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.
In these discussions there is a basic problem. We reference emotional experience based on our own feelings and awareness of it. Because this is a subjective experience, without having had different traumatic issues it is hard to gauge the impact or meaning of our behaviour verses how we cope. Two things I would point to is grief and mental illness.
Grief is like waking up one morning without an arm. Of course you are still alive but something you assumed being there has now gone, forever. It changes you and you have to become someone different. If you have a relative who you love who is mentally ill, you can get sucked into the emotional rabbit hole from which there is no obvious way out. It seems to make emotional sense, but just gets more and more traumatic without proper reference points.
People with a secure sense of themselves can indulge their desires with superficial contacts but with massive sexual content. In youth it appears no harm is done, and one can shrug off love for the chemistry high one has. As life gets older, and love more important, and being significant with other people, being consistent and trusted is of more value than these highs. It is why monogomous relationships rule our society, because consistency matters, and knowing another in a deep way is the foundation of our lives.
The best argument I have heard from people is that is just weakness, dependency, trust which just leads to pain and disappointment. "Who needs a heart is a heart can be broken"
The value of love is the risk and the choice to love despite that risk, which is embodied in Jesus.
The power of Jesus is this reality lies in all of us, and we know. My family and how it has grown is testimony to me of this reality from ideas into emotional reality that truly matters.
As far as I can define objective reality, this is lifes objective reality. Many live broken lives with broken relationships, which was summarised to me by a comment on a social gathering as "cockroaches meeting together to take chunks out of each other."
I see people as who they are, and desire where I can to encourage them more and show love as Jesus did. God bless you
I think I have a pretty good what others mean to say when they use the term, but that's not what you want me to do.
Orel: No thing has the property of being "immoral".
Brad: How do you determine if a thing has the property of being "immoral"?
That's how the conversation reads, and you're flustered that I won't give an answer to that nonsense. That is exactly equivalent, grammatically, to the question you're asking me. If you mean something else, then state exactly what you mean.
There, see, you're already preparing yourself for exceptions because you know that "Take without permission" is not sufficient.I would say that by and large...
Then you would say the government stole from me via taxes, and you would say the teacher stole the comic, and you would say the waiter stole my food.If you take something of mine when I either have not said you may take it, or if I have specifically said you may NOT take it, then I would say you have stolen it.
I guess when it comes to absolutes we must look to physics. A body in motion stays in motion. Every cause has an effect. Similar to Karma. Effects have a cause and causes have effects, that is absolute morality in the physical world
Wrong. An "act" is a noun; nouns are things.I haven't asked you how some thing has the 'property of being immoral'. I think I said a few posts upstream that it's not a 'property'. If you think that's a nonsensical proposition then I will agree with you. Acts are moral or immoral.
No thing has the property of being "immoral". If an act causes harm, then you would prefer that act not happen. Your preference for a thing is about your personal experience of the thing and it says absolutely nothing about the thing itself. You don't determine "immoralness" about any thing. No one does because no thing has the property of being "immoral".
If I have the intention to harm you but don't act on it...then there's nothing to be decided. Can my intention in itself be immoral? I'd say no.
If I intend to harm you and swing a punch but miss? Harm was intended. The the act was immoral.
If you get hit upside the head but I didn't intend to cause harm...well, there's the concept of criminal negligence which might be applicable. But if you leave a loaded gun where a child could access it, are we talking about morality in that case? Doing something stupid doesn't necessarily mean doing something immoral.
I didn't mean to deny free will. I was trying to observe that what goes around comes around in the physical world. God made the laws of physics that govern the real world. In absolutism, I assume that the laws of physics rule as they are the laws that can be proven. But for the record, my Catholic faith does not negate the laws of physics If that notion clashes with free will, I will have to reexamine the question.That would be determinism. As a Catholic I thought you'd reject that concept. It denies free will.
Suppose I intend to cause harm but somehow end up doing good instead?
Mad scientist works on mind-control drug but ends up inventing cure for cancer instead...
Even if I know there are children in the area? When does carelessness become responsibility?
There, see, you're already preparing yourself for exceptions because you know that "Take without permission" is not sufficient.
Then you would say the government stole from me via taxes,
and you would say the teacher stole the comic,
and you would say the waiter stole my food.
No thing has the property of immorality.We agree. No thing has the property of immorality. No act in isolation has the property of immorality.
I never said anything about "absolute". We can be more precise than "taking without permission" though.Maybe that's because I think that there are always going to exceptions and justifications. You are asking for an absolute answer that will apply in every case when there is no such answer.
I like those things too, but the gubmint didn't ask permission, I didn't give permission, ergo it is stealing by your use of the term.I don't hold to the idea that taxation is theft. Taxation is a contribution to the upkeep of the infrastructure of our society. I don't know about you, but I like driving on well-maintained roads, and I like having my daughter go to a well funded school
So the teacher stole the comic. Then it would definitely follow that the police steal drugs when they arrest dealers, huh?Yep.
There's one of those wishy-washy answers again. This is nothing more than a semantic argument we're having. There isn't any real point to it. The question is whether you would say it is stealing. How vaguely, and broadly do you use the term.That argument could certainly be made.
No am "act" is an action=verb, action word.An "act" is a thing; it is a noun.
No, it can be used in both ways, but "an act" is how we're using it which is as a noun. If we said "to act" then we would be using it as a verb.No am "act" is an action=verb, action word.
No thing has the property of immorality.
An "act" is a thing; it is a noun.
No act has the property of immorality. In isolation or otherwise.
So an act is not action? I'm confusedNo, it can be used in both ways, but "an act" is how we're using it which is as a noun. If we said "to act" then we would be using it as a verb.
Fair enough. Sometimes I am unaware of the pervasiveness of the word "should" and it's ambiguity. So for clarity, let's hammer out exactly what "should" and "ought" mean.
They're used to denote obligation, duty or correctness. So if we say that "One ought not murder", this means that if one chooses to murder, then they have made an incorrect choice. The same way that if we ask, "What is two plus two? a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4" the correct choice is 'd'. Just like how if we say "Murder is wrong", it is meant literally, as in choosing to murder is the wrong choice, just like choosing 'a' is the wrong choice.
Yeah, you'll need to tell me exactly what you mean by a "justifiable want".
Is there such a thing as a "just wrong" as opposed to an "unjust wrong"? Aren't all "wrongs" unjust? If so, then your wording is redundant. And if that's the case, then P2 is what's known as a "tautology". Which is where you define something with itself. Remember that we agreed the phrases "X is wrong" and "One shouldn't X" are equivalent. So P2 sounds to me like "We shouldn't do things that we shouldn't do".
Remember that a conclusion follows from the premises if whatever is in the conclusion appears in the premises. It works the other way around too. If you only mention something once in the premises and not in the conclusion, it's probably unnecessary. I can't see "Nancy feels wronged" as being required at all.
And the conclusion would be more aptly applied to the premises worded like this: "I shouldn't disrespect Nancy's justifiable wants".
So an act is not action? I'm confused
I never said anything about "absolute". We can be more precise than "taking without permission" though.
I like those things too, but the gubmint didn't ask permission, I didn't give permission, ergo it is stealing by your use of the term.
So the teacher stole the comic. Then it would definitely follow that the police steal drugs when they arrest dealers, huh?
There's one of those wishy-washy answers again. This is nothing more than a semantic argument we're having. There isn't any real point to it. The question is whether you would say it is stealing. How vaguely, and broadly do you use the term.
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?