The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Gideon
I'm all for certain moral absolutes, but I'm not a proponent of bigotry unless it's against morons (and by that, I mean those with God-given intelligence who simply choose to be obstinate [Nai?]).

You still don't get it. In the same minute you demand a single absolute, you are bigoted already. Don't get me wrong: It's not that I can't imagine moral issues where an absolute would make sense (e.g. I consider it impossible to justify rape). But that's not the point. The point is that to demand an moral absolute, you need an entity that can cast out binding judgement regarding moral in the first place. So you'd need a George Lucas for the real life - which means you need God.

On a sidenote: I am obstinate? That's just because you're bigoted! What a dilemma.

Originally posted by Autokrat
I'm going to tell you a tale about a guy named Julius Caesar, a dude you have probably heard of. During the Gallic Wars, he sacked a Gallic town called Avaricum. Forty thousand people lived in Avaricum, his men killed them all. About eight hundred escaped alive who where then most likely sold in slavery. So tell me, do you think the Romans got pissed at Caesar because he was now responsible for the murder of 40,000 people? Hell, in Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War, he even says how he intentionally let his men kill everyone to give them a way to get out their frustrations.

Guess what? Rome considered him a hero, so what if he killed a bunch of Gauls? No one cared. Where the Romans wrong to think this way? Or perhaps that is simply how their society developed and they had a completely different set of morals than most modern day society does.

Or hell, Genghis Khan is a good example. He's a folk hero in Mongolia. A modern day hero to the Mongolians, a man who potentially murdered 40 million people on his trek across Asia. Are the Mongolians wrong to revere him? Have they violated the "universal" truth that you keep blabbing on about?

Humanity is littered with so many different cultures and ethic beliefs, that to say that there are universal truths, is simply wrong, unless you are prepared to say that all those cultures are wrong.

Yup. Mass murder was wrong. He just tried to justify it with an agenda. Doesn't make it anymore right. Again, unless you are willing to admit that the Nazis and Stalin weren't wrong, you have no argument.

Originally posted by Borbarad
You still don't get it. In the same minute you demand a single absolute, you are bigoted already. Don't get me wrong: It's not that I can't imagine moral issues where an absolute would make sense (e.g. I consider it impossible to justify rape). But that's not the point. The point is that to demand an moral absolute, you need an entity that can cast out binding judgement regarding moral in the first place. So you'd need a George Lucas for the real life - which means you need God.

On a sidenote: I am obstinate? That's just because you're bigoted! What a dilemma.

Which is THE reason that liberals, so called "enlightened" thinkers, and relativsts don't believe in a higher authority. They can't stand the idea of a higher authority with absolute morals and values. Instead they'd prefer to do what they wish and justify it with a relativism argument.

How the hell is that bigoted, unless you're referring to an alienation of rapists and murderers, in which case I'll happily wear the title.

It's 2009; we as a society should understand that there are some actions that are completely and utterly without justification. Murder (and by that I mean the taking of a human life not in self defense) and rape and child molestation and so on are actions that cannot be justified rationally by any person. And so they should be absolutely condemned.

I don't think Nai understands that under our legal system, murder with self defense ceases to be murder.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Yup. Mass murder was wrong. He just tried to justify it with an agenda. Doesn't make it anymore right. Again, unless you are willing to admit that the Nazis and Stalin weren't wrong, you have no argument.

The one without an argument is you, the entire basis of your argument is that your moral opinion is more valid than the Romans or for that matter yes, Hitler. The Hitler argument is a cop out, because no one wants to go the extra mile and say that he wasn't an evil douche. In my personal opinion, I think he was a ****ed up psycho. Does that make my moral opinion right and his wrong? No, it doesn't.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No, my utopia is a realistic world where evil exists and there is justice over compassion. Where people follow a universal set of principles that is better for society.

Like what? I've said that laws should exist when the harm that comes to an individual is absolute and not relative in major. However, I can't subscribe to your idea of a utopia where everyone conforms to your religious standards of morality and purity and thus lose their ability for free thought and self expression.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
The Bible is a supplement. They see things as universal principles. Drug use DOES cause harm to people. Murder, prostitution (diseases), rape. These things are NOT subjective.

I think illegalizing prostitution is moronic. Only through its legalization can we control the spread of diseases through it (and prevent the abuse of the prostitutes themselves); I actually have a fairly detailed plan regarding this.

When somebody grows up to be violent, the drug is simply a trigger for more violent crime. Considering response to drugs, whether it is of an addiction or a violent nature, is highly individualistic, it cannot be said that the problem is entirely with the drugs themselves. By legalizing them and monitoring them, we stimulate the economy, reduce terrorism and damn near eliminate organized crime, more easily control addictions and create possibilities of rehabilitation, and advocate more freedom.

Your views upon good and bad are inevitably because of your belief in the Jewish God. That's fine. The problem is that you claim that these beliefs, that are based on a purely faith-oriented and subjective religion, are universal.

Our society lives by certain morals and standards. If you don't like it, go to a deserted island and start your own society, although I doubt anyone would join something doomed from the start.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Except no. Except they needed an excuse to blame a group or groups for their economic collapses. And they found one. Your ignorance is astounding. I sincerely hope you never get a position of leadership because we're all doomed.

That did not change that they ultimately interpreted the world in a violent manner. They thought it was logical. That doesn't necessarily mean it was, but you simply must understand that the perspective of the 'evil' culture is also relevant.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Except that the world rose up against the Nazis.

The world rose up against the Nazis not because they were morally opposed to the ideology itself (in fact, they did absolutely nothing to initially stop it), but because Nazism was on a quest for militaristic colonization of the world. Thus, countries viewed it as threatened their sovereignty and freedom and fought for these standards.

In addition; your 'what the majority believes is true' ideology would mean conservatism is wrong, considering most Americans today are liberals (and are in favor of gay marriage, abortion, and other social values you perceive to be immoral). A couple of years ago, most Americans were conservative. The faith of the majority is something that is in a continuous state of fluctuation; through every course of societal change in history, the majority did not immediately advocate it, but eventually saw the viewpoint and interpretation of justice of great men. This is how change comes to pass.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No, there's no place in this world for radicalism that affects people negatively. Your justifications were hilarious to begin with, now they're just downright pitiful. Your views are unrealistic.

Every ideology must find its place in the world. And if you disagree with an ideology, attempt to disprove it, not crush it. Accepting Jewish refugees from Germany would have done plenty to disprove and invalidate the concept of Nazism. Beat them into the ground? Hardly works.

And how do you define 'radicalism'? You need to understand that it is dependent upon where you place a certain viewpoint according to your moralistic nature. Stop claiming your opinions are facts.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Apparently you know nothing of the Soviet Union, which was run by Stalin and his party members. Guess who was the most oppressed in the Soviet Union? Not Jews, Christians. You've shown me that you understand nothing about the world you're living in.

What does that have anything to do with anything? First, religion was damn near banned in the Soviet Union. The chief reason for the massacre of people was to instill fear into the people and kill political resistance.

However, it would not have survived had this ideology, ultimately, not have been seen as positive by the majority of the people in this nation. Progression and change comes from within; throughout history, regimes were overthrown when the general populace's dissatisfaction could no longer be contained. This is the best course of action.

Originally posted by Autokrat
The one without an argument is you, the entire basis of your argument is that your moral opinion is more valid than the Romans or for that matter yes, Hitler. The Hitler argument is a cop out, because no one wants to go the extra mile and say that he wasn't an evil douche. In my personal opinion, I think he was a ****ed up psycho. Does that make my moral opinion right and his wrong? No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. The Hitler argument isn't a copout, it's an argument you can't refute. Murder/Theft/Rape are all absolutes. You can justify them whatever way you wish, but that doesn't make you right. And if you DO suggest that Hitler wasn't wrong for mass extermination, and neither was Stalin, then I'm as afraid of you as I am of MC. You're the most dangerous kind of people. Irrational and incorrectly compassionate.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
[B]Like what? I've said that laws should exist when the harm that comes to an individual is absolute and not relative in major. However, I can't subscribe to your idea of a utopia where everyone conforms to your religious standards of morality and purity and thus lose their ability for free thought and self expression.

