Absolute morality question

[o_mlly]

You continuously fail to understand that a term like rape contains within it the conditions that define the act. There is no need to add further conditions to determine the morality of the act. Likewise bestiality.

Whereas a term like lying contains none. It is simply telling someone something that is not true. For any reasonable person, we would need the conditions to determine if lying is morally justified or not. That is, unless you would argue that telling the SS that the children are not hiding in the house is absolutely evil.

Likewise stealing. What is being stolen? From whom? What are the consequences? Again, unless you want to argue that stealing the trigger for a nuclear device from a terrorist is absolutely evil. In which case, you have an extremely perverse notion of evil.

An atheist and a Catholic apply for a job in my family business. The Catholic acknowledges his belief in the principles of moral theology of the Church.

But the atheists says, “Well, I think it’s wrong to rape or have animal sex but sometimes I think it’s good for me to lie or steal.”

I think, “Whoa, my wife and dog might be safe from this person but not my property. But wait, the atheist also said it’s good for him to lie sometimes. Is this one of those times? Hide the dog and hire the Catholic.”

 

[Bradski]

An atheist and a Catholic apply for a job in my family business. The Catholic acknowledges his belief in the principles of moral theology of the Church.

But the atheists says, “Well, I think it’s wrong to rape or have animal sex but sometimes I think it’s good for me to lie or steal”

So your Catholic guy indicates his complete lack of basic humanity in admitting he would turn in children to the SS and allow a city to be blown up by not taking the nuclear trigger because, hey, that would be taking someone’s property without their permission, which is absolutely evil.

As I said, you have an extraordinarily bizarre sense of what constitutes evil.

I know who I would employ. And I know which person has forfeited his right to be considered a member of the type of society most people would prefer existed. One where reasonable rules applicable to most situations are not blindly followed by those with no freedom to act in the best interests of others and who think rigid obedience is to be praised and celebrated.

 

[o_mlly]

So your Catholic guy indicates his complete lack of basic humanity in admitting he would turn in children to the SS and allow a city to be blown up by not taking the nuclear trigger because, hey, that would be taking someone’s property without their permission, which is absolutely evil.

It is the other man who admits that he will lie or steal sometimes. And you would rather trust the children and the city to him?

On the other hand, by affirming his faith, the Catholic acknowledges he believes that taking the property against the reasonable will of its owner is absolutely evil. But taking the property against the unreasonable will of an owner bent on doing evil with it is good.

With the Catholic we can hope acting on his principles he would protect the children, if necessary, even with his life. Could one expect the same from those who think lying and stealing is sometimes a good thing? If so, then that one is a fool.

 

[Bradski]

And you would rather trust the children and the city to him?

You mean the person that has the children’s best interests at heart and would save the city as opposed to the man who would turn the children over and allow millions to die? Hmm…let me get back to you on that. It’s a toughie.

On the other hand, by affirming his faith, the Catholic acknowledges he believes that taking the property against the reasonable will of its owner is absolutely evil. But taking the property against the unreasonable will of an owner bent on doing evil with it is good.

So whether stealing is morally wrong or not depends upon…the conditions. Gee, it took a long time to get there, didn’t it.

With the Catholic we can hope acting on his principles he would protect the children, if necessary, even with his life.

Two scenarios:

‘Yes, the kids are in the attic, but I won’t let you take them’. Everyone dies.

‘No, the kid left ages ago’. Happy ending.

Which do you prefer?

Could one expect the same from those who think lying and stealing is sometimes a good thing? If so, then that one is a fool.

Hang on. Just check out what you said a few lines up from here. The bit where you said that stealing in some circumstances was OK. How can you contradict yourself in the same post? I think that stealing is sometimes, in some circumstances, a good thing and so do you.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…taking the property against the reasonable will of its owner is absolutely evil.

Foul ref .

The morally bad absolute of “killing a dog unjustly” is allowed rejected for begging the question, as here…

o_mlly Post #153:
“Man shoots dog unjustly” is a logical fallacy - begs the question.

but the above morally bad absolute gets the big tick.

 

[o_mlly]

You mean the person that has the children’s best interests at heart and would save the city as opposed to the man who would turn the children over and allow millions to die? Hmm…let me get back to you on that. It’s a toughie.
So whether stealing is morally wrong or not depends upon…the conditions. Gee, it took a long time to get there, didn’t it.
Two scenarios:
‘Yes, the kids are in the attic, but I won’t let you take them’. Everyone dies.
‘No, the kid left ages ago’. Happy ending.
Which do you prefer?
Hang on. Just check out what you said a few lines up from here. The bit where you said that stealing in some circumstances was OK. How can you contradict yourself in the same post? I think that stealing is sometimes, in some circumstances, a good thing and so do you.

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Rudyard Kipling