Claiming Moral Authority

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

Other than causing pain to yourself and your children on what basis do you forbid them from doing it? My stipulation of refraining from wince inducing semantic contortion was not met. Suppose a referendum was voted on declaring forced sexual activity with your children to be therapeutic and hence a worthy service of the greater good. It’s extra therapeutic if they make your wife watch as well.

Your children, who being it appears far wiser than their parents in these matters for not requiring any particular persuasion regarding the reprehensibly depraved and evil nature of what is being done to them, are only biological machines who have come from nothing particularly meaningful, are living a life the significance of which is in the eye of the beholder and are proceeding nowhere particularly compelling either. Thus says the culture you are living in.

So. Here we are again. On what basis do you protest? To say nothing of demanding recompense because according to your countrymen no wrong has been committed. The screams and tears of your babies are not persuasive to them as they are to you. I do have a basis for declaring you correct in your unavoidable belief that this activity AND the mindset from whence it arises is innately and every time evil.

I’m still waiting for yours.

382

[quote]undoredo wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
…
If good and evil were clear and obvious why would we have to write down morality guidelines?
…
[/quote]
Food for thought:
A thing does not have to be clear and obvious to have an objective existence.

Disclaimer: I am not claiming that acceptance of the objective existence of good and evil would necessarily follow from acceptance of the above statement. Here I am merely saying that any lack of clarity and/or obviousness regarding good and evil does not demonstrate that they do not objectively exist.
[/quote]This is very good btw and I did answer your other question about an alternate reality without sin and man’s apprehension of the triunity of God.

383

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

-Unfortunately organized religion has proven its immorality over and over and over. [/quote]

How can it do that when immorality is relative?
[/quote]

touche’ :slight_smile:

384

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Pat,

I read your definition of morality- “Simple, that which is evil is evil despite whether one thinks it is or not…What morality is, is inexpressible in language but actions demonstrate various aspects of morality”

  • It is a very strange definition, like the famous quote “I can’t define pornography but I know it when I see it.” It is bullshit by the way, you can’t define something by saying it is undefinable. A natural law should be constant and immutable, neither of which define morality.

[/quote]

So you cannot prove morality is man made? You cannot prove it really doesn’t exist? I will take this non-answer as a humble concession.

I didn’t say it’s undefinable, I said its inexpressible. Meaning we do not have to the words and our language is not sophisticated enough for it’s pure expression. That does not mean it has no definition, it means that we cannot express it in language. How we express it, though is in action. Therefore it is defined when action that is evil or good is taken.
This isn’t something rare or weird that is exclusive to morality. Lot’s of things cannot be expressed in language adequately. Another example is gravity. We know it’s a force, we know that objects with mass possess it and attracts other objects of mass, BUT we don’t know what it is. We cannot express it, we can only express it’s affect. We can only express what it does. It being a ‘force’ is accurate as we can get. The smartest physists in the world do not know what gravity is. They know a lot about it, but they don’t know what it actually is. We can know a lot about morality without knowing what it is exactly. Not knowing something precisely does not mean that something doesn’t exist. Lot’s of things exist and we have no idea about them at all.
So the expressions of morality are evidence of it’s existence, just like the affect of gravity is evidence for it’s existence.
To understand it, you have to break it down to it’s simplest forms. You look at the extremes. Just like you cannot learn a lot about gravity by studying an asteroid. You can learn tons about it by studying black holes though. You cannot learn much about morality by looking at soft examples. Spanking a child or stealing a pencil is not going to teach you much about morality. Looking at the rape and murder of a child can teach you volumes.

So if you take an extreme, like the rape and murder of a child we can see immediately that it’s impossible for it to be a relative tenet or merely a creation of man. The action is intrinsically evil in that it’s completely indefensible. No amount of acceptance, justification, or circumstance is going to make it ok. It’s a willful, selfish act with a result of extreme harm to another being. It’s not evil because we think so, it’s evil because of the harm it does. You cannot will it, think it, or examine it to be ok for the victim. Even if everybody agreed with the action, accepted the action or even praised the action, that cannot make it ok, or not harmful.
If morality were relative, then some sort of human will could indeed make a scenario where that would be ok. It’s impossible to make it ok. Since it is impossible for man to make something intrinsically evil, not evil, then man has no control over what it is. It is not defined by us. If it were defined by us, then we can make it moral if we wanted to. Nothing can.
So because we know there are actions that are intrinsically evil at their core, we know therefore that it’s existence, exists outside us. It’s the problem of the extremes that has led relativism relegated to the trash heap. Once you understand that, then you can understand better what morality is and what the difference between man made rules and truly moral or immoral actions.

