Well now you're trying to discuss a just war. War will always result in civilian deaths. The question is: are we honestly trying to kill civilians?
I disagree with this war, but I support our methods in WWII and we killed many civilians in that war. The guilt of those civilians is debatable, I admit, but we were also saving innocent lives by ending the war.
So even though you view killing as wrong...you saw a gray area given particular circumstances in WWII?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
a pretty "gray" response....I thought this was about "absolutes"...and you said "killing innocent people can never be justified" but then you justify the killing of innocents...
this shit is confusing...
jinx
great minds they say.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
advance-1 : to accelerate the growth or progress of <advance a cause>
2 : to bring or move forward <advance a pawn>
3 : to raise to a higher rank
(from http://www.m-w.com)
Which I would contend we do not have a choice of doing any of the above with our species as a whole, otherwise we would have done so already, no?
(wow history applied to the present it sometimes does work)
this is the word I think you misunderstood
same-1 a : resembling in every relevant respect b : conforming in every respect -- used with as
2 a : being one without addition, change, or discontinuance : IDENTICAL b : being the one under discussion or already referred to
3 : corresponding so closely as to be indistinguishable
4 : equal in size, shape, value, or importance -- usually used with the or a demonstrative (as that, those) in all senses
(also from http://www.m-w.com)
This is the toughest thing for idealists and progressives to swallow. Caveman and WallStreetman are still the same man.
Hope that helps.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
a pretty "gray" response....I thought this was about "absolutes"...and you said "killing innocent people can never be justified" but then you justify the killing of innocents...
this shit is confusing...
It depends on how you define murder. Would you refer to the revolutionary war as murder? I wouldn't.
Killing innocent people is murder, but war does not count because just wars should be fought to defend innocent people.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
"Value pluralism (also known as ethical pluralism or moral pluralism) is the idea that there are several values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other."
I haven't said that once so I'm not sure where you're getting that neat buzz word. Maybe you heard it from one of your beanie-wearing pals at Starbucks.
I never said you said it. Nor did I ever say I frequent Starbucks. You said that moral relativism and moral objectivism cannot co-exist. I disagreed and pointed to moral pluralism. Seems you got your post from Wikipedia, so I'll expand:
"Value-pluralism is an alternative to both moral relativism and moral absolutism (which Berlin called monism). An example of value-pluralism is the idea that the moral life of a nun is incompatible with that of a mother, yet there is no purely rational measure of which is preferable."
I've said that moral relativism cannot exist if moral objectivism is true. Moral objectivism is true. Therefore, moral relativism cannot exist.
If any morally objective statement is true, then moral relativism fails. Moral relativism is never the correct way to find the answer to a moral problem. It assumes that morality changes with time and attitudes, but it does not. It remains the same. We are the ones trying to discern it. We are changing, becoming closer to the correct moral outlook with time. Human rights are more important today than they were 1000 years ago. That is a drift toward right moral thinking, based on the dignity of human life.
As for murder vs. killing, I'm not sure where to begin.
Murder is wrong by definition - killing innocent people can never be justified. Killing can be justified if it is in defense of innocent life.
So those who flew bombers over German cities during WWII, killing many thousands of innocent lives, should've been tried and punished for immoral criminal acts the same as Jeffrey Dauhmer? Or is it possible that the morality surrounding killing is relative to the situation? Or was it simply wrong to go to war with Germany?
You'd be surprised how morally relative you are when you really think about it. Some things are absolute, sure - but not everything.
advance-1 : to accelerate the growth or progress of <advance a cause>
2 : to bring or move forward <advance a pawn>
3 : to raise to a higher rank
(from http://www.m-w.com)
Which I would contend we do not have a choice of doing any of the above with our species as a whole, otherwise we would have done so already, no?
(wow history applied to the present it sometimes does work)
this is the word I think you misunderstood
same-1 a : resembling in every relevant respect b : conforming in every respect -- used with as
2 a : being one without addition, change, or discontinuance : IDENTICAL b : being the one under discussion or already referred to
3 : corresponding so closely as to be indistinguishable
4 : equal in size, shape, value, or importance -- usually used with the or a demonstrative (as that, those) in all senses
(also from http://www.m-w.com)
This is the toughest thing for idealists and progressives to swallow. Caveman and WallStreetman are still the same man.
Hope that helps.
it doesn't....
psst...in case you didn't know, the caveman on the Geico commercials aren't real...
advance-1 : to accelerate the growth or progress of <advance a cause>
2 : to bring or move forward <advance a pawn>
3 : to raise to a higher rank
(from http://www.m-w.com)
Which I would contend we do not have a choice of doing any of the above with our species as a whole, otherwise we would have done so already, no?
