Author: What the Bible really says about homosexuality

[OzmO]

Common sense says:  Harming a child is immoral and wrong.  Causing unwanted pain to the degree of abuse is wrong.

[avxo]

Regarding child abuse, common sense is my answer.  You don't accept it.  That's your prerogative. 

Same with murder of the elderly.  We're not talking about whether something is illegal.  Things that are illegal are not always immoral.  You say it's not immoral to murder the elderly.  I say it is.  My rationale is common sense.  That's all I got for you.  Take it or leave it.   

The problem is that "common sense" isn't really all that common, and what's worse, it can be used to defend anything. I'll show you: It's common sense that people who have mental handicaps that prevent them from being productive members of society will not be able to support themselves and will require assistance either from the state or from individuals. It's common sense that these people are burdens, even if those who carry them right now don't see them as such. It's, therefore, common sense, that those with mental handicaps not be allowed to be a burden on anyone. This necessitates euthanizing them. It's just plain common sense!

Now, you could have said that the abuse of children is immoral because the initiation of violence is inherently immoral. Similarly with the elderly you could have argued that the use of force to compel someone to act against their own judgement is inherently immoral.

But you didn't. You argued that "common sense" dictates this. And my point is that common sense is something that's very culture-dependent. Sure, in the western world we frown upon killing our teenage daughters for wearing mini-skirts or holding hands with a boy, and we consider it "common sense" that one doesn't do such a thing. But a few thousand miles away, and your common sense isn't all that common.

Perhaps common sense is good enough for you, but I'm pretty sure that you'd be the first to condemn the killing of a teenage girl who held hands with a boy. The bottom line is that "common sense" cannot be the basis of an immutable and universal morality.

Regarding the individual as the victim, it's not a specious argument to me.  I actually like it.     What's specious, IMO, is saying doing something "freely and without compulsion" isn't violating your conscience.  Most acts are done "freely and without compulsion," good, bad, or indifferent.  And they all have consequences that are good, bad, or indifferent.  If a person believes he should not engage in certain conduct as a matter of conscience, but "freely" engages in that conduct anyway, of course he's violating his own belief system.

A person who engages in certain conduct that he believes to be immoral without being compelled to do so is lying - either to himself or to you - because he doesn't believe. And you can't violate a moral/ethical code that you don't believe.

[avxo]

Common sense says:  Harming a child is immoral and wrong.  Causing unwanted pain to the degree of abuse is wrong.

Common sense cannot be the basis of morality. The common sense of Faleh Almaleki told him that he ought to kill his daughter to restore his honor, which is an act that I'm pretty sure you consider immoral. So why is your common sense right and his wrong?

Again, this isn't just arguing silly semantics. It goes to the core of how you define a consistent theory of morality and right and wrong. And yes, there is such a thing, but it's not based on common sense.

[Dos Equis]

Common sense says:  Harming a child is immoral and wrong.  Causing unwanted pain to the degree of abuse is wrong.

I agree.

[Dos Equis]

The problem is that "common sense" isn't really all that common, and what's worse, it can be used to defend anything. I'll show you: It's common sense that people who have mental handicaps that prevent them from being productive members of society will not be able to support themselves and will require assistance either from the state or from individuals. It's common sense that these people are burdens, even if those who carry them right now don't see them as such. It's, therefore, common sense, that those with mental handicaps not be allowed to be a burden on anyone. This necessitates euthanizing them. It's just plain common sense!

Now, you could have said that the abuse of children is immoral because the initiation of violence is inherently immoral. Similarly with the elderly you could have argued that the use of force to compel someone to act against their own judgement is inherently immoral.

But you didn't. You argued that "common sense" dictates this. And my point is that common sense is something that's very culture-dependent. Sure, in the western world we frown upon killing our teenage daughters for wearing mini-skirts or holding hands with a boy, and we consider it "common sense" that one doesn't do such a thing. But a few thousand miles away, and your common sense isn't all that common.

