Is there such a thing as absolute morality? - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

[Zakath]

“Does Absolute Morality Exist?
Zakath’s post #4

Knight’s previous response demonstrates his unwillingness, possibly his inability, to address the primary question of the debate as he chooses to attack the relativist position, hoping to prove his position by default. Unfortunately he fails, and I will continue to bring him back to his burden: prove that absolute morality exists. It is only in doing so that he will disprove my position.

... in a relativistic view of morality, the determining factor of what is morally right or morally wrong is RELATIVE to the individual, society or government (which Zakath fully admits). Yet Zakath has now admitted that he often rejects what has been determined right or wrong relative to individuals, societies and governments. A TRUE moral relativist would be forced to (at very least) admit that ANY morality is "as good" or "as right" as any other moral standard.

Knight appears to be so totally indoctrinated into his absolutist view of morals and ethics that appears to miss his own point here. After describing his “determining factor” as relative, he then castigates me for choosing a relative stance on the question of moral right or wrong. But, as I remind him, I am a relativist. As such, it is my prerogative to choose the morals or ethics that agree with what I think are right or wrong…

Knight then goes on to attempt to subvert a relativist’s ability to determine whether or not someone else’s viewpoint is right or wrong. To a great extent that is the crux of the argument of one whose moral and religious views appear rooted in attacking the beliefs and practices of others as “wrong”. Knight must believe in absolute right or wrong or he has no basis upon which to feel superior to, and to attack others.

Knight intones his final (ultimate?) pronouncement on the subject,

”Ultimately, moral relativism or moral subjectivism fails due to the almost limitless amount of counter examples.”

This interestingly enough draws us, round about, to the initial point of the debate:

When will Knight prove the existence of absolute morality?

As nearly as I can tell, we’re still waiting for proof…

Knight then attempts to play James Randi, famous (or infamous) debunker of the paranormal, by asserting that I am playing a trick on the readers when I illustrate that some moral examples might be viewed as good or evil, depending on the viewpoint. I hate to disappoint our readers, but this is no trick, it is merely providing examples of why relativistic morality is such a common viewpoint. Knight, as with many of his religious fundamentalist brethren, appears to be searching for a simple universe where answers are all binary (yes or no, black or white). No matter how much he wishes to believe otherwise, the real world in which he and I live is full of doubt, uncertainty, and gray areas. Relativists did not create the “almost limitless amount of counter examples”, we merely point a few of them out to illustrate the point that if there is a single example where an allegedly “absolute” point or belief is not true, then it is not absolute.

After all his “counter examples”, I still wonder when will Knight prove the existence of absolute morality?

At the end of my previous post, I asked Knight to provide one or more examples of what he considered absolute morality. He kindly provides the examples of “murder” and “rape”. Now that we have two examples to discuss, I had assumed that he would describe the authority upon which he based his assertion that these wrongs are “absolute”. Notice that he did not do so. He immediately attempted to steer the discussion away from his need to prove his point by playing a few tricks of his own…

Knight engages in his own two timeworn tricks: playing with definitions of words, and trying to maneuver his opponent into accept the opposing viewpoint without having to provide a convincing argument.

First, Knight hedges his answer by hinting at a limiting definition, without providing the definition himself.

Murder and rape, when properly defined are both absolutely wrong. (Emphasis mine – Z)

Note his use of the words “when properly defined”. He clearly intends a specific definition of the words “rape” and “murder”, yet does not provide them, preferring to leave the defining of his own examples to his opponent. If his opponent were foolish enough to provide a definition, Knight will rush in, proclaiming that his opponent did not understand the point and ridicule him.

My response to Knight’s first “trick” is: Knight, please explain what you mean by “properly defined” in your response to my previous question. To be more explicit: Since they are your examples, provide your definitions of the words “murder” and “rape”.

Second, Knight then asks his opponent, an admitted moral relativist, to accept a morally absolute premise. He writes:

I can determine that was murder and therefore absolutely wrong…Can you make that same determination Zakath?

Unfortunately that’s a bit like a completely colorblind person who sees the world only in black and white asking a normally sighted individual to agree that color doesn’t exist…

While I agree that the German Holocaust was wrong, I cannot speak to the absoluteness of what I consider a crime against my fellow human beings.

Knight leaft me with two questions to answer.

QUESTION FOR ZAKATH:
Is there such a thing as rape? And if so, is raping a woman absolutely wrong or just wrong relative to you?

To answer the first, I need to wait upon his definition of the term. As for the second, it is moot. Since I am a moral relativist, he already knows the answer.

Knight, at this juncture, has two tasks:

1. Provide his “proper” definitions of “rape” and “murder” so we can all be discussing from the same perspective.

2. Provide some authority for his assertions that what he defines as “rape” and “murder” are actually absolutes and not merely relative.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight's POST #4

Knight's POST #4

Zakath states...

When will Knight prove the existence of absolute morality?

Proof is: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact. - Merriam Webster

In other words.... for many, I have already "proved" my side of the argument and for some you may have "proved" your side of the debate, which is why I wouldn't be so silly as to continually ask you to "prove" your side of the debate. However, some compelling evidence from Zakath might be nice . The last time I checked both I AND Zakath are involved in this debate and Zakath has done little if anything to demonstrate any evidence to compel me to accept that murder or rape are NOT absolutely wrong but wrong only as a matter of personal preference.

What set of circumstances could exist that could make murder or rape right???? That is after all what Zakath is ultimately arguing.

If there really is such a thing as murder or rape can it ever be right? Or is murder and rape always wrong? If murder and rape are always wrong - under EVERY circumstance - then murder and rape are absolutely wrong and therefore absolute morality exists.

When someone asks...."Is killing wrong" and then someone rightfully responds "it depends on the circumstances" that answer is reasonable and correct. But that answer is also an admission that there must be some cases in which the killing is wrong. Otherwise we would simply have answered "no, killing is never wrong." Therefore we have a different word for killing, when the killing is wrong and that word is murder.

So when someone determines that killing is sometimes wrong they are referring to murder.

We must then ask "is murder ever NOT wrong"? And the answer must be NO otherwise we would refer to it as "killing" and we would have no reason to answer "it depends" when asked if killing is wrong. Therefore murder is absolutely wrong.

Zakath states...

While I agree that the German Holocaust was wrong, I cannot speak to the absoluteness of what I consider a crime against my fellow human beings.

In other words Zakath himself may not have chosen to support the Holocaust or be a part of the holocaust operation had he been there, but he cannot absolutely condemn the actions of the Nazi's because according to Zakath the Holocaust was not absolutely wrong, just wrong relative to Zakath. To Zakath the Holocaust was only wrong as a matter of personal preference and he cannot make any further claim against it than that. Zakath's disapproval of the holocaust holds no more weight whatsoever than my choosing chocolate ice cream over vanilla.