To argue for relativism, you have to demonstrate how at it’s extremes, morality is still relative. It cannot be done. Bringing in lesser examples does not change this fact. You work with lesser examples only after you understand this fact.

385

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Pat,

Can you prove morality is a “natural law”? If you raised a group of random one year old children in a habitat like you do monkeys, with no exposure to humans would they develop morals or would they act like animals? [/quote]

Animals.

Not conclusive proof but pretty good evidence.

History can provide numerous real life examples.[/quote]

I think he misunderstood what a natural law is. It is kinda funny he went to the jungle upon the reading of the word “natural”.

386

[quote]pat wrote:<<< I didn’t say {morality is} undefinable, I said its inexpressible. Meaning we do not have to the words and our language is not sophisticated enough for it’s pure expression. That does not mean it has no definition, it means that we cannot express it in language. How we express it, though is in action. Therefore it is defined when action that is evil or good is taken. >>>[/quote]Ummm, as much as I abhor Catholicism Pat? Even they are far better than this. Morality is inexpressible in propositional language? You need to fill God in that His ten inexpressible abstractions awaiting action for definition have been very poorly named by Him.

387

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Pat,

Can you prove morality is a “natural law”? If you raised a group of random one year old children in a habitat like you do monkeys, with no exposure to humans would they develop morals or would they act like animals? [/quote]

Animals.

Not conclusive proof but pretty good evidence.

History can provide numerous real life examples.[/quote]

I think he misunderstood what a natural law is. It is kinda funny he went to the jungle upon the reading of the word “natural”.[/quote]

Pat,

I was using the term “Natural Law” to mean something universal in mankind, I used the children being raised away from people to demonstrate the morality is learned, not inherent, thus not a “Natural Law”. I didn’t “go to the jungle” upon the reading of the word natural, nice reading comprehension pat.

If you are having a hard time understanding this it is very simple: “Morality” does not occur spontaneously without human interaction, it is learned from other people. This can’t be hard for you to understand can it? If you are raised by wolves you will function as a wolf, if you are raised by sheep you will act like a sheep, I think that you Pat, have been raised by rocks.
Pedophilia is bad, that is our judgement of it, I am convinced that it is the right call, same with genocide, killing, rape etc. I was taught that these are all bad, so I live my life with that “morality” instilled in me. If my morality is correct and inherent, then you have to be able to explain how so many people function at odds with my correct inherent morality, but you can’t except to say “They are immoral.”. If fully 50% of the population believes something isn’t immoral and 50% believes it is then how do we account for that? How do we decide that issue? You will not answer because you do not have an answer, that is the “concession” we are looking for.

By the way I have repeatedly answered the question of man-made morality, you have just continued to ignore it. the children analogy is the answer, if the kids grow up to form a civil, “moral” society you are correct, if they grow up with something more primitive then you are wrong.

388

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Pat,

Can you prove morality is a “natural law”? If you raised a group of random one year old children in a habitat like you do monkeys, with no exposure to humans would they develop morals or would they act like animals? [/quote]

Animals.

Not conclusive proof but pretty good evidence.

History can provide numerous real life examples.[/quote]

I think he misunderstood what a natural law is. It is kinda funny he went to the jungle upon the reading of the word “natural”.[/quote]

Pat,

I was using the term “Natural Law” to mean something universal in mankind, I used the children being raised away from people to demonstrate the morality is learned, not inherent, thus not a “Natural Law”. I didn’t “go to the jungle” upon the reading of the word natural, nice reading comprehension pat.

