Morality? What morality?

[PAboy57]

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.

Dear Spock,

My thoughts and prayers are with you. A Rosary on your behalf. Having known the feeling I wish you a speedy recovery. I have 4 of those stents and they work pretty good so good luck and God Bless.

 

[hazcompat]

Dear Spock,

My thoughts and prayers are with you. A Rosary on your behalf. Having known the feeling I wish you a speedy recovery. I have 4 of those stents and they work pretty good so good luck and God Bless.

Stents and ICU here also. I will pray for the Good. Peace be with you, and live long and prosper.

peace

 

[Spock]

Thanks to all of you for your good wishes. I am quite well - except that I am trying to quit smoking and that is neither fun, nor easy. Maybe my life will be longer, maybe not. But it sure will seem to be longer. No delicious, greasy food, no smoke… oh well. I will take it one day at a time. As the old saying goes: “Everything that is good is either illegal, immoral or fattening”.

Yes, it was the third time, and the doc said that it was a minor one, even with 2 clogged arteries.

 

[dskysmine]

@Betterave,
My interpretation of your “objective” definition comes from post 210.
I fail to see how the definition you mentioned in post 232 helps your case. How do we describe the “objective” morality you follow? At least I made it clear what are the principles for an objective morality.

@Spock,
Welcome back and I am glad that you are doing well.
I hope you can proceed to ahve a wonderful and healthy life.

 

[Betterave]

@Betterave,
My interpretation of your “objective” definition comes from post 210.

Which you quoted where…? And what is your criticism (of my actual view)?

I fail to see how the definition you mentioned in post 232 helps your case. How do we describe the “objective” morality you follow? At least I made it clear what are the principles for an objective morality.

That’s an extremely vague question. If you could actually describe what problem you see with my view (the one I’ve actually offered here), I’ll have a better chance of giving you a pertinent answer.

 

[Betterave]

I’m sorry - can you tell me *where *you quoted me?

@dskysmine:
I must say I find it a little vexing when I ask a simple question like this and it is ignored…

 

[dskysmine]

I quoted you in post 212…

-.-

I mean that it doesn’t help your case because you have stated that some actions were moral because there were “justifications” for them… if you can find a justification to kill someone you can find justifications for everything…

 

[Betterave]

I quoted you in post 212…

No you didn’t. You misquoted me. That’s an important difference.

[In future please use these marks: “…” to indicate when and what you are quoting. Doing so will lend clarity to your own thinking and make it more intelligible for others.]

I mean that it doesn’t help your case because you have stated that some actions were moral because there were “justifications” for them… if you can find a justification to kill someone you can find justifications for everything…

I don’t know where this thought is coming from: “I mean…” - by what do you mean? “…that it…” - what is “it” supposed to refer to?

“if you can find a justification to kill someone you can find justifications for everything” - this statement is a non sequitur.

 

[dskysmine]

No you didn’t. You misquoted me. That’s an important difference.

[In future please use these marks: “…” to indicate when and what you are quoting. Doing so will lend clarity to your own thinking and make it more intelligible for others.]

I cited you and refered to what you wrote… if I misunderstood you it is not a misquotation.

I don’t know where this thought is coming from: “I mean…” - by what do you mean? “…that it…” - what is “it” supposed to refer to?

“if you can find a justification to kill someone you can find justifications for everything” - this statement is a non sequitur.

The “it” was the last argument I used in the post prior to that one (prior to 245, that is 242) in which I mentioned your case.

If a justification for killing is objective, how can there not be a justification for raping? (for example?) Killing is the moral evil here… not stopping a certain person from killing or doing other evils.

 

[Betterave]

I cited you and refered to what you wrote… if I misunderstood you it is not a misquotation.

When you quote someone but change half of what he wrote without acknowledging that fact, that is called misquoting. It may be based on a misunderstanding, but it is still misquoting.

The “it” was the last argument I used in the post prior to that one (prior to 245, that is 242) in which I mentioned your case.

I don’t see an argument in post 242.

If a justification for killing is objective, how can there not be a justification for raping? (for example?) Killing is the moral evil here… not stopping a certain person from killing or doing other evils.

Your argument is based on a false premise: Killing as such is not a moral evil - there is such a thing as justified killing, i.e., killing that is morally permissible and in some cases even morally required.

 

[dskysmine]

Your argument is based on a false premise: Killing as such is not a moral evil - there is such a thing as justified killing, i.e., killing that is morally permissible and in some cases even morally required.

Justify killing another human being…
Better yet, when on earth is it morally required killing someone else?

 

[Betterave]

Justify killing another human being…
Better yet, when on earth is it morally required killing someone else?

When a presidential bodyguard spots an assassin taking aim at the president and he can only stop the assassin with a fatal head shot, he is morally required to take the shot and thus to kill the assassin.

 

[jonfawkes]

When a presidential bodyguard spots an assassin taking aim at the president and he can only stop the assassin with a fatal head shot, he is morally required to take the shot and thus to kill the assassin.

This doesn’t seem like a moral judgment but rather a judgment of duty and / or political. You are trading one 3rd party life for another.

Self - defense seems to be a easier and widely accepted example.

 

[sidbrown]

When a presidential bodyguard spots an assassin taking aim at the president and he can only stop the assassin with a fatal head shot, he is morally required to take the shot and thus to kill the assassin.

How can he be sure that the only way to stop the assassin in by a fatal head shot?

 

[dskysmine]

When a presidential bodyguard spots an assassin taking aim at the president and he can only stop the assassin with a fatal head shot, he is morally required to take the shot and thus to kill the assassin.