I think illegalizing prostitution is moronic. Only through its legalization can we control the spread of diseases through it (and prevent the abuse of the prostitutes themselves); I actually have a fairly detailed plan regarding this.

When somebody grows up to be violent, the drug is simply a trigger for more violent crime. Considering response to drugs, whether it is of an addiction or a violent nature, is highly individualistic, it cannot be said that the problem is entirely with the drugs themselves. By legalizing them and monitoring them, we stimulate the economy, reduce terrorism and damn near eliminate organized crime, more easily control addictions and create possibilities of rehabilitation, and advocate more freedom.

Your views upon good and bad are inevitably because of your belief in the Jewish God. That's fine. The problem is that you claim that these beliefs, that are based on a purely faith-oriented and subjective religion, are universal.

That did not change that they ultimately interpreted the world in a violent manner. They thought it was logical. That doesn't necessarily mean it was, but you simply must understand that the perspective of the 'evil' culture is also relevant.

The world rose up against the Nazis not because they were morally opposed to the ideology itself (in fact, they did absolutely nothing to initially stop it), but because Nazism was on a quest for militaristic colonization of the world. Thus, countries viewed it as threatened their sovereignty and freedom and fought for these standards.

In addition; your 'what the majority believes is true' ideology would mean conservatism is wrong, considering most Americans today are liberals (and are in favor of gay marriage, abortion, and other social values you perceive to be immoral). A couple of years ago, most Americans were conservative. The faith of the majority is something that is in a continuous state of fluctuation; through every course of societal change in history, the majority did not immediately advocate it, but eventually saw the viewpoint and interpretation of justice of great men. This is how change comes to pass.

Every ideology must find its place in the world. And if you disagree with an ideology, attempt to disprove it, not crush it. Accepting Jewish refugees from Germany would have done plenty to disprove and invalidate the concept of Nazism. Beat them into the ground? Hardly works.

And how do you define 'radicalism'? You need to understand that it is dependent upon where you place a certain viewpoint according to your moralistic nature. Stop claiming your opinions are facts.

What does that have anything to do with anything? First, religion was damn near banned in the Soviet Union. The chief reason for the massacre of people was to instill fear into the people and kill political resistance.

I'm afraid, at the end of the day, even though we disagree on a few critical issues, I'm going to have to echo Darth Sexy's thoughts.

I believe from the bottom of my heart that there are certain moral absolutes, actions that one should not attempt to take for the sake of what is right. There can be no plausible argument made for justifying some of the things that men have done to one another across the ages. Do I agree that everything is black-and-white and that nothing is subjective? No.

But Master Crimzon's words are particularly disturbing. But I have yet to discern exactly what he means by a "free society." At one point, he argues that people should have choices and that the rest of society simply must assume the risks and consequences of people abusing their rights. And then in another post, he absolutely refuses to legalize murder -- thus denying people a choice in whether or not they get to take the life of another human.

It's ridiculous. At the end of the day, the only practical solution is to face the fact that we do not live in a totally free society, that people don't get to take choices that compromise the rest of society without consequence, and that it would be a terrifying thing indeed to live in a truly free society.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Murder/Theft/Rape are all absolutes. You can justify them whatever way you wish, but that doesn't make you right.

And herein, your argument collapses. Murder, theft and rape are illegal because it is result of the modern day system. The system needs a social convention in which to survive, so it establishes laws against things like murder, theft and rape. However, the crux of this, is that every system is different and has different ideas on what is right and wrong. If you told a viking raider from the 11th century that the raping, murdering and pillaging he did was wrong. He would look at you as if you were crazy. The idea wouldn't even make sense to him. It doesn't make him right, but it doesn't make you right either. No one is right when it comes to ethics and morals, because everyone has different ideas on what constitutes to proper moral behavior.

A good modern day example are terrorists. You going to tell suicide bomber X that killing innocents is wrong? Sure, I think its wrong, but what makes my opinion any more right than his? Both of us are simply lumps of carbon on a insignificant world in a universe that would not even notice, should by some quantum accident, we all suddenly cease to exist.

