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.
I'm asking a simple question. If you're a moral relativist, then how can any action be justified if it involves several originators? Thus the question. Looking for the subheading if you will under relativism. So it's not a strawman.What's your motive for conflating mob mentality with moral codification.
This is a straw man at least and disingenuous at most.
Incorrect conclusion, but I can see your misstep. If you're saying from the human perspective, yes, but the human perspective isn't the correct one.According to the Christian god / Jesus, this is correct.
What's the problem with having "several originators?"I'm asking a simple question. If you're a moral relativist, then how can any action be justified if it involves several originators? Thus the question. Looking for the subheading if you will under relativism. So it's not a strawman.
Incorrect conclusion, but I can see your misstep. If you're saying from the human perspective, yes, but the human perspective isn't the correct one.
What's His name?Slavery and genocide were sanctioned by the OT god.
No. An action performed by a brick, a tree, or otherwise entity without moral agency is neither called "moral" nor "immoral".So the action can be immoral OR moral it's the originator that determines it by intent?
That´s not what I said. An immoral action isn´t moral if performed by a brick - the categories "moral/immoral" simply don´t apply there.It's not an expansion at all unless you submit also that any action can be "right" depending on the originator. Slavery can be moral if done by a moral originator.
I didn't say there was. The issue is that the poster says the action is relative, so then I asked about mob mentality. There are several subheadings under relativism. This speaks to that.What's the problem with having "several originators?"
I don't see your point.Slavery and genocide were sanctioned by the OT god.
So the action is neither moral or immoral, it's the actor. Got it. So slavery is okay if its done by a moral originator. Got it.No. An action performed by a brick, a tree, or otherwise entity without moral agency is neither called "moral" nor "immoral".
Yes, you've said this already, the action isn't in judgment just the originator. Thus slavery is moral if done by a moral originator. So why are non-moral agents' actions viewed as moral or immoral?An immoral action isn´t moral if performed by a brick - the categories "moral/immoral" simply don´t apply there
Why the interest in mob mentality. This seems rather banal in light of the larger picture of morality.I didn't say there was. The issue is that the poster says the action is relative, so then I asked about mob mentality. There are several subheadings under relativism. This speaks to that.
Why the interest in my response to another poster?Why the interest in mob mentality. This seems rather banal in light of the larger picture of morality.
Noted. So you do also believe in mob rules?
No, the action is moral or immortal, but only if it is done by a conscious originator.So the action is neither moral or immoral, it's the actor. Got it. So slavery is okay if its done by a moral originator. Got it.
No, slavery is immoral if it is done by a conscious originator, and non-moral (outside of morality, not applicable) if done by an unconscious originator. Immoral people are still conscious, non-moral agents would be rain and stone, and their actions aren't seen as moral or immoral.Yes, you've said this already, the action isn't in judgment just the originator. Thus slavery is moral if done by a moral originator. So why are non-moral agents' actions viewed as moral or immoral?
No, you haven´t got it. My operative term was "moral agent" (which doesn´t mean an agent who is moral, but an agent who is capable of moral considerations).So the action is neither moral or immoral, it's the actor. Got it. So slavery is okay if its done by a moral originator. Got it.
No, that´s not what I said.Yes, you've said this already, the action isn't in judgment just the originator.
We do not have that situation in Syria right now. People try to provide humanitarian aid but they will not allow the aid through to the people. Even they are bombing hospitals and killing people trying to provide aid.It would be better to live in a society where a third option would feed a child a meal, without trading them as a commodity.
He would not have known that if he had not stolen Rosalind's work.As I said before, James Watson is a huge jerk, yet DNA is still a double helix.
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?