Originally posted by ivanhoe
You forgot to mention the reasons why Bbarr is indeed what I claim he is.

Moreover you forgot to mention that Bbarr's ideas about the moral permissibility of killing disabled people in the context of "lives not worth living" ("Lebensunwertes Leben" ), boil down to the same ideas which were presented during the twenties, thirties and early forties by the Nazis.

Bbarr is advocating Nazi ideas.

the world is not black and white, no matter what you think.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
the world is not black and white, no matter what you think.

Except when it comes to your statement above, of course.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Except when it comes to your statement above, of course.

A statement can be true or false, a moral issue with many factors cannot.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
A statement can be true or false, a moral issue with many factors cannot.

Why not? An action is either right or wrong. It may be hell trying to figure out which, but it doesn't mean an objective value does not exist.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why not? An action is either right or wrong. It may be hell trying to figure out which, but it doesn't mean an objective value does not exist.

I disagree. Some actions are neither right or wrong, and have no resolution.

Other actions are right for some people and wrong for others, and it depends upon ones point of view. Smart man, that Alec Guinness.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I disagree. Some actions are neither right or wrong, and have no resolution.

Other actions are right for some people and wrong for others, and it depends upon ones point of view. Smart man, that Alec Guinness.

The ontological(?) question of whether an act is right or wrong is separate from the epistemological question of whether we can know or resolve that it was right or wrong.

Originally posted by scottishinnz


Other actions are right for some people and wrong for others, and it depends upon ones point of view.

Does this point of view depend on to which economic class one belongs ?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The ontological(?) question of whether an act is right or wrong is separate from the epistemological question of whether we can know or resolve that it was right or wrong.

I have pondered this a lot. If one cannot crack the epistemological “barrier,” in some sort of universally recognizable way, what possible pragmatic effect can the metaphysical(?) truth of the matter have? It would be a truth that we cannot know (unless one can claim some universally recognizable intuitive or “gnostic”, as opposed to epistemic, knowledge)?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I disagree. Some actions are neither right or wrong, and have no resolution.

Other actions are right for some people and wrong for others, and it depends upon ones point of view. Smart man, that Alec Guinness.

I agree with you to some extent. However, though there are many instances when it is not clear cut, there are the instances where it IS pretty clear.

For example, can you say that morality is grey enough so that you feel absolutely no sense of wrong doing about anything you have ever done?

Is it that grey?

Do you daily live as if it is that grey concerning everything?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Does this point of view depend on to which economic class one belongs ?

Sometimes, yes. But not always. Black or white may be another separation, different nationalities another. Heck different people see things in different ways.

Originally posted by jaywill
I agree with you to some extent. However, though there are many instances when it is not clear cut, there are the instances where it IS pretty clear.

For example, can you say that morality is grey enough so that you feel absolutely no sense of wrong doing about anything you have ever done?

Is it [b]that grey?

Do you daily live as if it is that grey concerning everything? [/b]

Of course I feel bad about some things I have done in the past. However, that's my own personal morality we're talking about (which itself has changed over time). However, some things I do not feel remorse about, you might had it been you rather than me. Or, I may have felt remorse about different things had I been raised in another culture. What people feel bad about isn't some loosely banded together set of rules, it's a very personal thing, as individual as people are themselves.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The ontological(?) question of whether an act is right or wrong is separate from the epistemological question of whether we can know or resolve that it was right or wrong.

So you are trying to tell me that every act is either right to wrong, and nothing has any neutrality in morality.

What if I pick up the book lying next to me? Is that morally right or wrong??

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So you are trying to tell me that every act is either right to wrong, and nothing has any neutrality in morality.

What if I pick up the book lying next to me? Is that morally right or wrong??

Here's what you said earlier:

A statement can be true or false, a moral issue with many factors cannot.

Is picking up a book a "moral issue with many factors"[sic]?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Here's what you said earlier:

[b]A statement can be true or false, a moral issue with many factors cannot.

Is picking up a book a "moral issue with many factors"[sic]?[/b]

You stipulated "an act", not a moral judgement, which is just that, a judgement. And what I think is right, and you think is right, may be completely different.