Is there an absolute morality?

[TLK Valentine]

Yes.


Ok. Please provide me with a context where murdering someone is a good thing.
Murder being the willful and malicious taking of a human life.

If that's your definition of "murder," how about warfare?

The bible makes a distinction between killing and murdering.

Or, please provide a context where rape is a good thing.

Or, please provide a context where stealing is a good thing.

Shall we consult the Bible for these last two, or all three?

Because Biblically speaking, All three are good things if God orders them done...

... and before you you say "God would never/has never given such orders..." You sure you want to go there?

 

[Bradskii]

Yes.


Ok. Please provide me with a context where murdering someone is a good thing.
Murder being the willful and malicious taking of a human life.

The bible makes a distinction between killing and murdering.

Or, please provide a context where rape is a good thing.

Or, please provide a context where stealing is a good thing.

Mabe you've skipped a few posts. It's been explained upstream that terms like murder are a means to describe killing under certain circumstances. Circumstances which we have already agreed are wrong. So something that is by definition wrong cannot be right - unless we argue in regard to the definition itself (notwithstanding that harm needs to be done for it to be classed as immoral).

So the question you should be asking is: Can killing someone be a good thing? Because what you actually asked was: Can killing someone if the act is premeditated and intentional and is with malice aforethought be a good thing?

You gave the answer when you asked the question.

 

[ISteveB]

If that's your definition of "murder," how about warfare?

They were simple questions.
Are you not able to answer them?

Shall we consult the Bible for these last two, or all three?

That's up to you.

Because Biblically speaking, All three are good things if God orders them done...

Well, that is your opinion.
Not even remotely supported, but it's an opinion.

... and before you you say "God would never/has never given such orders..." You sure you want to go there?

A curious thing how you're ready to jump in with unsupported opinions but can't actually answer questions.

Thank you for your beliefs.

 

[ISteveB]

Mabe you've skipped a few posts. It's been explained upstream that terms like murder are a means to describe killing under certain circumstances. Circumstances which we have already agreed are wrong. So something that is by definition wrong cannot be right - unless we argue in regard to the definition itself (notwithstanding that harm needs to be done for it to be classed as immoral).

So the question you should be asking is: Can killing someone be a good thing? Because what you actually asked was: Can killing someone if the act is premeditated and intentional and is with malice aforethought be a good thing?

You gave the answer when you asked the question.

I read post #1.

Considering that there's over 1860 posts now, no. I only read post one.

The questions were asked, I answered the first question and then asked for examples of what would make criminal activity "dependent on the context."

Seems rather reasonable a place to start.

 

[Bradskii]

I read post #1.

Considering that there's over 1860 posts now, no. I only read post one.

The questions were asked, I answered the first question and then asked for examples of what would make criminal activity "dependent on the context."

Seems rather reasonable a place to start.

It's a long thread with a lot of repetition so I don't blame you for not plowing through all the posts. But again, you are answering your own question within the question itself. 'Criminal activity' is an act (whatever it might be) that we have already decided is criminal because of the context.

That said, and as I mentioned a few posts ago, it could be considered by some that an act which intentionally kills one or more innocent people but saves the lives of many more could be described as immoral in itself. Hiroshima is the trolley problem writ large. In which case I would say the act was doing something wrong for the right reasons.

 

[TLK Valentine]

They were simple questions.
Are you not able to answer them?

I did. There's plenty of willful malicious killing in warfare.

Well, that is your opinion.
Not even remotely supported, but it's an opinion.

You have read the Bible, right?

 

[ISteveB]

It's a long thread with a lot of repetition so I don't blame you for not plowing through all the posts. But again, you are answering your own question within the question itself. 'Criminal activity' is an act (whatever it might be) that we have already decided is criminal because of the context.

Only one problem.... I wasn't interested in answering my own question. I wanted you to answer my questions.

If I ask questions, I generally have a good idea of what I expect the answer to be.
So, if I ask someone else a question, I'm inviting them to tell me what they think, and not what I expect.
If I already know your answer, that would make me God.
So, please..... I asked you about your thoughts and ideas about this, because you presented a question that matters to you.

