Obedience vs Disobedience

-Removed-

God is not accountable to anyone as far as I can see so no there is only one and it is for humans.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
God is not accountable to anyone as far as I can see so no there is only one and it is for humans.

I think it is the concept of "sin" - not morality - which pertains to accountability to your god figure ~ i.e. the concept of transgressing god's will ~ while morality pertains to human interactions and our accountability to each other.

Originally posted by @fmf
I think it is the concept of "sin" - not morality - which pertains to accountability to your god figure ~ i.e. the concept of transgressing god's will ~ while morality pertains to human interactions and our accountability to each other.

Ok so why are you opposed to the idea of an objective moral law whereby accountability towards humans is the same for all? Surely what counts for one person, e,g rape is wrong, should count for all other people?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Ok so why are you opposed to the idea of an objective moral law whereby accountability towards humans is the same for all?

I am nonplussed by your use of the word "objective" for the reasons I gave before when we discussed it at length. My view and that explanation have not changed in the meantime.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Surely what counts for one person, e,g rape is wrong, should count for all other people?

I believe rape is morally wrong.

Originally posted by @fmf
I am nonplussed by your use of the word "objective" for the reasons I gave before when we discussed it at length. My view and that explanation have not changed in the meantime.

My use of the word is totally conventional within the framework of moral absolutism. From what you have said in the past you also subscribe to it maybe unknowingly so.

Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

Originally posted by @fmf
I believe rape is morally wrong.

Yes on the basis that the principle of trust should never be violated. Which means you are a moral absolutist. You do believe that certain principles (such as trust) should never be violated don't you?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
My use of the word is totally conventional within the framework of moral absolutism.

It's as if you don't read anything I say. We have discussed this before. You have proposed your labels before. And you know my view. Appeals to copy pastes are of no interest to me. It's me you are talking to. Whatever ideological geeing-yourself up you are engaged in with the application of vocabulary as it pertains to your perception of what is right and wrong, I don't feel any need for it. My perception of rape as a morally unsound act doesn't need any bolstering with adjectives. You do that if you feel the need to.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Yes on the basis that the principle of trust should never be violated. Which means you are a moral absolutist. You do believe that certain principles (such as trust) should never be violated don't you?

I can't be more categorical about my view of rape. I condemn rape and I can justify my condemnation of rape without using any adjectives aside from "wrong" and "unsound".

Originally posted by @fmf
I can't be more categorical about my view of rape. I condemn rape and I can justify my condemnation of rape without using any adjectives aside from "wrong" and "unsound".

Do you or don't you believe that the principle of trust should never be violated?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Do you or don't you believe that the principle of trust should never be violated?

Do you mean "trust" when it comes to rape and torturing babies?

Originally posted by @fmf
Do you mean "trust" when it comes to rape and torturing babies?

You explained before that rape is wrong on the basis that it violates the principle of trust. Are you now changing your stance?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You explained before that rape is wrong on the basis that it violates the principle of trust.Are you now changing your stance?

I don't remember saying that. Perhaps it was someone else. I can't think that I talked about "the principle of trust" outside the context of morality as I see it because "the principle of trust" in and of itself does not have any particular moral substance ~ it can be the glue that holds together morally unsound collective behaviours. So find the quote and I'll either see (and explain) what I meant, or I will concede that my stance has changed. I probably talked about "trust" in the context of deceit and keeping promises. But in the context of rape? No, you've probably got me mixed up with someone else.

Originally posted by @fmf
I don't remember saying that. Perhaps it was someone else. I can't think that I talked about "the principle of trust" outside the context of morality as I see it because "the principle of trust" in and of itself does not have any particular moral substance ~ it can be the glue that holds together morally unsound collective behaviours. So find the quote and I'll ...[text shortened]... ing promises. But in the context of rape? No, you've probably got me mixed up with someone else.

So on what basis is rape wrong if not for violating the principle of trust?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So on what basis is rape wrong if not for violating the principle of trust?

On the basis that I explained before when we discussed this topic in great depth. My analysis and stance have not changed in the meantime.