Morals are human constructs, and humans tend to disagree quite often on what is right and wrong. Obviously has history progresses, the general viewpoint of morals changes. People from ancient times would not understand our moral viewpoints and imagine that humans thousands of years into the future would probably also conform to a completely different set of morals than we do.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington And if you DO suggest that Hitler wasn't wrong for mass extermination, and neither was Stalin, then I'm as afraid of you as I am of MC. You're the most dangerous kind of people. Irrational and incorrectly compassionate.

I do not agree with MC's free society. I believe his viewpoint of the world is horribly naive; however he is correct about Hitler. The world didn't give a shit about Germany until Hitler invaded Poland. I personally think Hitler was wrong and I doubt that MC believes that Hitler was right. However, there is no objective source that shows Hitler to be wrong.

Also, arguments could be made for Stalin in that he managed to keep the USSR from falling behind technologically, because he instituted the rapid industrialization that killed so many people. Ironically enough, Stalin is the third most celebrated person in Russia.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Murder, rape, theft are NOT self expression nor free thought. Drugs are not self expression if they lead to crimes. As I've said, if one doesn't harm another, it's fine. But your logic dictates that even if one harms another, it's not necessarily wrong because "who are we..."

Drugs as leading to crime is a highly extreme response, and more dependent upon the individualistic response to it than the actual drugs themselves.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I'd like to hear it since this argument doesn't have any logical basis for it.

Well, my belief is that prostitution should be legalized and prostitutes should not have to fear getting check ups for STDs. I think that a prostitute that declares herself to be one and is checked (negative) for STDs should get a 'certificate of safe prostitution' or some shit along the lines of that. Prostitutes that do not do so will not receive one. They will not be illegalized, but the public at large will be aware that unsafe prostitution is highly dangerous and should be avoided. It would be within the financial interests of a prostitutes to get that certificate.

And by legalizing it, we can prevent the abuse of prostitutes by protecting them like any other individual within society, and still enable them to cultivate a lifestyle we must respect even if it does not fit with our standards of sexual decency.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Prove it will reduce a, b, and c because there's again, no logical basis for it. And when we legalize it, all we do is increase its use because the punishment for usage is no longer there.

A) Terrorist organizations make a hefty profit via the marketing of illegal drugs.
B) The chief arm of the profit made by organized crime is drug oriented.
C) See A and B.

The legalization of drugs increases drug use? Try again. The Netherlands legalize marijuana, but the actual usage rate of that is extremely low compared to the U.S. It's a less violent and more peaceful society, and even the usage of an illegal drug (heroin) is lower than the U.S (1.4% vs. 0.4%).

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Christian G-d, Islam(unskewed), and moral values in general. As I've said, I only became religious or more religious last year. Until that point I lived 23 years of secularism. These beliefs have been proven time and time again, to be universal. Justifications notwithstanding.

Your views of justice and morality are purely relativistic in nature. Ultimately, when making the claim of 'moral absolutes exist and I know exactly what they are!", you depend upon the objective validity of religion and the existence of God.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Having an opinion doesn't make something subjective, nor making the opinion right. Having a justification doesn't make something valid.

Nor does your opinions of mass murder, genocide, and death in general means that these things are universally regarded negatives. I don't think Stalin or Hitler were right; in fact, I think they were evil people. But does my belief in their immorality make them immoral? Hardly.

There is a different side to every situation. As a society, our goal should be to reconcile between the sides in order to achieve the fairest possible solution.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Actually no, those countries viewed mass genocide as wrong, but were otherwise powerless to stop it. Granted a lot of them had other motives, but the point remains that Hitler was wrong, and the world turned against him, same with Stalin during the Cold War.

The world turned against Hitler at large not because they viewed him as immoral, but because he was a very serious military threat to their freedom and thus they needed to destroy him. The fact that they viewed mass genocide as wrong is irrelevant; this was not what drove them to war.

