(10 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote:

(Today at 4:02 am)Sheldon Wrote:

Quote:AngelThMan Wrote:

When lions take over a pride, they kill the existing offspring so the lion can foster their own lineage. Have they done anything wrong? Is there a universal law against it? No. 

5) "diminished understanding means diminished choice, and this means  diminished moral culpability"

Quote:AngelThMan Wrote:

Who made up this standard? Is it just your opinion? Or is it a fact of reality? If it is, show me how.

A lion is not held culpable by humans to the same standard,  as it can't be made to understand human morality, we even apply this to humans, where sentencing judges recognise diminished responsibility and therefore culpability. Why would we give a deity a pass, especially one claimed to have limitless choice, even as a hypothetical?

It follows we would hold a such a deity, "if it existed", to a higher not lower moral standard. You keep failing to understand that for the word morality to make any sense, it must involve choice. Ipso facto: the less choice the less culpable, the more choice the more culpable.

Thats what he is all about? An anti abortionist? 

(9 hours ago)Deesse23 Wrote: Thats what he is all about? An anti abortionist?   

I seriously doubt he's given abortion any more critical examination than he has morality. He seems to find absolutes comforting, or at the least he finds the idea morality ultimately rests on subjective opinion terrifying, I have seen this before.

(9 hours ago)Deesse23 Wrote: Thats what he is all about? An anti abortionist?   

Just reaction baiting at this point. They aren't here for actual discussion.

(10 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote: ]

So then you have to respect pro-lifers by abiding by their law. See how that works?

Remember when a fringe conservative group didn't like the law of abortion being legal? Tell me, shouldn't you have respected the legal abortion law as you're telling me to do now that the pro-life movement only benefits to harm others?

(9 hours ago)Sheldon Wrote: A lion is not held culpable by humans to the same standard

Who made up this rule?

You're also not really answering the original lion question, which was not about culpability. Did the lion do anything wrong?

(8 hours ago)Kitan Etos Wrote:

(10 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote: ]

So then you have to respect pro-lifers by abiding by their law. See how that works?

Remember when a fringe conservative group didn't like the law of abortion being legal? Tell me, shouldn't you have respected the legal abortion law as you're telling me to do now that the pro-life movement only benefits to harm others?

I'm pro-choice, and that's a tu quoque fallacy. You're ignored

Quote:I'm pro-choice, and that's a tu quoque fallacy. You're ignored

No one cares. No, it isn’t. You’re a coward... lol.

(8 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote: You're also not really answering the original lion question, which was not about culpability. Did the lion do anything wrong?

You tell me, you're one the claiming there are objective moral absolutes, if so why wouldn't they apply to other conscious animals? I already explained I am a moral subjectivist, and a moral relativist. As I explained I think having less choice means you are less culpable, and thus a deity with limitless choice would be maximally culpable. 

FWIW your question "Did the lion do anything wrong?" is absolutely about culpability?

Culpability 
moral or legal responsibility, guilt, or blameworthiness for a wrongful act, crime, or failure..
Merriam Webster