I asked Zakath...."Is there such a thing as rape? And if so, is raping a woman absolutely wrong or just wrong relative to you?"

And Zakath responded....

To answer the first, I need to wait upon his definition of the term. As for the second, it is moot. Since I am a moral relativist, he already knows the answer.

I did not define "rape" because I wanted to let Zakath use his own definition so we would not waste anytime debating the definition of rape. Which is why I phrased the question... "Is there such a thing as rape?" Zakath does indicate his answer..."Since I am a moral relativist, he already knows the answer." Apparently Zakath feels even if there is a proper definition of rape, rape isn't absolutely wrong but only wrong relative to Zakath. The choice as to whether to rape or not to rape is no different than choosing between driving a red van or driving a blue van! If Zakath is correct then rape is only wrong relative to all of us individually and then what right do we as individual's, societies or governments have in legislating against the act of rape? Is rape really something that could just as logically be legal as it is illegal?

Early on in this debate Zakath claimed he believed some things were wrong even when individuals, societies or governments had deemed them "not wrong". Is Zakath claiming that rape is NOT one of those things???

A SPECIFIC ACTION:
A 40 year old man watches a 9 year old girl walk past his house everyday on her way home from school. On one day, the man decides to grab her off the sidewalk against her will. She struggles but the man is much stronger and successfully pulls her into his house. The man holds his hand over the girls mouth to prevent her from screaming. The man drags the girl into his basement where he proceeds to violently rape her several times. When done, the man decides it would be best to place a pillow over the girls mouth and nose and hold it there until she eventually suffocated. When the man felt the girl no longer breathing he placed her body in the trunk of his car and drove to a remote location where he dumped the girl's body.

Was this man ABSOLUTELY wrong for doing this or was he only wrong relative to US as individual's? Asked another way... were the man's actions ABSOLUTELY wrong, or was it just a matter of the man's personal preference to do these things?

 

[Prisca]

I can't believe I finally get to do this!

I can't believe I finally get to do this!

Ding, ding, ding...end of round four. Zakath, you are now back on the clock!

 

[Zakath]

“Does Absolute Morality Exist?”
Zakath’s 5th post

My opponent has apparently lost track of his purpose during this debate. Since he is arguing the affirmative, he is to attempt to prove that absolute morality exists. He has repeatedly made the claim that it exists without backing up his claim. Thus far he as limited himself to attacking my position and merely asserting that his view is correct without providing any logical or authoritative citation to support those assertions. While that may pass for effective argument in the circles he frequents, “because I say so” is hardly convincing to one’s opponents unless you are a demonstrated authority in the field under discussion. In spite of his allegations that he may have convinced some of the readers of his position, this reader remains unconvinced. If he has real evidence and authority to demonstrate, now is the time for him to bring it out.

To attempt to resolve the deadlock I proposed two questions to Knight at the end of my previous post. In summary, I asked Knight to:

• Define two words he used (murder and rape) for which he insisted there was a “correct” definition; implying that understanding that correct definition was necessary for him to prove his assertions about absolute morality.
  
• Provide authority for his assertions about absolute morality.

After reading his response I believe he provided neither definition, nor authority.

Without those two items, I am left with the assumption that his argument must be based on his own human authority, as was his definition of “absolute morality”. If this is incorrect, perhaps Knight can actually demonstrate that I am wrong…

Basing his argument on his own authority contradicts Knight’s definition of absolute authority. Looking back to his first post, we find that definition requires him to demonstrate the existence of “a standard of right and wrong that supercedes - or is greater than - man's standard of right and wrong”. So far, he has demonstrated no superhuman standards of right and wrong (or anything else superceding human ability or reason). We have, thus far, read nothing but Knight’s own assertions and emotional pleadings. Where's the standard, Knight???

Knight does come close to providing a definition for murder by saying it some type of “wrong killing”. He states:

We must then ask "is murder ever NOT wrong"? And the answer must be NO otherwise we would refer to it as "killing"…

Without an absolute standard to define murder (which Knight refuses to provide) all we can say is that it is wrong to kill people when it is wrong to kill them. Knight's example also begs the question of without a standard, who determines when it is "right" to kill someone or "wrong" to do so. If this is how murder is defined in Knight’s superhuman standard of right and wrong, then it sounds very subjective to me. This definition, while simple, may not be universally applicable to the same act. Let me illustrate…

Recent events in the Middle East have repeatedly shown us that certain deaths deemed “killing” by one side, are viewed by the other side as “murder”. These are the same acts, viewed by two different groups of people who come up with two different moral descriptions of the acts. Knight’s traditional way of dealing with such issues as the slaughter of innocents is to trivialize them as “collateral damage”, a US Department of Defense euphemism for unintended deaths related to combat. Are such deaths “wrong”, making them murder? In Israel, that appears to depend entirely on which side of the border you live. Again, Knight asserts the existence of an “absolute” point of view, but does not provide any absolute standard to conclusively demonstrate it.

Knight then presents a favorite Christian example used in discussion of absolute morality; the rape example. After erecting a straw man argument, by refusing to define what he means by rape, he then happily demolishes some mythical opponent’s arguments without providing a single reference to his “superceding authority”. Nor does he provide a single authoritative reason, no appeal to a superhuman standard, for why he believes rape should be considered “absolutely wrong”. Until he provides this standard, Knight appears to be merely another moral subjectivist who considers an act wrong because he personally finds it distasteful.

Knight then presents what I presume is a fictional tale combining several of his favorite themes: sexual deviance, rape, and murder. Finally, Knight asks yet again whether I believe some action is a moral absolute.

I believe that rape, murder, and kidnapping are wrong. If the individual described in the story was arrested, tried, and convicted, I’d willingly participate in the execution of such a person. That said, I still do not believe in absolute morality.

Until I see some demonstration by Knight of this alleged standard he claims as authority for his classification of acts as “absolutely right” or “absolutely wrong”, I cannot speak to that part of his question.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight's Post #5

Knight's Post #5

Is Zakath conceding that absolute morality exists???

Zakath's entire post #5 is a request that I discuss the origin of absolute morality. If Zakath rejects absolute morality, why investigate its origin? I waste no time discussing the origin of little green men from Mars because I know that little green men from Mars do not exist. If I remember correctly, the topic of the debate was "Is there such a thing as absolute morality?" NOT "What is the origin of absolute morality?"

Zakath states...

Since he is arguing the affirmative, he is to attempt to prove that absolute morality exists. He has repeatedly made the claim that it exists without backing up his claim.

This is untrue. I have asserted that rape and murder are absolutely wrong. It is now up to Zakath to provide examples of rape and murder that are not wrong.

Zakath makes the following statement:

I believe that rape, murder, and kidnapping are wrong.

There are a couple possible ways to interpret Zakath's statement:

• Zakath believes that rape, murder and kidnapping are ALWAYS wrong. Yet that would be a statement of absolute morality and Zakath would even further concede the debate.
  
• Zakath believes that rape murder and kidnapping are only wrong "relative" to Zakath. For that to be true, he would have to argue that rape murder and kidnapping are just as "right" as they are "wrong". After all, what right would Zakath have to tell the perpetrator that he is more "right"? Can Zakath appeal to a different standard of "rightness" than the perpetrator?

Keep in mind, in a "relativist" worldview, the "wrongness" or "rightness" of an action cannot ultimately be determined by an external source (and from the perpetrator's perspective Zakath represents an external source).

SUMMERIZATION
Apparently Zakath must believe that rape, murder and kidnapping are not always wrong, otherwise they would be absolutely wrong. If Zakath would give us some compelling evidence to demonstrate that rape, kidnapping and murder are NOT always wrong it would be much appreciated! What circumstances have to exist that would make rape, murder and kidnapping NOT wrong? Do such circumstances exist without leaving the realm of rape, murder and kidnapping?

Think of it this way.....
I can indeed provide circumstances to demonstrate that killing is not always wrong, but I cannot provide circumstances that demonstrate that murder is NOT always wrong.

Moreover....
If Zakath can indeed give evidence that murder, rape and kidnapping are NOT always wrong, why didn't Zakath state..."I believe that rape, murder, and kidnapping are wrong sometimes" ?

And here we have it.....
The argument laid out so plain and simple. I have asserted that rape and murder are absolutely wrong. Zakath agreed that rape and murder are wrong and even added kidnapping to list. The only thing left for Zakath to do is give us compelling examples of when rape, murder and kidnapping are not wrong without using examples that aren't rape, murder and kidnapping!

Of course that would still leave Zakath with one monumental task. Let's assume for sake of argument that Zakath could provide examples of rape, murder and kidnapping being NOT wrong. To remain completely relative wouldn't Zakath have to show that EVERY rape, murder and kidnapping example isn't absolutely wrong? Why? Well because if a single case of murder or rape is absolutely wrong then that single case represents a single case of absolute morality and therefore absolute morality exists and Zakath loses the debate. This, of course, is where my example of the 40-year old man raping the 9-year old girl comes into play. Can Zakath demonstrate effectively that this example is not absolutely wrong?

 

[Prisca]

Ding, ding, ding! End of round five. Great battle combatants! Zakath, you’re on!

 

[Zakath]

"Does Absolute Morality Exist?"
Zakath's sixth post.
In his reply to my fifth post, Knight heads off on an interesting tack...

Zakath's entire post #5 is a request that I discuss the origin of absolute morality...

As Will Shakespeare used to say, "me thinks the man doth protest too much..." It's not the origin of Knight's alleged moral standard I care to see, it's the standard itself.

As I feared, Knight appears to have taken one too many head shots. Like Don Quixote charging off to do battle with the windmill he sees as an evil giant, Knight continues to miss the point of the debate. Every debate with him on this subject is ultimately reduced to him repeating the same question endlessly, "Zakath, do you believe that (fill in the blank) is absolutely wrong?"

We have exposed Knight's word games and attempts at diversion, dismantled his straw men, pointed out his logical fallacies and he continues to try to shift the burden of proof to his opponent, forgetting that he took upon himself the burden to prove that "absolute morality" exists when he agreed to take the affirmative side of the debate. All he has done toward that end thus far is to confuse making an assertion with proving his point.

"How has he done that?" you may ask. Well, compare the definitions of the words "assertion" (what Knight has done thus far) and "proof" (what he must do to win the argument):

"assertion" - Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

"proof" - The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

By his own admission, he has not furnished proof, merely assertions. He wrote:

I have asserted that rape and murder are absolutely wrong. It is now up to Zakath to provide examples of rape and murder that are not wrong.

• Why is Knight reduced to posting a few assertions without substantiating information?
  Why is Knight asking his opponent to prove his point?
  Why does Knight refuse to show us his standard for his "absolute morality"?

• Could it be that the “goode Sir Knight”has realized that he's shooting from an empty quiver...
  Could it be that Knight will not show us his "absolute morality" because he cannot?
  Could it be that Knight cannot show us his vaunted superior moral system because it does not really exist?

Knight does exhibit a serious problem in this debate; limited imagination. He complains:

I can indeed provide circumstances to demonstrate that killing is not always wrong, but I cannot provide circumstances that demonstrate that murder is NOT always wrong.

He has missed the point. We don't want more examples, we don't want more circumstances, what we want to see is THE REASON WHY Knight considers murder absolutely wrong instead of merely wrong. For someone who alleges the existence of, and claims to judge by a moral standard above and beyond that of humans, he suffers from a curious inability to show this marvelous morality to us mere mortals.

On the other hand, I offered to provide him with several examples from his own Bible which would adequately demonstrate the point that what I (and many others) would consider murder (e.g., genocide and killing of the unborn) is not always considered wrong by the followers of YHWH.
He conveniently ignored the offer...

Of course that would still leave Zakath with one monumental task. Let's assume for sake of argument that Zakath could provide examples of rape, murder and kidnapping being NOT wrong.

I would do so, if Knight would merely provide definitions of the three words "rape", "murder", and "kidnapping" so that I could be sure to provide accurate examples of what he is discussing. I am attempting to avoid the old "bait and switch" where I provide an example based on a standard denotation of the words and he replies with, "Well that's not what I meant by (the word in question)". I've been around this mountain too many times with Knight and his ilk already. So I ask him, again, to facilitate communication by providing the definitions he uses for those three words.
Of course, he could always just tell us why those particular acts are considered "absolutely" wrong by showing us the source of his standard of "absolute morality".

Will he do it? Not likely! :nono:

Why? He dare not use the Bible or some other religious text (for reasons he and I both know), and without it he cannot provide evidence of a morality above human reason, since any allegedly absolute moral structure he would provide can be deconstructed to show it to be the same relativistic morals he has used as examples thus far...

If there is an absolute morality, then all he needs to do is show it to us. Until then, I assert that his allegedly "absolute morality" is merely a figment of his imagination.

So, Sir Knight. Prove me wrong. I ask you again to show us the exalted moral standard by which you measure all human actions. Show us why you believe that rape is absolutely wrong.

If you won't (or can't, it doesn't really matter), you have failed to demonstrate the existence of "absolute morality".

If this is the case, I assert that you have demonstrated yourself to be merely another relativist using a religious measuring stick in place of a secular one and the debate is finished.

Check! Your move, Knight...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Post #6

Post #6

Ha! Typical Zakath waddling in obfuscation, unwilling to face his flawed world view.

I will only comment on a couple of points that Zakath made in his last post since the rest of his post was meaningless obfuscation.

Zakath posted...

On the other hand, I offered to provide him with several examples from his own Bible which would adequately demonstrate the point that what I (and many others) would consider murder (e.g., genocide and killing of the unborn) is not always considered wrong by the followers of YHWH.
He conveniently ignored the offer...

LOL! So Zakath we could end this debate right here if you like, you simply admit that you believe certain things in the Bible were absolutely wrong and concede the debate to me. Is that what your trying to do?

Or.... you could retain your relativistic stance and have no argument against any story within the Bible whatsoever.

Next point...

I would do so, if Knight would merely provide definitions of the three words "rape", "murder", and "kidnapping" so that I could be sure to provide accurate examples of what he is discussing.

Zakath I am allowing you to define rape, murder and kidnapping! Use any definition you like! Why argue definitions? Use the dictionary definitions if you like!

Next topic...
Zakath in your opinion is the following specific example absolutely wrong or not? There is no reason you cannot supply a YES or NO answer.

A SPECIFIC ACTION:
A 40 year old man watches a 9 year old girl walk past his house everyday on her way home from school. On one day, the man decides to grab her off the sidewalk against her will. She struggles but the man is much stronger and successfully pulls her into his house. The man holds his hand over the girls mouth to prevent her from screaming. The man drags the girl into his basement where he proceeds to violently rape her several times. When done, the man decides it would be best to place a pillow over the girls mouth and nose and hold it there until she eventually suffocated. When the man felt the girl no longer breathing he placed her body in the trunk of his car and drove to a remote location where he dumped the girl's body.

Absolutely wrong or not?

 

[webby]

DING DING DING....

DING DING DING....

That's the end of round #6. Since we have 10 rounds let's have a quick 6-7th inning stretch....

"Take me out to the battle,
Take me out with the crowd.
Buy me some t-shirts and cracker jack,
I don't care if I never get back,
Let me root, root, root for my world view,
If they it doesn't win it's a shame.
For it's one, two, three strikes, you're out,
At the old Battle Royale game!"

OK, Zakath your back on the clock.

 

[Zakath]

"Does Absolute Morality Exist?"
Zakath's seventh post

It would appear I hit close to a nerve with my last post, since Knight begins his post with an immediate insult:

Ha! Typical Zakath waddling in obfuscation, unwilling to face his flawed world view.

"Waddling in obfuscation?" I think Knight has me confused with goose! I have never claimed to have a perfect worldview. I normally leave such absolute claims to the religionists, like Knight.
He continues on...

I will only comment on a couple of points that Zakath made in his last post since the rest of his post was meaningless obfuscation.

Either Knight doesn't undersand my request that he show us his alleged "absolute morality" or he's dodging the question again...

Reread his previous post and notice that he does three things to avoid winning the debate:
1. He refuses to show us why he thinks rape is absolutely wrong. He merely asserts that it is so.
2. He refuses to show us his allegedly absolute moral standard. He merely asserts that something exists.
3. He continues to ask me the same questions, ignoring my answers.

Think about it, all he would have to do is respond to item #2. If what he shows us is actually absolute by his own defnition (by which I agreed to abide), then he wins the debate. Yet he still refuses to show us his "absolute" moral standard.

Knight is beginning to sound a like a person who claims his currency backed by a "gold standard" but when asked to show the gold, changes the subject. Knight claims his morality is backed by an "absolute" standard, but when pressed, he will not (or is it cannot?) show us the standard.

My normally suspicious nature would assume that his vault is empty and he's in denial, avoiding the acknowledgement of his bankrupt status...

...So Zakath we could end this debate right here if you like, you simply admit that you believe certain things in the Bible were absolutely wrong and concede the debate to me. Is that what your trying to do?

What an astounding conclusion! Knight again demonstrates his ignorance or unwillingness to actually debate the topic he chose. We are not here to debate the absolute rightness or wrongness of Knight's Bible, though I am quite willing to debate that at some other date. To assist the goode Sir Knight, I will repeat the premise of my side of the debate once again, since he does not seem to be able to process this simple point: As a moral relativist, I do not believe in moral absolutes. No matter how many times he asserts otherwise, or asks me to confirm that something is "absolutely right" or "absolutely wrong" he will receive the same answer.

Note also that Knight still refuses to show us his allegedly absolute moral standard.

Zakath I am allowing you to define rape, murder and kidnapping! Use any definition you like! Why argue definitions? Use the dictionary definitions if you like!

Since he insists...

rape - noun -
The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
rape verb -
To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse; commit rape on. To seize and carry off by force.

murder - noun -
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
murder - verb -
To kill (another human) unlawfully.

kidnap - verb -
To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom.

Source for all three definitions: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. - emphases mine - Z

Knight wants to know on what basis I think these things are wrong. There are two primary reasons: the definitions will tell you one reason - they are all crimes in the country in which I live. Secondly, they are all unecessarily injurious to my fellow humans. Since I am a relativist, those provide sufficient reason for me at this time.

That wasn't difficult, was it, Knight? Now suppose you tell us why you believe these things are "absolutely" wrong...

Finally, Knight ignores my previous response to his kidnap/rape/murder scenario and once again asks me to determine if some action is absolutely right or wrong. He even insists

"There is no reason you cannot supply a YES or NO answer."

Unfortunately, Knight is wrong again. If Knight really understsood moral relativism, then he would understand that holding that philosophical position provides all the reason in the world not to answer his endlessly repetetive question as a simple yes or no.

If he does understand what a moral relativist espouses, then why does he keep repeating the same question? Could it be because he is only prepared to debate one answer; the one, as a moral relativist, that I'm not giving him?

Well Knight's repeating the question over and over won't accomplish his goal in this venue. I'm not one of his preschool children, nor one of his Sunday school classmates. I am a cognitively aware adult. My response has been stated repeatedly, but Knight does not seem capable of understanding me. Either that or he is not mature enough to understand that not every question regarding human behavior can be satisfactorily reduced to a simple "yes" or "no" answer. As I mentioned previously, Knight expresses the religious fundamentalist's desire to reduce every human action to a binary choice by imposing an allegedly absolute set of moral values upon it. Since I do not accept the existence of (and Knight has, thus far, failed to prove the existence of) his moral absolutes, his question is as meaningless in this situation as asking a man who doesn't read or speak Japanese about the sublime beauty of a haiku written in kanji.

