Capital punishment has always been taught to be immoral unless certain circumstances exist, i.e., the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, and it is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. The latter circumstance is novel because the technology of prison security is novel.
A much better way to phrase it.AlNg:
Capital punishment has always been taught to be immoral unless certain circumstances exist, i.e., the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, and it is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. The latter circumstance is novel because the technology of prison security is novel.
Well I think being in an accident would be painful, and expensive, and just a nuisance overall. Being killed would make it very difficult to do the things I enjoy.
Please note that not all societies “decide” to avoid accidents and fatalities, as the last century’s dictators demonstrated.Dan123:
No Dan I don’t want you to conclude that. I am asking you a simple question:goout:
Speed limits reduce the chance of accidents of fatalities. You want me to conclude the only reason I don’t want to die in an accident with a speeder is because a higher power dictated that to me.
…
What is the purpose of speed limits? What good do they serve?
You responded :
Dan: What is the point of avoiding accidents and fatalities?
And the instruction to kill the Midianites before that.
Exactly. Thank you.goout:
And the instruction to kill the Midianites before that.
It was more pointing out you never addressed my questions about whether slavery was objectively moral.
You are seriously asking me, as an obvious Catholic Christian, if slavery is moral?goout:
It was more pointing out you never addressed my questions about whether slavery was objectively moral.
I really do think so. The tone is often pretty condescending and what I consider rude.
Exactly.goout:
I really do think so. The tone is often pretty condescending and what I consider rude.
If the purpose of sharing thoughts and ideas is to convince someone they are wrong, then what is the point? That isn’t going to happen.
I am of the belief that the purpose of sharing thoughts and ideas should be to gain a better understanding of the other person, the other view. These threads become tiresome because, instead of thoughtful inquiry the thread just becomes a place to insult the intelligence of others, make assumptions, and eventually tell others about who they are and what they are about.
I try not to tell others about themselves. It certainly happens. We all fall short. But it gets out of hand here.
I am going to mute this thread now, because I have allowed it to steal my joy while I am reading it.
No I’m not seriously asking, it’s rhetorical. I suspect we both say it’s immoral. You may go further and say it’s objectively immoral. I would say it’s a bit curious that people only really started to agree it was immoral when changing technology made manual labor less emphasized. We changed, and I think most would agree it’s for the better. The only real question is why does god’s word contain instructions for how to navigate a immoral system of human ownership if it was objectively wrong?
God exists, and there is nothing anybody can do about it; and why would you want to? It is the only concept worth considering in terms of ultimate causes. Everything else is just in my opinion a weak excuse, an opportunity to say that one is justified in their ignorance of God. For example evolution has come up more than a couple of times in this thread as some sort of magic word, as if evolution somehow absolves us from taking any theistic claim seriously, as if natural selection explains the existence of moral and religious creatures just by pointing out that those who are moral and religious are more likely to survive within an evolutionary context. Lol. But what has that really got to do with the metaphysical question of a things existence? Nothing.
But people still don’t agree that it’s immoral. So the human sense of morality is evolving…as you intend to note ( I think). What is it evolving towards and what is the point of the human sense of morality changing? There has to be a teleology if you admit the human sense of morality is journeying…to some point.goout:
No I’m not seriously asking, it’s rhetorical. I suspect we both say it’s immoral. You may go further and say it’s objectively immoral. I would say it’s a bit curious that people only really started to agree it was immoral when changing technology made manual labor less emphasized. We changed, and I think most would agree it’s for the better. The only real question is why does god’s word contain instructions for how to navigate a immoral system of human ownership if it was objectively wrong?
And I’m not dodging, I answered your question as to why avoiding accidents and fatalities is good.
Told you, being in accidents is painful, expensive, and quite a hassle. Being dead would prevent me from doing things I enjoy. Sure we could go on and talk about valuing life, to what degree and in what circumstances and so on but I don’t really need to go beyond the selfish to explain why I don’t want people on the road driving dangerously around me. Luckily enough people agree with me that we set speed limits and hired police to help enforce them.
Sure I see where you’re going, and I even agree we should hold human life with value. I just don’t see the objective source you’re appealing to. The societies you keep trying to point to didn’t value human life, at least not certain groups of them. I wouldn’t want to live in one of those, I doubt you would either. Why you think you can’t conclude that with reason alone is somewhere I doubt we’ll see eye to eye on.
We just did.goout:
Sure I see where you’re going, and I even agree we should hold human life with value. I just don’t see the objective source you’re appealing to. The societies you keep trying to point to didn’t value human life, at least not certain groups of them. I wouldn’t want to live in one of those, I doubt you would either. Why you think you can’t conclude that with reason alone is somewhere I doubt we’ll see eye to eye on.
I suspect they come either to justify, demonstrate, or express their atheism. And maybe a few come to actually see if there is any truth or value to the theistic claim of God.
No I said I see value in human life not that it was objective. I’m glad you see value in human life too though. I have some friends who feel the same way and I bet you do too. Thing is some people out there don’t think so and they do awful things. I know I wouldn’t want awful things done to me, I bet you and our friends wouldn’t either. Perhaps we could come up with some laws to protect all of us and a way to enforce them against those who mean us hard?
That’s a little circular but I’m glad you love life,.goout:
No I said I see value in human life not that it was objective. I’m glad you see value in human life too though. I have some friends who feel the same way and I bet you do too. Thing is some people out there don’t think so and they do awful things. I know I wouldn’t want awful things done to me, I bet you and our friends wouldn’t either. Perhaps we could come up with some laws to protect all of us and a way to enforce them against those who mean us hard?