Hitler

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If the sources and substances that you have mentioned are not intrinsically wrong in themselves then it makes no logical sense...

So if you declare rape to be morally unsound it makes sense (because of your religious beliefs) but if I declare rape to be morally unsound "it makes no logical sense" (because I don't share your religious beliefs), have I understood you right? If you lost your religious beliefs, do you believe your moral condemnation of rape would go from making logical sense to not making logical sense, as a result?

Originally posted by FMF
You can think of no circumstances whatsoever in which it would be morally justifiable to deceive someone?

BUMP.

You ignored this as well.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk

Originally posted by FMF
You once argued that a person getting angry with their sibling was "equally as evil as" murdering 6,000,000 people and you cited that as a "universal truth".

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I never cited that as a universal truth it I was merely giving my interpretation of a particular verse in the Bible..

So you are choosing not to apply any of your "universal truth" and "moral absolutism" stuff to this "particular verse in the Bible" (unlike other verses). Is it not a function of your "personal preference" to be selective in this way?

Originally posted by FMF
Well, wait a minute. What is my view on the morality of murder? And what was Hitler's view on the morality of murder? You seem to want to compare them; what are they? What do you find unacceptable about my view that murder is morally wrong?

It doesn't matter what your view on the morality of murder is. If you don't believe in the existence of universal truth it follows logically that your view on anything cannot be any more or less true than anyone else's view on anything. Comparing them would only make sense if universal truth did in fact exists and it was logically possible for one view to be more truthful than other view.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
It doesn't matter what your view on the morality of murder is.

Does your view on the morality of murder "matter"?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you don't believe in the existence of universal truth it follows logically that your view on anything cannot be any more or less true than anyone else's view on anything.

You have declared you own views on morality to be "universal truth". This is not as impressive or as self-validating as you seem to think it is.

Your silence in response to the (repeatedly ignored) question: "Can you think of no circumstances whatsoever in which it would be morally justifiable to deceive someone?" makes it quite clear to me that my views on morality with regard to deception are better (i.e. more likely to result is a morally sound outcome) than yours, as your apparent 'code' in this regard could quite conceivably allow or even facilitate terrible "evil" and grossly immoral acts being perpetrated against innocent people that you have a moral duty to protect.

Now, don't worry, I am not going to body slam you by unilaterally declaring my view to be "universal truth" but I will say that your approach to morality seems naive and dysfunctional regardless of the inflated and self-righteous posturing your "personal preference" for your own perspective.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Comparing them would only make sense if universal truth did in fact exists and it was logically possible for one view to be more truthful than other view.

Your moral condemnation of murder is more "truthful" than my moral condemnation of murder?

FMF: "Accurate"? What do you mean by "accurate"?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
By accurate I mean 'consistent with a standard'.

And you see yourself as having no "personal preference" when it comes to what that "standard" happens to be, or where it is taken from?

Originally posted by FMF
BUMP. You ignored this.

I believe lying is objectively wrong because one of the ten commandments clearly says you shall not bear false testimony against your neighbour. And I believe that is because lying is intrinsically wrong.

Originally posted by FMF
BUMP.

You ignored this too.

I agree that some people may view it as morally acceptable but I still believe it is intrinsically wrong.

Originally posted by FMF
I see. And this makes your moral code more "accurate" than mine? Including your declaration that being angry with someone is equally as "evil" as exterminating 6,000,000 people in death camps. Coming up with that notion angry someone/the entire Holocaust = the same degree of "evil" was not a moral outlook based on your "personal preference"?

Believing that something is intrinsically wrong posits an 'absolute', unchanging moral law. If you don't believe something is intrinsically wrong you can always find a reason to justify it, just like Hitler did. Do you think the would have exterminated 6,000,0000 people in death camps if he believed his actions were intrinsically wrong?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I believe lying is objectively wrong because one of the ten commandments clearly says you shall not bear false testimony against your neighbour. And I believe that is because lying is intrinsically wrong.

So, for example, you wouldn't be willing to lie to someone who posed a threat to your family and your children in order to protect them from the danger?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you don't believe something is intrinsically wrong you can always find a reason to justify it, just like Hitler did. Do you think the would have exterminated 6,000,0000 people in death camps if he believed his actions were intrinsically wrong?

Your view is that my moral sensibilities are the same as Hitler's.

You keep mentioning Hitler and the Holocaust.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you don't believe something is intrinsically wrong you can always find a reason to justify it, just like Hitler did.

How can you possibly claim that instigating harm, deception or coercion is "intrinsically wrong" when there are clearly circumstances in which such actions are morally justifiable?

Originally posted by FMF
So, for example, you wouldn't be willing to lie to someone who posed a threat to your family and your children in order to protect them from the danger?

Sometimes people do bad things to save their families. That doesn't make the bad things good.