in any way that their MORAL proposition they said is the same as the AMORAL proposition I said because, obviously, it is not.

    ….responsibility, although they did, for the same could have been argued that they had a legal responsibility to carry out orders (which they tried to argue),
    ….


    Did those orders they carried out come from international law designed to protect people from harm?

    …but they were found wanting of the greater crime, crime against humanity, which had as its basis a sense of morality! I thank God and Christ for this
    ..…


    Firstly, you don’t need “God” nor “Christ” to have “a sense of morality”.

    Secondly, you don’t need “a sense of morality” to be emotionally against human cruelty.
    (and I am proof of that).
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree