Originally posted by FMFI see you dodged the last part. What moral lessons can we learn from, "All morals are based on the subjective opinions of those in power. That all actions are permissible under certain conditions. That you can get away with anything as long as you are not caught. And if you are caught the worst thing that could happen to you for murdering millions of people is your life can be taken. And that justice in essence is simply an illusion."?
They can learn that there is no universally correct justice system and no absolute moral standard, even if an internet poster called Fetchmyjunk thinks that his hodgepodge of ancient Hebrew mythology and convoluted superstitions has got him thinking that there is a universally correct justice system and an absolute moral standard and it's exactly the one he thin ...[text shortened]... humanity to govern their interactions and therefore vary with culture and down through history.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou have very carefully avoided answering my question about what practical lessons humanity can learn - from your supernatural, definition-distorting version of "justice" - and apply to its system of justice here on earth. You've waffled about how everyone and everything is equally evil and about no one escaping from God's "justice", but you have dodged over and and over again what influence your "perfect justice" should rightfully have on how justice is applied by humanity. All wrong doing viewed as equally evil? Same punishment for everyone and everything? Thoughtcrimes punished by perpetual torture?
That's only because when my answer doesn't suit your fancy you classify it as a dodge.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou are promoting an imagined, mythological "system of justice" administered by a supernatural being, where you need to mangle the actual meaning of the words "moral", "fair" and "justice" in order to propagate your hideous, hysterical fairy story, and at the same time, you declare "justice" as it actually exists here in real life, on earth, to be an "illusion" because sometimes some people get away with crimes? I am not impressed with this line of 'argument'.
I see you dodged the last part. What moral lessons can we learn from, "All morals are based on the subjective opinions of those in power. That all actions are permissible under certain conditions. That you can get away with anything as long as you are not caught. And if you are caught the worst thing that could happen to you for murdering millions of people is your life can be taken. And that justice in essence is simply an illusion."?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou have recently declared "murdering millions of people" to be equally as evil as "pride" and "murdering millions of people" to be equally as evil as looking at a woman with "lust". Why are you suddenly concerned about the severity - or lack thereof - of the punishment for "murdering millions of people"? Haven't you cited "undeserved mercy" for the person guilty of "murdering millions of people" as an example of "perfect justice"?
And if you are caught the worst thing that could happen to you for murdering millions of people is your life can be taken.
Originally posted by FMFMoral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.
You have very carefully avoided answering my question about what practical lessons humanity can learn - from your supernatural, definition-distorting version of "justice" - and apply to its system of justice here on earth. You've waffled about how everyone and everything is equally evil and about no one escaping from God's "justice", but you have dodged over and ...[text shortened]... Same punishment for everyone and everything? Thoughtcrimes punished by perpetual torture?
So basically “anything goes”: slavery is just according to the norms of a slave society; sexist practices are right according to the values of a sexist culture. Without some sort of non-relative standard to appeal to, there is no basis for critical moral appraisals of our own culture’s conventions, or for judging one society to be better than another.
"Good" and "Evil" continually change with the times, what is good today may be evil tomorrow and what is evil today may be good tomorrow. So keeping that in mind what is "justice" really from your perspective? And why should there be increasing levels of evil? What criteria do you use to decide what is more evil than something else?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou have dodged the question yet again.
Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.
So basically “anything goes”: slavery is just according to the norms of a slave society; sexist practices are right acc ...[text shortened]... easing levels of evil? What criteria do you use to decide what is more evil than something else?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThe damage caused to the victims. The degree to which trust was betrayed. The degree of irresponsibility regarding the protection of others. The lack of empathy and compassion. The degree of regret. My moral compass. My notions of fairness. Precedent. Stuff like that.
What criteria do you use to decide what is more evil than something else?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhat does your ancient Hebrew folklore and mythology tell you about slavery and sexism?
So basically “anything goes”: slavery is just according to the norms of a slave society; sexist practices are right according to the values of a sexist culture.
Originally posted by FMFI have answered your question. But this is the problem:
You have dodged the question yet again.
From your point of view there is no correct answer. So nothing I say is ever going to be correct from your point of view. So why do you keep on demanding I answer a question which has no correct answer to start of with.
Originally posted by FMFIf there is no universally correct standard of what equates 'evil' then your view cannot be correct. So why do you keep on pretending like it is?
The damage caused to the victims. The degree to which trust was betrayed. The degree of irresponsibility regarding the protection of others. The lack of empathy and compassion. The degree of regret. My moral compass. My notions of fairness. Precedent. Stuff like that.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkNo. You have pointedly dodged it, over and over again. In terms of the administering of justice - prosecutions, due process, punishment - in terms of the application of justice, what can humanity learn - in practical terms - from the "perfect justice" model you propagate?
I have answered your question.
Originally posted by FMFIt's hard to believe there was ever a time when you were actually a Christian.
What does your ancient Hebrew folklore and mythology tell you about slavery and sexism?
So tell me what does my ancient Hebrew folklore and mythology tell me about slavery and sexism. If you have something to say say it. Stop beating about the bush. Go on an show everyone how well you actually understand the scriptures.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhy do you keep pretending that there is a universally correct standard of what equates 'evil' when there isn't?
If there is no universally correct standard of what equates 'evil' then your view cannot be correct. So why do you keep on pretending like it is?
Originally posted by FMFWho decides whether my answer is correct? You? Based on what?
No. You have pointedly dodged it, over and over again. In terms of the administering of justice - prosecutions, due process, punishment - in terms of the application of justice, what can humanity learn - in practical terms - from the "perfect justice" model you propagate?