People killing others in selfdefense isn’t that uncommon, and from your perspective the act of killing in selfdefense is either moral or immoral.
If killing another human being is always immoral, than killing in selfdefense is also immoral.
If it isn’t also immoral than there’s an exception to the rule that killing another human is always immoral and that makes it relative.
What about the euthanasia case?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
People killing others in selfdefense isn’t that uncommon, and from your perspective the act of killing in selfdefense is either moral or immoral. [/quote] Abortion is MORE common than murder in self defense. The act of murder is always immoral, who says other wise? I never made that claim.
[quote] If killing another human being is always immoral, than killing in selfdefense is also immoral. [/quote] Yet the act is up to each individual person. I do not want to die, so I will not threaten the life of another person. You therefore can NOT kill me using that justification.
[quote] If it isn’t also immoral than there’s an exception to the rule that killing another human is always immoral and that makes it relative. [/quote] And here comes the part where you are defining my position. Try to use my language against me, that is the point of debate. Yet when you place ideas or words in my mouth, you are failing.
[quote] What about the euthanasia case?[/quote] I have never supported the killing of another human life! Please stop placing ideals in my mouth to argue your case.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Do you know all and are never wrong? You know how to quote people on these forums simply because everyone else does it your way? Look at everything in the world with an objective view Mak, you will be surprised at how often you are wrong. We are human and therefore mistaken at times.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
oh god stop molesting the quote function what is wrong with you[/quote]
[/quote]
Yes, you are very mistaken, now stop raping it. Man, there should be laws to stop this kind of abuse.
Man, I missed out on all the fun.
Where are these “forum rules” posted? Or do you have to abandon your argument and instead resort to belittling another human because your logic is blatantly flawed?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Yes, you are very mistaken, now stop raping it. Man, there should be laws to stop this kind of abuse.[/quote]
You can add ANY additional point you would like. If I failed to explain the position of life, please add your own commentary. These pro-choicer’s are quite humorous when they redefine the English language ; ) Mak, like the rest, will resort to personal attacks when backed into a corner, especially when there is no solid ground to stand on.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Man, I missed out on all the fun.
:([/quote]
[quote]ephrem wrote:
People killing others in selfdefense isn’t that uncommon, and from your perspective the act of killing in selfdefense is either moral or immoral.
[/quote]
When something is necessary, it’s amoral. If it’s kills or be killed, then you have no choice.
Oh brother… You’re reaching for a justification that doesn’t exist. This is not a open door, or a ‘gateway’ killing. Again, the victim is the perpetrator, in this case. Killing in self defense is tragic, but not a moral issue. I never said killing another person is ‘always’ immoral, murder is, though.
[quote]
If it isn’t also immoral than there’s an exception to the rule that killing another human is always immoral and that makes it relative.
What about the euthanasia case?[/quote]
No, murder is always wrong. Terminating a human life for selfish or malicious intent is always immoral. Situations may dictate tragic necessities. But if you put a hammer in an old lady’s head cause you don’t like her hair color or you kill a child because your too lazy to be bothered with it, those are always immoral acts without exception.
There are two components to morality, action and intent. If you kill someone for fun then you are acting immorally. If you are trying to save yourself or others then you are not.
I know your trying to meld this into a relativity debate, basing relativity on situation, but that is not moral relativity. Moral relativity is morality based on feeling or societal dictations. That simply isn’t the case.
Can you make an argument for slavery that makes it moral act? Is it moral to enslave someone simply because ‘other people do it’ or because it’s legal? It was for many hundreds of years, and it was never moral.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Man, I missed out on all the fun.
:([/quote]
Eh, can’t say it was all that fun…Same shit different day.
Missed you though 
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
People killing others in selfdefense isn’t that uncommon, and from your perspective the act of killing in selfdefense is either moral or immoral.
[/quote]
When something is necessary, it’s amoral. If it’s kills or be killed, then you have no choice.
Oh brother… You’re reaching for a justification that doesn’t exist. This is not a open door, or a ‘gateway’ killing. Again, the victim is the perpetrator, in this case. Killing in self defense is tragic, but not a moral issue. I never said killing another person is ‘always’ immoral, murder is, though.
