Stripped

[DamascusSteel]

[Corey]

[starvingeyes]

[Corey]

[mosaik]

I do believe that there is absolute morality. It is a function of the conituned application of reasonable thoughts. when you look at a situation that has moral value, one side must be right and the other must be wrong. they cannot both be wrong - that is a contradiction. according to reason, contradictions do not exist.

as you and i have already agreed, perception does not change objective fact. therefore, if objective morals do exist as i maintain, then it does not matter if society accepts them or not. all that matters is that they are objective morals, and absolute. if you refuse to think of morality in terms of logic and reason, then i cannot prove to you that objective morals exist. Those who deny reason cannot be conquered by it.

according to the principle of rational self interest, taking a knife and stabbing your child while he slept would be a moral wrong. in this example, you had the might to stab your child, but you were wrong. might does not equal right.

why not? because when you iniate force you suspend choice, and quit functioning on a rational level. the thing that seperates man from lesser animals is his ability to use reason and rational thought. when you suspend your rational thinking mind, you suspend what makes you human.

are lesser animals in the position men are in? no. why not? they cannot reason. when you do not apply reason to your life, you cannot use it to it's full potential.

i do not need to force my morals upon anyone. in exchange i only ask that they not force theirs upon me and respect my right to life. should someone interfere in that, they are sacrifing their rights and therefore i would have no problem ending their life, or at least putting a stop to their violation of my rights. to quote "mad dog" [great libertarian forum poster... lol]

"any encroachment on my liberty is punishable by death"

the list from heaven you want comes from man's rational mind. i only ask that you obey the thing that makes you a man in all circumstances and apply reason to your life. this is how objective, absolute morality is found.

once again, if you deny your capacity to reason then i cannot prove anything to you. it would be like a bird trying to teach a fish to fly.

[starvingeyes]

there is no degree in wrongness. however, what i said was not that there was, merely that we are not bound to punish a theif and killer the same way.

principle of compensation.

[DamascusSteel]

[DamascusSteel]

[starvingeyes]

[DamascusSteel]

[starvingeyes]

[mosaik]

the color of a car has no moral value. and yes, black is a cool color. my car is black.


killing someone can be right if it is done in self defense. logically prove murder is right, if you please.

people are to act in their own best interests, but it is not in anyone's best interest to use force in a fashion that is unprovoked.

yes, law enforcement is in many cases wrong. the only laws worth enforcing are the ones against murder and other acts of violence, and theft. the others are BS. in all acts of violence, or in theft, the use of force or the threat of force must be present. therefore, enforcing a law against murder is not morally wrong, according to reason and objective law.

"animals do reason" is nit picking. do you mean to tell me that a dolphins capacity for logical/rational/reasonable thought is equal to mine?

if you decide to attempt to kill me, you are acting irrationaly and therefore, i do not morally have to tolerate your action. instead, i am morally obligated to prevent it. by any means neccessary.

once again, rational morals are not different for everyone. they are the same. act in a rational mannor - if you do this, you are acting morally. act irrationally, and you are not. period. if your morals are rational, then they will never involve my death unless i tried to kill you or steal from you.

no, you do not reason, not when argue for the existence of a contradiction. if a man is murdered, a reasonable person will find that the murderer is morally wrong. he cannot be wrong to him, but right to you, for that would make him two things that are opposite the same thing at the same time. that is a contradiction. Earlier i posted an Ayn Rand quote regarding contradictions. There are no contradictions. if you find yourself facing one, check your premises, and you will find that one is wrong.

One side IS wrong, according to reasonable thought. You say that both sides can be objectively right. Remember that an action that has moral value must be either morally right or morally wrong. If you find yourself in a situation where there are two sides, each on the opposite end of an action that has moral value [ie a robbery where one side is the theif and the other the victim] and you find both sides to be right [as a subjectivist, your only definition of right and wrong is the opinion of each side] then you are not using reason.

therefore, subjective morality is unreasonable. you believe in subjective morality. how can you be reasonable?

[Brooklin Matt]

[Brooklin Matt]

[Narbus]

[Narbus]

[Narbus]

[Narbus]

[Narbus]

[Narbus]