Is the latest morality the best?

[Vera_Ljuba]

You mean like this?:

Sounds absolute to me.

But you are mistaken. Everyone is entitled to defend oneself (or others), and if there is no other way, then even killing is allowed - as the final measure. And it is possible that someone puts you into mortal danger without intending to do so. Since that person did not act out of malice, she is considered “innocent” - and yet we are allowed to use lethal force. So the quoted text from the catechism is incorrect, or imprecise.

In fact you yourself illustrated the tragic end of relativism when you compared the value of human life to that of pets.

It is rather discouraging that you (and others) keep misrepresenting what I said. Whether it is intentional on your part, or not, I cannot tell. To clarify, I will repeat once more what my stance is: “It is immoral to allow pets (or any animal) to suffer needlessly. Therefore it is even worse to allow fellow humans to suffer needlessly”.

What is so difficult to understand here, is beyond me. Maybe you missed that I did not equate the two actions. Oh, and I think it is of utmost importance to emphasize the word “needlessly”. An “absolute” stance would be: “It is immoral to allow pets (or other animals) under any and all circumstances”. The “relative” stance is what I expressed: “it is immoral to allow pets (or other animals) needlessly”. Is there anything else that needs clarification?

 

[goout]

But you are mistaken. Everyone is entitled to defend oneself (or others), and if there is no other way, then even killing is allowed - as the final measure. And it is possible that someone puts you into mortal danger without intending to do so. Since that person did not act out of malice, she is considered “innocent” - and yet we are allowed to use lethal force. So the quoted text from the catechism is incorrect, or imprecise.

No, it’s not imprecise because you misunderstand it and simply make an assertion based on your misunderstanding.
That’s called ignorance.

It is rather discouraging that you (and others) keep misrepresenting what I said. Whether it is intentional on your part, or not, I cannot tell. To clarify, I will repeat once more what my stance is: “It is immoral to allow pets (or any animal) to suffer needlessly. Therefore it is even worse to allow fellow humans to suffer needlessly”.

What is so difficult to understand here, is beyond me…

What’s difficult to understand is that your solution to suffering (which you conveniently left out) is to kill them, or allow them to kill themselves.
You assert that because we kill pets to end their suffering, ending the life of human beings in the same way is even more humane.

That you cannot own your words is telling.
Not a problem, hopefully that signals a change in your values. Let’s hope for the best.

 

[Bradski]

This is what I mean by relativism:
Subjecting to one’s self (your own experiences, emotions, opinions) things that are not subject to one’s self.

A crude analogy is this:
I don’t see the sun, therefore it doesn’t exist.
I wasn’t on the moon landing trip, therefore it didn’t happen.
Also:
I don’t feel like feeding my starving neighbor, therefore I should not.

These points of view relativize “other” and subject them to I.

Risible. You appear to have no understanding of the opposing argument in the slightest.

 

[Aloysium]

Risible. You appear to have no understanding of the opposing argument in the slightest.

A great opportunity has arisen to explain it.

 

[Bradski]

Sounds absolute to me.

So it does. As does this: sex outside of marriage is always wrong.

There ya go. Another absolute statement. Hell, that must mean that you are right. Unless…well, unless you make an argument that the statement is true, rather than implying that it is one with which you simply agree.

Because I have no problem with you declaring an allegiance to any given position and promising to uphold it. In fact, you should be commended for it. But of course, none of that has any bearing on whether the claim to which you make your allegiance is true.

If any given statement is conditional, then by that very definition, it is conditional to something. Sounds pretty straightforward to me. So your earlier statement is actually:

Taking an innocent life is wrong IF…

Similarly:

Sex outside of marriage is wrong IF…

Now I would think that any reasonable person would be able to fill in the blanks. I’m sure you could. Which would make each statement conditional. Which would mean that the declaration in each case is relative to the conditions.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

No, it’s not imprecise because you misunderstand it and simply make an assertion based on your misunderstanding.

Misunderstood WHAT? That killing in defense is permitted? You can’t have both. Either it is wrong to kill someone in any and all circumstances - self-defense included, or there are exceptions. And it is possible that someone puts you (or someone else) into mortal danger, without malice. That is time to invoke the “killing in (self)-defense principle”. Which nullifies the “under any and all circumstances”.

By the way, it is very irritating to see some unfounded and empty accusation without an explanation WHY is there an error in the argument. It is elementary politeness to explain WHY someone is wrong.

What’s difficult to understand is that your solution to suffering (which you conveniently left out) is to kill them, or allow them to kill themselves.

It is only difficult for those who lack compassion.

