(June 16, 2015 at 3:43 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:Quote:I believe it is objectively immoral, yes.
So, you didn't change your mind on what's objectively moral, even after you realized this:
Quote:But culpability changes depending on the person. So for someone of a different faith who has no idea or genuinely believes differently, they probably have very little fault, if any.
What's the point of making it something immoral, then?
An act can be objectively immoral, in and of itself. But the person's heart is something that cannot be judged. For example, a man breaks into your home and steals some percocet from your medicine cabinet. Is action moral? No.
Now imagine these 2 scenarios:
1. The man stole your percocet in order to sell them to high school kids.
2. The man stole your percocet because his child is in great pain while recovering from an injury and he cannot afford a refill of the medication.
The fact still remains, stealing is wrong. Period. But in scenario 1 the man probably has a lot more darkness in his heart than in scenario 2. While stealing is still wrong, I'm willing to bet his culpability is greatly lessened in the second scenario verses the first.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh