Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then tell me how torturing a child for fun can have any other arbitrarily determined moral alternative than it being wrong not just for you and me but everyone including all cultures in the world.I KNOW what you said.
If you cant see any problem with it, you cant.
Try though. VirO gets it, you can if you try.
Its a fact because there is no alternative. There is only one alternative and that is that Torturing a child for fun is morally wrong when we reason things.
Then show me the logical argument if you've "reasoned things".Its a fact because there is no alternative. There is only one alternative and that is that Torturing a child for fun is morally wrong when we reason things.
First, its obvious you dont understand what math is or how it works, its not anything like metaphysics.Well theres a number of reason for how it has authority over you. If a moral value stands independent of anyone then it has authority. Its not something subjectively determined but is a fact. Just like 2+2=4 is a fact and has authority in that it stands and people have no choice but to uphold this in their daily lives. Try disregarding Math for a day and see how it is necessary.
There are the obvious cases where a person cannot just go around stealing, murdering, abusing and raping people. Try doing any of these and see how far you get. Not just legally but socially as people ostrasize and condemn them. But this cannot be the case if morals are relative or subjective as each culture and subjects view is not morally wrong. So the fact that we can stand up against moral wrong and otrasize and condemn people shows morals are objective.
Then there are the moral truths we live with everyday just to be able to be human and engage with others. There are certain epistemic values we apply and are bound by. For example "being honest" in any discussion seeking the truth of a matter. We cannot engage without making "Honesty" a stand alone value that is not subject to peoples personal opinions.
Sure you can choose not to engage but you can never have a coherent discussion that involves seeking the truth. This comes down to a simple fact like a Math equation. You cannot find the truth of a matter without making the "truth" a moral value that guides things independent of the human subject.
Its still a moral wrong just like murder. All of the core morals are also illegal but that doesnt mean they are not immoral. You need to show that torturing a child for fun is morally good. Otherwise its a fact that its wrong and no one can change this by subjective thinking.No there is not just one alternative. Binary thinking!
Once a ( sigh )gain, you pick a specific sort of case like
from a court case.
The determination that torturing a child for fun is not arbitrarily determined. The meaning of arbitrary isThere is no general rule. Without it you have nothing
but case by case SUBJECTIVE evaluation.
What do you mean. Are you talking about assisted suicide or torture as they are completely different.A severely defective child with but hours to live
suffers a few moments of moderate pain and
dies, but the result is saving thousands.
Torturing a child for fun is always bad, never good.Torture child still bad?
That is just a arguement ad populum. As if because others disagree with me on this thread therefore I am wrong.TRY THINKING THINGS THRU INSTEAD OF ARGUING!
Nobody thinks you make sense. Coz you dont.
Are acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?
I am not sure that I understand what you are saying. As far as I understand an act is either good or bad. The fact that someone goes through something bad and uses that for good doesn't turn the act from a bad one to a good one as far as I understand.@stevevw
As @Estrid pointed out to you just now, people can go through some very bad things but come out of it with a testimony that could help save thousands, or millions or billions, etc, or just help them in general in some kind of very important and pivotal way, etc...
Was it still bad or evil or wrong, etc...? Because that is the question you have to ask yourself, etc...
As I mentioned to the other posters you would have to come up with some way to show that torturing a child for fun is morally ok.And all of the opinions on this are going to be all very different, and all them subjective and not one of them 100% completely objective, etc... At least, not with us anyway, etc...
I think your conflating two different things here. The act of crucifying Jesus was morally wrong as he was an inncoent man. The conspiracy and decietful actions of those involved is explained in the Bible. But the act of Jesus dying on the cross was a good act. Two different things.Was what Jesus went through bad or evil or wrong, etc...?
Because most of us consider it very, very good because of the results, etc... Well, most christians do or should anyway, etc... It is or should be core to our theology, etc... "Good Friday", etc... So how can it be considered very, very good if it was very, very bad, etc...? Are we in error, etc...?