You assert that because we kill pets to end their suffering, ending the life of human beings in the same way is even more humane.

Yes, it is. Humans deserve even more compassion than pets, and if the only way to end suffering requires such drastic measure, then so be it.

 

[PRmerger]

Precisely because someone who really understands the relativist position wouldn’t be arguing with you on the internet, you will necessarily only encounter a relativist who doesn’t understand relativism!

Or, an absolutist who doesn’t understand relativism.

(Nor for that matter, does she understand absolutism).

 

[PRmerger]

Moral absolutism would be to declare that a certain act is always, under any and all circumstances is immoral.

It is always, under any and all circumstances, immoral to kill another man because you want to have sex with his wife.

It is always, under any and all circumstances, immoral to drag your woman around by her hair because she burned your toast.

It is always, under any and all circumstances, immoral to rape someone.

It is always, under any and all circumstances, immoral to torture someone for fun.

It is always, under any and all circumstances, immoral to enslave someone simply because of the color of his skin.

It is always, under any and all circumstances, immoral to annihilate a group of citizens because of their genetic presentation.

I could go on and on…

 

[PRmerger]

If any given statement is conditional, then by that very definition, it is conditional to something. Sounds pretty straightforward to me. So your earlier statement is actually:

Taking an innocent life is wrong IF…

Similarly:

Sex outside of marriage is wrong IF…

Now I would think that any reasonable person would be able to fill in the blanks. I’m sure you could. Which would make each statement conditional. Which would mean that the declaration in each case is relative to the conditions.

Wha???

You have arbitrarily come up with some weird definition of moral absolutes.

“Something is only a moral absolute if there are no conditions attached to it.”

Something can have an IF, and still be a moral absolute. That is: when that condition is met, it is NEVER permissible.

Why does that make it not a moral absolute?

 

[PRmerger]

Humans deserve even more compassion than pets, and if the only way to end suffering requires such drastic measure, then so be it.

There’s that assertion again, that sound so much like you believe it to be objectively true…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes, it is. Humans deserve even more compassion than pets, and if the only way to end suffering requires such drastic measure, then so be it.

So you must be profoundly opposed to abortion?

 

[Bradski]

Something can have an IF, and still be a moral absolute. That is: when that condition is met, it is NEVER permissible.

Consider this statement: IF you harm someone in a particular manner (BECAUSE x, y or z) THEN…A or B.

If you have done any English grammar at all, then you will recognise that as a conditional statement. It’s a conditional statement about causing harm. What comes after THEN – the consequence, is entirely dependent upon, is conditional to, is relative to, whatever comes after the IF (the BECAUSE isn’t required but it matches what has been posted previously).That is, what comes after THEN relates directly to whatever comes after IF. I’ll repeat that so there is no misunderstanding:

What A or B turns out to be is relative to the content of the clause(s) that precede THEN.

Now this is the part that a lot of people seem not to understand. If you fill in some details and are specific about the particular manner and are specific about the particular reason, IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE STATUS OF THE STATEMENT. It is STILL a conditional statement and whatever A or B is decided to be is STILL relative to the clause(s) that precede THEN.

I’ll try another way of saying exactly the same thing:

The content of a conditional statement has NO BEARING on the fact that it is a conditional statement.

And yet another way:

Whatever A or B is decided to be has NO BEARING on the fact that it is a conditional statement.

So let’s plug a few examples into the conditional statement that we now have:

IF you kill another man BECAUSE you want to have sex with his wife, THEN it is immoral.
IF you harm a woman by dragging her around by the hair BECAUSE she burned your toast, it is immoral.
IF you enslave someone BECAUSE of the colour of his skin, THEN it is immoral.

Now all the sentences are grammatically IDENTICAL to the example above. That is, they are conditional statements. That is, the consequence is entirely dependent upon the predicate. Notwithstanding that is a contradiction to preface the sentence with ‘under any and all circumstances’ and then go on to specify the EXACT circumstances.

I hope that is clear. Although I have a feeling that you are just going to ignore this post completely and simply repeat yourself.

 

[PRmerger]

Consider this statement: IF you harm someone in a particular manner (BECAUSE x, y or z) THEN…A or B.

If you have done any English grammar at all, then you will recognise that as a conditional statement. It’s a conditional statement about causing harm. What comes after THEN – the consequence, is entirely dependent upon, is conditional to, is relative to, whatever comes after the IF (the BECAUSE isn’t required but it matches what has been posted previously).That is, what comes after THEN relates directly to whatever comes after IF. I’ll repeat that so there is no misunderstanding:

What A or B turns out to be is relative to the content of the clause(s) that precede THEN.