If you are having a hard time understanding this it is very simple: “Morality” does not occur spontaneously without human interaction, it is learned from other people. This can’t be hard for you to understand can it? If you are raised by wolves you will function as a wolf, if you are raised by sheep you will act like a sheep, I think that you Pat, have been raised by rocks.
Pedophilia is bad, that is our judgement of it, I am convinced that it is the right call, same with genocide, killing, rape etc. I was taught that these are all bad, so I live my life with that “morality” instilled in me. If my morality is correct and inherent, then you have to be able to explain how so many people function at odds with my correct inherent morality, but you can’t except to say “They are immoral.”. If fully 50% of the population believes something isn’t immoral and 50% believes it is then how do we account for that? How do we decide that issue? You will not answer because you do not have an answer, that is the “concession” we are looking for.
[/quote]
It doesn’t matter what the ‘population’ believes. It’s simply irrelevant. Understanding or not understanding morality does not define it. Understanding math or not understanding math doesn’t make it what it is. I feel this is where you are getting lost. Presumably, humans are the only creatures who have some awareness of morality. That does not mean we made it up, it means we have the capabilities to understand it to a certain degree. Understanding and creating are two different things.
Having children raised in a misguided way (by wolves), doesn’t change what morality is, simply because they don’t understand it. You were raised by humans and you don’t understand it. But you have some notion of what it is. You don’t create morality as you gain knowledge of it.

The nature vs. nurture element you are trying to bring in is a scientific question, not a philosophical one. One that’s not answerable since we don’t have anyway of testing it. Knowing or not knowing morality may have some effect on culpability, but not on morality itself.

[quote]
By the way I have repeatedly answered the question of man-made morality, you have just continued to ignore it. the children analogy is the answer, if the kids grow up to form a civil, “moral” society you are correct, if they grow up with something more primitive then you are wrong. [/quote]

No you haven’t. I think, you think you did, but you did not. You introduced an unimaginable amount of variables that really don’t have anything to do with the topic.

Let’s try this. Both you and I agree that the rape and murder of a child is evil, bad, immoral, or what ever you want to call it.
The question is, why is it bad or evil?

This is slightly less painful than previous responses and I appreciate that.

389

Pat,

“Both you and I agree that the rape and murder of a child is evil, bad, immoral, or what ever you want to call it.
The question is, why is it bad or evil?”

  • the simple and obvious answer is that a child is an innocent, doing something terrible to someone that in no way shape or form deserves it is bad on pretty much every level. the fact that a child also lacks the understanding of “why” this is happening only makes it worse.
390

[quote]

  • the simple and obvious answer is that a child is an innocent, doing something terrible to someone that in no way shape or form deserves it is bad on pretty much every level. the fact that a child also lacks the understanding of “why” this is happening only makes it worse.[/quote]

Exceptt that without an underlying axiology, you can’t even define “something terrible”.

In a world without objective morality “something terrible happened” is nothing more and nothing less than “a bunch of atoms moved”. And in such a world, the innocence and ignorance of the child is simply irrelevant.

in a world without objective morality, something happened. Period.
That’s factual. And in itself, that’s morally neutral.

The morality of it ? well, it’s sujective and relative.
So you AND the rapist are both entitled to your opinion.

391

In Brian’s world even “innocence” is a meaningless concept. Because it implies an unviolated standard against which the child’s present state has been simply presumed to be either positively intact and or arbitrarily not culpable. The existence of neither a standard, ANY standard, nor the state of the child in relation to it has been accounted for except to say “I like it that way”.

392

Kamui,

Look up the definition of terrible, it is a word that can be used without morality as a basis. A Tsunami is terrible in the destruction it causes, it doesn’t have any moral implications, it is simply an expression of something terrifying or horrible. Feel free to jump in and explain how morality just happened one day, and please explain to me how we are currently at the most enlightened rung on the morality ladder. It seems to me that since morality is ever evolving, it must certainly be man made. Additionally a question I like to ask if 50% of the population views something as immoral, and 50% views it as moral, how can you claim any moral certainty on the action you endorse? I am not talking about something obvious like child rape, I am talking about Gay marriage, abortion, homosexuality etc.

