On the contrary I AM using arbitrary in the sense that Jazzns says is correct. It does not necessarily mean whimsical however it does mean with little or no relevant reason. Thus some traffic laws arbitrarily include a requirement to drive on the right rather than the left (or the other way around).
If it was arbitrary, you would drive on the road drifting from left to right or down the center. There would be no pattern at all. The fact that the law specifies that you must drive down a specific path to keep the safety of all drivers means that it was deliberately chosen.
you assert that it is impossible to have such reasons that would permit homosexuality but ban bestiality. You deny that this is based on equating the acts. It appears not to be based on knowing that both are banned for the same good reason because otherwise you could discuss that reason without bring bestiality into it. Thus I conclude that the only position that makes sense is that you do not believe that there IS a good reason for banning either. You position is based on the assumption that both are arbitrary commands with no reason.
No, you have it all backwards. I am saying, and Modulous has clarified, that if there is no good reason to consider homosexuality immoral, then there is no good reason to think that beastiality, pedophilia, incest is immoral by the same relativistic reasoning. Whether my argument is only that God has concluded it, or that nature abhors the unnatural, or any other derivative of the argument, I am curious to know your reasoning on why homosexuality is okay, but the others are not. Because you seem to have no reason, whatsoever, to come to the conclusions you've made.
quote:
A man butchers your four year old daughter, i.e. he murdered her. Is what he has done right or wrong? Are there any circumstances to where this man would actually be in the right?
I've already told you. If it's murder it is wrong by definition - because the term murder assumes that we have already judged it to be wrongful.
Exactly my point! I'm not asking you to decipher what constitutes murder, I'm asking you if murder is absolutely wrong, or absolutely right.
Now we're getting somewhere.
As for a more general view of your example what is it supposed to prove ?
That you cannot hold fast to your position without contradicting yourself. Relative morality is irreconcilable with something of this magnitude. Its forced to cancel itself out.
The proof is how a plethora of posters have either manipulated the argument and skewed my very, very simple question, or they are adding extraneous elements are circumstances that are completely irrelevant to the simplistic question. In either case, they are avoiding the question. That much is painfully clear with all of this waffling.
The fact is that when we call a killing murder we mean that we have judged it to be wrongful. And that's all.
But the absolute is that MURDER is ALWAYS wrong, right???? So if its always wrong, then its absolutely wrong. How you arrive to the conclusion of how an incident is considered murder is the relative portion. That's the relativity of it. However, I am asking you if murder is wrong.
Edited by AdminNem, : Realized that post was selected for AdminNem, and now its locking me out of my regular user mode
Thou shalt not have any other Mods before Me
™ Version 4.2