Perhaps common sense is good enough for you, but I'm pretty sure that you'd be the first to condemn the killing of a teenage girl who held hands with a boy. The bottom line is that "common sense" cannot be the basis of an immutable and universal morality.


A person who engages in certain conduct that he believes to be immoral without being compelled to do so is lying - either to himself or to you - because he doesn't believe. And you can't violate a moral/ethical code that you don't believe.

Regarding the murdering the disabled example:  that's not an example of common sense.  That's just friggin stupid. 

A person who engages in conduct they believe is immoral without being compelled to do so is human.  We do it all the time.    It's preposterous to say you don't believe in a set of values just because you violate them (unless you never adhere to them).  Anytime someone does something they know is wrong, whether that conduct harms others or only the individual, that person is violating their conscience.  That doesn't mean they don't have a conscience/moral or ethical code.   

Of course a person cannot

[avxo]

Regarding the murdering the disabled example:  that's not an example of common sense.  That's just friggin stupid.  

Why is it stupid? You can't argue by vigorous handwaving, which is what you've been doing.

A person who engages in conduct they believe is immoral without being compelled to do so is human.

No. Humans aren't immoral by nature. A person who engages in conduct he believes is immoral without being compelled is just an immoral person.

It's preposterous to say you don't believe in a set of values just because you violate them (unless you never adhere to them).  Anytime someone does something they know is wrong, whether that conduct harms others or only the individual, that person is violating their conscience.  That doesn't mean they don't have a conscience/moral or ethical code.    

Absent compulsion, if you sincerely believe something is immoral you do not do it. If you do do it, then either you don't believe your claim that it's immoral, so you are lying, or you actually believe it is immoral and are doing it anyways, making you an immoral person.

As for the violating your conscience stuff, again: you cannot "violate" your conscience, because the only way to do it is to do it willingly and with full knowledge of what it is you're doing. And that's not a violation.

[Dos Equis]

Why is it stupid? You can't argue by vigorous handwaving, which is what you've been doing.


No. Humans aren't immoral by nature. A person who engages in conduct he believes is immoral without being compelled is just an immoral person.


Absent compulsion, if you sincerely believe something is immoral you do not do it. If you do do it, then either you don't believe your claim that it's immoral, so you are lying, or you actually believe it is immoral and are doing it anyways, making you an immoral person.

As for the violating your conscience stuff, again: you cannot "violate" your conscience, because the only way to do it is to do it willingly and with full knowledge of what it is you're doing. And that's not a violation.

You're asking me why it's stupid to say that murdering disabled people is a matter of common sense?  I can't help you what that one, other than to say it's a ridiculous hypothetical.  If you want to discuss hypotheticals at least come up with one that's realistic, and isn't just plain idiotic.  And I can "argue" by "vigorous handwaving," sarcasm, ignoring, dismantling, point-by-point, ad hominem, or whatever method I choose to use.  The power of choice is a great thing.   

I didn't say humans are immoral by nature. 

A person who engages in conduct he believes is immoral is often just a person who makes a mistake.  And everyone makes mistakes. 

Absent compulsion, the only way you never make a mistake is if you're a robot or Jesus Christ.   

[OzmO]

Common sense cannot be the basis of morality. The common sense of Faleh Almaleki told him that he ought to kill his daughter to restore his honor, which is an act that I'm pretty sure you consider immoral. So why is your common sense right and his wrong?

Again, this isn't just arguing silly semantics. It goes to the core of how you define a consistent theory of morality and right and wrong. And yes, there is such a thing, but it's not based on common sense.

Common sense:  apply your act or desire to the victim principle.

Killing your daughter.... Does yur daughter want to die?  Does yur daughter want to be beaten to death?  Is your daughter in The right mind to make that decision?

[avxo]

You're asking me why it's stupid to say that murdering disabled people is a matter of common sense?  I can't help you what that one, other than to say it's a ridiculous hypothetical.  If you want to discuss hypotheticals at least come up with one that's realistic, and isn't just plain idiotic.