While I agree with Knight that the actions of the adult in the scenario are wrong. I do not believe in absolute morals.
No matter how many times he asks the question, he'll get the same answer.

BTW, Knight. We're still waiting for you to provide some proof or evidence to support your claim that absolute morality exists. Show us the standard or we will be forced to assume that it is nothing more than typical theological smoke and mirrors.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Post #7

Post #7

Zakath states...

It would appear I hit close to a nerve with my last post, since Knight begins his post with an immediate insult

Your right, you did strike a nerve, you struck my funny bone.

Zakath continues...

I have never claimed to have a perfect worldview. I normally leave such absolute claims to the religionists, like Knight

Gee I didn't realize it took a "perfect worldview" to be able to determine that murder, rape and kidnapping are always wrong!

Zakath continues...

1. He refuses to show us why he thinks rape is absolutely wrong. He merely asserts that it is so.

LOL! I have made myself very clear. Rape, murder and kidnapping are always wrong for two reasons... 1. There are no circumstances that could be present that could make those actions "right". 2. By their very definitions the words indicate these are wrong actions. I.e. if we were to describe an "un-wrong" death we would use words like "kill" or "die" not "murder".

Rape, murder and kidnapping are absolutely wrong, unless Zakath can give us compelling evidence that shows these things are not wrong.

The burden of proof is now (and has been for about the last four rounds) upon Zakath to give us compelling evidence that demonstrates that rape, murder and kidnapping are not necessarily wrong. He has yet to do so.

Zakath continues...

Think about it, all he would have to do is respond to item #2. If what he shows us is actually absolute by his own defnition (by which I agreed to abide), then he wins the debate. Yet he still refuses to show us his "absolute" moral standard.

Now Zakath has really gone off the deep end. The debate is "Is there such a thing as absolute morality?" I have demonstrated that absolute morality must exist since we can point to absolute moral's such as rape, murder, kidnapping that by definition can never be "right".

Moreover....
If two gentlemen were arguing the existence of gravity the "pro gravity" side would only need to point to sufficient evidence that gravity exists to win the debate. There is no reason whatsoever that the "pro gravity" side would have to then go on to show the "source" of the gravity. If gravity exists, it exists!

Zakath continues...

What an astounding conclusion! Knight again demonstrates his ignorance or unwillingness to actually debate the topic he chose. We are not here to debate the absolute rightness or wrongness of Knight's Bible

Hmmmm funny... it was Zakath who brought this topic up in the first place! Zakath's age and faulty memory are beginning to show.

Zakath defines rape, murder and kidnapping and then says....

Knight wants to know on what basis I think these things are wrong. There are two primary reasons: the definitions will tell you one reason - they are all crimes in the country in which I live.

Would these actions still be wrong if these actions weren't criminal?

Asked another way... is Zakath asserting that something which is criminal is absolutely wrong?

If not, why would Zakath use this standard?

Secondly, they are all unecessarily injurious to my fellow humans. Since I am a relativist, those provide sufficient reason for me at this time.

A moral relativist has no right to appeal to another apparent absolute standard to show a relative moral standard. Said another way... Zakath, is in essence arguing that the standard "unnecessarily injuring a human" is an absolute standard NOT a relative one, as evidenced by his using this standard to deem rape, murder and kidnapping as always wrong!

Zakath continues...

That wasn't difficult, was it, Knight? Now suppose you tell us why you believe these things are "absolutely" wrong...

ROTFL why should I do that when you just did it for me?

I asked you to provide examples as to why rape, murder and kidnapping were NOT always wrong, but instead the only thing Zakath did was affirm that these actions ARE ALWAYS WRONG!

Was there any evidence from Zakath in his explanation that showed that rape, murder and kidnapping were NOT necessarily wrong? Nope, not a shred!

Zakath ends with...

While I agree with Knight that the actions of the adult in the scenario are wrong. I do not believe in absolute morals.
No matter how many times he asks the question, he'll get the same answer.

Why not just answer the question???? Absolutely wrong or not???

A SPECIFIC ACTION:
A 40 year old man watches a 9 year old girl walk past his house everyday on her way home from school. On one day, the man decides to grab her off the sidewalk against her will. She struggles but the man is much stronger and successfully pulls her into his house. The man holds his hand over the girls mouth to prevent her from screaming. The man drags the girl into his basement where he proceeds to violently rape her several times. When done, the man decides it would be best to place a pillow over the girls mouth and nose and hold it there until she eventually suffocated. When the man felt the girl no longer breathing he placed her body in the trunk of his car and drove to a remote location where he dumped the girl's body.

Absolutely wrong or not?

I (and even Zakath) have demonstrated that there are actions that are never right, such as rape, murder and kidnapping. Therefore absolute morality exists! It is up to Zakath to give us compelling evidence as to why those very actions could also somehow be "right". He has yet to even come within a million miles of doing so.

 

[webby]

DING DING DING

DING DING DING

End of round 7. Three posts left for each combatant.

Zakath is back on the clock.

 

[Zakath]

Knight, you asked for it...

Knight, you asked for it...

"Does Absolute Morality Exist?
Zakath's eighth post.

Knight keeps hounding this single question, so in the spirit of debate, let’s answer it…

Why not just answer the question???? Absolutely wrong or not???

Wrong? Yes! Absolutely? Maybe not...

The absolutes that you are stating are: it is absolutely wrong to kidnap, commit multiple rape and finally murder a 9 year old girl. A truly horrific scenario, when seen only from the limited imagination of a religionist like Knight.

But, dear readers are you aware that Knight withheld certain critical information from his audience? I have it on good authority that there is more to this story than meets the eye. Let’s look at, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story…

The forty year old man, let’s call him Ted, was contacted two weeks ago by a person identifying himself as a terrorist who claims to have planted two nuclear devices in New York City, where Ted and the young girl both live. The individual on the telephone told Ted that if he did not snatch, violently rape, and kill this child that he would detonate the devices on Christmas day and kill tens of thousands of Ted’s fellow New Yorkers. Ted is given a remote location to take the body for disposal and was also cautioned against calling the police.

Ted thought the fellow was a nutcase and told him so. The “terrorist” then called the NYPD and gave them the location of one of the weapons. That night, Ted watched on the news as police, acting on an anonymous tip, located and attempted to disarm what turned out to be a nuclear device. Even if they disarm it, a second still awaits to fulfill the “terrorist’s” threat.

Ted is beside himself. Another week has passed and he hasn’t slept in days. Ted watches a 9 year old girl walk past his house everyday on her way home from school. The terrorist calls him periodically to describe what Ted is wearing and things in his apartment. Things he can only know if he has some sort of monitors planted. Ted believes that if he does not fulfill the demands of the voice on the telephone that most of the people he knows will cease to exist in a few moments on Christmas Day, only two weeks away.