That said, and as I mentioned a few posts ago, it could be considered by some that an act which intentionally kills one or more innocent people but saves the lives of many more could be described as immoral in itself. Hiroshima is the trolley problem writ large. In which case I would say the act was doing something wrong for the right reasons.

I believe that the death penalty is a good thing.
I further think that there's such a thing as a just war.
Neither are popular, and some people will lose their minds trying to argue how wrong I am. I'm an older man now, and while I don't think that war ever is a good thing, because nobody walks away from it without some kind of deep wounds, and emotional trauma.

But, killing people who are destroying the lives of others is right.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only way to get Japan's attention. They'd traveled all over the Pacific killing people in an attempt at imperial expansion. As the one general said regarding the United states, I think we've woken a sleeping giant.

They did, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the straw that broke their back. We tried for several years to get them to stop. They refused. So we did an unthinkable act to get them to realize the magnitude of their own crimes against the human race.

On a much smaller scale, imagine a group of bullies who are running around beating people up. Their "victims" plead with them, try to reason with them, but they just won't stop. So, one day the victim's big brother shows up and gives them one last chance to stop. They again refused and turned on the big brother. So the big brother goes and grabs a couple of friends, and upon their return, they beat the bullies to a pulp, after first warning them that it won't end well for them.

All the bullies end up in the hospital, but instead of recognizing their folly, they try again, following their recovery.

Again, they are pulverized. But this time, a few of the bullies die for their stupidity.

 

[ISteveB]

I did. There's plenty of willful malicious killing in warfare.



You have read the Bible, right?

Yes. I have. Several times.

I'm presently reading each book of the bible 6 times... I started at Revelation (October 2020), and am on my 4th time through Numbers. A few years ago someone had said they did it. I thought about it and decided not to. In late 20 aside got to Revelation, I figured what the hey, and went for it.
It's been quite illuminating.

Reading one to three chapters a day, I figure it'll take about 5-9 years to get through to Jude, on the 6th time through. But I also think that it'll give me a good understanding of what the bible says. And lots and lots and lots of notes.

 

[Bradskii]

Only one problem.... I wasn't interested in answering my own question. I wanted you to answer my questions.

If I ask questions, I generally have a good idea of what I expect the answer to be.
So, if I ask someone else a question, I'm inviting them to tell me what they think, and not what I expect.
If I already know your answer, that would make me God.
So, please..... I asked you about your thoughts and ideas about this, because you presented a question that matters to you.





I believe that the death penalty is a good thing.
I further think that there's such a thing as a just war.
Neither are popular, and some people will lose their minds trying to argue how wrong I am. I'm an older man now, and while I don't think that war ever is a good thing, because nobody walks away from it without some kind of deep wounds, and emotional trauma.

But, killing people who are destroying the lives of others is right.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only way to get Japan's attention. They'd traveled all over the Pacific killing people in an attempt at imperial expansion. As the one general said regarding the United states, I think we've woken a sleeping giant.

They did, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the straw that broke their back. We tried for several years to get them to stop. They refused. So we did an unthinkable act to get them to realize the magnitude of their own crimes against the human race.

On a much smaller scale, imagine a group of bullies who are running around beating people up. Their "victims" plead with them, try to reason with them, but they just won't stop. So, one day the victim's big brother shows up and gives them one last chance to stop. They again refused and turned on the big brother. So the big brother goes and grabs a couple of friends, and upon their return, they beat the bullies to a pulp, after first warning them that it won't end well for them.

All the bullies end up in the hospital, but instead of recognizing their folly, they try again, following their recovery.

Again, they are pulverized. But this time, a few of the bullies die for their stupidity.

I gave you two answers to your question. The first was that your question already contained the answer within it. 'Criminal activity' is an activity that is already determined by the context of the activity. That context (whatever it might be) defines the activity as 'criminal'. What we already consider to be wrong (if you agree that the act should be described as criminal).

A tougher example on which to decide would be lying. Is it always immoral to lie? Or are there ocassions when it's the right thing to do ('there's no-one hiding here')?