Tiribulus,

Far be it for me to decide how I view the world, but let me jump in. Innocence is again sadly a word with more than one definition, you have yours I have mine and mine is not a meaningless concept in my explanation:

(1) : freedom from guile or cunning : simplicity
(2) : lack of worldly experience or sophistication
e : lack of knowledge : ignorance

Please keep misrepresenting my words with your own, it’s really very interesting. By the way your last sentence:

"The existence of neither a standard, ANY standard, nor the state of the child in relation to it has been accounted for except to say “I like it that way”.
Makes no sense to me at all. Any chance you could rephrase it? I have a standard, I am not absent “morality” I just think it is man made, how does that undermine its value?

393

[quote]
Look up the definition of terrible, it is a word that can be used without morality as a basis. A Tsunami is terrible in the destruction it causes, it doesn’t have any moral implications, it is simply an expression of something terrifying or horrible.[/quote]

I didn’t say you cant use the word “terrible” without morality as a basis.
I said you can’t define the word “terrible” without axiology as a basis.

Your tsunami doesn’t have any moral implication, but it has axiological implications.

in other words :
A Tsunami is not “terrible” until someone suffer from it and make an axiological judgement (a value judgement) about it.
A storm on Mars = moving atoms.
A storm on New York = a catastrophic event. (aggravated by, according to our local conservatives, a catastrophic re-election).

The point is that :

-We all make axiological judgements. It’s a part of our nature as living and sentient beings.
-Some of these axiological judgements are moral judgements.
-These judgements have their own underlying “logic”. Which means that some axiological/moral judgements are impossible, inconsistent, and as such wrong, while pthers are true.

“Rape is good” is an impossible moral judgement. And as such an immoral one.
the “golden rule” is an universalizale moral judgement. and as such, a moral truth.

Usain Bolt speed record doesn’t prove that gravity is ever evolving, nor that gravity is man made.

Our perception and understanding of morality may vary. Morality itself does not.

The only alternative is that it doesn’t exist at all.

Which would be an “unlivable” conclusion, and therefore a stupid one.

Popularity is only a valid argument in the mind of relativism victims.

Gay relationships can’t be universalized without “terrible consequences” (by your own standards of “terribleness”)
As such, they can not become a social model nor a moral rule. Therefore they should not become a law.

Abortion can’t be universalized without “terrible consequences” (by your own standards of “terribleness”).
As such, etc.

394

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< Feel free to jump in and explain how morality just happened one day, >>>[/quote]Morality, or “right” is the nature and character of the creator God as He has Himself graciously revealed in the collection of ancient books known as the Christian scriptures. Conversely, “sin” or immorality (wrong) is any want of conformity to same. We used to believe this as a nation. [quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< and please explain to me how we are currently at the most enlightened rung on the morality ladder. >>>[/quote]We are currently in the United States at the lowest rung ever. The founders would vomit if they saw what we’ve done with what they left us. (an impotent slavery argument should be next)[quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< It seems to me that since morality is ever evolving, >>>[/quote]It seems to me it’s not. Now what?[quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< it must certainly be man made. >>>[/quote]Then one day they may be coming for your children. Or somebody else’s by then.[quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< Additionally a question I like to ask if 50% of the population views something as immoral, and 50% views it as moral, how can you claim any moral certainty on the action you endorse? >>>[/quote]I endorse what God endorses which overrules every other, even if 100% of a population disagrees. The obvious next question of “who’s god” is why I always argue epistemology first.[quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< I am not talking about something obvious like child rape, >>>[/quote]Obvious? To who? Self evidence is presupposed by you on the basis of personal preference and you have given exactly ZEEROH reason for it to be accepted. [quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< I am talking about Gay marriage, abortion, homosexuality etc. >>>[/quote]And yet again. You PREsuppose that there is a difference between child rape and child murder in the womb. A difference between sex between adults and children and sex between members of the same gender. You have as of yet provided not one particle of objective argumentation to support your very personal views. Which you on one hand ADMIT are very personal and then proceed to leap right into declaring something “obvious”, as if on your basis it ever could be. It is on mine, but not on yours.[quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< Far be it for me to decide how I view the world, >>>[/quote]Good, then we’re getting somewhere =] [quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< Innocence <<<>>> is not a meaningless concept in my explanation: >>>[/quote]Until I get answers to my questions? Yes it is.[quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< freedom <> guile <> cunning : simplicity >>>[/quote]All have no moral meaning on your basis. And around we go. The other 2 definitions you pasted from the dictionary are void of moral content in the context of this discussion. I hope to you as well or we’ll go waaay off in the weeds. You simply declaring, YES THEY DO. Is not an argument. It’s a wish.[quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< Please keep misrepresenting my words with your own, >>>[/quote]Actually it’s you who keep misrepresenting your words with your own. This very post is filled with my demonstrations of your glaring inconsistencies.[quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< By the way your last sentence:
"The existence of neither a standard, ANY standard, nor the state of the child in relation to it has been accounted for except to say “I like it that way”.
Makes no sense to me at all. Any chance you could rephrase it? >>>[/quote]Sure. “Evolving” “man made” so called standards do not provide an objective definition of moral innocence. Again, You simply declaring, YES THEY DO. Is not an argument. It’s a wish. [quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< I have a standard, I am not absent “morality” >>>[/quote]Oh indeed you do and indeed you aren’t. You’re stealing mine. Actually God’s. But only where you like it. So is Kamui, but he n I do this differently than you n I do. [quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< I just think it is man made, >>>[/quote]And what you just think is no more valid than what the people who voted to brutalize your children just think. See I CAN use the word “brutalize” in it’s very simple and accepted definition. You have STILL provided no reason for anybody to not view it as recreation. And you will NEVER be able to.[quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< how does that undermine its value?[/quote]Because it can morph and transform to represent the “morality” of ANY man or society presently giving their views. Including the ones that may promote the violent rape of your children. Which very honestly disturbs me to even keep typing because on my basis it’s nauseatingly evil and hurts me to even have to imagine as I’m talking about it with you. It does you too, but you haven’t given a reason why it should beyond your emotional attachment to them.