Finally, … [Ted] decides to grab her off the sidewalk against her will. She struggles but [he] is much stronger and successfully pulls her into his house. [Ted] holds his hand over the girls mouth to prevent her from screaming. The man drags the girl into his basement where he proceeds to violently rape her several times. When done, [Ted] decides it would be best to place a pillow over the girls mouth and nose and hold it there until she eventually suffocated. When [he] felt the girl no longer breathing his phone rings. It is the "terrorist" assuring him that he has done well and reminding him where to take the body.[Ted] placed her body in the trunk of his car and drove to a remote location where he dumped the girl's body following his instructions. That afternoon, the police received a second anonymous call which described the location of a second nuclear device which they successfully disarmed.

As a postscript to this gruesome scenario unbeknownst to Ted, the 9-year-old girl is the daughter of an Arab diplomat whose security forces tortured and killed the wife and infant son of the “terrorist” ten years before. And as horrible as the ordeal was to poor "Ted", if the "terrorist" had detonated the bomb, the girl (and several thousand other New Yorkers) would have died anyway...

Not that motives should matter for the purposes of this discussion.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Christmas comes early - Zakath flames out! - post #8

Christmas comes early - Zakath flames out! - post #8

I hope everyone has read Zakath's last post in this "Battle Royale II". Message to all moral relativists.... look what your world view does to you!!! It turns you into a raving lunatic!!! I am still laughing!

In an attempt to prove a that a horrible action might not be absolutely wrong Zakath invents an even more horrible and more absolutely morally wrong circumstance and adds it to my hypothetical scenario!!!! I couldn't have imagined I would get this type of assistance from my opponent!

A truly unbelievable twist to this debate! Zakath is literally destroying his side of the debate in plain view of everyone to see! I guess Zakath decided if he is gonna go down in flames he may as well go big!!

Think of it this way....

Firstly Zakath has still avoided the question of the specific example as originally stated (without his addition), more on that later. But more importantly.... what will Zakath have to argue next??? Argue that the actions of the terrorists that forced poor Ted into committing this awful crime were not ABSOLUTEY WRONG??????? I suppose if someone asked Zakath if the actions of the terrorists in his hypothetical scenario were absolutely wrong for what they did Zakath would be forced to invent an even wackier scenario in which aliens from the planet "Htakaz" performed mind control upon the terrorists which in turn forced Ted to rape the little girl and therefore the actions of the terrorists were not absolutely wrong.

But wait, it gets even worse for Zakath....

I asked Zakath...

Why not just answer the question???? Absolutely wrong or not??

And Zakath actually answered...

Wrong? Yes! Absolutely? Maybe not...

Maybe not? Maybe not?????? Maybe not????? In other words, MAYBE YES!!!! [voice of Harry Caray]Cubs win, Cubs win!!!![/voice of Harry Caray]

If you deconstruct what Zakath is saying, it goes something like this....

The actions of Ted raping the young girl were not absolutely wrong in Zakath's eyes - ONLY- when he added his crazy hypothetical about Terrorists forcing Ted to rape the girl or they would blow up New York City.

But if Ted had no ulterior motive and just kidnapped, raped and murdered the young girl for nothing more than sadistic pleasure than Ted's actions ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG! Zakath has completely conceded the debate.

Zakath you should fire your manager for not throwing in the towel in round 7!

Oh well, I guess I can keep his feet to the fire (he may as well get used to it! )

Zakath I have two questions based on the specific example we have been discussing that goes:

A 40 year old man watches a 9 year old girl walk past his house everyday on her way home from school. On one day, the man decides to grab her off the sidewalk against her will. She struggles but the man is much stronger and successfully pulls her into his house. The man holds his hand over the girls mouth to prevent her from screaming. The man drags the girl into his basement where he proceeds to violently rape her several times. When done, the man decides it would be best to place a pillow over the girls mouth and nose and hold it there until she eventually suffocated. When the man felt the girl no longer breathing he placed her body in the trunk of his car and drove to a remote location where he dumped the girl's body.

1. If the 40 year old man "Ted" had no motive other than sadistic pleasure were his actions ABSOLUTEY WRONG? - YES or NO????

2. If your additional circumstances were added to the example, were the actions of the terrorists that manipulated "Ted" into kidnapping, raping and murdering the girl ABSOLUTELY WRONG? - YES or NO?

 

[webby]

DING DING DING....

DING DING DING....

End of round 8. Zakath is back on the clock.

ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (webmaster), Becky, Zakath or Knight. You may discuss Battle Royale II here.

 

[Zakath]

"Does Absolute Morality Exist?"
Zakath's ninth post

We are two posts from the end of the debate and I have to admit that I am a bit bewildered at Knight's tactics. He was asked, back at the beginning of the debate, to provide the standard by which he claimed moral absolutes can be determined. Post after post, he steadfastly refuses to do so.

Instead he plays storytelling games. During the last post, I volunteered to play along and he appears somewhat discomfited. One can always tell when Knight is at a loss for real content. He goes immediately to insults, like calling me a "raving lunatic". I think his attitude of laughing at the murder/rape scenario we are discussing speaks volumes about his moral character. Time will tell, I suppose...

Well, on to Knight's post:

I am still laughing!

Well, Knight. Now you can gain a bit of understanding about how I feel when I deal with your baseless assertions that a specific action is "absolutely" wrong merely because you say so.

Knight, in your first post you provided this definition of "absolute morality":

...absolute morality means that there is a standard of right and wrong that supercedes - or is greater than - man's standard of right and wrong...

We have patiently (or impatiently in my case) waited for you to produce even a glimmer of this standard. For six succeeding posts all you have done is assert (without proof) that some act or other is "absolutely" wrong without referring once to this alleged standard.

To demonstrate your case, you propose an outlandish scenario.

To demonstrate the flaws in your case, I propose an even more outlandish scenario.

Your response? Ad homimen and insults, but still no standard.
Where's the standard that you allege exists, Knight? Upon what do you base your claim to absolute morality?

Firstly Zakath has still avoided the question of the specific example as originally stated

Untrue. I answered it from the perspective of a moral relativist. Your question is a rough moral equivalent of my asking you whether it is absolutely right to worship Vishnu or Odin. Since it is unlikely that you believe that either of them are deities, the question is nonsensical to you. Likewise your question to me about whether or not something is "absolutely" wrong is nonsense to someone who does not believe in the existence of the concept you are proposing.

If you deconstruct what Zakath is saying, it goes something like this....

The actions of Ted raping the young girl were not absolutely wrong in Zakath's eyes - ONLY- when he added his crazy hypothetical about Terrorists forcing Ted to rape the girl or they would blow up New York City.