The second answer was that something that might be considered a criminal activity or act by the strict definition of that activity might be considered either 'not a bad thing' or even 'a good thing' depending on the final result. So if I ask you if blowing up innocent women and children, even in a war situation, is a bad thing or could be considered immoral or even criminal, you might say that it is. But you apparently think (and I tend to agree) that the final outcome in regard to Hiroshima made it the 'least worse' option. Just like triage - nominating one person more likely to survive is often deciding who lives and who dies. And one person surviving is the least worse option if the other option is that both die.

Then we have a semantics problem in that some people will nominate an act as wrong - or even evil, but which provides the best outcome. And I'm sure someone will be along shortly to say that the outcome is irrelevant. And killing one innocent person to save a complete planet is wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

So you’re saying you can’t have goodness without reason, but you can have truth without reason? Hmm…

I've never cared for the word "truth", especially not when talking to religious folks (no offense). But so many of you guys like to talk about it like "Truth" is actual stuff. I'll say that you cannot confirm statements are true without reason. You cannot justify statements as being true without reason.

 

[o_mlly]

A point discussed at length on any thread that discusses the trolley problem. And which is a world away from this statement:

No. The trolley problem has two ends in view. My question to you has only one end in view.

Is human act that has but one end in view to kill an innocent person wrong in itself?​

The first includes intent. The second doesn't. You're reasonably careful about your wording so I'm reluctant to class that as a typo.

A human act that kills an innocent person is always an evil act.​

There's only one sentence. Exactly what do you refer to as "first" and "second" in your reply?

The "end in view" is not necessarily the intent of the actor but the effect a reasonable person would expect that naturally follows from the act.

For instance, the end in view that follows from jumping off the roof of a 30 story building is death. The dead child in his batman costume did not intend to die.

The end in view that follows from driving a car at high speed down a crowded sidewalk is the death of an innocent person. The thrill seeking reckless driver tells the judge that he did not intend to kill anyone.

There's an argument to be made that under certain conditions the first could be described as 'doing the wrong thing for the right reasons'. The second is nonsensical.

Nonsensical? Here's the nonsense in your reply, "'doing the wrong thing for the right reasons". The belief that a good end may follow never justifies an evil act. If you think otherwise then any evil human act can be imagined to be a moral act, e.g., "To make an omelette, one has to break a few eggs".

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes. I have. Several times.

I'm presently reading each book of the bible 6 times... I started at Revelation (October 2020), and am on my 4th time through Numbers. A few years ago someone had said they did it. I thought about it and decided not to. In late 20 aside got to Revelation, I figured what the hey, and went for it.
It's been quite illuminating.

Reading one to three chapters a day, I figure it'll take about 5-9 years to get through to Jude, on the 6th time through. But I also think that it'll give me a good understanding of what the bible says. And lots and lots and lots of notes.

Then you should have no problem noting where murder, rape, and theft were commanded, condoned, or committed by God -- so either He's immoral, or those actions are sometimes "moral."

 

[TLK Valentine]

I believe that the death penalty is a good thing.
I further think that there's such a thing as a just war.
Neither are popular, and some people will lose their minds trying to argue how wrong I am.

Not necessary -- "The death penalty is a good thing because it's Biblical," and the Just War Theory is sound doctrine.

I'm an older man now, and while I don't think that war ever is a good thing, because nobody walks away from it without some kind of deep wounds, and emotional trauma.

But, killing people who are destroying the lives of others is right.

Even if you do it maliciously? Looks like "murder" is back on the table.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only way to get Japan's attention. They'd traveled all over the Pacific killing people in an attempt at imperial expansion.

Osama bin Laden thought the exact same thing about the United States in the Middle East...

... so he got our attention.

They did, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the straw that broke their back. We tried for several years to get them to stop. They refused. So we did an unthinkable act to get them to realize the magnitude of their own crimes against the human race.

Nothing "unthinkable" about it -- we thought of it, we planned it to the letter, and we did it.

...and we even had a back-up plan in case it didn't work.

Operation Downfall - Wikipedia

On a much smaller scale, imagine a group of bullies who are running around beating people up. Their "victims" plead with them, try to reason with them, but they just won't stop. So, one day the victim's big brother shows up and gives them one last chance to stop. They again refused and turned on the big brother. So the big brother goes and grabs a couple of friends, and upon their return, they beat the bullies to a pulp, after first warning them that it won't end well for them.

All the bullies end up in the hospital, but instead of recognizing their folly, they try again, following their recovery.

