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.
No, you were trying to deflect.
Since you didn't address my citation, I assume we're done.
The act of covering up or destroying evidence is evidence that they agree with the generally accepted morality. Otherwise, why would they be trying to cover their tracks?
My example (police) was meant to answer your question.
They are legally permitted to do many of the same things you are attributing to criminals.
Addressing the cited source would require a scientific investigation to falsify its results. It may be that someone has already published such a study. As it stands, the idea is pretty simple. People rationalize their behavior. It is typical to make oneself the good guy and others the bad guy. I'm not saying everyone does that, but it's very difficult to know what is truly motivating people to act as they do, and I think you've oversimplified.
In the end, morality is a set of rules intended to benefit a select group. That can range from a group of one for the narcissist to all of existence for the tree hugger. It does seem that over the course of history the trend has been moving from morality for the tribe to global morality. But I still don't see any agreement on what morality is.
I also think the key to making a moral system good (non-arbitrary, non-autocratic, etc.) is understanding the purpose of creation - a task forever beyond any single finite being, and so requiring some trust and obedience.
No, they aren't. Cops aren't allowed to steal people's stuff or murder people. You know this. All you are trying to do is deflect away from the obvious point.
If not everyone does it, then my point stands. People know that something is immoral, and they do it anyway.
The police are allowed to confiscate property and use deadly force - different names for the same action.
One is legally sanctioned and the other isn't, but it's the same actions: taking and killing.
Not if you're saying that's an explanation for all mentally competent people. Radiation is one cause of DNA mutation. That doesn't justify a claim that it is the only cause of DNA mutation. So, just curious, can you identify what caused a mutation after the fact? Because I don't know of any reliable means for confirming motivation.
More to the point, one is moral and the other is not.
Are you now backing away from your previous claims? You are the one who said not everyone rationalizes their actions so as to make them think they are committing a moral act.
In an absolute sense? Why?
I'm not backing away from anything. I can't understand your second sentence. The underlined "not" confuses the meaning. So, I'm not sure what statement of mine you refer to.
It isn't the same. Stopping criminals is not the same as being a criminal.
For example, paying your taxes is a moral obligation in a representative democracy. If you don't pay those taxes, then society at large is morally justified in taking your property to pay those taxes.
You said that some people rationalize their actions to fool themselves into believing they are being moral.
This leads to the rather obvious conclusion that some don't do this, and know that they are committing immoral acts.
I stated earlier that knowing what is moral does not guarantee that one will act morally.
Then prayer and faith are indistinguishable from something that has no power. I could claim that praying to the Flying Spaghetti monster will cure every type of cancer. If people come back and tell me their cancer is not cured, I will just tell them they were not praying the right way, or that they didn't have enough or the right kind of faith. Easy-peasy.
Prayer....real prayer is two way communication with Deity. Faith is the power of God. Beliefs are what we think is true and knowledge is what we know to be true regardless of what the senses or science say.
Dan
Of course not, at least not as long as actions are redefined. If a citizen takes something that doesn't belong to them and didn't pay for, it's called theft. If a police officer does it, it's called "stopping crime, doing their job, confiscation, seizure, securing property, holding evidence", or whatever other words sound nice and official.
Same with shooting and killing someone. If a citizen does it, it's called homocide, taking matters into your own hands, getting back at someone, etc. If a police officer does it, it's called "Stopping a crime in progress, ending a hostile encounter, neutralizing the threat, etc."
I think you're affirming the consequent. Or maybe begging the question. I'd have to diagram this sentence to be sure what the problem is, but there's a problem here.
Anyway, all you've done is give another example. You've given the legalized version of protection money. Same question. Why is one moral and not the other?
It's another possibility, yes. I never claimed this doesn't happen. My statement was that the means you use to judge this condition are invalid.
If knowing morality doesn't necessarily cause it, and if the means of detection are unreliable,
You think there is a moral problem with laws that are voted on by a representative government, and defined by a constitution agreed upon by the people?
Someone not using reason and logic does not make reason and logic invalid. What you are pointing to is people not using the processes that I have laid out.
That is false. If a police officer goes into a store and takes merchandise without a court order and without the permission of the store owner then they are committing the same crime.
If a police officer shoots a defenseless person and without any threat to their person, then they are committing the same crime.
No government is perfect, but you also failed to mention the other mechanisms at work in the American system, which are generally categorized as lobbying & petitioning.
You use the terms "logic" and "reason" quite frequently, but I've not seen you lay out any process (other than the one that led to the Golden Rule). Every time we enter an example, you stop answering my questions.
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?