Is there an absolute morality?

[TLK Valentine]

Well, I suppose that means it's a good thing I wasn't talking to you to begin with.

I suppose it means that questions on a public forum are open to the public.

Have a great life.

Thanks; already got one.

 

[Bradskii]

Is human act that has but one end in view to kill an innocent person wrong in itself?
A human act that kills an innocent person is always an evil act.​

There are the two statements again. They are not the same. They are drastically different. The first qualifies as being immoral. Harm is being done and there is no argument available that some good may come of it (as in the trolley problem).

The second, as I've already said, is nonsensical as it stands. If you want to qualify it so that it incorporates something akin to criminal negligence (say driving too fast) then I wouldn't class it as evil. In my opinion, an evil act must include the intent to do harm.​

 

[Bradskii]

So again, if you could show me where it is described as good when an innocent person is accidentally killed, I'd appreciate it.

Who on earth is claiming that? That's quite a clumsy deflection.

You said it was evil if an innocent person is killed. I've asked you to show me where it has ever been decribed as such. If you have an example then show me. If you don't then say so.

 

[ISteveB]

I suppose it means that questions on a public forum are open to the public.

I'm not the one who's having a problem with my questions.

Thanks; already got one.

Praise God.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm not the one who's having a problem with my questions.

You are if you don't see how they're based on faulty premises.

Praise God.

Not my style, but I am grateful.

 

[ISteveB]

You are if you don't see how they're based on faulty premises.

That's the curious thing....
Only people who believe they know everything have a problem with learning, and need others to be as closed-minded as themselves.
Being a much older person, I've long since learned I don't know everything, and actually enjoy asking questions. In fact, I've made it part of my profession.

Not my style, but I am grateful.

Pity. Gratitude to him makes the human mind a clearer place to be.

It is after all written in psalm 111:10
[Psa 111:10 NKJV] 10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do [His commandments]. His praise endures forever.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok. Let's do it this way....
What is "criminal activity" based on, that would make it criminal?

I don't want to sound trite, but a criminal act is defied by what is on the statute books. But that aside, note that I qualified my statement:

'That context (whatever it might be) defines the activity as 'criminal'. What we already consider to be wrong (if you agree that the act should be described as criminal).'

The law isn't specifically concerned with morality - you won't do time if you're caught cheating on your wife. But it generally aligns with what we think is right or wrong. That's the sense in which I was using it. But I qualified it because we obviously don't always agree with the law as it stands. And abortion isn't morally acceptable because it's legal and wouldn't be immoral just because it might be illegal. We need to make those decisions ourselves.

As to war crimes, with some isolated examples (My Lai etc) they are generally described as such by the victors. If the axis powers had won then Hiroshima and Dresden might have been described as such. The holocaust wouldn't have been.

 

[Chriliman]

Because when you try to reason for what "should" be, you will eventually inject your personal preferences. If we keep going with that attempt to formulate a sound argument for a moral fact, at some point you're going to get frustrated and tell me something to the effect of, "Well obviously X is better than Y". And that's your personal preference being the reason behind all of your other reasoning.

We already went over the reasons that something ‘should’ be, are based on the objective facts of the past. Something objective happened and unfair harm was caused(objectively bad) so in the future it should be different so unfair harm is not caused(objectively good). This is logical in my mind and I’m good with that for now, I think your view that reasoned goodness is based on preference, but reasoned truth is not, just doesn’t add up. Thanks for the in-depth discussion.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's the curious thing....
Only people who believe they know everything have a problem with learning, and need others to be as closed-minded as themselves.
Being a much older person, I've long since learned I don't know everything, and actually enjoy asking questions. In fact, I've made it part of my profession.

Questions are good. Questions based on valid premises are better.

Pity. Gratitude to him makes the human mind a clearer place to be.

It is after all written in psalm 111:10
[Psa 111:10 NKJV] 10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do [His commandments]. His praise endures forever.

Well, that's one opinion.

 

[ISteveB]

Questions are good.

Indeed they are.

Questions based on valid premises are better.

Well, as I said, I'm comfortable with not knowing everything.
You on the other hand apparently need to control everything. As you've made it clear you are not God, I'm thinking that you're not a reliable source for determining what is a valid premise.

I'll continue to ask questions so I can make my own determination of what is a valid premise.

Well, that's one opinion.

Indeed.
It's YHVH's opinion. And as Jesus said that heaven and earth will one day pass away, but his words will last forever, I'm quite comfortable with his opinions carrying far greater weight, importance and value than yours.

I encourage you to take the time to learn why his opinions are so weighty.

 

[Bradskii]

I encourage you to take the time to learn why his opinions are so weighty.

He seems to agree with a lot that I believe. Although I have some problems with what his father is reported to have said.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Indeed they are.


Well, as I said, I'm comfortable with not knowing everything.
You on the other hand apparently need to control everything. As you've made it clear you are not God, I'm thinking that you're not a reliable source for determining what is a valid premise.

I'll continue to ask questions so I can make my own determination of what is a valid premise.

Fair enough -- but if you insist on contexts where murder, rape, and/or stealing are good things (as you did back in post #1860), then all I have to do is direct you to the Bible when such actions were commanded, condoned, or committed by God, and and then sit back and watch the fun.

Indeed.
It's YHVH's opinion. And as Jesus said that heaven and earth will one day pass away, but his words will last forever, I'm quite comfortable with his opinions carrying far greater weight, importance and value than yours.