People turned against Stalin in the cold war? I'm not entirely well-versed in the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it certainly wasn't because the entire world was opposed to him. In fact, multiple countries viewed totalitarian communism as a noble regime that is the only way of achieving justice. See Vietnam, Cuba, and China.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Most Americans are certainly NOT liberals. Even in the most liberal state of California, the so called liberal majority lost on Proposition 8. Trust me, with world wide destruction increasing, liberalism is dying a slow death.

1. Show me statistics that worldwide destruction is increasing. Conservatives are obsessed with moral degeneration and are somehow, because of their "Old and traditional = good" outlook of the world, they are always convinced that things must be worse than they were before. And even if world wide destruction is increasing, it could only be due to the militaristic policies of George Bush, an uber Republican.

2. The majority of Americans, as seen in a poll, advocate abortion and gay marriage. Barack Obama, a very liberal politician, was elected. Statistics constantly show that the majority of Americans tend to favor liberalism over conservatism.

Whenever a period of social change comes forth, the reaction is this:

A. The majority, surrendering to fear of change and natural conservatism, are opposed to it. Conservatism initially wins out over the change.
B. Gradually, upon understand that past time values only breed injustice and prevent true 'good' social values from coming into pass, the majority, and eventually even the hardcore conservatives, finally support the change.
C. Despite later claiming to be incapable of understanding how the conservatives back in the day did not advocate now universally agreed upon facts like the abolishing of slavery, they inevitably find another form of social change to whine about.

Conservatism will always lose. It never, ever won.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
no

yes

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Skewing a fact, a document, or religious text to fit your agenda. That's fact. Get over it.

How do you define skewing a document or a religious text? It's open to interpretation; it does not read out facts. There is no 'correct' interpretation of this, merely a largely agreed upon and more socially beneficial one.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I won't explain to you why religion was nearly banned, look it up. And the point is, by your ridiculous relativist logic, Stalin wasn't wrong murdering 22 million people.

Religion was banned in the Soviet Union because it was seen as:

A. The opium of the masses that bred irrationality.
B. Resulted in diversity, which is opposed to the communist ideal that 'everyone is equal and the same'.

I actually agree with A, but that's simply my opinion and no reason to ban religion and prevent people from self-expression.

Stalin's actions were heinous, from my point of view. But there must have been a degree of consent from the Russian society; they chose to live in such an apparently negative society because they advocated beliefs we disagree on. Eventually, a form of resistance grew and this resulted in the internal collapse of the Soviet Union. This is how, in my opinion, change and progress should be achieved; by rising from within the nation itself.

Originally posted by Gideon
But Master Crimzon's words are particularly disturbing.

Disturbing in the "Oh my god, that guy is friggin' nuts" or in the "that's some thought-provoking stuff" kind of way?

Originally posted by Gideon
But I have yet to discern exactly what he means by a "free society." At one point, he argues that people should have choices and that the rest of society simply must assume the risks and consequences of people abusing their rights. And then in another post, he absolutely refuses to legalize murder -- thus denying people a choice in whether or not they get to take the life of another human.

I think that when a certain freedom only applies to you, nobody has any right to restrict it. However, when that sort of 'freedom' begins to harm other individuals' right to their own liberty and pursuit of happiness, then it should be restricted. That's my idea of a good society. Even private freedom, however, has some risks to it, and these risks must be accepted; it's a byproduct of a free society. We can eliminate or at least monitor these risks and somehow reach a compromise between freedom and safety.

Murder harms someone directly. Thus it should be illegalized. Drugs? They don't.

Disturbing as in "Jesus Christ, that's really stupid and he surprises me with his bullshit."

It's not thought provoking. Hell, Veneficus, who disagrees with us, still doesn't agree with you. The bottom line is that you're coming off as a major hypocrite.

"lulz EVERYONE HAS CHOICES NO RESTRICTIONS!!Z!1!"

Murder?

"OH WELL IN THAT CASE MURDER IS NOT ALLOWED!!1!"

Well, what about drugs?

"DRUGS DO NOT RESULT IN DEATHS LOLZ!"

...

Really?

"WELL NOT DIRECTLY! IT IS A RISK WE HAVE TO ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF DRUG DEALERS AND LESSER LIFEFORMS AROUND THE WORLD!!1!"