Well, it's good to see you got that much of my point. My egregious example does serve to demonstrate that the actions you cited were not absolutely wrong. If they were "absolute", there would not be a circumstance in which they would be morally acceptable. I merely provided such a circumstance. Remember, your question was about the actions, not the motives.

But if Ted ...than (sic) Ted's actions ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG! Zakath has completely conceded the debate.

You can propose more and more hypothetical situations until you run out of posts. But, since each is a hypothetical, you can no more be certain of "Ted's" "real" motives than can I. One completely fabricated story is as good as another in the story telling game.

My use of the word "maybe" does not indicate that I have conceded any point, at present. Your intense desire to see the entire world as black and white is causing you to put words in my mouth, Knight. Go back and read my reply. I have still not acknowledged that absolute morality exists. All that "maybe" indicates is that I'm still willing for you to convince me.

I'm still waiting to see this alleged standard which supercedes human wisdom. All you've done is show us a scenario which, if interpreted in a certain perspective, can demonstrate a completely different set of moral elements. A villain in your scenario, Ted, becomes an unwitting hero in my scenario as he saves a sizeable chunk of NYC from firey nuclear destruction. Good or evil is sometimes merely a matter of perspective. Is it wrong to sacrifice the life of a single individual to save thousands? It seems to those of us looking in from the outside that your entire religion is based upon a similar torture/murder scenario. Was it "absolutely" wrong to allow the Romans to torture Jesus of Nazareth to death to save the human race? If not, then is that not another example where torture and murder are not "absolutely" wrong?

1. If the 40 year old man "Ted" had no motive other than sadistic pleasure were his actions ABSOLUTEY WRONG? - YES or NO????

My previous answer stands. Wrong, yes. Absolute? I cannot speak to that since I personally do not believe in asolute morality and, after eight posts, you have not yet revealed by what standard of absolute morality by which you claim to be measuring.

2. If your additional circumstances were added to the example, were the actions of the terrorists that manipulated "Ted" into kidnapping, raping and murdering the girl ABSOLUTELY WRONG? - YES or NO?

You must be more clear on your question, Knight. Which "actions of the terrorists" are you questioning? You are now expanding your "absolute moral standard" to include what? Seeking retribution? Punishing wrongdoers? Vengance on those who destroy your family?
To answer your question, I need to see this alleged standard that is so broad that it includes whatever items you happen to find objectionable at the moment. Keeping us in the dark means I cannot answer your question the way you'd like.

Your question will remain unaswerable until you show us your "absolute moral standard" Knight...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight's post #9! One to go!

Knight's post #9! One to go!

Zakath stumbling and groggy attempts to erase the bad memories of round 8!

Zakath states...

He was asked, back at the beginning of the debate, to provide the standard by which he claimed moral absolutes can be determined. Post after post, he steadfastly refuses to do so.

Nice attempt at a diversion. But incorrect, I have been asked to provide evidence that absolute morality exists. NOT the source of the absolute morality. Again this debate is like proving gravity exists, not demonstrating the source of the gravity. If absolute morality exists the source of the absolute morality is a great topic for another debate but irrelevant in this debate.

I have provided the evidence of absolute morality in the form of actions like: rape, murder (and Zakath added kidnapping) as evidence that absolute morals exist. Rape, murder and kidnapping by their very definitions are always wrong and therefore absolutely wrong.

Zakath has not argued otherwise.

Zakath states...

Well, Knight. Now you can gain a bit of understanding about how I feel when I deal with your baseless assertions that a specific action is "absolutely" wrong merely because you say so.

Gee Zakath don't give me all the credit, you have been a wonderful assistant in demonstrating rape, murder and kidnapping are always wrong and never "right".

Zakath states...

Knight? Upon what do you base your claim to absolute morality?

Simple! Upon the fact that rape, murder and kidnapping are by definition always wrong and therefore absolutely wrong! Zakath has failed to demonstrate that these actions are somehow only wrong relative to the individual, society or government. In fact, Zakath has gone to great lengths to demonstrate the opposite. For Zakath to win the debate he would have to give compelling evidence as to why ANY imaginable (specific or non specific) case of kidnapping, rape or murder is just as right as it is wrong or at very least morally neutral.

Zakath states...

Your question is a rough moral equivalent of my asking you whether it is absolutely right to worship Vishnu or Odin.

That isn't a tough question for me to answer! I simply answer NO! It is NOT absolutely right to worship Vishnu or Odin. There is only one true God and that is the Lord Jesus Christ therefore the answer to your question was no dilemma at all!

You continue...

Likewise your question to me about whether or not something is "absolutely" wrong is nonsense to someone who does not believe in the existence of the concept you are proposing.

No, that is untrue! The answer you would provide if you REALLY believed in moral relativism would be "no - the actions are NOT absolutely wrong!" There is no trick to that!

But you have already admitted the actions were "wrong" - even "maybe absolutely wrong" so you have got yourself stuck in the corner and now have no idea on how to get out!

Zakath continues...

Well, it's good to see you got that much of my point. My egregious example does serve to demonstrate that the actions you cited were not absolutely wrong.

Huh? Your point showed nothing of the sort! Now your delusional! You didn't demonstrate that the crimes were not wrong you simply added that coercion is also wrong.

Zakath continues...

You can propose more and more hypothetical situations until you run out of posts

I think the one hypothetical I provided will be sufficient.

Zakath continues...

My use of the word "maybe" does not indicate that I have conceded any point

Actually it does. Words have meanings and "maybe" means "maybe no", "maybe yes", therefore you have conceded that unless there were extenuating circumstances in your opinion Ted was absolutely wrong. Game over, I win!

I asked.....
1. If the 40 year old man "Ted" had no motive other than sadistic pleasure were his actions ABSOLUTEY WRONG? - YES or NO????

And Zakath responds...

My previous answer stands. Wrong, yes. Absolute? I cannot speak to that since I personally do not believe in asolute morality

Then simply answer "NO"!!!!! If you really do not believe in absolute morality then Ted's actions cannot be absolutely wrong therefore you should answer "NO"!

Ask yourself.... why Zakath's unwillingness to simply answer "no"? I know why.

P.S. Did you notice this time Zakath left off the "Absolutely? Maybe not..."?

I then ask...
2. If your additional circumstances were added to the example, were the actions of the terrorists that manipulated "Ted" into kidnapping, raping and murdering the girl ABSOLUTELY WRONG? - YES or NO?

And Zakath responds....