I encourage you to take the time to learn why his opinions are so weighty.

I am quite aware of the reasons -- I simply do not believe them.

 

[Moral Orel]

We already went over the reasons that something ‘should’ be, are based on the objective facts of the past. Something objective happened and unfair harm was caused(objectively bad) so in the future it should be different so unfair harm is not caused(objectively good). This is logical in my mind and I’m good with that for now, I think your view that reasoned goodness is based on preference, but reasoned truth is not, just doesn’t add up. Thanks for the in-depth discussion.

It's cool if you're done talking, but can I just point out that I'm psychic and I can read your mind.

OOOoooOOOoooOOooh!

at some point you're going to get frustrated and tell me something to the effect of, "Well obviously X is better than Y"

It seems obvious to you that "We shouldn't cause unfair harm". You don't think there needs to be any reasoning provided to prove this. But you never actually observed the "should" itself. You observed the unfair harm and didn't like that it happened.

The same way I can have a bowl of chocolate ice cream, enjoy it immensely, but then when my wife tries a bite and gets that disgusted look on her face I actually think she is wrong to disagree with me. Just for a minute, not when I stop to think about it rationally. But the emotional impulse is there.

 

[o_mlly]

The first qualifies as being immoral. (Is human act that has but one end in view to kill an innocent person wrong in itself?)
​

B R E A K T H R O U G H!
Let's push it. Is that human act absolutely immoral? If not then in what context (circumstances) could that human act be judged moral? Answer: None. Therefore, the act is absolutely wrong, i.e. wrong in itself (regardless of person, intention or circumstance).

Congrats, you've answered your thread's primal question:

Are acts wrong in themselves?

 

[Chriliman]

It's cool if you're done talking, but can I just point out that I'm psychic and I can read your mind.

OOOoooOOOoooOOooh!

It seems obvious to you that "We shouldn't cause unfair harm". You don't think there needs to be any reasoning provided to prove this. But you never actually observed the "should" itself. You observed the unfair harm and didn't like that it happened.

The same way I can have a bowl of chocolate ice cream, enjoy it immensely, but then when my wife tries a bite and gets that disgusted look on her face I actually think she is wrong to disagree with me. Just for a minute, not when I stop to think about it rationally. But the emotional impulse is there.

That’s the thing tho, I don’t see a problem with understanding in an objective sense that you like chocolate ice cream, but you’re wife does not. Or that you like murdering people, but your wife does not, the problem is, there’s an objective difference between the results of these situations and it appears you’re willing to ignore that objective difference or at least think it’s irrelevant to the point you’re trying to make.

 

[Bradskii]

B R E A K T H R O U G H!
Let's push it. Is that human act absolutely immoral? If not then in what context (circumstances) could that human act be judged moral? Answer: None. Therefore, the act is absolutely wrong, i.e. wrong in itself (regardless of person, intention or circumstance).

Congrats, you've answered your thread's primal question:

I shot a man in Reno: We don't know if that's immoral or not. The act in itself cannot be described as such.

I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die: The act, now we know the intent, is immoral.

 

[Moral Orel]

That’s the thing tho, I don’t see a problem with understanding in an objective sense that you like chocolate ice cream, but you’re wife does not. Or that you like murdering people, but your wife does not, the problem is, there’s an objective difference between the results of these situations and it appears you’re willing to ignore that objective difference or at least think it’s irrelevant to the point you’re trying to make.

What impact does my liking or disliking a thing have on that thing?

If I like something, that will cause me to seek it.
If I dislike something, that will cause me to avoid it.

Whether I like something or not doesn't tell you a single fact about the thing itself.

If murder is wrong, but it can be liked or disliked, then whether it is liked or not is irrelevant to whether or not it is wrong.

 

[ISteveB]

He seems to agree with a lot that I believe. Although I have some problems with what his father is reported to have said.

Reported to have said.

Hmm...

Reported by whom?

Is this hearsay? Or is it documented?

Jesus said

Joh 14:6-17 WEB 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on, you know him, and have seen him.” 8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you such a long time, and do you not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How do you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works’ sake. 12 Most certainly I tell you, he who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also; and he will do greater works than these, because I am going to my Father. 13 Whatever you will ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you will ask anything in my name, I will do it. 15 If you love me, keep my commandments. 16 I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, that he may be with you forever: 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world can’t receive; for it doesn’t see him and doesn’t know him. You know him, for he lives with you, and will be in you.


The curious thing about this is...

Jesus is the true image of his substance
Hebrews 1:3

So, if you're having a problem with God the Father, I'm curious if you actually understand Jesus.

 

[Moral Orel]

I shot a man in Reno

This is an act ^

I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die

This is also an act ^

The act, now we know the intent, is immoral.

The act itself is immoral ^

 

[Bradskii]

Reported to have said.

Hmm...

Reported by whom?

Is this hearsay? Or is it documented?

Jesus said

Joh 14:6-17 WEB 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on, you know him, and have seen him.” 8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you such a long time, and do you not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How do you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works’ sake. 12 Most certainly I tell you, he who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also; and he will do greater works than these, because I am going to my Father. 13 Whatever you will ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you will ask anything in my name, I will do it. 15 If you love me, keep my commandments. 16 I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, that he may be with you forever: 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world can’t receive; for it doesn’t see him and doesn’t know him. You know him, for he lives with you, and will be in you.

Do you think all that's verbatim?