If you rewind to the first 8-10 times you said it, you’ll see a good bit of legit discussion.
The ‘moral outrage’ you’re sensing is just garden variety boredom with the parrot on the merry go round
I mean, aren’t you guys supposed to agree that we can order society however we desire? Including the premeditated killing of human lives in the womb to meet some goal?
Much like respecting opinions, the agreement ends at accepting you’re allowed to think that way.
Your view doesn’t magically gain value
The one you’ve participated in?
Absolutely. Guilty at feeding the parrot on all counts
There is no moral obligation to respect opinions or allow them all to exist or be carried out into action.
This is why I still have a thing for you.
Anyways. I do hope we can outlaw abortion.
1 Like
Feel free to think that. The rest of us will be over here winning.
I’d marry you if I was morally required to even acknowledge you like me
Faith or a faith?
Maybe for now. But a blip on human history. We’ll be over here working on society to join us.
No agreement to marriage, we’re both men
Right. We’ll just be ‘fishing buddies’
Big gals never gonna see it coming. Might as well call it sly fishing
To “fishing” then!
As much as you want to believe you are good at constructing arguments, you are not. You have consistently been inconsistent with using terms like human life, a human life, human being, human organism, etc. Maybe you are confused or maybe you are trying to confuse others. Either way, it doesn’t go unnoticed by those who understand the abortion issue better than you.
There is no such thing as ‘individual morality’. A rapist can be perfectly okay with raping, but it doesn’t make it right, just or moral. He’s either deluded, mentally deranged, or evil. The problem is that his ‘individual morality’ trumps the inherent rights of the victim not to be violated.
And if you expand this to ‘societal morality’, then it’s a case where ‘might makes right’. If said rapist is powerful enough, he can force his view on society and society just has to eat it.
I think the problem here is confusion\ conflation. So just because society has rules of behavior, i.e. behavior that is rejected or accepted in society does not mean that society is right nor that there are no other measures by which behavior is measured.
What is required for action to be considered moral, immoral or amoral? First, you need at least two sentient beings. You need an action, freely considered by one sentient being to act on the other sentient being. And then you need a result, the recipient either benefits, is harmed or not affected by the action.
So, if the recipient of the action is harmed then the action perpetrated is immoral. If the recipient benefits somehow, then the action would be moral. If the recipient is neither harmed nor benefited, then that would be amoral.
Now that’s a two dimensional view of morality, there are obviously a lot of complicating factors in many situations, but it’s a start on how to view morality with some clarity.
Saying something is inherently evil means there is a victim who has been greatly harmed. I agree that does not require faith. We have a victim, who clearly by the actions of someone else has been harmed.
1 Like
Well is morality is a ruse, the rules are made up as society goes along and there is just pleasant and unpleasant, then you have to measure the Bible by that same stick, meaning it’s neither good or bad, it’s just stuff that happened and people’s opinions, where one opinion has no grater value than another.
So by that measure, the Bible is just a book. If people take it to seriously, then that’s their problem.
2 Likes
There isn’t really a point in debating the existence of a concept or any points therein if this is our impasse.
Agreed.
Agreed.
FWIW, there was absolutely zero confusion/conflation. Sloth was consistently referencing when the morality of the individual meets the morality of society. Therefore the distinction of individual morality and society driven morality needs to be brought up.
I have no issue with your description of morality. I like it quite a bit. I’ve always thought morality was pretty straightforward. Sloth is the only person I’ve ever met who insists it’s reliant on faith.
1 Like
Imo the issue arises when enough people take it too seriously. Then it becomes everyone’s problem.
1 Like
But then it’s just societal rules that you may not like, but it’s neither bad or good it’s just stuff.