Now this is the part that a lot of people seem not to understand. If you fill in some details and are specific about the particular manner and are specific about the particular reason, IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE STATUS OF THE STATEMENT. It is STILL a conditional statement and whatever A or B is decided to be is STILL relative to the clause(s) that precede THEN.

I’ll try another way of saying exactly the same thing:

The content of a conditional statement has NO BEARING on the fact that it is a conditional statement.

And yet another way:

Whatever A or B is decided to be has NO BEARING on the fact that it is a conditional statement.

So let’s plug a few examples into the conditional statement that we now have:

IF you kill another man BECAUSE you want to have sex with his wife, THEN it is immoral.
IF you harm a woman by dragging her around by the hair BECAUSE she burned your toast, it is immoral.
IF you enslave someone BECAUSE of the colour of his skin, THEN it is immoral.

Now all the sentences are grammatically IDENTICAL to the example above. That is, they are conditional statements. That is, the consequence is entirely dependent upon the predicate. Notwithstanding that is a contradiction to preface the sentence with ‘under any and all circumstances’ and then go on to specify the EXACT circumstances.

I hope that is clear. Although I have a feeling that you are just going to ignore this post completely and simply repeat yourself.

All of the above is just a verbose way to say: conditional statements are conditional.

And that is a nonsequitur as it applies to absolute morality.

It remains INCONTROVERTIBLE: IF you drag your wife around by her hair because she burned your toast, it is wrong.

You have no other response except to say: yes, PR, it is always wrong to do this. There is NO REASON that a man could say, “Well, I dragged her by her hair because she burned my toast, but it’s ok because…A, B and C”.

#moralabsolute

When you can fill in the blank with A, B and C, Bradski, then we can say: ok. It’s NOT a moral absolute.

 

[PRmerger]

All of the above is just a verbose way to say: conditional statements are conditional.

And that is a nonsequitur as it applies to absolute morality.

It remains INCONTROVERTIBLE: IF you drag your wife around by her hair because she burned your toast, it is wrong.

You have no other response except to say: yes, PR, it is always wrong to do this. There is NO REASON that a man could say, “Well, I dragged her by her hair because she burned my toast, but it’s ok because…A, B and C”.

#moralabsolute

When you can fill in the blank with A, B and C, Bradski, then we can say: ok. It’s NOT a moral absolute.

And here’s another one, Bradski:

Let’s take this statement:
IF you kill another man BECAUSE you want to have sex with his wife, THEN it is immoral.

You provide me with reasons A, B and C where the man who says, “Well, yes, I killed that man because I wanted to have sex with his wife, but it’s perfectly moral because, A, B and C”.

Give us those situations for A, B and C and then we can chat.

 

[Bradski]

“Well, I dragged her by her hair because she burned my toast, but it’s ok because…A, B and C”.

When you can fill in the blank with A, B and C, Bradski, then we can say: ok. It’s NOT a moral absolute.

You cannot add another BECAUSE. You have already given the reasons (she burnt my toast). You already have the answer to BECAUSE. You already have your A, B and C. So by your own definition (if you can give a reason), then it is not a moral absolute.

If you want to make a moral statement then you need THEN.

If X, then A or B.

There is no C required for heaven’s sake. This is where you declare it to be morally acceptable (A), or not (B). And whether it is morally acceptable or not is dependent on what follows IF. It is conditional on what follows IF. An absolute statement does not, by its very definition, contain and IF and a THEN. Every single example you gave requires an IF and a THEN in order to make a decision on the morality of the act.

‘Is it immoral to kill a man?’

Could you answer that? No, it’s impossible to answer. You need more information. You need to specify the circumstances. You need to give the exact conditions:

‘IF you kill a man to have sex with his wife, THEN it is immoral’.

That is, without any doubt whatsoever, a conditional statement. It is NOT an absolute statement because it cannot be both one and the other at the same time. So ‘killing a man (for a particular reason) is wrong’ is exactly the same thing. It is a conditional statement, conditional upon whatever is in the brackets (to have sex with his wife). So therefore it is impossible for it to be absolute.

What you are doing is taking the result of those questions (which give answers which are, by definition, relative to the conditions), rewording them and declaring them to be absolute.

 

[PRmerger]

You cannot add another BECAUSE. You have already given the reasons (she burnt my toast). You already have the answer to BECAUSE. You already have your A, B and C. So by your own definition (if you can give a reason), then it is not a moral absolute.

Again…what makes you think that when there is an A, B and C that this makes it relative?

You cannot give a C, D and E.

