Quote:
|
Generally speaking I choose not to respond to posts of a personal nature, assuming they are not intentionally rude or malicious which I did not think yours to be.
|
This statement really makes no sense. You reply to people who insult you but not to those who describe you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
If you truly think there are no moral absolutes try this..........think of something you would really really not like to happen to you. I'd suggest being murdered in cold blood, for no reason whatsoever, as a good example. Now try to think up a rationalisation or reason as to why that would not be considered wrong. Try to convince yourself that someone else has the right to do that. Really try to convince yourself that if someone did that to you they would not have done something "wrong". Then, just to be fair, try to convince yourself of any sort of reason as to why you would have the right to do that to someone else and if you did do it, you would not have done something wrong.
If you can't truly convince yourself then you've found your first moral absolute. If you can, then you are the classic definition of a psychopath.
|
I love how you stack all the "Try to"'s in order to make your example seem more dramatic.
So, you aren't allowed to be "personal" but you are allowed to give silly dichotomies like this in order to force me to choose the former? Kudos.
Anyway, first off, don't be silly: "murder" isn't an act that can be established, unless someone freely confesses to it (and you're certain he/she isn't covering for a spouse/sibling/child etc.) The term is already loaded with preconceptions about the reason why someone did it. (ie. for no good/selfish reason)
"murder in cold blood" is a statement lawyers use to convince juries; it's not descriptive of anything, apart from an accusation as to the psychological state of the person who acted it out. Which is, again, an accusation society makes in order to chastise the killer, or an accusation one person in society makes to convince the rest of the irredeemability of that person. It is, in itself, not an argument.
Similarly, "murder is wrong" is also as redundant as can be, and when used as an argument, circular. "Murder" already means "wrongful killing". Luckily, however, there is a legal system that forces the accuser to prove that the accused indeed had the intention, rather than just ascribing it to someone and hanging them before they can respond.
Killing, on the other hand, is what you should be talking about. And "killing" is considered justifiable in so many scenarios. There's self-defense, there's just war, there's even "preemptive war", there's crimes of passion, etc. So yes, I can think of examples where
killing would be justified, without being one of those scary psychopaths.