I beg to differ. Just because something appears hard and complicated to work out to find the truth doesn't mean there is no truth.As you can see you/me/we need further definitions, etc, ones that consider and fully take into account all, etc, and that's where the letter of the law comes in, but to list them all, and spell them all out in great detail, and in every single detail, etc, could possibly take more books than the whole world can hold and/or contain, etc...
I think thats another logical fallacy that doesn't follow. Just because we need to define things doesn't mean morality is subjective.But if we are the ones defining them, they will all still be very subjective still, etc,
But morality doesn't need to be updated or improved under relative/subjective morality. When slavery was abolished this wasn't a progressive moral change. It was just a different one like a new trend or fashion. Moral reformists like Wilberforce would have been seen as trouble makers and out of step with their cultures view that slavery was morally OK.as they could all change drastically with changes with other things, etc, things like circumstances, and times or ages or time periods possibly also, and/or other kinds of situations and circumstances changing also, etc, at which point laws and rules and morality needs updating and/or changing again, etc...
Yes thankyou for your input and God bless.[/quote]Anyway...?
Be Blessed...
God Bless!
Do you understand that not accepting objective morals make no moral stance objective.-snip- You need to show that torturing a child for fun is morally good.
-snip-
Umm I think this is going down a path that takes things way off track. Anyone could say show me evidence for God. That would end any arguement for morality based on God. I think its more about how humans percieve and understand morality in practical ways. If God did make His law known to everyone then we would expect to find this "Moral sense" and knowledge in the way we act/react morally.God may have, or might have allowed/be allowing right now, someone to torture a child, or many children, for fun, etc...
And has always had the power to put an end to it or stop it at any time, etc...
But luckily, He has a much higher goal and much higher eventual purpose to it or in mind in the end than it just being for someone else's "fun" though, etc...
But He is allowing it to go on and/or happen even right now, etc, has the power to fully stop it, etc...
So does that make God evil, etc...?
God BlessGod Bless!
Merry Christmas Man.Umm I think this is going down a path that takes things way off track. Anyone could say show me evidence for God. That would end any arguement for morality based on God. I think its more about how humans percieve and understand morality in practical ways. If God did make His law known to everyone then we would expect to find this "Moral sense" and knowledge in the way we act/react morally.
But I don't think we can start appealing to special knowledge or understandings that are beyond us when it comes to God as we can never know his mind. I don't think we can say that God has ever justified torturing children for fun as being morally good.
He evern understood human nature with slavery and that it was something created by humans and helps create a system that controlled slavery towards its ending rather than snap his fingers and it disappeared. God does not sin and nor is He evil, it is humans who tortures and enslaves and this is always wrong and evil.
God Bless
As I mentioned to the other posters you would have to come up with some way to show that torturing a child for fun is morally ok.
Needing further "definitions and detail" about what happened so we can work out whether an act is wrong or not implies that there is some objective base (truth) that we are using to determine if its right or wrong to find that truth.
This would not make sense if there was no objective basis because under relative morality there is nothing to define or reason about in any "truthful"way beyond cultures or subjects.
But morality doesn't need to be updated or improved under relative/subjective morality....
Moral reformists like Wilberforce would have been seen as trouble makers and out of step with their cultures view that slavery was morally OK.
You cannot improve morality or prgress from one bad moral to a better/best moral as there is no such thing under relative or subjective morality.
Yes, but is it wrong because it's "objectively" wrong, that's the issue...
Christians want to argue that certain things are always wrong, regardless of circumstances, because they want to set us up with the dilemma of needing salvation from our "sins" for having violated some kind of moral absolute law that exists apart from any actual context. However, some of us don't believe anything like that can actually exist.
However, some of us don't believe anything like that can actually exist.
Thank you very much brother/sir, I greatly appreciate the compliment...Thankyou, I like the way you debate as it allows for differences and leaves it at that to ponder. God Bless.
So let me ask you. Morality is obviously a contested topic. There are several moral positions such as moral realism (objectivism), relativism, subjectivism. These are based on a number of theories such asAnytime there is any disagreement with or among anyone, or any or all of every kind of being, etc, and even when it is just even just only one of them, etc, then it is not objective anymore, etc... But it is seeming very difficult to explain that to @stevevw, etc...?