This is bullshit.

Originally posted by Gideon
Disturbing as in "Jesus Christ, that's really stupid and he surprises me with his bullshit."

It's not thought provoking. Hell, Veneficus, who disagrees with us, still doesn't agree with you. The bottom line is that you're coming off as a major hypocrite.

"lulz EVERYONE HAS CHOICES NO RESTRICTIONS!!Z!1!"

Murder?

"OH WELL IN THAT CASE MURDER IS NOT ALLOWED!!1!"

Well, what about drugs?

"DRUGS DO NOT RESULT IN DEATHS LOLZ!"

...

Really?

"WELL NOT DIRECTLY! IT IS A RISK WE HAVE TO ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF DRUG DEALERS AND LESSER LIFEFORMS AROUND THE WORLD!!1!"

This is bullshit.

Fair enough, although I don't think you are completely getting what I am saying.

Statistically, though, this is something for you to consider: speaking proportion, there are less ecstasy-related deaths than there are alcohol. And this is not simply because there are more users of alcohol; I mean that the percentage of deaths among alcohol users is higher than the percentage of deaths among ecstasy users.

Ecstasy is a very hard drug. So what do you suggest? Ban alcohol? We've seen how well it worked out in the 20's.

The point is, if people choose to destroy themselves, then let them do so; we should regulate the way this may influence others, however, and understand that violence as a result of drugs is more dependent on the individual's traits than the drugs themselves.

I propose that we don't make matters worse by telling people that use of illegal drugs is now permissible.

But I have this weird mentality born from the idea that I will not pay the price for those who decide to not only throw their own lives away, but the lives of others.

You can resign yourself to dying for drug dealers and alcoholics and whomever else to make stupid decisions that only yield destruction. As for me? No. I'd put all people like that to death before I become a victim of their meaningless existence.

Freedom my ass.

Originally posted by Gideon
How the hell is that bigoted, unless you're referring to an alienation of rapists and murderers, in which case I'll happily wear the title.

It's 2009; we as a society should understand that there are some actions that are completely and utterly without justification. Murder (and by that I mean the taking of a human life not in self defense) and rape and child molestation and so on are actions that cannot be justified rationally by any person. And so they should be absolutely condemned.

You are bigoted because you don't see the consequences of moral absolutes. I may repeat myself: Moral absolutism demands that every act that fits in a certain category (e.g. Murder) have to be judged as right or wrong devoid of context of the act.

Let me explain that further. Let's take Murder as example and exclude acts of self-defense (which is already moral relativism, because the action described as "wrong" is the killing of a human being). So we just stick to cases of Murder:

I. A professional killer kills an innocent man who has become a witness of some crime.

II. A cop knows that somebody is guilty of being a serial killer but he isn't able to come up with legal proof. Since he wants to stop the killer he arranges a situation that allows him to kill the suspect.

III. The farther of a 12 year old girl kills the man who has violated his daughter 2 years in the past.

IV. A mentally retarded teenager graps the shotgun of his dad and plays with the weapon in the garden. He aims at a neighbour, while thinking about some movie he has seen and pulls the trigger, killing his neighbour with that shot.

In all of those four instances we are confronted with murder as far as the law is concerned. Now using moral absolutism, you would have to condamn each and every single one of that four individuals because they murdered another human. The context of their respective acts wouldn't matter. They would all have to suffer the same consequences.

As I see it, some people might at least be able to understand the motivation of the farther and the cop, while they would probably claim that the teenager might be entirely innocent, given that he - being mentally retarded - probably didn't even understand what he was doing. Eventually they might even claim that what the cop did was absolutely right - because it did prevent the serial killer from striking again. Or they might think what the farther did was okay, because a child molester doesn't deserve living any longer. You have mentioned the episode of Shark recently, in which he constructs an entire case just to get a murder into jail. Was that the right thing to do?

The very point is, that moral absolutism attempts to pigeonhole individuals that did commit a certain act, not caring about the context. To me, personally, somebody suffering from mental dysfunctions or somebody acting while not fully in control of his actions, or forced to act because of a certain situation shouldn't be judged in the same manner as somebody who commited a crime in cold blood.

