1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseKnowingly causing damage to your body which I believe is God's temple is always wrong in my opinion. The words 'right' and 'wrong' in terms of morality only make sense if they apply to all people, else two contradictory actions can both be right or wrong which makes no sense at all.
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 JS357I see you are justifying rape, what about the rest of the list?
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 clea ...[text shortened]...
Edit: I may be creating a scenario out of my rather extensive experience of theatrical drama.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhich ones have I ignored? I have posted extensively on rape and slavery and child abuse and genocide - oh, wait, genocide is not on your list because, of course, you have justified genocide and downplayed the holocaust - and Oh, yes, I see, that leaves one; I've never thought much about "necrophilia" before (presumably you got the idea of including it from a blog or web site somewhere, it sounds like a debating gimmick) but it strikes me as being a mental health issue more than anything else.
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.
I would not describe my attitude to any of these issues as "moral absolutes" as you have defined them, and would not characterize my strong opinions or revulsion or certainty as creating "moral absolutes", and I don't need to have - as you do - notions about supernatural things in order to look at, weigh, and decide a moral course of action with regard to the things on your list.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI think the expression "fair enough" is meaningless. Do you acknowledge that what I have argued - about the use of drugs - is a coherent moral perspective, even if you disagree with it? If by "fair enough", you mean that my perspective is "fair" or "just" or "common-sensical", then you should say so, rather than use a dismissive turn of phrase. Otherwise, it underpins this sense that you are not interested in the conversation going anywhere other than remaining in a tightly restricted little feedback loop where you repeat the same questions and assertions ad nauseam and never genuinely engage or reply to (or even pay any head whatsoever to) ideas, observations and questions that you disagree with or find inconvenient.
So when I say, 'fair enough' you think I am ignoring your stance?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkDo the words "fair enough" that you typed above refer to me saying...
Ok fair enough, 'abuse' may be subjective...
"Abuse" is an often subjective and even emotive term.
Or do the words "fair enough" above refer to me saying...
"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."
Are you saying that my view on what it is that morality governs ~ in the case of drug use ~ is, in your view, "fair"?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI didn't and don't justify rape, since unjustifiability is inherent in its definition. In the hypothetical I mentioned, the threat of killing the family is an example of the use of force. Do you really think that threat justifies rape? It defines the incident as rape.
I see you are justifying rape, what about the rest of the list?
Originally posted by JS357So do you believe the act of rape is always wrong for everyone in all circumstances?
I didn't and don't justify rape, since unjustifiability is inherent in its definition. In the hypothetical I mentioned, the threat of killing the family is an example of the use of force. Do you really think that threat justifies rape? It defines the incident as rape.
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkRape is essentially defined as always wrongful. Something that is defined as always wrongful is tautologically always wrongful, just as something that is defined as always red, is always red.
So do you believe the act of rape is always wrong for everyone in all circumstances?
But sometimes we are compelled to assess a situation and choose the lesser of two evils.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIf it doesn't then let your god come down and object. But of course that will never happen since the Abrahamic religions are all 100% man made with no god needed or wanted for that matter. THEY wanted to define what human characteristics their man made god needed. So THEY were the ones who made the alleged absolutes not a deity.
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 FetchmyjunkYou can choose not to depend on public opinion for your moral judgements but this does not make them absolute.
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 JS357I asked you what you believe.
Rape is essentially defined as always wrongful. Something that is defined as always wrongful is tautologically always wrongful, just as something that is defined as always red, is always red.
But sometimes we are compelled to assess a situation and choose the lesser of two evils.