RE: What IS good, and how do we determine it?
June 23, 2015 at 3:13 am
(This post was last modified: June 23, 2015 at 3:16 am by Thumpalumpacus.)
(June 23, 2015 at 2:54 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Your question was "Would you kill to defend your infant child? That is not self-defense."
Ok, what does this mean? You're asking if I would kill to defend my child, but then tell me it wouldn't be defense? I asked for a scenario so I could understand what exactly you are asking.
What is there to misunderstand? I am asking you if you would kill to defend an infant child. I am pointing out that it would not be self-defense, which is the only exclusion you've drawn (so far!) to "thou shalt not kill" -- and something you left out of your reply (I've put that part in red), as if you could drop that "self-" prefix and no one would notice.
You said self-defense is the only reason killing someone might be moral. Am I to understand that you would not kill a person who was trying to kill an infant?
This is like interrogating Bill Clinton -- "That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". Quit shilly-shallying, quit wriggling for argument's sake, and tell me: if you saw a baby being attacked, would you kill the attacker, if necessary, to save the baby? And would that killing be moral, in your eyes?
(June 23, 2015 at 2:54 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I know that this is yall's belief, which is why I was so confused by Neim's objection at me saying it was not inherently immoral.
I don't know how I can have an honest, conducive discussion if I get reprimanded every time I ask for clarification. ;-)
Perhaps if your requests for "clarification" weren't loaded questions, you wouldn't face such tough sledding. You're obviously a smart person. When you ask for "clarification" over simple matters, and using framework to load the answer, it doesn't go unnoticed, and it undermines confidence in your sincerity.
Also, "conducive" is an adverb, not an adjective.