2 edits
Originally posted by JS3571) I believe these are some of the actions that are intrinsically wrong.
Over the course of this thread you have been asked for a few things. I'd like to focus on two and modify them.
1. Can you identify five moral rules that are absolute?
2. Can you tell us how to tell if a rule is absolute?
The second one may seem easy but it's not.
A. Rape
B. Human trafficking
C. Paedophilia
D. Drug abuse
E. Necrophilia
2) I think everyone knows deep down that it is wrong, because we all have a God-given conscience.
2 edits
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAre you kidding? All those moral decisions given by god? It was actually given by the fact we want to survive, so that came to us through millions of years of evolution. MONKEYS don't engage in child sexual abuse. You think they were given that imperative by a god? I thought only mankind was allegedly high enough on the religious totem pole to be worth that kind of effort.
1) I believe these are some of the actions that are intrinsically wrong.
A. Rape
B. Human trafficking
C. Paedophilia
D. Drug abuse
E. Necrophilia
2) I think everyone knows deep down that it is wrong, because we all have a God-given conscience or moral compass.
But now we find that kind of thing in animals?
Animals that your god didn't care enough about in the alleged world wide flood and killed literally hundreds of billions of them if not trillions, so it must not have held animals in very high regard did it, of course all that to off some recalcitrant human offenders. Right.
Of course that story is 100% fake but taken at face value.......
Originally posted by sonhouse1. Do you believe that necrophilia is always wrong for everybody?
Are you kidding? All those moral decisions given by god? It was actually given by the fact we want to survive, so that came to us through millions of years of evolution. MONKEYS don't engage in child sexual abuse. You think they were given that imperative by a god? I thought only mankind was allegedly high enough on the religious totem pole to be worth that ...[text shortened]... rant human offenders. Right.
Of course that story is 100% fake but taken at face value.......
2. How can you tell?
Originally posted by FMFCompulsive, excessive, and self-damaging use of habit forming drugs or substances, leading to addiction or dependence, serious physiological injury (such as damage to kidneys, liver, heart) and/or psychological harm (such as dysfunctional behavior patterns, hallucinations, memory loss), or death. Also called substance abuse.
What do you mean by "abuse" in this case?
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/drug-abuse.html
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSo each of us as individual moral agents - and that means you too, of course - needs to make subjective evaluations and judgement calls as to what exactly constitutes "excessive", "serious", "dysfunctional", "damage" etc., right?
Compulsive, excessive, and self-damaging use of habit forming drugs or substances, leading to addiction or dependence, serious physiological injury (such as damage to kidneys, liver, heart) and/or psychological harm (such as dysfunctional behavior patterns, hallucinations, memory loss), or death. Also called substance abuse.
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/drug-abuse.html
Originally posted by FMFI think a doctor or psychologist would be in a better position to make such judgement calls.
So each of us as individual moral agents - and that means you too, of course - needs to make subjective evaluations and judgement calls as to what exactly constitutes "excessive", "serious", "dysfunctional", "damage" etc., right?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSo you then apparently accept that "judgement calls" are involved and that different individuals can reach different conclusions. If so, how, in your mind, does the word "absolute" attach itself to the morality surrounding this issue?
I think a doctor or psychologist would be in a better position to make such judgement calls.
3 edits
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIf you look into rape, for example, you find that it involves absence of consent by a victim (either by use of force, or drugs, or against a minor deemed incapable of consent) and otherwise it's not rape if consensual. So rape is conditional. All of the others have similar conditionalities, except self-administered drug abuse, which is very arguably only valid when a victim is made an addict by another person. So the common theme here is to deprive someone of personal freedom, and there are instances where we do not have qualms about depriving people of personal freedom, such as imprisonment for transgressions. Furthermore, our judgement on the perpetrator of one or another of these acts you mention, is tempered by our assessment of the mental capacity of the perpetrator.
1) I believe these are some of the actions that are intrinsically wrong.
A. Rape
B. Human trafficking
C. Paedophilia
D. Drug abuse
E. Necrophilia
2) I think everyone knows deep down that it is wrong, because we all have a God-given conscience.
Feelings of disgust and revulsion are subjective and while "deep down", are malleable. Even if there were universal agreement on these feelings, it would not make a subjective reaction into an objective truth.
Originally posted by FMFOk so you believe drug abuse can be justified? Yes or No?
So you then apparently accept that "judgement calls" are involved and that different individuals can reach different conclusions. If so, how, in your mind, does the word "absolute" attach itself to the morality surrounding this issue?
2 edits
Originally posted by JS357So do you believe in objective moral truth? Or do you believe it is all subjective?
If you look into rape, for example, you find that it involves absence of consent by a victim (either by use of force, or drugs, or by a minor deemed incapable of consent) and otherwise it's not rape if consensual. So rape is conditional. All of the others have similar conditionalities, except self-administered drug abuse, which is very arguably only valid when ...[text shortened]... al agreement on these feelings, it would not make a subjective reaction into an objective truth.
Would you care to give me scenarios where rape would be morally acceptable to you?
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI believe it is all subjective. Now if this leads to your usual next question, which is how I can justify judging the morality of Nazi germany, it's by accepting those feelings of disgust and revulsion, and acting on them. There were equally strong feelings had by the Nazis against their enemies, which should show you that enshrining our emotional reactions as God-given moral guides is a big mistake. I know that leaves us without absolute morality, but that's a part of being human. It's a tragic part, but it's there anyway.
So do you believe in objective moral truth? Or do you believe it is all subjective?
Originally posted by JS357Ok, so would you care to share with me scenarios where rape, human trafficking, paedophilia and necrophilia would be morally justifiable in your opinion?
I believe it is all subjective. Now if this leads to your usual next question, which is how I can justify judging the morality of Nazi germany, it's by accepting those feelings of disgust and revulsion, and acting on them. There were equally strong feelings had by the Nazis against their enemies, which should show you that enshrining our emotional reactions as ...[text shortened]... absolute morality, but that's a part of being human. It's a tragic part, but it's there anyway.