Wait, are you telling me that by doing the morally right thing, it can result in an immoral thing?
No. I'm telling you the opposite. Doing an immoral thing cannot result in a moral thing.
Regardless of how you want to slice the abortion issue, it is not your "moral obligation" to deny the free choices of potential mothers. Those choices cannot harm you and you have no say in them. That is unless you want them making your choices for you.
You are right to search for an non-contradictory, objective morality. It does exist. However, it exists in the free will of people, not in the subjective definitions of life they hold.
No. I'm telling you the opposite. Doing an immoral thing cannot result in a moral thing.
Regardless of how you want to slice the abortion issue, it is not your "moral obligation" to deny the free choices of potential mothers. Those choices cannot harm you and you have no say in them. That is unless you want them making your choices for you.
You are right to search for an non-contradictory, objective morality. It does exist. However, it exists in the free will of people, not in the subjective definitions of life they hold.
I'm glad we agree that there is objective morality.
I have trouble believing that subjective definitions of life cannot be morally true. I think that my subjective view that eating humans is immoral is morally true. Isn't it possible that it could be?
The free will of the people is most certainly not where objective morality exists, my friend. Democracy is not inherently morally righteous. The people can allow slavery to exist, as you know.
I think that moral truth lies solely in the divine creator.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
I'm glad we agree that there is objective morality.
Me too.
I have trouble believing that subjective definitions of life cannot be morally true.
They can be. They can also be untrue, depending on what that definition of life is.
I think that my subjective view that eating humans is immoral is morally true. Isn't it possible that it could be?
Yes.
The free will of the people is most certainly not where objective morality exists, my friend. Democracy is not inherently morally righteous. The people can allow slavery to exist, as you know.
I never said democracy is inherently morally righteous. Typically, it is not. When I say "the people", I don't mean some pathetic collective, I mean each individual among them.
I think that moral truth lies solely in the divine creator.
Yikes. Where does this "divine creator" fit into your objective beliefs?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
They can be. They can also be untrue, depending on what that definition of life is.
Yes.
I never said democracy is inherently morally righteous. Typically, it is not. When I say "the people", I don't mean some pathetic collective, I mean each individual among them.
Yikes. Where does this "divine creator" fit into your objective beliefs?
I worry that each individual is not perfect and they will most certainly make immoral decisions that could possibly premature end the life of another person: a fetus for example.
In my view, as well as that of Saint Thomas Aquinas, faith and reason are linked inseparably. Reason eventually leads one to faith in the divine. This is better known as Thomism.
I worry that each individual is not perfect and they will most certainly make immoral decisions that could possibly premature end the life of another person: a fetus for example.
In my view, as well as that of Saint Thomas Aquinas, faith and reason are linked inseparably. Reason eventually leads one to faith in the divine. This is better known as Thomism.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I worry that each individual is not perfect and they will most certainly make immoral decisions that could possibly premature end the life of another person: a fetus for example.
In my view, as well as that of Saint Thomas Aquinas, faith and reason are linked inseparably. Reason eventually leads one to faith in the divine. This is better known as Thomism.
I worry that each individual is not perfect and they will most certainly make immoral decisions that could possibly premature end the life of another person: a fetus for example.
Why do you worry about that? My next abortion cannot kill you. Furthermore, the logic above would suggest that I have a moral obligation to "potential". By that logic, I should just spend all of my time mating in order to produce as much life as possible. Tell me, how many children do you have?
In my view, as well as that of Saint Thomas Aquinas, faith and reason are linked inseparably. Reason eventually leads one to faith in the divine. This is better known as Thomism.
This is better know as blind-faith. Better known in your more urban areas as 'stupidity'.
I don't think it's stupid, but it's certainly not genius.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
No. I'm telling you the opposite. Doing an immoral thing cannot result in a moral thing.
Regardless of how you want to slice the abortion issue, it is not your "moral obligation" to deny the free choices of potential mothers. Those choices cannot harm you and you have no say in them. That is unless you want them making your choices for you.
You are right to search for an non-contradictory, objective morality. It does exist. However, it exists in the free will of people, not in the subjective definitions of life they hold.
I'm glad we agree that there is objective morality.
I have trouble believing that subjective definitions of life cannot be morally true. I think that my subjective view that eating humans is immoral is morally true. Isn't it possible that it could be?
The free will of the people is most certainly not where objective morality exists, my friend. Democracy is not inherently morally righteous. The people can allow slavery to exist, as you know.
I think that moral truth lies solely in the divine creator.
-Enoch Powell
Um, the problem is that morality IS subjective.
Me too.
They can be. They can also be untrue, depending on what that definition of life is.
Yes.
I never said democracy is inherently morally righteous. Typically, it is not. When I say "the people", I don't mean some pathetic collective, I mean each individual among them.
Yikes. Where does this "divine creator" fit into your objective beliefs?
Then why do you imprison murderers?
Neither is abortion.
Hehe...neither is baking. Why don't you imprison bakers?
Um, ok.
I worry that each individual is not perfect and they will most certainly make immoral decisions that could possibly premature end the life of another person: a fetus for example.
In my view, as well as that of Saint Thomas Aquinas, faith and reason are linked inseparably. Reason eventually leads one to faith in the divine. This is better known as Thomism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_objectivism#The_divine_and_reason
-Enoch Powell
wow, I totally disagree with that.
This is better know as blind-faith. Better known in your more urban areas as 'stupidity'.
Haha, Thomas Aquinas was stupid?? Hmmmm...I don't think even his biggest detractors say that!
-Enoch Powell
Why do you worry about that? My next abortion cannot kill you. Furthermore, the logic above would suggest that I have a moral obligation to "potential". By that logic, I should just spend all of my time mating in order to produce as much life as possible. Tell me, how many children do you have?
Reason also led me to faith -- a faith in Satan. Satan tells me to burn things. Glad to hear that I'm objectively justified in doing so.
I don't think it's stupid, but it's certainly not genius.
Well what do YOU think? Using others' beliefs to argue your beliefs sucks. I stand on what I said.
I don't think you would know anything if you didn't rely on others' ideas. What's 1+1? Someone taught you that.
-Enoch Powell
It's called forming your opinion based on what you are taught--not reciting it. HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES!!!!
Hahahaha.
You're so right.
-Enoch Powell