You must be more clear on your question, Knight. Which "actions of the terrorists"

Let's make it easy... let's just say.... was it absolutely wrong of the terrorists to coerce Ted into kidnapping raping, murdering the little girl? Assuming the motive for the terrorists was nothing more than retribution towards the little girls relatives.

So the question could be phrased like this....

Is coercing a man into kidnapping, raping and murdering a young girl in order to seek retribution upon the young girls relatives absolutely wrong? YES or NO?

 

[webby]

DING DING DING

DING DING DING

End of round 9.

Each combatant gets one final post.

Zakath, is up first.

I want to thank BOTH Zakath and Knight for their efforts in this Battle!

 

[webby]

EXCUSED TIME DELAY

EXCUSED TIME DELAY

Before Battle Royale II began Zakath informed Knight and I that if the debate extended into Wednesday night July 31st he would need to get an exception to the 48 hour posting rule. The debate did indeed extend into Wednesday and Zakath will be away on business until Saturday afternoon or so.

Therefore we have decided to allow Zakath until midnight Sunday August 4th to make his final post in the Battle Royale II, hopefully this extended period will allow Zakath ample time to get back from his trip and compose his closing argument. I hope everyone is enjoying the battle!

 

[Zakath]

"Is there such a thing as absolute morality?"
Zakath's tenth post

During this debate, my opponent has been long on promises and short on substance. Knight took the affirmative side to answer the question "Is there such a thing as absolute morality?" or, in Knight's own words,

This debate is to determine IF there is such a thing as absolute morality.

1. Knight proceeded to define "absolute morality":

"...absolute morality means that there is a standard of right and wrong that supercedes - or is greater than - man's standard of right and wrong..."

2. Knight then states his strategy:

If there exists just ONE item, (behavior or action) that is absolutely wrong (or right) then absolute morality exists

3. Finally Knight reminds us that

Now keep in mind this debate is not to determine what specific morals are absolute.

Totally ignoring his own point, Knight then proceeds to spend the rest of the debate attempting to prove specific morals (proscriptions against murder, rape, and kidnapping) are absolute! :doh:

I submit that Knight's preoccupation with his example of deviant behavior is a blatant attempt to divert our attention from his lack of proof of his point. In this final post, I will provide examples of instances where each of Knight's three suggested "absolutely wrong" actions (murder, rape, and kidnapping) can be considered right.

If any action that can be shown to be the right thing to do, even once, that action cannot be absolutely wrong.

In the following examples, I will demonstrate that murder and kidnapping are wrong, except when done by the order of the deity. Rape is wrong, except when suggested by a "just" and "righteous" man.

We will demonstrate that Knight has failed to show any act that is absolutely wrong according to a standard that "is greater than man's standard of right and wrong" (his own definition).

We will then provide examples where each act is performed at the order of divinely appointed leadership or by the deity himself, and thus cannot be considered "absolutely wrong".

Murder
Murder, is defined by Knight as "wrong" killing. Unfortunately the word "wrong" is not a word with a single absolute meaning, but a very subjective one.

wrong - adjective - Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked. Unfair; unjust.
Source: (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

Not a single one of these definitions is absolute.

• Conscience is relative, it is purely human and subjective. (For a Jew or Muslim to eat pork is against their conscience, while Christians flock pork barbeques in the southern U.S.)
• Morality and immorality are relative, they vary from culture to culture and age to age. What is wrong in one age may not be so in another. (While animal sacrifice in the Old Testament dispensation was pleasing to the deity, Christians assure me that in the current dispensation it is no longer so. Remember, the entire theory of biblical dispensationism hinges on relativism!)
• Law changes from year to year, and generation to generation.(Abortion was illegal thirty years ago and is now legal.)
• Fairness and justice are both subjective since the first is dependent upon one's point of view and the second is dependent, for humans, on human law. (Do you suppose the Amelekites believed it was fair and just for their pregnant women and children to be slaughtered by Jewish soldiers at the order of YHWH in I Samuel 15?)

When Knight calls some killings "wrong", this does not automatically define them as "absolutely wrong". To do that he must demonstrate by what standard he considers murder to be absolutely wrong. Since he has not done so, he has failed to demonstrate that "murder" is absolutely wrong.
When was murder not absolutely wrong? When Knight's deity orders it. Abraham was ordered by YHWH to murder his own son (Gen. 22). YHWH himself murders the firstborn children in the nation of Egypt (Ex. 11 and 12). Knight's deity also orders the killing of anyone who does not worship him (Ex. 22), etc.

Rape
Knight never offers a definition of "rape" at all, a common tactic for Christians arguing our topic. Why is it so common? Because this tactic allows Knight to appeal to human emotion instead of forcing him to prove his point. Rape is considered a crime by most people and most governments. That's human beings and [/b]human governments[/b]. But recall that Knight is agruing that his absolute moral standard is greater than that supported by human beings. Knight cannot prove that rape is absolutely wrong since his "proof" must depend on mere fallible human insight and human law to prove his point.

There certainly is no biblical proscription against rape. Nowhere in the bible, the great moral standard for the Judeo-Christian faith, is rape ever condemned. In two separate (but similiar) incidents in Judges 19 and Genesis 19, householders offer young girls in their care to be gang raped by a mob to protect their guests. One of these householders is praised by the apostle Peter as a "just" and "righteous" man (2 Peter 2). It seems the definitions of "just" and "righteous" back in the old days weren't quite absolute either...

Kidnapping
Kidnapping, while not one of Knight's intitial points of concern, is actually condemned both legally and scripturally. But, as with many proscripted activities in the bible, when the leaders of "God's chosen people" order the kidnapping, it's accepted as morally correct. When an act is morally correct under one set of circumstances and morally incorrect under others, it is not absolutely wrong.

You want a scriptural example? Well, it seems in Judges 21 that after a horrendous war (ordered by YHWH) in which eleven tribes ganged up on the tribe of Benjamin (killing 25,000 of its men, destroying its cities and their inhabitants), in addition the other tribes of Israel had sworn an oath that none of them would allow their women to marry a Benjamite. When the elders of Israel is realized that such mass slaughter of women and childern would potentially destroy the tribe, the leaders from the other tribes decided to help out by ordering an attack on nearby Jabeshgilead, slaughtering all the men and married women, then kidnapping the virgins and delivering them to the Benjamites. Unfortunately, it was discovered that this did not provide enough women for the entire tribe. So the Benjamites were instructed to kidnap women from the town of Shiloh and carry them off.
Both instances provide examples that kidnapping is not absolutely wrong.

Thus we have examined Knight's three actions (murder, rape, and kidnapping) and found that not one of them is "absolutely" wrong since his own Bible demonstrates his deity's hand in examples of all three actions. I think that even Knight would find it difficult to convict his deity of performing or ordering an action that is "absolutely" wrong.