Morality? What morality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dskysmine said:
I want to know what do you mean by “objective”. That’s first! The rest can come after that little understanding. And no, you haven’t been clear on what you mean by it with your earlier explanations… so much that I have understood it as “agreed subjectivity”.
So please, explain!

Hug,
Daniel
Click to expand...
Okay, well here’s a very simple suggestion: why don’t you just refer to what I have actually said about it (instead of introducing your own inaccurate paraphrases of what I have said) and tell me where you see a problem with what I have said, and why?
 
Betterave said:
Okay, well here’s a very simple suggestion: why don’t you just refer to what I have actually said about it (instead of introducing your own inaccurate paraphrases of what I have said) and tell me where you see a problem with what I have said, and why?
Click to expand...
I did… I quoted what you said and that’s textbook “agreed subjectivity”. You said I was wrong. Correct me!
 
dskysmine said:
Situation 1
Facts: humans are equal.
Situation presents us with unequal treatment of humans
Conclusion: Immoral

Situation 2
Facts: Too many unknown variables… other than knowing torture is being used.
Situation doesn’t explain what makes that suspect a suspect, what kind of information is trying to be extracted, and what method of extraction is being used.
Either way, torture is contrary to Life which is the first and most important premise for existence.
Conclusion: Immoral

Situation 3
Facts: Life is being taken by human choice.
Life is the primary premise for existence.
Conclusion: Immoral
Click to expand...
The problem is that it has been Catholic teaching in the past that slavery is permitted, torture to extract confessions is allowed, and the burning of a heretic at the stake is justified.
Of course, the teaching has changed with time, so that now these things are now said to be immoral, but it was not that way in the past.
 
sidbrown said:
He won’t give a defintion because it would be easy to prove him wrong if he did so.
Click to expand...
LOL! Clever comment. :rolleyes: Are you really having a hard time understanding the term “objective”? You have no idea what it means? Have you considered looking it up? I guess that would be too hard.
 
sidbrown said:
The problem is that it has been Catholic teaching in the past that slavery is permitted, torture to extract confessions is allowed, and the burning of a heretic at the stake is justified.
Of course, the teaching has changed with time, so that now these things are now said to be immoral, but it was not that way in the past.
Click to expand...
Did you read post 211, perchance? I see you’re conveniently ignoring it.
 
Betterave said:
LOL! Clever comment. :rolleyes: Are you really having a hard time understanding the term “objective”? You have no idea what it means? Have you considered looking it up? I guess that would be too hard.
Click to expand...
LOL. Still no definition. Only an ad hominem argument.
 
sidbrown said:
LOL. Still no definition. Only an ad hominem argument.
Click to expand...
So no; you haven’t considered looking it up? Or you just haven’t gotten around to it? (It would take about five seconds - just do it! And do invest another five in looking up “ad hominem” - you need to.)
[And please consider taking *more than five seconds thinking about and responding to my posts. 👍]
 
Betterave said:
So no; you haven’t considered looking it up? Or you just haven’t gotten around to it? (It would take about five seconds - just do it! And do invest another five in looking up “ad hominem” - you need to.)
[And please consider taking *more than
Click to expand...
five seconds thinking about and responding to my posts. 👍]
Still refuses to define what he means by the word objective. He only gives an ad hominem argument condemning someone for supposedly taking five seconds to respond.
Obviously, he does not want to define his terms, because if he did that, he would open himself up to a discussion questioning his assumptions.
 
sidbrown said:
Still no hint of what he means by the word objective.
Click to expand...
LOL! Okay Mr. Lazy, here you go:
Definition for objective
  • free of bias: free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings
  • based on facts: based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions
  • observable: describes disease symptoms that can be observed by somebody other than the person who is ill
 
sidbrown said:
Still refuses to define what he means by the word objective. He only gives an ad hominem argument condemning someone for supposedly taking five seconds to respond.
Obviously, he does not want to define his terms, because if he did that, he would open himself up to a discussion questioning his assumptions.
Click to expand...
Pointing out that you are being lazy is not an ad hominem argument. It’s a fact clearly demonstrated by your behaviour, which you are supposed to recognize and feel ashamed about so that you change your behaviour and stop being so lazy. This would allow the discussion to move forward without me having to define basic terms that you evidently don’t understand, such as “ad hominem” and “objective.” There’s nothing wrong with you not understanding these terms, but you *should *understand that it is rather stupid for you to use them in making argumentative assertions when you don’t understand what they mean.
 
Betterave said:
Just quickly on this: no, Spock clearly did not say or imply this. He said that morality includes written (i.e., codified) rules, presumably such as the ones you mention.
Click to expand...
Thank you!

Indeed I emphasized that some rules are codified into laws, and others are not. It would be either impossible or ineffective to codify “everything”. Besides, there are some laws which are usually considered “immoral”, and breaking them was heroic (Raoul Wallenberg comes to mind).

By the way, I need to apologise for the belated return. I just had a nice little heart attack, and was hospitalized for stent-implants. I will read and reflect of those posts I can in a timely manner.
 
Spock said:
Thank you!

Indeed I emphasized that some rules are codified into laws, and others are not. It would be either impossible or ineffective to codify “everything”. Besides, there are some laws which are usually considered “immoral”, and breaking them was heroic (Raoul Wallenberg comes to mind).

By the way, I need to apologise for the belated return. I just had a nice little heart attack, and was hospitalized for stent-implants. I will read and reflect of those posts I can in a timely manner.
Click to expand...
I was wondering where you were, I’m glad you’re up on your feet and hope you stay healthy. Every religion forum needs a gadfly 😉
 
Betterave said:
Pointing out that you are being lazy is not an ad hominem argument. It’s a fact clearly demonstrated by your behaviour, which you are supposed to recognize and feel ashamed about so that you change your behaviour and stop being so lazy. This would allow the discussion to move forward without me having to define basic terms that you evidently don’t understand, such as “ad hominem” and “objective.” There’s nothing wrong with you not understanding these terms, but you *should *understand that it is rather stupid for you to use them in making argumentative assertions when you don’t understand what they mean.
Click to expand...
Just in case you haven’t figured it out yet, there’s a famous Internet saying that could be slightly re-worded without changing what it warns of, it would go “Do Not Feed The sidbrown”.
 
Spock said:
By the way, I need to apologise for the belated return. I just had a nice little heart attack, and was hospitalized for stent-implants. I will read and reflect of those posts I can in a timely manner.
Click to expand...
Good to have you back. My thoughts have been with you - I couldn’t help wondering if you had been struck again. Was that your third? Best wishes.
 
Spock said:
Thank you!

Indeed I emphasized that some rules are codified into laws, and others are not. It would be either impossible or ineffective to codify “everything”. Besides, there are some laws which are usually considered “immoral”, and breaking them was heroic (Raoul Wallenberg comes to mind).
Click to expand...
Thank you for adjusting your wording. I was going by an earlier statement that read:
So, I do not think that “immoral” behavior should be codified into laws. Emphatically no.
Click to expand...
That was taken out of context. Sorry about that.
By the way, I need to apologise for the belated return. I just had a nice little heart attack, and was hospitalized for stent-implants. I will read and reflect of those posts I can in a timely manner.
Click to expand...
Nothing to apologise about. I’m sorry to hear of your medical difficulty. I promise to say a prayer for healing for you. (I’m on a prayer network). God bless you whether you believe or not, He believes in you. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top