(July 16, 2017 at 11:42 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Theocracies -do- base their moral systems on harm. Can you suggest a harmless sin..not a sin that -you- would see as harmless, but one that -they- would? The whole point of following a gods rules is to avoid harm to oneself, to whomever the harmful thing is supposed to hurt, to society, or even to god.
You think that they;re wrong about what causes harm, or to whom..and so do I, I would say objectively wrong..... but it's very clear that harm is fundamental to their theocratic morality.
(July 16, 2017 at 11:06 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: So where is the harm, if she doesn't find out? You seem to be needing to add a lot to your basis of harm to make work. It's not sufficient to find harm (by some stretch), and claim that as the basis. And I agree, it is pretty basic stuff. I'm not making the case, that this is not immoral, but that using harm as the basis, doesn't equate.
You're now asking me why infidelity and deception are immoral, but you already know my answer. Something doesn't suddenly become harmful the moment you're caught, you know......and getting away with some harmful thing doesn't change the harm that was done.
Why don't you go ask your significant other those questions? I'm sure it'll clear you right up.
Not really, for instance, death as a penalty for adultery in no way shows that reducing harm is the basis for morality. Also the idea that it is moral to have a system of eternal torture for finite sins also shows that harm is not the deciding factor on what is or isn't moral.