(wow history applied to the present it sometimes does work)
this is the word I think you misunderstood
same-1 a : resembling in every relevant respect b : conforming in every respect -- used with as
2 a : being one without addition, change, or discontinuance : IDENTICAL b : being the one under discussion or already referred to
3 : corresponding so closely as to be indistinguishable
4 : equal in size, shape, value, or importance -- usually used with the or a demonstrative (as that, those) in all senses
(also from http://www.m-w.com)
This is the toughest thing for idealists and progressives to swallow. Caveman and WallStreetman are still the same man.
Hope that helps.
It really doesn't help because it's a black and white view. You're ruling out all circumstances that have changed throughout the years such as our intelligence levels, health, life expectancy, technology, morality, values...all of these have changed who we are as a species and have also changed how we view life and make our decisions.
We don't have gun fights in the streets because society has advanced past that time and it is no longer acceptable. You can use this with so many examples...
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It really doesn't help because it's a black and white view. You're ruling out all circumstances that have changed throughout the years such as our intelligence levels, health, life expectancy, technology, morality, values...all of these have changed who we are as a species and have also changed how we view life and make our decisions.
We don't have gun fights in the streets because society has advanced past that time and it is no longer acceptable. You can use this with so many examples...
wait a minute...perhaps he/she is on to something...
I'm going to wear a loincloth to work tomorrow...I may or may not bring my spear....
psst...in case you didn't know, the caveman on the Geico commercials aren't real...
Wow thanks I really learned something here today. Hooray!! The human species has taken a huge leap forward. Maybe next we can cure cancer or any of the other hunderds of diseases that currently afflict our species.
p.s.- just to clarify if we had a machine to go back modern human could reproduce successfully with cro-magnon, which technically means we are still the same species.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
wait a minute...perhaps he/she is on to something...
I'm going to wear a loincloth to work tomorrow...I may or may not bring my spear....
Perhaps if you're hungry you can spear some dog in your neighborhood for breakfast? Then once you get home you can club your girlfriend over the head and drag her to the bedroom!
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Wow thanks I really learned something here today. Hooray!! The human species has taken a huge leap forward. Maybe next we can cure cancer or any of the other hunderds of diseases that currently afflict our species.
p.s.- just to clarify if we had a machine to go back modern human could reproduce successfully with cro-magnon, which technically means we are still the same species.
so you say...
let me guess, you still live in a cave...do you use a wheel yet?
Perhaps if your hungry you can spear some dog in your neighborhood for breakfast? Then once you get home you can club your girlfriend over the head and drag her to the bedroom!
You've lost me in your incredibly intelligent deductive reasoning.
You've yet to prove to me that moral relativism is false - other than saying "moral relativism is false" while later revealing your penchant for moral relativism.
You've yet to prove to me that moral relativism is false - other than saying "moral relativism is false" while later revealing your penchant for moral relativism.
I've said it repeatedly. I guess you haven't been listening/comprehending.
You've obviously never studied moral relativism...not even for a moment.
"Ethical relativism, then, is a radical doctrine that is contrary to what many thoughtful people commonly assume. As such, it should not be confused with the uncontroversial thought that what is right depends on the circumstances. Everyone, absolutists and relativists alike, agrees that circumstances make a difference. Whether it is morally permissible to enter a house, for example, depends on whether one is the owner, a guest, or a burglar. Nor is ethical relativism merely the idea that different people have different beliefs about ethics, which again no one would deny. It is, rather, a theory about the status of moral beliefs, according to which none of them is objectively true. A consequence of the theory is that there is no way to justify any moral principle as valid for all people and all societies."
I've said it repeatedly. I guess you haven't been listening/comprehending.
You've obviously never studied moral relativism...not even for a moment.
"Ethical relativism, then, is a radical doctrine that is contrary to what many thoughtful people commonly assume. As such, it should not be confused with the uncontroversial thought that what is right depends on the circumstances. Everyone, absolutists and relativists alike, agrees that circumstances make a difference. Whether it is morally permissible to enter a house, for example, depends on whether one is the owner, a guest, or a burglar. Nor is ethical relativism merely the idea that different people have different beliefs about ethics, which again no one would deny. It is, rather, a theory about the status of moral beliefs, according to which none of them is objectively true. A consequence of the theory is that there is no way to justify any moral principle as valid for all people and all societies."
We believe that there is a way to justify moral principles for all people and all societies. There are universal truths.
Educate yourself. You've got some work to do on that front.
And I don't believe that, so there you go. Neither do I believe there are no universal truths. Which goes back to the killing question. Killing innocents is wrong, except when it isn't. Now, what about invading a country when one hasn't first been threatened by that country? The "ends justify the means" comment I made earlier. I would call that wrong. So what am I? Pluralistic, I suppose.
Forget about it. You've long since decided against discussing this without taking on a dickish tone. So I suppose we've gotten to the point where we just hurl insults at each other. You wanna go first, Whore?