So the next time they come running and jump up in your lap and start hugging and kissing all over you because you’re daddy, I hope you are just as angry at yourself then as you are with me now. Aside from some gooey feelings you have no reason OR even right to protect them on the basis of your man made evolving morality. I have that reason for my children. They are created in the image of almighty God and are precious to Him who declares evil and worthy of death those who would harm them and who authorizes me to kill and commands me to die in their defense if necessary. I will be waiting for your reason til the end of time. After that I won’t care anymore.

395

Tiribulus,

Have you noticed that you have a tendency to do the things you criticize? You say that my statement “morality is man made” does not make it so, but you saying “no it’s not, God made morality” does make it so. The contradiction there is pretty glaring don’t you think? The scriptures were written by men, and I believe they were written well after the death of Jesus, any chance that these “god given moralities” were actually the work of a bunch of guys writing stuff down?

" freedom <> guile <> cunning : simplicity"

  • Of course these words have meaning absent a moral underpinning. we often use these words to describe animals, animals which we also define as not having a morality. It is pretty strange to think that “freedom” needs a moral center to be quantified. freedom is an internal belief, we have just as much freedom as we believe we have, you truly are “as free as you feel”. Guile, cunning, simplicity are all words available absent morality, sorry tirib but it is true.

Morality is all about emotions, it is about how something makes you feel, that is why we have developed a vastly (but not completely) different moral platform at every stage of the development of human civilization. We “feel” something is bad, we assign it a negative moral value i.e. child rape- 99.9% of the people on the planet think it is bad (the .1% that like it join the clergy or become scoutmasters), they “feel” it is bad, that is why we all “know” it is immoral (and thankfully illegal). When you say I can’t prove it is anything other than recreation, I most assuredly can. It is illegal, we “feel” it is wrong, so we “know” it is wrong we have assigned it a negative value and we are socially disapproving of it. If I lived in a culture where this behavior had been the accepted practice for 1000 years the answer may have been different, but I don’t so it isn’t and never will be because our social norms are so hardwired against it at this point that the mere suggestion of it is enough to drive people to violence (and rightly so).
Abortion on the other hand is roughly a 50/50 split, we do not all “feel” it is bad, so we don’t “know” it is bad (and it is legal), subsequently we have to accept that it’s morality is neutral right? (I know you don’t agree). Some people are so sure it is wrong that they will kill doctors, burn down clinics, plant bombs etc. And many “very moral” people find this acceptable for the greater good, people like myself think those people are moonbats.