Do I agree that everything is black-and-white and that nothing is subjective?

Yes. That's exactly what you're doing, even if only regarding murder or rape or whatever other action you see as "absolutely wrong".

Welcome to the Kindergarten of Philosophy. There are no moral absolutes because moral is a human concept and humans are prone to error and deceived by emotion.

Deontological ethics will tell you that all that matters to determine if a deed is right or wrong is your motivation or intention. You can have a good intention for the action of killing people. Consequentalists and teleologists will tell you that, if the outcome of a action is good, the action itself can be justified. Even Murder can be beneficial for a society (and certainly for an individual).

What you come up here with is moral absolutism. You try to judge actions devoid of the context of an act. Not entirely surprising: That's your approach to almost everything - and it is the approach of a child that needs absolutes because it is incapable of encorporate exclusions to its view on the world.

Yet that kind of system fails in reality every day of the week. Why? Because, technically, you aren't allowed to commit an act that you perceive as being wrong, regardless of circumstances. So if you define lying as wrong, and an axe-murderer asks in which rooms of your house your siblings and parents, that he is going to kill, are sleeping, you will have to tell him the truth. You can see that line of thought leads to morale dilemma in the matter of seconds. When you say killing people is wrong, you have to accept of getting killed even if you could prevent it by killing the guy that wanted to murder you in the first place. Hell...you couldn't even hurt somebody like that, if you consider it wrong to hurt people.

And don't even try to argue that by citing that killing or hurting somebody in an act of self-defense isn't the same as murdering or hurting somebody for no reason - because that would unmask you as being a moral relativist yourself. A being that judges actions based on context...

👆

(e.g. I consider it impossible to justify rape)

Happened in a manga once. A girl raped her best friend so that she (the friend) couldn't be sacrificed in this bizarre ritual thing. Only way to stop it. Freaked me out until I saw the big picture. There were reasons why she had to rape her and not just tell her the truth, but it's too convoluted to explain.

Have to dash.

Nai, I believe you're confusing condemning an action with condemning the person committing it. Murder is wrong. Killing in self defense or, as in the case of some assassinations (i.e. the Valkyrie plot in Nazi Germany), killing in the defense of others, can be justified. The fact that we may sympathize with the father who murdered doesn't excuse his actions. The fact that the child is mentally retarded doesn't excuse his actions. We might not send these two to the electric chair, but that doesn't mean we're invalidating their wrongdoings. Murder and rape are wrong, period.

Originally posted by Nephthys
👆

Happened in a manga once. A girl raped her best friend so that she (the friend) couldn't be sacrificed in this bizarre ritual thing. Only way to stop it. Freaked me out until I saw the big picture. There were reasons why she had to rape her and not just tell her the truth, but it's too convoluted to explain.

Have to dash.

Originally posted by Gideon
Nai, I believe you're confusing condemning an action with condemning the person committing it. Murder is wrong. Killing in self defense or, as in the case of some assassinations (i.e. the Valkyrie plot in Nazi Germany), killing in the defense of others, can be justified. The fact that we may sympathize with the father who murdered doesn't excuse his actions. The fact that the child is mentally retarded doesn't excuse his actions. We might not send these two to the electric chair, but that doesn't mean we're invalidating their wrongdoings. Murder and rape are wrong, period.

Gideon. As I told you before. When you make difference between murder that - according to you - can't be justified and "killing persons under special circumstances" that can - according to you - be justified then you don't see murder as absolutely wrong.

If you plan to kill a human being you're commiting a murder - no matter if you kill an innocent child or Adolf Hitler. In moral absolutism neither of that actions could be justified. So you can't come here and state "murder is wrong, period" and in the same instance come up with examples in which murder (and yes - the Valkyrie plot was an attempt to murder Hitler) might be justified. It doesn't make sense.

While I totally agree with you in the case of Hitler, I simply disagree with the system of categories you sort certain acts in. For me, and according to most legal systems in the world, every planned action carried out to kill a human being, is labeled as "murder".