toldailytopic: Absolute morality. Is the standard of right and wrong relative to ours

[Nathon Detroit]

Higher supernatural authorities seem quite willing to sanction all sorts of things I find reprehensible. That's why Islamic fundamentalists yell "Allah akbar" before blowing themselves up on crowded buses.

Your skirting the issue and waffling.

You acknowledged that some things were absolutely wrong and now you seem to be changing your mind.

Pick a side and stick with it.

 

[fool]

And what is the source of the construct that tells us molesting a child is absolutely wrong?

Humans.

 

[bybee]

And?

And?

Ethics are a human construct.

You say that as if it's bad thing? Humans are created in the image of God. We have free will. We can construct that which is for the good in community, or we can destruct that which is good. bybee

 

[Rusha]

That being the case how could you possibly argue that rape is absolutely wrong?

Because any violent, malicious action that is intentionally inflicted on another human being is wrong.

You are merely arguing that it's wrong because your own empathy says it's wrong. That isn't very compelling for the rapist, he doesn't care about your empathy.

I wouldn't care what a rapist believes or thinks because I consider them all to be genetically human garbage that should be permanently extinguished by virtue of the death penalty.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Humans.

So, if humans decided it was a good thing to eat your son (because they were hungry) your only argument against them would be that you personally would prefer they not do that?

Is that the best argument you got?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Because any violent, malicious action that is intentionally inflicted on another human being is wrong.

Says who?

I wouldn't care what a rapist believes or thinks because I consider them all to be genetically human garbage that should be permanently extinguished by virtue of the death penalty.

And that standard comes from where?

 

[fool]

You say that as if it's bad thing? Humans are created in the image of God. We have free will. We can construct that which is for the good in community, or we can destruct that which is good. bybee

It is what it is.

 

[DocJohnson]

Because any violent, malicious action that is intentionally inflicted on another human being is wrong.

According to you, but not according to other cultures and societies throughout history. Do you expect them to hold to your religious beliefs?

I wouldn't care what a rapist believes or thinks because I consider them all to be genetically human garbage that should be permanently extinguished by virtue of the death penalty.

Whoa. All rapists deserve to die? That's an extreme belief.

 

[Rusha]

Says who?

Our laws and most of society.

And that standard comes from where?

Several places ... self, upbringing, outside influences, personal experiences, etc.

 

[Rusha]

According to you, but not according to other cultures and societies throughout history. Do you expect them to hold to your religious beliefs?

I have no religious beliefs ...

Whoa. All rapists deserve to die? That's an extreme belief.

Yep, anyone who forces themselves sexually on another human being deserves to die.

And yep, about certain bad acts, I AM an extremist.

 

[bybee]

Perhaps,

Perhaps,

It is what it is.

Perhaps another good question is "Who am I?" and "How am I to know who you are?" Perhaps, by your deeds? I believe my grandmother's simple ethical stance is a good one "If it's not yours, don't touch it!" bybee

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Our laws and most of society.

So... the law of the land drives what is right and wrong?

Several places ... self, upbringing, outside influences, personal experiences, etc.

Your personal experiences are not universal. The rapist could easily offer the exact same justification i.e., self, upbringing, outside influences, personal experiences, etc. It would be tough for you to compel him that your personal belief is somehow more valid than his.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yep, anyone who forces themselves sexually on another human being deserves to die.

And yep, about certain bad acts, I AM an extremist.

Some might argue that anyone who has such extreme beliefs should be removed from society.

Based on your own belief system.... how could you possibly argue that they are wrong?

 

[DocJohnson]

I have no religious beliefs ...

You're very religious about how rapists should be treated.

Yep, anyone who forces themselves sexually on another human being deserves to die. And yep, about certain bad acts, I AM an extremist.

See? A religious extremist.

 

[bybee]

Well now Rusha

Well now Rusha

Because any violent, malicious action that is intentionally inflicted on another human being is wrong.



I wouldn't care what a rapist believes or thinks because I consider them all to be genetically human garbage that should be permanently extinguished by virtue of the death penalty.

You might consider that vengeance is a violent malicious action that is intentionally inflicted on another human being. bybee

 

[DocJohnson]

Several places ... self, upbringing, outside influences, personal experiences, etc.

So, your standards cannot ever be nailed down to any universal code... they are always shifting, changing, and morphing depending on influences and personal experiences.

 

[Flipper]

I agree with DocJohnson that you are being flippant with your facts. For starters, perhaps you can show us where betrothal of 10 year old girls was religiously sanctioned. Follow that by telling us at what age it is absolutely immoral to betroth a girl and at what age it becomes absolutely moral; and be sure to provide an answer that can apply to any historical context and life expectancy.

As for the alleged sanctioned genocide, are you saying it has always been immoral to destroy your enemies before they destroy you. Can you think of no circumstances that would justify the eradication of another nation through preemptive attack?

I think both of these justifications make my case rather than obviate it.

As far as the age of betrothal goes, apparently this changed in the 3rd Century AD to protect minors and so marriage was not approved until the girl had reached 12-and-a-half. Before then, the Talmud approved sexual relationships through marriage in exceptional circumstances with children as young as 3 and a half.

Raba said, We also learned a similar Baraitha:8 A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation; if a levir cohabited with her, he has thereby acquired her;9 one incurs through her the guilt of intercourse with a married woman; she10 defiles her cohabitor in respect of his imparting defilement to the lower, as well as to the upper couch;11 if she was married to a priest she may eat terumah, and anyone ineligible12 who cohabited with her causes her ineligibility.13 Thus only a girl of the age of three years and one day, who is rendered ineligible by cohabitation, is also rendered ineligible through the bridal chamber; but a girl younger than three years and one day, who is not rendered ineligible by cohabitation, is not rendered ineligible through the bridal chamber either.14 This proves it.

Source.

 

[DocJohnson]

I think both of these justifications make my case rather than obviate it.

And you're willing to stake your entire reputation on these? :chuckle:

 

[Flipper]

Your skirting the issue and waffling.

You acknowledged that some things were absolutely wrong and now you seem to be changing your mind.

Pick a side and stick with it.

How is this skirting the issue? I am sure that the Muslim extremist is just as convinced of his absolute morality as you are of yours and has just as much "evidence" to justify it.

 

[Flipper]

Ah, we have an anti-Semite among us.

Just because I find certain ancient customs to be revolting doesn't make me an anti-semite. I deny that completely. And, if I were to use your logic, I suppose that would make you an apologist for religiously sanctioned pedophilia.