[quote]
If it isn’t also immoral than there’s an exception to the rule that killing another human is always immoral and that makes it relative.
What about the euthanasia case?[/quote]
No, murder is always wrong. Terminating a human life for selfish or malicious intent is always immoral. Situations may dictate tragic necessities. But if you put a hammer in an old lady’s head cause you don’t like her hair color or you kill a child because your too lazy to be bothered with it, those are always immoral acts without exception.
There are two components to morality, action and intent. If you kill someone for fun then you are acting immorally. If you are trying to save yourself or others then you are not.
I know your trying to meld this into a relativity debate, basing relativity on situation, but that is not moral relativity. Moral relativity is morality based on feeling or societal dictations. That simply isn’t the case.
Can you make an argument for slavery that makes it moral act? Is it moral to enslave someone simply because ‘other people do it’ or because it’s legal? It was for many hundreds of years, and it was never moral.[/quote]
In other words you take an action, the killing of another human being, and attach a different word with a different meaning to that action so that the action becomes a different moral entity.
Killing is wrong, except when… etc… etc…
By doing so you make it relative. And it’s so easy to judge with hindsight but I don’t doubt that, had we been brought up in a society where slavery was normal/commonplace, we’d think nothing of it.
Relative to our modern mores slavery is wrong. I wouldn’t want to be a slave, so I wouldn’t want to enslave others. On the other hand, I have no moral objection to homosexuality yet many object to it based on moral grounds.
The fact that a moral outlook changes over time from good to bad to good [or less bad] is in itself proof that morality is relative to the culture of the time.
It doesn’t mean that all acts are equally amoral, it simply means that how we feel about all acts changes over time.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Conclusive proof of the source of absolute morality? Revelation.[/quote]You missed my point. What would constitute conclusive proof of anything to you?
[/quote]
Either personal experience [to an extent] or reproducible experiments performed by different people.
[/quote]And this to you provides conclusive proof, certainty? Or am I about to be treated to an eyebrow raising performance of semantic contortion?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Either personal experience [to an extent] or reproducible experiments performed by different people.
[/quote]And this to you provides conclusive proof, certainty? Or am I about to be treated to an eyebrow raising performance of semantic contortion?
[/quote]
That would provide me with a level of sufficient certainty that constitutes proof, yes.
OK
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
People killing others in selfdefense isn’t that uncommon, and from your perspective the act of killing in selfdefense is either moral or immoral.
[/quote]
When something is necessary, it’s amoral. If it’s kills or be killed, then you have no choice.
Oh brother… You’re reaching for a justification that doesn’t exist. This is not a open door, or a ‘gateway’ killing. Again, the victim is the perpetrator, in this case. Killing in self defense is tragic, but not a moral issue. I never said killing another person is ‘always’ immoral, murder is, though.
That’s not the relativity you are talking about. That technically isn’t moral relativity. Preservation of self / others. Is the more moral option. It’s not based on individual or society. Moral relativity would posit that a moral action is moral based on individual or societal dictates. Not situational necessities.
I asked about slavery, not homosexuality. Can it have ever been right even when accepted or legal…As a moral relativist, you are forced to say yes you know…I am loathed to think how you’d back it up.
So what cultural dictates would make slavery right, or say child rape? You know like those militias in Africa storming villages and raping children, even infants. ← Can that ever be right morally?
That’s just it, it doesn’t matter how you feel. See above examples.
Yes, but that doesn’t negate the fact that an equal action is seen in a different light by you because you’ve assigned to that action a different meaning, and because of that different meaning the action becomes a specific moral entity.
That is the essence of relativity.
I don’t think so, no.
It does beg the question I posed earlier: are the people who engage in these actions sick?
They have their own justification for doing these things, and from their perspective it’s not immoral.
Are they sick? And if they are, is morality therefore a function of a healthy brain/mind?
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Are they sick? And if they are, is morality therefore a function of a healthy brain/mind?[/quote]Maybe we’re the sick ones and they have the healthy brains and minds. Never REALLY know do ya?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Are they sick? And if they are, is morality therefore a function of a healthy brain/mind?[/quote]Maybe we’re the sick ones and they have the healthy brains and minds. Never REALLY know do ya?