What makes an assassin an assassin if he hasn’t murdered yet?
Why is he required to kill?
Why is killing him (in the head, of all places) the way to stop him?
What if the president is ordering the killings of other people?
I fail to see how “knowledge” is applied to your scenario.

 

[Betterave]

This doesn’t seem like a moral judgment but rather a judgment of duty and / or political. You are trading one 3rd party life for another.

Why doesn’t it seem like a moral judgment?

Self - defense seems to be a easier and widely accepted example.

But self-defense is clearly not necessarily morally required. It *is *morally required for a bodyguard to fulfill his duty to protect the president.

 

[Betterave]

How can he be sure that the only way to stop the assassin in by a fatal head shot?

How is that relevant??

 

[Betterave]

What makes an assassin an assassin if he hasn’t murdered yet?

Who says he hasn’t murdered yet? How is this a pertinent question??

Why is he required to kill?

It’s his moral duty to protect the life of the president and killing an agressor is not wrong if that is what is required for the aggressor to be stopped.

Why is killing him (in the head, of all places) the way to stop him?

That’s the scenario.

What if the president is ordering the killings of other people?

What about it?

I fail to see how “knowledge” is applied to your scenario.

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[dskysmine]

Who says he hasn’t murdered yet? How is this a pertinent question??

You called him an assassin, but we only have your word for it. As far as I know an assassin is someone who has killed some one. Assassins don’t have a label that says “Hi, I’m an assassin.”

It’s his moral duty to protect the life of the president and killing an agressor is not wrong if that is what is required for the aggressor to be stopped.

So many principles completely unrequired.
1-Why is it his moral duty to protect the life of the president?
2-Why is killing an “agressor” required?
3-Who/what defines what an “agressor” is?
etc…

That’s the scenario.

That’s because it isn’t real… you defined that the only way to stop him was killing him. That doesn’t make it factual.

What about it?

Maybe the “assassin” is “justified” in killing the president to protect other people!

What is that supposed to mean?

It means that you are using the kind of analogy and reasoning that people use to justify what are considered “immoral” actions like abortion, premarital sex, and other stuff.
You are making blanket statements about things you obviously have not put much effort into thinking about. Your scenario is too simple.
Imagine that the “assassin” pointing the gun at the president was a little kid who didn’t even know how to take the safety off the gun…
Imagine that the security guy saw a fake weapon in the hands of somebody…
Imagine that the “assassin” he shoot at had a bomb that exploded whenever his finger was off a detonator…
Imagine that the bodyguard was having a hallucination due to drugs he had previously consumed, or medication he was on.
Imagine that the bodyguard didn’t have enough aim to shoot him in the head and instead ended shooting a pedestrian that was walking by…
Imagine that the bodyguard was protecting Kadafi… (or Staline if you prefer).
The bodyguard has to protect the president… not cause the killing of another human being/crowd because of it. The aim is in the president, not the assassin. The bodyguard could just as easily step in front of the president or push him. He could also aim for the gun or arm holding the gun (if he has that good aim to shoot him in the middle of the head).
I fail to see why it is his moral duty to kill the “assassin”. (Which you haven’t proven yet to be an “assassin” btw)

 

[Betterave]

You called him an assassin, but we only have your word for it. As far as I know an assassin is someone who has killed some one. Assassins don’t have a label that says “Hi, I’m an assassin.”

You only have “my word”? My word is *definitive *(literally) - this is a scenario, mine.

So many principles completely unrequired.

What on earth are you talking about? Are you intentionally being mysterious here?

1-Why is it his moral duty to protect the life of the president?
2-Why is killing an “agressor” required?
3-Who/what defines what an “agressor” is?
etc…

Are you serious?? You really don’t know the answers to these questions?? I’m sorry but I have to be honest: you’re sounding like a pure troll here.

That’s because it isn’t real… you defined that the only way to stop him was killing him. That doesn’t make it factual.

That makes no sense. It’s a scenario, it’s not *supposed *to be factual; it’s something that we can *imagine *being factual. Do you get that?

Maybe the “assassin” is “justified” in killing the president to protect other people!

Maybe! So what?

It means that you are using the kind of analogy and reasoning that people use to justify what are considered “immoral” actions like abortion, premarital sex, and other stuff.
You are making blanket statements about things you obviously have not put much effort into thinking about. Your scenario is too simple.
Imagine that the “assassin” pointing the gun at the president was a little kid who didn’t even know how to take the safety off the gun…
Imagine that the security guy saw a fake weapon in the hands of somebody…
Imagine that the “assassin” he shoot at had a bomb that exploded whenever his finger was off a detonator…
Imagine that the bodyguard was having a hallucination due to drugs he had previously consumed, or medication he was on.
Imagine that the bodyguard didn’t have enough aim to shoot him in the head and instead ended shooting a pedestrian that was walking by…
Imagine that the bodyguard was protecting Kadafi… (or Staline if you prefer).
The bodyguard has to protect the president… not cause the killing of another human being/crowd because of it. The aim is in the president, not the assassin. The bodyguard could just as easily step in front of the president or push him. He could also aim for the gun or arm holding the gun (if he has that good aim to shoot him in the middle of the head).
I fail to see why it is his moral duty to kill the “assassin”. (Which you haven’t proven yet to be an “assassin” btw)

“I fail to see how ‘knowledge’ is applied to your scenario” is supposed to mean all that? Are you serious? You can obviously imagine all sorts of *alternate *scenarios, Daniel, but those are irrelevant to the moral analysis of the scenario I offered. You are offering nothing but a bunch of silly red herring nonsense here. “Imagine… Imagine… Imagine…” Sure, imagine. But so what?