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, I'm saying the instances you cite are continually done for purposes other than what you accuse. It is the PURPOSE that is the point of the story, which you would rather gloss over, making it meaningless.
What we all agree is immoral you would claim is made moral by simply attaching the phrase "because God says so" at the end of it.
If you're going to ignore what the other person says and repeat your script ad nauseum that's not a conversation.
Elioenai, you responded to my answer to your situation about Tim and Dave
I can't keep track of if it was you or not, but someone had stated that in the OP's hypothetical Dave killed Tim because Tim was an atheist. Without looking, I don't think that's the reason the OP gave for it. This becomes revealing ...
Elioenai, you responded to my answer to your situation about Tim and Dave by asking me if you could ask another question. I said yes, but I'm still waiting on the question...
Elio asked, "Do you think it is wrong for Tim to kill Dave because Dave is an atheist and Tim does not like atheists?" This was post 576.
A few posts after my response to Elio's original question, you asked me if there was ever a situation where Tim killing Dave could be for the greater good. Post 580.
And yet looking at your answers, you both gave situations where Tim killing Dave would be "stopping the evil." Hm. There seems to be a pattern emerging ...
No, I'm saying the instances you cite are continually done for purposes other than what you accuse. It is the PURPOSE that is the point of the story, which you would rather gloss over, making it meaningless.
And you have perfectly described the question begging attitude that ethical subjectivists maintain. Its the same as saying, "a subjectivist approach to morality is best because morality is a subjective concept!!"
You cannot argue that objective moral values and duties do not exist because morality is subjective, and then when asked why you believe moral values and duties are subjective say: "because morality is subjective!"
Mark Mar Mark, do you not see this is question begging? In order for you to argue in favor of ethical subjectivism, the burden of proof is on you to provide good premises for it. Saying : "ethical subjectivism is the preferable meta-ethic because morality is subjective does not count as a premise because it begs the question. This is basic undergraduate philosophy.
In fact Mark, if you will notice, moral objectivism is so obviously true, I have no need of even utilizing an argument to prove it.
Is it so surprising that people's subjective morality can come to the same conclusion?
And what would be the purpose of a story about genocide?
Since the reply to both is so similar, I'll address both by pointing to the thread title: God stopping the evil. That's the purpose of Biblical stories only later termed "genocide," and the pattern emerging that Tiberius is referring to.
That only creates more problems than it solves.
What evil did the children do that God so urgently needed to stop by commanding their destruction?
You said yes to my question, and then gave your reasons. All of those reasons I agree with.
The question I want to ask you, and I need you to understand clearly what I am asking. It is simple. The question is this:
Tim is an atheist
Dave is a Militant Muslim.
These are two contrary or opposing views.
Now,
Is it wrong for Dave to rape Tim, even though it is Dave's opinion/preference/view/desire/conviction that he is right in raping atheists?
If you say yes Elioenai26 Dave is wrong, then this is the same exact thing as saying that Dave is objectively wrong. For objective simply means in this context: "independent/not dependent on/regardless of human opinion (Dave's opinion)."
If you say that Dave is objectively wrong then you affirm that there is at least one objective moral duty that exists. It is this: "Raping a person(s) because they do not believe in God is wrong." It being an objective moral duty simply means that it is wrong to do this EVEN IF the rapist's OPINION is that it is right.
Since the reply to both is so similar, I'll address both by pointing to the thread title: God stopping the evil. That's the purpose of Biblical stories only later termed "genocide," and the pattern emerging that Tiberius is referring to.
So much for my request of "consider that carefully".Freodin thinks the Holocaust was good for Germany. He gave his reasons. So this destroys your statement that "we all unanimously agree that the holocaust was a moral travesty."
You keep asserting that. You keep claiming that you are here to "demonstrate" that. When will you start to do so?Secondly, even if every gentile on the earth all unanimously agreed that the holocaust was good for Germany, that does not make the holocaust good.
Mostly a moral relativist position. It could very roughly be described as consequentialist / utilitarist, but I found that these systems do not correctly describe my position.What meta-ethic do you adhere to?
And why do you figure an all-powerful, all moral being would resort to a heinously immoral act like genocide to stop the evil?
Not to mention, if those people have the free will I hear so much about, then isn't the genocide an act that violates their free will?
What good is free will, if exercising that free will is going to get you, and your city slaughtered?
One would assume a loving moral being would find a non-violent way to resolve the problem.
Quite the strawman there.
No sir. Everyone dies. No one wants to. Our dominion ends at death. Do you know how you can tell?
Dead people can't do anything.
This is really basic stuff. I'm surprised you need me to explain this to you.
Free will isn't what got you slaughtered. Neither is the color of your skin. How many more ridiculous assumptions will we see before anyone is willing to look at what is right before your face?
There seems to be a problematic word there, indicative of stinkin thinkin. Can you guess which one it might be?
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?