(March 10, 2016 at 3:55 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:LadyForCamus Wrote:In other words, if such a judgement of gratuitous versus necessary evil can never be considered objectively morally acceptable here amongst us humans, is it not special pleading to give God allowance to do it for reason unknowable to us?
Hmm. I don't think so. God is sufficiently different from us by definition that it's not necessarily special pleading to hold God to a different standard. A mortal can be taken to account and, if necessary, forced to explain their reasoning. Whether real or imagined, that's impossible with God.
Okay, forgive me for being stupid, probably annoyingly so. I'm going to post a definition here; I am NOT being snarky. I just want to you to help me figure out what I am not getting about this:
"Special pleading - is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency." (From RationalWiki)
So, the exception to the rule being: watching a rape and not intervening is always morally wrong, except for when God does it.
Are you saying that by god's very nature, his "unknown reasons" are always a proper justification for exemption? In other words, are you saying this logical fallacy can never be applied to issues involving God, or just in this case of objective morality?
Thanks for your patience, not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to understand where in my line thinking I'm going off the rails here.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.