Yes, a mother´s love.
Murder is ignorance, is not wrong.
If its wrong, is wrong according to whom? Is not an idea you were born with.
What previous debate?
I good thanks. How about you?
The explanation of morality, ethics, and opinions.
- Thread starter Warrior61
- Start date
Yes, a mother´s love.
Murder is ignorance, is not wrong.
If its wrong, is wrong according to whom? Is not an idea you were born with.
What previous debate?
I good thanks. How about you?
I suppose it's plausible, depends how happy being selfless makes you. (That was the long-winded way of saying no). I think in general people wont do anything unless there is some perceivable benefit to themselves - even something seemingly small such as personal pleasure.
I am sure we can find conditions that would go about putting an end to that unconditional love, (finding your partner in bed with another man). I would openly declare that I love my kids unconditionally, but then would that remain the same if they one day killed their mother (eg)? I dunno.
From my perspective? No, I don't consider killing as wrong. Most people back in the day that enjoyed the activities in the colosseum didn't think so either and nor do most people nowadays when you kill someone in the name of war, (unless it's the enemy doing the killing).
I was just pointing out the difference between a lion killing another species and man killing his own. (As opposed to a lions killing other lions or man killing a cow).
P.S Doing good thanks, hope all is well with you.
I can agree selfishness plays a roll, but I think selflessness can also play a roll. Do they have to cross each other out?
How can someone who maliciously plans to murder someone for the sole purpose of taking pleasure in it not be wrong? Also I am just using murder as a medium to understand thoughts and views on morality and ethics. So is there any wrong that can be done?
Oh I understood and considered that before I posted it, but the person I am arguing with is not a Snakelord so I guess I can afford to be slack.
And yes I am doing fine thanks, and I will take it that you don't want to bring up our previous debate. Also how did that conflict with the school go?
Not sounding stupid, intentionally atleast, but we have now come to the conclusion that unconditional love is possible?
How can someone who maliciously plans to murder someone for the sole purpose of taking pleasure in it not be wrong? Also I am just using murder as a medium to understand thoughts and views on morality and ethics. So is there any wrong that can be done?
Oh I understood and considered that before I posted it, but the person I am arguing with is not a Snakelord so I guess I can afford to be slack.
And yes I am doing fine thanks, and I will take it that you don't want to bring up our previous debate. Also how did that conflict with the school go?
Not that I have ever seen, but I will not even begin to claim that I can talk for all 6 billion + people on the planet. The issue here is that the minute they show that they enjoy it, it can ultimately be considered selfish.
Army 'intelligence', (if I dare use both words together), go to great lengths to plan the death of countless others but we excuse it for various reasons. We can call war a big scale 'disagreement', but why do we then consider a small scale disagreement as 'wrong'? I wouldn't purposely go out of my way to kill someone for the sake of it, but if I found just cause to do so I wouldn't view it as ultimately 'wrong'. If someone raped my children for instance I would kill them without hesitation and would not consider that as immoral.
Indeed when it comes to paedophiles you'll hear most people saying they should be killed, (the worth of the legal system goes flat out the window).
I suppose the key difference people perceive between killing and murder is that murder is to take a life without just cause - but then there is always a cause, we just don't know it.
All due respect but I get involved in a lot of debates but rarely remember them once they're finished
What is moral or immoral is not cause but what constitutes that cause. What is the nature of that reason. Intentional and predatorial murder and not for defense I would consider immoral no matter how prevalent it is. Popularity doesn't equal morality.
As far as evil is concerned, it takes many forms from murder and on down the line. Vlad Dracul asked one of the clergy to take a look at the thousands he impaled. As they were looking out the window at the valley full of death he asked both of them if they considered his actions moral or immoral. Of course, the one who told him it was immoral suffered a cruel death while the one who told him he was right was given gold. I would consider this immoral on many levels. That monster was known to murder for pleasure and inflicting pain.
I don't recall his name but there was a doctor who was called to a southern town to address the type of scurvy that was so prevalent and plagueing their people. This was before the understanding of vitamins and it's specific function. He took a look at their diet and realized it was a lack of vegetables and fruit. As he altered their diet, it immediately dissapeared. He was ostracized and atrociously attacked for thier pride as they accused him of attacking southern food and thier way of life EVEN though the EVIDENCE of his study had proved to anyone who was honest he was right. It was obvious he wasn't even trying to be rude or be condescending to them but help them. Meaning they would rather ruin this man who tried to help them than admit the truth. I consider thier reaction also evil and immoral and not just excused to ignorance. Evil and immorality start in the heart and mind and expressed in many ways.
As far as evil is concerned, it takes many forms from murder and on down the line. Vlad Dracul asked one of the clergy to take a look at the thousands he impaled. As they were looking out the window at the valley full of death he asked both of them if they considered his actions moral or immoral. Of course, the one who told him it was immoral suffered a cruel death while the one who told him he was right was given gold. I would consider this immoral on many levels. That monster was known to murder for pleasure and inflicting pain.
I don't recall his name but there was a doctor who was called to a southern town to address the type of scurvy that was so prevalent and plagueing their people. This was before the understanding of vitamins and it's specific function. He took a look at their diet and realized it was a lack of vegetables and fruit. As he altered their diet, it immediately dissapeared. He was ostracized and atrociously attacked for thier pride as they accused him of attacking southern food and thier way of life EVEN though the EVIDENCE of his study had proved to anyone who was honest he was right. It was obvious he wasn't even trying to be rude or be condescending to them but help them. Meaning they would rather ruin this man who tried to help them than admit the truth. I consider thier reaction also evil and immoral and not just excused to ignorance. Evil and immorality start in the heart and mind and expressed in many ways.
Would rape be wrong then?
So rape is not always wrong? Or always has been?
In times past, the rape of the enemy women was a reward to the warriors who won the battles. So ...no, rape has not always been wrong.
Baron Max
Ok I am sorry any time a person forcefully has sex with another person against that person's will is ok?
Okay as judged by whom?
If by the rapist, then he probably sees it as just fine and dandy!
If the woman being raped is a true masochist, then she probably will get a big thrill out of it, and think it's just fine and dandy, too.
See? Right n' wrong n' moral n' immoral are all subjective terms ...there ain't no universal absolutes. To you, something might be wrong, but to someone else, it might be perfectly acceptable. And for someone like me, I mostly don't give a big rat's ass.
Baron Max