The top 10 benefits of atheism

Originally posted by FMF
You said "I think a doctor or psychologist would be in a better position to make such judgement calls" and you also said that use of the word 'abuse' "may be subjective". Are these two sentences examples of you defending a "moral absolute" stance?

So you are saying it is impossible for anyone to agree on what constitutes 'abuse'? I personally think I wouldn't question a doctor if he says that that my alcoholism may be damaging my liver, would you? (If I were an alcoholic)

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Ok so you believe drug abuse can be justified? Yes or No?

You asked me this. And I answered. But you ignored it:

Morality governs interactions between people. As far as drug use is concerned, the only issues I can see would be those arising from the user's behaviour when under the influence or when trying to procure the drugs, and things like that.

Can you at least say that you understand this stance?

Originally posted by FMF
Can you give any practical examples of this from your everyday life?

If at any point in time the world were to descend into chaos and 'everyone' were to believe the actions of Nazi Germany are morally justifiable, I think it would still be wrong, because it's 'wrongness' does not depend on public opinion.

Originally posted by FMF
You asked me this. And I answered. But you ignored it:

Morality governs interactions between people. As far as drug use is concerned, the only issues I can see would be those arising from the user's behaviour when under the influence or when trying to procure the drugs, and things like that.

Can you at least say that you understand this stance?

I tend to disagree because I think mutilating your own body should also be morally wrong, since I believe your body is the temple of God.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So you are saying it is impossible for anyone to agree on what constitutes 'abuse'? I personally think I wouldn't question a doctor if he says that that my alcoholism may be damaging my liver, would you? (If I were an alcoholic)

And what? Some doctors' "judgement calls" (as you called them) create a "moral absolute"?

Originally posted by FMF
And what? Some doctors' "judgement calls" (as you called them) create a "moral absolute"?

If there is scientific evidence that your drug habits are causing damage to your body I think 'abuse' can be objectively established.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I tend to disagree because I think mutilating your own body should also be morally wrong, since I believe your body is the temple of God.

I asked you if you understand the moral stance not whether you agree with it. You just ignored it. Do you acknowledge that it is a moral perspective even if it does not coincide with yours?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If there is scientific evidence that your drug habits are causing damage to your body I think 'abuse' can be objectively established.

So despite everything you've conceded about the subjectivity of the topic, what you happen to think is "excessive" or "serious" in terms of the use of drugs becomes a "moral absolute" and it remains on a list of five such "absolutes". It's clearly a fuzzy area, by your own admission, but it's one of your universal "moral absolutes" nevertheless, is that right?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If there is scientific evidence that your drug habits are causing damage to your body I think 'abuse' can be objectively established.

So it is the damage to the body that counts as some kind of moral issue.

Then what about athletes who work at it so hard they break their legs or some such where that is their training regimen, so that is abuse then under your rules.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
No, I don't view drugs that are used for medicinal purposes as abuse.

So the purpose with which the drugs were taken matters. That wasn't specified in your 'absolute' rule. It seems your rule isn't as absolute as you thought.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
1.So is there any conceivable scenario where you can justify any of the actions on my list or not?

2. Would you say the non-consenting loss of personal freedom is always wrong in all cases?

1. Answered in 2, below.

2. We obviously based on history cannot eliminate all non-consensual losses of freedom but we can seek to minimize them in number and effect. People differ on which losses are greater. Consenting to the rape of a daughter in order to ensure the emancipation of her and her enslaved family would be an instance where your neat and clean absolutism would run head-on into reality.

Edit: I may be creating a scenario out of my rather extensive experience of theatrical drama.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
No, I don't view drugs that are used for medicinal purposes as abuse.

So your absolute is a bit muddy already. Also it is only YOUR absolute not necessarily anyone else's absolute, so it looks like there may be at least 8 billion absolutes.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If at any point in time the world were to descend into chaos and 'everyone' were to believe the actions of Nazi Germany are morally justifiable, I think it would still be wrong, because it's 'wrongness' does not depend on public opinion.

But I asked for you to give any practical examples you have of what you said from your everyday life and not a hypothetical about some sort of return to Nazi Germany.

Originally posted by FMF
I asked you if you understand the moral stance not whether you agree with it. You just ignored it. Do you acknowledge that it is a moral perspective even if it does not coincide with yours?

So when I say, 'fair enough' you think I am ignoring your stance?

Originally posted by FMF
So despite everything you've conceded about the subjectivity of the topic, what you happen to think is "excessive" or "serious" in terms of the use of drugs becomes a "moral absolute" and it remains on a list of five such "absolutes". It's clearly a fuzzy area, by your own admission, but it's one of your universal "moral absolutes" nevertheless, is that right?

Do you think I need to defend at least 5 moral absolutes in order to maintain my belief that they exist? I have asked you about the other 4 on my list yet you have ignored them.