[/quote]
“Do no harm”
That’s a very simple rule to live by, don’t you think?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Yes, but that doesn’t negate the fact that an equal action is seen in a different light by you because you’ve assigned to that action a different meaning, and because of that different meaning the action becomes a specific moral entity.
That is the essence of relativity.
I don’t think so, no.
It does beg the question I posed earlier: are the people who engage in these actions sick?
They have their own justification for doing these things, and from their perspective it’s not immoral.
Are they sick? And if they are, is morality therefore a function of a healthy brain/mind?[/quote]
But again situational ‘relativity’ is not the position you took earlier. Your trying to slippery slope me into accepting moral relativity because situations changed the circumstances around actions. That’s not what I or anybody else is arguing against. We’re arguing against morality being based on feeling or social acceptance.
I think you’d find it hard pressed to find the individuals who are perpetuation the actions above as not in control of their actions or truly in absence of right and wrong. Are they sick, yeah, are they culpable, yeah. Being nasty doesn’t excuse you from your behavior.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Yes, but that doesn’t negate the fact that an equal action is seen in a different light by you because you’ve assigned to that action a different meaning, and because of that different meaning the action becomes a specific moral entity.
That is the essence of relativity.
I don’t think so, no.
It does beg the question I posed earlier: are the people who engage in these actions sick?
They have their own justification for doing these things, and from their perspective it’s not immoral.
Are they sick? And if they are, is morality therefore a function of a healthy brain/mind?[/quote]
But again situational ‘relativity’ is not the position you took earlier. Your trying to slippery slope me into accepting moral relativity because situations changed the circumstances around actions. That’s not what I or anybody else is arguing against. We’re arguing against morality being based on feeling or social acceptance.
I think you’d find it hard pressed to find the individuals who are perpetuation the actions above as not in control of their actions or truly in absence of right and wrong. Are they sick, yeah, are they culpable, yeah. Being nasty doesn’t excuse you from your behavior.[/quote]
Situational moral relativity is also/the same as socially evolved morality. Both are dependent on context to be either right or wrong [from the perspective of the doer].
As an observer we may have a different opinion, and in cases like the african massacres it all seems cut and dry, but it actually makes my case:
Because people are able to shift the question of right and wrong to a side of their choosing by dehumanising others [and to be honest, I do that too in the case of abortion, though literally] or by placing an act in a different context, something they’d otherwise see as wrong is now seen as right.
Take the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, for instance. Very clear morally, and from an absolute source so there shouldn’t be any doubt or exceptions, right?
But people who believe in that absolute source routinely make exceptions to the commandment by making it relative to a specific context; war, the death penalty or self-defense.
If you want to argue that morality is absolute you must provide a source. If you can’t do that morality becomes relative by default.
Morality is NOT fluid in nature. One cannot argue morality as “You think this, but I don’t think that”, rather, it is one of the few things that are black and white. In the end, those that say they don’t care about abortion or “feel as bad about abortion” are forgetting the issue at hand. It’s not another political controversy, but an issue that is concerned with life, and the preservation of life, the possibility of life. That is NOT fluid.
As for your demand to provide a source, please provide your own. And don’t give me just a website, those are just as numerous as opinions.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Situational moral relativity is also/the same as socially evolved morality. Both are dependent on context to be either right or wrong [from the perspective of the doer].
As an observer we may have a different opinion, and in cases like the african massacres it all seems cut and dry, but it actually makes my case:
Because people are able to shift the question of right and wrong to a side of their choosing by dehumanising others [and to be honest, I do that too in the case of abortion, though literally] or by placing an act in a different context, something they’d otherwise see as wrong is now seen as right.
Take the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, for instance. Very clear morally, and from an absolute source so there shouldn’t be any doubt or exceptions, right?
But people who believe in that absolute source routinely make exceptions to the commandment by making it relative to a specific context; war, the death penalty or self-defense.
If you want to argue that morality is absolute you must provide a source. If you can’t do that morality becomes relative by default.[/quote]