If you want to say we all (96% or so) share a common morality (don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t rape, don’t assault) I would agree, just for a different reason. I think we have an idea that these things are bad for other people (and by extension us) and as such we want to avoid them (because we don’t want these things happening to us). I think we are taught that these are bad things, I think that the 4% or so that engage routinely in these actions were never taught what to do, or their brains refused to process these things correctly. Again lack of understanding is the reason we don’t lock up murderous 5 year olds for life, but we view that as an unacceptable excuse for an adult (he/she had the chance to understand what they were doing was wrong).

396

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Tiribulus,
Have you noticed that you have a tendency to do the things you criticize? You say that my statement “morality is man made” does not make it so, but you saying “no it’s not, God made morality” does make it so. The contradiction there is pretty glaring don’t you think? >>>[/quote]

To once again paraphrase my friend and french philosopher extraordinaire Kamui “All purely human propositions terminate in tautology”. He’s right and hence so are you. Which I say yet again is why EVERYTHING else is subsumed into a debate about epistemology which is why my method always revolves around that.

I echo myself for the 10,000th time. Until we have determined HOW we know anything at all, the question of WHAT we know is utterly devoid of meaning. A man’s ethics along with every other fractional thought that flitters through his mind is governed and dictated by an unprovable first PRE assumption that has PRE determined all the rest. There are two of these. God and man. Consistent Christians go with the all governing uncontingent God of the bible. Everybody else goes with man. Even while sometimes vehemently denying that.

All of man’s myriad of philosophical journeying is ultimately reduced to the notion that HE is himself the standard by which everything else including God is measured. Pure uncertain subjectivity. Fully realizing this, Kamui has attempted to devise a truly ingenious method of escape. No offense Brian, sincerely, but he is light years ahead of you. Of course in my view he is still fatally wrong at the axiomatic level.

The foundation of his building being the most right of any unbeliever I’ve ever met in furnishing many of his rooms. FAITH Brian. Everybody takes everything on faith. That’s another way of saying “All purely human propositions terminate in tautology”. The only question is what that faith is in. Which is another way of saying that epistemology is the key to everything. The Secret History of Money - Politics and World Issues - Forums - T Nation

397

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Pat,

“Both you and I agree that the rape and murder of a child is evil, bad, immoral, or what ever you want to call it.
The question is, why is it bad or evil?”

  • the simple and obvious answer is that a child is an innocent, doing something terrible to someone that in no way shape or form deserves it is bad on pretty much every level. the fact that a child also lacks the understanding of “why” this is happening only makes it worse. [/quote]

But the rapist/ murder is ok with it. Why should the child’s innocence matter. What is she innocent of?
Why is it terrible? Isn’t terrible in the eye’s of the beholder? And clearly the perpetrator found it a fine thing to do, doesn’t his opinion count?

398

[quote]kamui wrote:

Well you said it better than I did…

399

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Morality is all about emotions, it is about how something makes you feel, that is why we have developed a vastly (but not completely) different moral platform at every stage of the development of human civilization. [/quote]

And this sums up the error of you entire thought process. Morality has zero to do with emotions. Often, doing the moral, or right thing, is often painful. You cannot undo harm by being happy about it. Feeling good doesn’t make anything moral. Indeed the rapist feels good and powerful. The problem is he has a victim that has been destroyed.
Like I said before, relativity has a dehumanaizing aspect to it. It requires that somebody’s values or will trumps another. Since it cannot in reality, it cannot exist.
The intrinsic value of a sentient being doe not lie in the being itself.

400

[quote]
The intrinsic value of a sentient being doe not lie in the being itself.[/quote]

Actually, the intrinsic value of a sentient being HAS to lie in the being itself.
Or its value is not intrinsic. By definition.

Which means that, to have any kind of intrinsic value, “a sentient being” HAS to be part of the-entity-we-call-morality. At an ontological level.

My “philosophy” doesn’t have any problem with this condition. It’s already implied in my ontology.

But it’s clearly not compatible with the idea of an ontologically transcendant God.

That being said, Tirib’s theology (if i understand it correctly) should not have a problem with this either. Since spiritually dead sentient beings only have an extrinsic value anyway.

Not sure how catholicism deal with this. If it does.