[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Has Christopher become an anti death penalty pacifist right under my nose?[/quote]
Pacifist? Come say that to my face and I’ll show you what kind of pacifist I am.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Yes.[/quote]
Why do you believe that? [/quote]
All life is precious and we are all united. [/quote]
No, why do you believe that the ends justify the means?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Has Christopher become an anti death penalty pacifist right under my nose?[/quote]
Pacifist? Come say that to my face and I’ll show you what kind of pacifist I am.[/quote]Will you mellow down =[ I was asking an honest question. What is all this hostility? Are you gonna beat me in Benedict’s name Christopher. Good grief. Come on man.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Yes.[/quote]
Why do you believe that? [/quote]
All life is precious and we are all united. [/quote]
No, why do you believe that the ends justify the means?[/quote]
Well, if one commits a lesser evil that prevents a greater evil, than a right action has been made. There is less evil than there would have been otherwise.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Has Christopher become an anti death penalty pacifist right under my nose?[/quote]
I’m against the death penalty, but I’m not a pacifist.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Has Christopher become an anti death penalty pacifist right under my nose?[/quote]
Pacifist? Come say that to my face and I’ll show you what kind of pacifist I am.[/quote]Will you mellow down =[ I was asking an honest question. What is all this hostility? Are you gonna beat me in Benedict’s name Christopher. Good grief. Come on man.
[/quote]
I’m supposedly the one without humor.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Yes.[/quote]
Why do you believe that? [/quote]
All life is precious and we are all united. [/quote]
No, why do you believe that the ends justify the means?[/quote]
Well, if one commits a lesser evil that prevents a greater evil, than a right action has been made. There is less evil than there would have been otherwise. [/quote]
How do you know that it was a greater evil/lesser evil?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Yes.[/quote]
Why do you believe that? [/quote]
All life is precious and we are all united. [/quote]
No, why do you believe that the ends justify the means?[/quote]
Well, if one commits a lesser evil that prevents a greater evil, than a right action has been made. There is less evil than there would have been otherwise. [/quote]
How do you know that it was a greater evil/lesser evil?[/quote]
It’s not easy a lot of the time. History can be a good guide. I’d say morals and ethics evolve in a manner very similar to the universe and biology. From experience meant in a very general way, we as a piece of nature continue to refine our concept of evil, greater evils, and good.
I would know that if I had a chance to assassinate Stalin, that would be the right thing to do so millions of lives could be saved. But… then again, possibly an even worse dictator would take over I would’ve committed the crime of killing and facilitated even more evil and just royally screw everything up.
Sorry, I don’t really have a good answer.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I’m supposedly the one without humor.[/quote]Lol. My mistake and I am very happy it was.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I don’t have a moral code.
[/quote]
Yes you do…This is just an intellectual cop out. [/quote]
Then, what is my moral code?[/quote]
Do you have a price?
[/quote]
No (although that’s easy for me to say).
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Has Christopher become an anti death penalty pacifist right under my nose?[/quote]
I’m against the death penalty, but I’m not a pacifist. [/quote]You changed again.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< A hypothetical is if someone kills your dearest love one in cold blood. You lose, there is no way to right this sort of wrong, and the only thing you can achieve is vengeance. >>>[/quote]I know of a young Christian woman in California, 21 years old, pregnant with her first child whose husband was killed in a car jacking by a gang member. There she is left with a baby and the wonderful life she had hoped to build with this by all accounts very loving man destroyed.
She takes 10 grand of the insurance money and puts it on the murder’s commissary in prison so he’ll have some comfort there for the rest of his life. She visits him and tells him that while what he did was a grave sin against God, she is guilty of crimes against that same God that would send her to the same hell he is going to if it weren’t for Jesus nailing her sins to His cross and taking away her guilt.
He is abusive and scornful, but she keeps going to visit him while her and her church are praying for him. After several years of this he does break down and repent asking the Lord to save him. She tells him that it was worth the loss of her husband and his going to be with God sooner than she planned if it would be used by the Lord to save his murderer.
THAT is a heart in whom dwells a thorough understanding of sin, forgiveness and mercy. THAT is a life resurrected in the living Christ of God. THAT is a mother who has been a living testimony to her child of the solution to the so called “problem of evil”.
[/quote]
We are not in disagreement. We both find her admirable and amazing, but she isn’t the sort of person I was trying to refer to, at all. She is merciful and concerned about the welfare of the soul of the one who wronged her. The sort of person I’m speaking of mistakes vengeance for justice, or they make an excuse of vengeance for justice. The person I’m speaking of would have sought the death penalty and wanted to see him killed. On top of this I’m saying doing so makes people feel awful in general.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Then we are arguing semantics. What you call ‘morality’, I call ‘personal preference’ and ‘rationality’.
But since “personal preference” and “rationality” are already things, it seems superfluous to tag on yet another term.[/quote]
It’s not semantics, it’s not personal preference. If it’s my personal preference to rape somebody, that’s still an immoral act. You may personally prefer to act morally or immorally, but what it is and what you choose are 2 different things.
