The true defintion of the word liberty
- Thread starter aCultureWarrior
- Start date
That would depend on the nature of AcW's morality. Is he a moral deontologists? If so, he just committed a immoral act.
More specifics on your scenario please (what act would that be?). That being said: No matter what the consequences may be (the threat of death), we always have a choice when it comes to moral or immoral behavior.
Nope ... it's the logical conclusion. Also, I never agreed with your opinion in regards to what IS harmful and immoral.
No, I meant exactly what I said.
You are correct. I am not favoring absolute liberty.
The "but" threw me off. Thanks for clarifying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So now we're moving the topic from "Is it really liberty if you're enslaved to harmful and immoral behaviors?" to "What should be done with things that can be harmful, but aren't inherently immoral?" (food and alcohol consumption, tobacco use).
So you're for liberty with an * or not?
*If harm comes to another human being because of your actions then someone else (i.e. government through legislation) is allowed to restrict your choices?
Misery, disease, death.
So next we have to decide who writes the universal moral code: God or man.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So now we're moving the topic from "Is it really liberty if you're enslaved to harmful and immoral behaviors?" to "What should be done with things that can be harmful, but aren't inherently immoral?" (food and alcohol consumption, tobacco use).
So you're for liberty with an * or not?
*If harm comes to another human being because of your actions then someone else (i.e. government through legislation) is allowed to restrict your choices?
Misery, disease, death.
So next we have to decide who writes the universal moral code: God or man.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Totally agree. I like agreeing with you alot more than disagreeing, but sometimes you leave me no choice.
Ok, (for arguments sake) that if you are forced by violence or the threat of violence to actually not commit murder, then it stands that the reason you do not murder can no longer be considered a moral choice on your part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So next we have to decide who writes the universal moral code: God or man.
Man's laws change all of the time (abortion, pornography, homosexuality). Are you sure you want to stick with the laws of moral relativist man?
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So next we have to decide who writes the universal moral code: God or man.
Man's laws change all of the time (abortion, pornography, homosexuality). Are you sure you want to stick with the laws of moral relativist man?
You said it. They change all the time. Morality is relative.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Is it now? So there are times it's ok to murder a human being? Or rape a woman?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
That being said: No matter what the consequences may be (the threat of death), we always have a choice when it comes to moral or immoral behavior.
Sometimes those choices aren't easy, that's why we have to constantly seek His Wisdom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
More specifics on your scenario please (what act would that be?).
I would think that it would be the other way around (someone holding your family hostage, threatening to murder them if you don't do an immoral act).
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
That being said: No matter what the consequences may be (the threat of death), we always have a choice when it comes to moral or immoral behavior.
Sometimes those choices aren't easy, that's why we have to constantly seek His Wisdom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
More specifics on your scenario please (what act would that be?).
I would think that it would be the other way around (someone holding your family hostage, threatening to murder them if you don't do an immoral act).
Those are tautological ....the answers to each set by man.
So let's review the harm that moral relativism does (abortion: 58 million dead babies; homosexuality: rampant disease, misery and death; pornography: broken marriages, families destroyed).
Are you really really sure that you want to stick with man?
Again, your views a relative to the lens you see the world through.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Can you answer the question? Is it EVER ok to rape a woman?
drbrumley
Well-known member
:up:
That's fine, but doesn't go to the heart of it. Basically sir, what I am attempting here is that we have this now, a state forcing people not to murder, correct? That's the object and and meaning of law. Correct? So if you don't murder someone because the law says you can't or you will suffer the consequences, I say that is not a moral position. Is that agreeable to you or no?
Again, you're making a woeful attempt at establishing your point.
You're, in effect, saying that rape is wrong and the doing wrong is .....wrong. You're not in complete error here, its simply not establishing anything....beyond mere opinion.
Though the issue is not as simple as the extreme example you're attempting to prop your conclusion upon.
We could both agree that rape is indeed universally wrong....though we might disagree on less obvious moral situations .....say, abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia....etc.