Comments
So even though you view killing as wrong...you saw a gray area given particular circumstances in WWII?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You don't believe in evolution??
LOL
-Enoch Powell
jinx
great minds they say.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
advance-1 : to accelerate the growth or progress of <advance a cause>
2 : to bring or move forward <advance a pawn>
3 : to raise to a higher rank
(from http://www.m-w.com)
Which I would contend we do not have a choice of doing any of the above with our species as a whole, otherwise we would have done so already, no?
(wow history applied to the present it sometimes does work)
this is the word I think you misunderstood
same-1 a : resembling in every relevant respect b : conforming in every respect -- used with as
2 a : being one without addition, change, or discontinuance : IDENTICAL b : being the one under discussion or already referred to
3 : corresponding so closely as to be indistinguishable
4 : equal in size, shape, value, or importance -- usually used with the or a demonstrative (as that, those) in all senses
(also from http://www.m-w.com)
This is the toughest thing for idealists and progressives to swallow. Caveman and WallStreetman are still the same man.
Hope that helps.
— Socrates
It depends on how you define murder. Would you refer to the revolutionary war as murder? I wouldn't.
Killing innocent people is murder, but war does not count because just wars should be fought to defend innocent people.
-Enoch Powell
I've been talking about evolution throughout this whole thread. I meant it in the context of our existance as 'humans'.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
"Value-pluralism is an alternative to both moral relativism and moral absolutism (which Berlin called monism). An example of value-pluralism is the idea that the moral life of a nun is incompatible with that of a mother, yet there is no purely rational measure of which is preferable."
So those who flew bombers over German cities during WWII, killing many thousands of innocent lives, should've been tried and punished for immoral criminal acts the same as Jeffrey Dauhmer? Or is it possible that the morality surrounding killing is relative to the situation? Or was it simply wrong to go to war with Germany?
You'd be surprised how morally relative you are when you really think about it. Some things are absolute, sure - but not everything.
it doesn't....
psst...in case you didn't know, the caveman on the Geico commercials aren't real...
so a solider in a war can open fire on anyone at any time, simply because they are "at war"....?
right...?
Hey, CorporateWhore. Isn't "the ends justify the means" rather morally relative?
do I buy you a Coke or do you by me a Coke...
I forget the absolute on that one...:D
It really doesn't help because it's a black and white view. You're ruling out all circumstances that have changed throughout the years such as our intelligence levels, health, life expectancy, technology, morality, values...all of these have changed who we are as a species and have also changed how we view life and make our decisions.
We don't have gun fights in the streets because society has advanced past that time and it is no longer acceptable. You can use this with so many examples...
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I guess I owe you...you were first. I'll make that another drink of your choosing though. I don't buy Coke.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Too funny!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
DEAL!!!
wait a minute...perhaps he/she is on to something...
I'm going to wear a loincloth to work tomorrow...I may or may not bring my spear....
Wow thanks I really learned something here today. Hooray!! The human species has taken a huge leap forward. Maybe next we can cure cancer or any of the other hunderds of diseases that currently afflict our species.
p.s.- just to clarify if we had a machine to go back modern human could reproduce successfully with cro-magnon, which technically means we are still the same species.
— Socrates
Perhaps if you're hungry you can spear some dog in your neighborhood for breakfast?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
so you say...
let me guess, you still live in a cave...do you use a wheel yet?
I find dog to be a bit gamey...
as for the second part...Hmmmmmm...:D
I never said everything is absolute. I just said moral relativism is false.
-Enoch Powell
?
You've lost me in your incredibly intelligent deductive reasoning.
-Enoch Powell
What an idiot.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
He's a PhD Classics professor.
-Enoch Powell
And? I'm sure there are plenty of highly regarded professors you would call idiots. The title alone means nothing in this.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I can read.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I've said it repeatedly. I guess you haven't been listening/comprehending.
You've obviously never studied moral relativism...not even for a moment.
"Ethical relativism, then, is a radical doctrine that is contrary to what many thoughtful people commonly assume. As such, it should not be confused with the uncontroversial thought that what is right depends on the circumstances. Everyone, absolutists and relativists alike, agrees that circumstances make a difference. Whether it is morally permissible to enter a house, for example, depends on whether one is the owner, a guest, or a burglar. Nor is ethical relativism merely the idea that different people have different beliefs about ethics, which again no one would deny. It is, rather, a theory about the status of moral beliefs, according to which none of them is objectively true. A consequence of the theory is that there is no way to justify any moral principle as valid for all people and all societies."
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-242045
We believe that there is a way to justify moral principles for all people and all societies. There are universal truths.
Educate yourself. You've got some work to do on that front.
-Enoch Powell
Forget about it. You've long since decided against discussing this without taking on a dickish tone. So I suppose we've gotten to the point where we just hurl insults at each other. You wanna go first, Whore?