No, I'm asking you to state the actual moral principle that makes murdering disabled people immoral because "common sense" isn't a moral principle. I've even given you two examples of a moral principle that would make the killing of anyone an immoral act. Why you persist on this "common sense" nonsense is beyond me.

And I can "argue" by "vigorous handwaving," sarcasm, ignoring, dismantling, point-by-point, ad hominem, or whatever method I choose to use.  The power of choice is a great thing.   

No doubt. And you are, of course, free to choose to "argue" like a buffoon if you wish to do so, and there's nothing I can do to stop you. I'll just simply ignore you.

A person who engages in conduct he believes is immoral is often just a person who makes a mistake.  And everyone makes mistakes. 

That's certainly true. But also irrelevant in that it doesn't change the fact that someone can't, absent compulsion, violate their own conscience in doing something that goes against their moral code, which is the point I was making.

Absent compulsion, the only way you never make a mistake is if you're a robot or Jesus Christ.

That's a topic for another day...

[avxo]

Common sense:  apply your act or desire to the victim principle.

Killing your daughter.... Does yur daughter want to die?  Does yur daughter want to be beaten to death?  Is your daughter in The right mind to make that decision?

Right. Now we're getting somewhere! But it's not common sense that takes us there.

[OzmO]

Right. Now we're getting somewhere! But it's not common sense that takes us there.

Sure it is, because it's common sense that tells you your daughter doesn't want to die.   

[avxo]

Sure it is, because it's common sense that tells you your daughter doesn't want to die.

Common sense also tells someone else that she has sinned and shamed the family, and the only way to be cleansed is to kill her. You see the problem?

[Dos Equis]

No, I'm asking you to state the actual moral principle that makes murdering disabled people immoral because "common sense" isn't a moral principle. I've even given you two examples of a moral principle that would make the killing of anyone an immoral act. Why you persist on this "common sense" nonsense is beyond me.


No doubt. And you are, of course, free to choose to "argue" like a buffoon if you wish to do so, and there's nothing I can do to stop you. I'll just simply ignore you.


That's certainly true. But also irrelevant in that it doesn't change the fact that someone can't, absent compulsion, violate their own conscience in doing something that goes against their moral code, which is the point I was making.


That's a topic for another day...

You've given me two examples that don't make any dang sense. 

Yes, I can argue like a buffoon.  I can also argue like a pseduo-intellectual.  And feel free to ignore me anytime.  You won't hurt my feelings.   

[avxo]

You've given me two examples that don't make any dang sense. 

I think they make plenty of sense; pity you don't agree, as this is a genuinely interesting discussion.

Yes, I can argue like a buffoon.  I can also argue like a pseduo-intellectual.  And feel free to ignore me anytime.  You won't hurt my feelings.   

It hurts my feelings that I can't hurt your feelings I thought we had a thing... a connection...

[OzmO]

Common sense also tells someone else that she has sinned and shamed the family, and the only way to be cleansed is to kill her. You see the problem?

Not really because that's a cultural thing that doesn't take into account the victim principle just as man boy sex in ancient Greece. 

[avxo]

Not really because that's a cultural thing that doesn't take into account the victim principle just as man boy sex in ancient Greece.

Ah, so common sense doesn't help when there's "cultural things" involved? That doesn't make it very useful in defining a universal morality.

As for your victim principle, that has problems to, although they may not be immediately apparent. Let's assume that I genuinely believe that if I become overweight, I should be given 6 months to shape up or be killed. Does the victim principle mean I can go around giving fatsos ultimatums and cleansing the earth of flub?

[OzmO]

Ah, so common sense doesn't help when there's "cultural things" involved? That doesn't make it very useful in defining a universal morality.