[quote]pat wrote:
If it’s my personal preference to rape somebody, that’s still an immoral act. [/quote]
Well, to you. The rapist doesn’t see a problem in it. Casting your opinion on objective things doesn’t make your opinion objective. It’s still your personal preference to live in a society where people don’t rape each other.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
If it’s my personal preference to rape somebody, that’s still an immoral act. [/quote]
Well, to you. The rapist doesn’t see a problem in it. Casting your opinion on objective things doesn’t make your opinion objective. It’s still your personal preference to live in a society where people don’t rape each other. [/quote]
Are you serious trying to argue that rape is ok as long as the rapist is cool with it? You don’t see the fail in that?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
If it’s my personal preference to rape somebody, that’s still an immoral act. [/quote]
Well, to you. The rapist doesn’t see a problem in it. Casting your opinion on objective things doesn’t make your opinion objective. It’s still your personal preference to live in a society where people don’t rape each other. [/quote]
Are you serious trying to argue that rape is ok as long as the rapist is cool with it? You don’t see the fail in that?[/quote]
You miss my point. The rapist has his own idea of morality. It just so happens that, to him, rape is okay (at least when he does it).
What makes your morality more legitimate? You say your morality is based on what causes ‘harm’, but who are you to say that harm is the foundation of objective morality? I don’t see what’s objective about it.
the command “Rape !” can not become an universal rule.
the command “Rape !” would destroy the very possibility of an universal rule.
Therefore, rape is immoral.
Regardless of what rapists think/feel about it.
[quote]kamui wrote:
the command “Rape !” can not become an universal rule.
the command “Rape !” would destroy the very possibility of an universal rule.
Therefore, rape is immoral.
Regardless of what rapists think/feel about it. [/quote]
Rape cannot be a universal rule, or YOU can’t conceive of rape being a universal rule? There are several species of mammals, insects, fish, etc. whose entire mating system is rape-based. Whose to say we won’t follow sometime in our future?
In fact rape hasn’t exactly been a rare occurrence throughout human history. Only recently has rape been thoroughly demonized, and that’s really only in the developed nations.
Furthermore, what your saying wouldn’t make rape objectively immoral anyway. You’d just be deriving an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’, which is equally as superfluous as pat’s argument.
Rape cannot become a universal rule, why? Because most people won’t get behind rape as a moral act? Well, what if they do, one day, get behind rape? Did the fabric of reality change? No? Well then I guess it wasn’t all that objective after all.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the command “Rape !” can not become an universal rule.
the command “Rape !” would destroy the very possibility of an universal rule.
Therefore, rape is immoral.
Regardless of what rapists think/feel about it. [/quote]
Rape cannot be a universal rule, or YOU can’t conceive of rape being a universal rule? There are several species of mammals, insects, fish, etc. whose entire mating system is rape-based. Whose to say we won’t follow sometime in our future?
In fact rape hasn’t exactly been a rare occurrence throughout human history. Only recently has rape been thoroughly demonized, and that’s really only in the developed nations.
[/quote]
Even if the human mating system was entirely “rape-based”, it would still not be an universal rule. A male “rule” maybe. ie 50% universal, at best.
No.
“universal rule” is the definition of morality.
If “rape” is incompatible with “universal rule”, then “rape” is incompatible with “morality”.
It’s only basic logic.
There is no “is” and no “ought” here. You’re free to think that morality doesn’t exist. Or doesn’t apply. But the word morality has a meaning, and you’re not free to redefine it. Nor to define it illogically.
[quote]
Rape cannot become a universal rule, why? Because most people won’t get behind rape as a moral act? Well, what if they do, one day, get behind rape? Did the fabric of reality change? No? Well then I guess it wasn’t all that objective after all.[/quote]
Rape can not become an universal rule because you can not will something that goes against your will (per definition).
Rape could only be an universal rule if everyone agreed to be raped. Which is absurd.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
If it’s my personal preference to rape somebody, that’s still an immoral act. [/quote]
Well, to you. The rapist doesn’t see a problem in it. Casting your opinion on objective things doesn’t make your opinion objective. It’s still your personal preference to live in a society where people don’t rape each other. [/quote]
Are you serious trying to argue that rape is ok as long as the rapist is cool with it? You don’t see the fail in that?[/quote]
You miss my point. The rapist has his own idea of morality. It just so happens that, to him, rape is okay (at least when he does it).
What makes your morality more legitimate? You say your morality is based on what causes ‘harm’, but who are you to say that harm is the foundation of objective morality? I don’t see what’s objective about it. [/quote]
I don’t own a morality, I am subject to it just like everybody else. And to say that one person’s opinion is as good as another when it comes to morality is patently false. Does rape cause harm to another being? Yes. Is it a willful act? Yes.
If you have a victim who was grievously harmed, then that act was evil. To try and mock up some justification to support a failing paradigm and some sort of intellectual exercise is utter horseshit.
In that world, it doesn’t matter what you do or whom you do it to, it’s all permissible. It’s a great stance if your trying to justify assholes like Stalin. Stalin sure didn’t mind killing all those people, didn’t bother him one bit. Must have been moral then.