One day maybe, but not right now, because right now, no being is even close right now, let alone all beings everywhere, etc...
God Bless!
I think some people groups can agree among themselves as a people group temporarily, etc, but that there are going to be disagreements among people groups comparing themselves to one another, etc, and I also believe that maybe all humans, or all those individual people groups, could also maybe all agree on some maybe very basic simple somethings temporarily maybe, etc, but also that none of it is ever objective; at least, not in the way I define or understand objective to mean or be right now anyway, etc, but also doesn't mean that we all cannot agree on some very basic and very simple (and for the moment very reasonable) certain somethings temporarily maybe, etc, but I don't think it's "objective", but would be "subjective" to the human race temporarily in this case if it could be or happen right now maybe, etc... That the entire human race could all agree and not even one disagree I mean, etc... On a certain set of some very basic and very simple certain somethings I mean, etc... It would still all be in the "context" of humanity or being human I mean, etc... And if there are other beings out there, (or already here), then we do not know how they would think, or the way they would see things, which could be different, etc, and therefore not 100% neutral or completely objective, or always covering or working for all in my book, etc... Especially not forever and always, etc... Everything changes with time, and given enough time, and with "the times" always, etc... So it is subject to that always also on top of everything else that it is subjective/subject to, etc...So let me ask you. Morality is obviously a contested topic. There are several moral positions such as moral realism (objectivism), relativism, subjectivism. These are based on a number of theories such as
So there is a lot of debate. I would say at the very least morality is still up for debate. Its a complicated and hard to prove issue unlike scientific methodology which explains the material world. So either side will find it hard to come up with clear support. Both will appeal to moral behaviour (people disagree so morality is subjective), cultures condition people relative to their envioronment so morality must be relative or people act/react like morals are objective.
- Virtue Ethics - Aristotle (teleological) - Maintain a virtuous disposition ...
- Natural Law - Aquinas (teleological) ...
- Categorical Imperative - Kant (deontological) ...
- Utilitarianism - Mill (teleological) ...
- Theory of Justice - Rawls (deontological) ...
- Prima Facie Duties - Ross (deontological)
I try to argue (though badly) but try to show how morality is an important matter where we need a moral truth to be able to be human and live together. I think even moral anti-realists agree that we need moral norms. Many atheists also agree like Sam Harris that morality can be objective using science. Though some say it doesn't work. The point is he understands that morality needs a truth basis and attempts to find one.
So I think it is justified to continue to debate this issue as neither side has shown what morality really is or how it works. As many philosophers acknowledge morality is a strange beast that is hard to explain. But as the issue is not settled we can go on investigating things.
Just like with science such as Quantum physics and even classical physics like with Dark Matter. We cannot understand and explain things now but we will continue to try and understand and find the physical facts or in the case of morality the truth.
God Bless
No worries goodnight. God Bless and sleep tight. Don't let the bed bugs bite lol. I had to say it.I think some people groups can agree among themselves as a people group temporarily, etc, but that there are going to be disagreements among people groups comparing themselves to one another, etc, and I also believe that maybe all humans, or all those individual people groups, could also maybe all agree on some maybe very basic simple somethings temporarily maybe, etc, but also that none of it is ever objective; at least, not in the way I define or understand objective to mean or be right now anyway, etc, but also doesn't mean that we all cannot agree on some very basic and very simple (and for the moment very reasonable) certain somethings temporarily maybe, etc, but I don't think it's "objective", but would be "subjective" to the human race temporarily in this case if it could be or happen right now maybe, etc... That the entire human race could all agree and not even one disagree I mean, etc... On a certain set of some very basic and very simple certain somethings I mean, etc... It would still all be in the "context" of humanity or being human I mean, etc... And if there are other beings out there, or already here, then we do not know how they would think, or the way they would see things, which could be different, etc, and therefore not 100% neutral or completely objective, or always covering or working for all in my book, etc... Especially not forever and always, etc... Everything changes with time, and given enough time, and with "the times" always, etc...
Anyway, headed for bed...
Have a good night.
God Bless!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?