That’s a subjective value judgement not at all based on objective reality. It is presupposed. One could just as easily and “correctly” decide it is perfectly moral to harm the recipient. Or, maybe immoral to harm this one, but perfectly moral to harm that one. The reality is that they’re all just actions. Chimps working together to get termites out of a mound. Or devour the offspring of another troop.
Edit: the reply is to Pat, not Pfury.
What the heck? Keep responding to pfury. My bad
Agreed. That’s what societal morality is. But the topic was specifically forced down the “individual vs society” rabbit hole.
That requires faith. You’ve spoken as if it is a given that we are morally obligated to not harm that person. As if there were some transcendatal obligation built into the universe. Nature is full of harm. In a purely material universe we’re absolutely free to harm that person and call it good.
Faith or a faith? Belief or a belief?
Presupposed. The individual, or society, could recognize or could not recognize ‘victimless’ moral wrongdoing. An action needn’t be performed on another. Or even be an action.
I’ll drink to that. The Bible is something no one should take seriously!
Or maybe we should take it seriously. I wouldn’t mind a couple of sex slaves. There are also a bunch of people who should be wearing eye patches.
Sweet. I just hope someone isn’t going to say “wait a second that’s not what the word of God actually meant!”
I know what you mean Sloth, but I think you are several ticks ahead of everyone else. You seem to be making the meta-ethical argument as to what defines ‘good’ and what defines ‘evil’. I am simply trying to move the mark off of moral relativism in all it’s ugly forms.
All I know is it was good to be King Solomon. He makes Hugh Hefner look like a virgin, touched for the very first time…
No. He’s trying to demonstrate that morality requires faith.
Yeah, and how exactly did his story end?
Is 2+2=5 wrong? What if I said I’m asking within the context of a society that uses a 5 for a 4 and vice versa?
So the guy who brags about his intelligence uses math of all things to try and disprove the concept of a universal truth outside of humanity. Brilliant.
It was more an attempt to be able to discern from societal morality, individual morality, and ‘true’ (religious) morality.
Not nearly as brilliant as the guy who posts a month later and can’t even figure out the quote function.
But thanks for playing