Is purposeless torture moral?

What is moral?Before I could attempt to address your question, I would have to understand what it is you're asking. In context to your question, what moral theory are you subscribing too?

Your moral system begins with a blog post about conservatism vs librals? I think I may have found your first problem.This is no way describes a moral system, please try again. Nobody is trying to "rewrite the dictionary definition of words". If 1, how does one determine the rules of right conduct?
If 2, how does one determine the moral quality of a character?
If 3, how does one determine what is virtous in regards to sexual matters?
If 4, which doctrine or system of morals are you refering too?
Finally, if 5, which moral instructions are you refering too?I'll simplify the matter. How, in context to your paradigm, do you determine what is morally good vs what is morally bad?

I understand the "moral tenets" in the clip just fine, perhaps you should rewatch the clip yourself. Several points made in the clip bring up the issue that not everybody has the same perspective on morality.The same issue I am addressing to you.In the interest of discussion and in being intellectually honest, I will ask once again.How, in your paradigm, does one determine what is good and what is evil? An argument from authority and a weak one at that. It is one question, one that is necessary to answer your question without assumptions. Why do you refuse t answer it?

So, in your idea of morality, all it takes for something to be morally good is this subjective criteria.If that's the case, all it should take for a given scenario involving torture to be moral is the perspective that the torture is fair and/or deserved by any other criteria that one is willing to apply to themselves.Using the example of hell;
A christian, whos religous ideals leads them to accept the idea of hell (in this case, hell means eternal torture) as a morally acceptable punishment for whatever their particular doctrine says is acceptable for this punishment (regardless of if you or anyone else agrees).From their perspective, hell is a moral punishment.

Not according to your framework.You provided the mechanism to determine what was morally good from morally bad, all I did was apply your mechanism to a given scenario. So..Either, my reasoning was flawed (in which case I invite you to show me where and how).or..Your mechanism is flawed. Relivance? Can you demonstrate this to be necessarily true? Are you so sure about that? Do you speak on behalf of all human laws? What standard, where? Actually, first you must establish what criteria makes something morally good or morally evil, then you make a determination based on that criteria. According to your moral paradigm, yes, it can be. My views on the matter are irrelivent, were discussing your views. Do you wish to stick to the Code of Hammurabi, or are you ready to try another approach to your views on morality?

The one deflecting is you.
Once again, this was your scenario and your moral paradigm, all I have done is applied one to the other and shown you how the result doesn't add up to your claims. Can you demonstrate where my reasoning is flawed?If you cannot and cannot come up with a better moral framework, then this topic becomes nothing more then one big argumentum ad ignorantiam.I have not answered your questions because they were a weak attempt to not address the issue that was raised and to deflect the bourdon of proof onto myself. Stones and glass houses and such...Oh, and you didn't allude to anyone, you quite clearly called attention to the Christians from your previous post directly. You still haven't addressed how that was relevent, or any of the questions and objections I've called to your attention.Let's not turn this into a game of chess with a pigeon, shall we?

Not to interject, but I've always understood the nature of law to pertain to the culture's ethics predominantly, I've not really considered morality much of a factor.Do you by any chance know of a good reference on the topic? I admit, I'm fairly ignorant on the nature of law and I would be interested in educating myself.

Actually, I haven't rejected your moral framework, I recomend you go back and reread what was posted.We're not discussing MY moral system. We're discussing YOUR moral system that YOU provided, so asking my questions about MY morality is completely irrelevant. Were you expecting me to answer from the perspective of your moral framework?Let's review; Now, where is the flaw in this reasoning?

I didn't ask you where your morality came from, I asked how do you determine what is morally good from what is morally evil. So you are being dishonest...
I asked you a direct question, and you responded with a disingenuous answer. Why? Let's try this yet again...How do you determine what is morally good from what is morally evil?If that question is too difficult to begin with, try this one;
What about torture is morally evil/not good?

We just went over this...As NoNukes kindly pointed out, this answer is insufficient. You even testified to this effect when you made the claim that this was only a starting point. How did you put it to Ringo?
Get better or get lost.