That is, there is NO CONDITION in which it would be permissible to drag your woman around by her hair for burning your toast.

No. Condition.

ALSO: is there any person for whom this wouldn’t be true? Is there an exception where one could say, “Oh, yes, PR. It may not be right for ME to drag my wife around by her hair, but if, say, Donald Trump did this it would be ok because, hey, who am I to judge?”

NO?

Okay then.

It’s a…moral absolute.

QED.

 

[PRmerger]

You cannot add another BECAUSE. You have already given the reasons (she burnt my toast). You already have the answer to BECAUSE. You already have your A, B and C. So by your own definition (if you can give a reason), then it is not a moral absolute.

If you want to make a moral statement then you need THEN.

If X, then A or B.

There is no C required for heaven’s sake. This is where you declare it to be morally acceptable (A), or not (B). And whether it is morally acceptable or not is dependent on what follows IF. It is conditional on what follows IF. An absolute statement does not, by its very definition, contain and IF and a THEN. Every single example you gave requires an IF and a THEN in order to make a decision on the morality of the act.

‘Is it immoral to kill a man?’

Could you answer that? No, it’s impossible to answer. You need more information. You need to specify the circumstances. You need to give the exact conditions:

‘IF you kill a man to have sex with his wife, THEN it is immoral’.

That is, without any doubt whatsoever, a conditional statement. It is NOT an absolute statement because it cannot be both one and the other at the same time. So ‘killing a man (for a particular reason) is wrong’ is exactly the same thing. It is a conditional statement, conditional upon whatever is in the brackets (to have sex with his wife). So therefore it is impossible for it to be absolute.

What you are doing is taking the result of those questions (which give answers which are, by definition, relative to the conditions), rewording them and declaring them to be absolute.

I think, Bradski, if we could get you to understand that Moral Absolutes and Objective Truth do not have to be such WIDE STATEMENTS.

Can you accept that an Objective Truths and Moral Absolutes could be something specific?

Is that possible?

 

[inocente]

It is always, under any and all circumstances, immoral to kill another man-] because you want to have sex with his wife/-].

It is always, under any and all circumstances, immoral to drag anyone -]your woman/-] around by her hair -]because she burned your toast/-].

It is always, under any and all circumstances, immoral to rape someone.

It is always, under any and all circumstances, immoral to torture someone-] for fun/-].

It is always, under any and all circumstances, immoral to enslave someone-] simply because of the color of his ski/-]n.

It is always, under any and all circumstances, immoral to annihilate a group of citizens -]because of their genetic presentation/-].

I could go on and on…

I’ve crossed out the conditional clauses because, for instance, a victim of torture is just as tortured whether or not the torturer had fun. The act of torturing is either always, under any and all circumstances, absolutely immoral or it isn’t. The torturer isn’t moral just because he doesn’t have fun, the act is the same.

 

[PRmerger]

The act of torturing is either always, under any and all circumstances, absolutely immoral or it isn’t.

There are some arguments that it’s moral under certain circumstances.

However, there are NO ARGUMENTS that it’s moral when done for fun.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Again…what makes you think that when there is an A, B and C that this makes it relative?

Elementary grammar in English 101, my dear Watson.

1. Action “X” is wrong under any and all circumstances - is an absolute statement.
2. Action “X” is wrong under “these specific circumstances” - is a relative statement. Especially, since it implies that it is NOT wrong under different circumstances.
3. Even if you add: Action “X” is always wrong under “these specific circumstances” - it remains a relative statement.

Adding the word “always” does not change it to become absolute. The word “always” here is useless “filler”. It is already implied in the proposition.

That is, there is NO CONDITION in which it would be permissible to drag your woman around by her hair for burning your toast.

Of course there can be. Here comes an example:

The action “X” in this case is “to drag a woman around by her hair”. This is an absolute statement, albeit a morally neutral one. You wish to add the specific: “for burning your toast” is now a qualified statement. And you challenged us to add another qualifier, which will make this statement moral again. Here it comes: “as long as it is part of a theater play”.

So the extended proposition now is: “it is permissible to drag a woman around by for hair for burning a toast, as long as it is part of theater play”. Or any other “play”, mutually agreed upon.

You see, as long as you can pile qualifier upon qualifier to change an absolute statement into a relative one, we are allowed to do the same. But, of course adding the FIRST qualifier makes the statement RELATIVE.

The basic problem is that you wish to pronounce an action to be “immoral” even if it is mutually accepted by ALL the affected parties. Of course it is your right and prerogative to make such declarations, but don’t be surprised if others will simply shrug you off.

Vera_Ljuba