(July 16, 2017 at 6:06 pm)Khemikal Wrote:(July 16, 2017 at 5:59 pm)Astonished Wrote: I'm saying law does not automatically equate with morality, dude, fuck.Ayup, mentioned that not but three posts back..but in the case of moral desert, murder, and manslaughter - it correlates. The moral and legal fact of the matter is that killing someone is wrong. Different types of killing are classified as different crimes with different punishments. So we have a moral fact of the matter, a discussion of moral agency, and a conclusion of moral desert.
Quote:It's based more around what people in power want because under the circumstances their subjective opinions matter more than ours. So why even bring up law?"People in power" are meant to be kept in check by a rule of law, rather than a rule by monarchs. Technically, there;s no need to bring up law, it;s just one of those times where the law runs a parralel course. Ultimately, it makes no difference to a consideration of murder and manslaughter. Killing is bad, unintential killing is still bad, but it's an accident. We do not extend the same moral condemnation for those two disparate moral situations. This isn;t because the standard or the process (moral or legal) is subjective...but because it objectively refers to disparate situations.
Got tired of watching you argue with Beep-Beep so I must have missed that one. But again, you brought up law, quite uselessly, I was just pointing that out.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.