Originally posted by King Kandy
No, the point isn't that the minority is always right. The point is that an argument is sound purely on the basis of its intellectual strength, not on how many (or how few) believe it.
That's rather arbitrary since it definitely does not have "intellectual strength." Neither side does as they are extremely subjective.
Originally posted by inimalist
unless of course, you think killing people is immoral in the first place...
Then resolve the concept for this same moral you list above with this concept:
If you think that killing is wrong, then allowing someone who kills often, to continue to kill, is wrong. Your inaction indirectly endorses killing, violating your moral idea on killing. This dilemma is compounded when the person definitely refuses to change and even "removing" their weapons of death will not stop them from killing.
Apprehend, recuperate, rehabilitate, and/or indoctrinate them, huh? Do not kill them, right? That’s the "correct" answer?
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That is idiotic, yes. Can you give me even a single logical reason for why killing being unconditionally immoral would make sense?
I don't believe one man has the right to end the life of another, for any reason, save self-defense, but even then, I'm divided between it being a moral or pragmatic decision...
I don't see what is illogical about that at all, and frankly, its far more consistent than the morals most people throw around
Originally posted by inimalistI asked you to provide a logical reason for why killing being unconditionally immoral makes sense. You explained your belief in greater detail, which I always appreciate, but.. that's not what I asked you to do. 😛
I don't believe one man has the right to end the life of another, for any reason, save self-defense, but even then, I'm divided between it being a moral or pragmatic decision...I don't see what is illogical about that at all, and frankly, its far more consistent than the morals most people throw around
Because it is a pretty simple axiom that makes sense to me. If I think someone is bad because they kill, killing them makes me bad, therefore I deserve the same fate.
I think you might be confusing my moral stance with the pragmatics that sometimes come up, like, say the firebombing of Berlin during ww2, where copious innocents were killed to end the war. There is nothing moral or good about it, but it needed to be done if we didn't want to live under genocidal fascism. The basic pragmatic needs of people outweighed the moral cost of the action, the pragmatic benefit does not reduce the moral consequences.
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, words can be twisted in funny ways
That's neither 'twisted" nor is it "funny." 😬
It's a logical conundrum ecountered in more than just the "killing" stance.
That is the same exact concept that can be applied to any idea on moral "do nots." "Do not steal. Do not rape. Do not torture." etc.
Your apathy against those that violate the morals you hold indirectly endorses the violation of those very same morals.
The proper response is, "Why should I care about the actions of others? I only hold these morals to govern the self and not others because it violates the other moral I have of 'morals should only be applied to the self.'" Thus preserving your moral ideas while allowing you to not fall subject to the "moral dilemma" of "do nots" on morals.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's neither 'twisted" nor is it "funny." 😬It's a logical conundrum ecountered in more than just the "killing" stance.
That is the same exact concept that can be applied to any idea on moral "do nots." "Do not steal. Do not rape. Do not torture." etc.
Your apathy against those that violate the morals you hold indirectly endorses the violation of those very same morals.
The proper response is, "Why should I care about the actions of others? I only hold these morals to govern the self and not others because it violates the other moral I have of 'morals should only be applied to the self.'" Thus preserving your moral ideas while allowing you to not fall subject to the "moral dilemma" of "do nots" on morals.
if you knew the logical response, why ask?
and I object to your use of "endorse". It isn't even tacitly endorsing. I support any effort to stop people from killing, save outright murdering them
lol
EDIT: not to mention, your whole argument falls apart if there is any other way to stop people from murdering aside from killing them. Since there is, I really don't need to support death to be against killers
I don't see a distinction between pragmatism and morality. Assuming that it is a fact that invading Japan would have cost more money and lives than dropping the nukes, I would say that the United States was morally correct for nuking Japan and ending the war with as minimal loss of life on both sides as reasonably possible. The act of performing the action with the intention of saving lives is what defines wither the action was moral or not. It's intent that decides morality, imo.
That aside, though, I've been busting your balls. Morality's all relative so there's no such thing as an idiotic moral belief.
Though, I do disagree with the notion that killing is unconditionally morally wrong. That's not something that could be argued in a traditional manner, though.
I say "though" a lot, though, I was raised in a California public school, so my lack of varied vocabulary is hardly surprising.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
The act of performing the action with the intention of saving lives is what defines wither the action was moral or not. It's intent that decides morality, imo.