It does beucase once applied to the victim principle it's easy. Such as your following scenario:

As for your victim principle, that has problems to, although they may not be immediately apparent. Let's assume that I genuinely believe that if I become overweight, I should be given 6 months to shape up or be killed. Does the victim principle mean I can go around giving fatsos ultimatums and cleansing the earth of flub?

It works perfectly here:  do the fatso's want to die?  Of course not...(common sense).....you killing them is immoral and wrong regardless of your own persinal morals and beleifs.  

So Either you are just trying to find holes in the principle (which i appreciate you playing the devls advocate in this) or you don't really understand it

I bet however, there are scenarios that would challenge it.

[avxo]

It does beucase once applied to the victim principle it's easy. Such as your following scenario:

It works perfectly here:  do the fatso's want to die?  Of course not...(common sense).....

No. Not common sense. If I were a fatso, I'd want to die, and it seems fairly common sense to me that someone who's hyper-obese would welcome the relief of death.

you killing them is immoral and wrong regardless of your own persinal morals and beleifs.

Right, but not because of common sense.

So Either you are just trying to find holes in the principle (which i appreciate you playing the devls advocate in this) or you don't really understand it

I think that my posts have made it pretty clear that I'm playing the devil's advocate.

[Man of Steel]

Setting aside any form of theism, what is morality?

No. Not common sense. If I were a fatso, I'd want to die, and it seems fairly common sense to me that someone who's hyper-obese would welcome the relief of death.


Right, but not because of common sense.


I think that my posts have made it pretty clear that I'm playing the devil's advocate.

Setting aside any form of theism, what is morality?  What purpose does it serve?

[avxo]

Setting aside any form of theism, what is morality?  What purpose does it serve?

Morality is a code of values to guide the choices and actions that we make and which determine the purpose and the course of our lives.

[Man of Steel]

Morality is a code of values to guide the choices and actions that we make and which determine the purpose and the course of our lives.

What is a code of values?  Or what makes up that code?  FYI ~ I'm just asking, not leading you anywhere.

[avxo]

What is a code of values?  Or what makes up that code?  FYI ~ I'm just asking, not leading you anywhere.

A code of values is a collection of principles upon one which bases his decisions.

[Man of Steel]

A code of values is a collection of principles upon one which bases his decisions.

Forgive me, so what then are examples of principles?  Is a collection of principles like a collection of behaviors with which to make decisions?  For example, if presented with say situation X then one should react to situation X based on that collection of behaviors/principles?  Again, just asking, not leading you anywhere.

[avxo]

Forgive me, so what then are examples of principles?  Is a collection of principles like a collection of behaviors with which to make decisions?  For example, if presented with say situation X then one should react to situation X based on that collection of behaviors/principles?  Again, just asking, not leading you anywhere.

That's correct. When faced with a decision, one examines one's principles, in order of importance, applies them to the situation and acts accordingly.

I'll give you an example: Let's assume you have a crowbar. It's your favorite crowbar, and you keep it mounted on the wall with a big "DO NOT TOUCH" sign on it. One of my principles is that stealing is wrong, which means that I would not take your crowbar down from the wall to open a box. But another of my principles is that human life is inherently valuable, so if I ever saw a small child in a burning car, and I needed a crowbar to save him, I wouldn't hesitate to take your crowbar from the wall to do so.

[Man of Steel]

That's correct. When faced with a decision, one examines one's principles, in order of importance, applies them to the situation and acts accordingly.

I'll give you an example: Let's assume you have a crowbar. It's your favorite crowbar, and you keep it mounted on the wall with a big "DO NOT TOUCH" sign on it. One of my principles is that stealing is wrong, which means that I would not take your crowbar down from the wall to open a box. But another of my principles is that human life is inherently valuable, so if I ever saw a small child in a burning car, and I needed a crowbar to save him, I wouldn't hesitate to take your crowbar from the wall to do so.

Ok, I follow your example.  That said, what determines the order of importance of the principles themselves.   I assume the order is a ranking of sorts....greatest to least or worst to best....something like that?