Again, they are pulverized. But this time, a few of the bullies die for their stupidity.

That was bin Laden's plan... didn't work out as well for him, though.

 

[Chriliman]

I've never cared for the word "truth", especially not when talking to religious folks (no offense). But so many of you guys like to talk about it like "Truth" is actual stuff. I'll say that you cannot confirm statements are true without reason. You cannot justify statements as being true without reason.

I agree, but that makes truth just like goodness, they both require reason. Therefore, if truth can be objective(objective facts) then goodness can too. If that’s not what you think then how do you justify a difference?

IOW, I think it’s good to understand true things and doing that is an objective endeavor, but I’d imagine you disagree and so I’m wondering how you view the relationship between goodness and truth. Why is one subjective and other can be objective when they both rely on reason?

 

[Moral Orel]

I agree, but that makes truth just like goodness, they both require reason. Therefore, if truth can be objective(objective facts) then goodness can too. If that’s not what you think then how do you justify a difference?

IOW, I think it’s good to understand true things and doing that is an objective endeavor, but I’d imagine you disagree and so I’m wondering how you view the relationship between goodness and truth. Why is one subjective and other can be objective?

Because when you try to reason for what "should" be, you will eventually inject your personal preferences. If we keep going with that attempt to formulate a sound argument for a moral fact, at some point you're going to get frustrated and tell me something to the effect of, "Well obviously X is better than Y". And that's your personal preference being the reason behind all of your other reasoning.

 

[o_mlly]

So again, if you could show me where it is described as evil when someone is accidently killed, I'd appreciate it.

So again, if you could show me where it is described as good when an innocent person is accidentally killed, I'd appreciate it.

 

[ISteveB]

I gave you two answers to your question. The first was that your question already contained the answer within it. 'Criminal activity' is an activity that is already determined by the context of the activity. That context (whatever it might be) defines the activity as 'criminal'. What we already consider to be wrong (if you agree that the act should be described as criminal).

Ok. Let's do it this way....
What is "criminal activity" based on, that would make it criminal?
In 1930's and World War 2 Nazi Germany, it was legal (and therefore not criminal) to murder Jewish people, people were classified as gypsies, homosexual and disabled.
In pre-1865 USA, it was legal, and therefore not criminal, to own a human being, as property, aka, a slave, as long as they had a certain skin color.

Presently, it's legal, and therefore not criminal, to murder unborn children, as long as the mother decides she doesn't want to carry the child to term. And in some states, it's even legal to carry the child to term, and murder it moments before it passes through the birth canal.

So..... what is the determining factor for what decides whether something is criminal or not?

A tougher example on which to decide would be lying. Is it always immoral to lie? Or are there ocassions when it's the right thing to do ('there's no-one hiding here')?

Indeed..... This was commonly practiced by christians during Nazi Germany's slaughter of Jewish people.
Which goes back to the issue of--- what determines if this is a criminal activity?

The second answer was that something that might be considered a criminal activity or act by the strict definition of that activity might be considered either 'not a bad thing' or even 'a good thing' depending on the final result. So if I ask you if blowing up innocent women and children, even in a war situation, is a bad thing or could be considered immoral or even criminal, you might say that it is. But you apparently think (and I tend to agree) that the final outcome in regard to Hiroshima made it the 'least worse' option. Just like triage - nominating one person more likely to survive is often deciding who lives and who dies. And one person surviving is the least worse option if the other option is that both die.

I think this one can be observed in the Ukraine today.

Then we have a semantics problem in that some people will nominate an act as wrong - or even evil, but which provides the best outcome. And I'm sure someone will be along shortly to say that the outcome is irrelevant. And killing one innocent person to save a complete planet is wrong.

Which is why the questions......

 

[ISteveB]

Then you should have no problem noting where murder, rape, and theft were commanded, condoned, or committed by God -- so either He's immoral, or those actions are sometimes "moral."

My questions were for the op, not me.

 

[TLK Valentine]

My questions were for the op, not me.

Then your questions are based on some faulty premises.

 

[ISteveB]

Then your questions are based on some faulty premises.

Well, I suppose that means it's a good thing I wasn't talking to you to begin with. Have a great life.