RE: What IS good, and how do we determine it?
June 22, 2015 at 11:37 pm
(This post was last modified: June 22, 2015 at 11:43 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(June 22, 2015 at 9:55 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:(June 22, 2015 at 9:36 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I was showing the concept of how an act can remain the same objectively, while the people who commit these acts can have different degrees of culpability.
Not trying to get you to agree, just wanna make sure you understand the concept.
Oh, believe me. I understand the concept behind what you call objective morality. I just find it morally reprehensible.
Good. That's all I ask for.
(June 22, 2015 at 9:58 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:(June 22, 2015 at 9:42 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I believe killing is only moral in self defense. I'm sorry if you find this sad.
Killing in defense of others whose lives are not in immediate danger would be immoral in your eyes, yes?
When I say self defense I mean defense of yourself or another innocent person from an attacker. By that I mean exerting as much force as is necessary to stop an attacker from killing you (or someone else). Not more, not less. If you're in a situation where saving a life means all you need to do is punch the attacker in the face, for example, you should try to do that rather than straight up kill him if it is unnecessary. Always try to preserve life when/where you can. I'm sorry you find this sad.
"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
