Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 9177965" data-attributes="member: 2525">No I think we're both morally just. I think you're just exaggerating for effect on the Internet for the purposes of a debate and know darn well burning someone alive is the morally worse choice.The scenario was using a spell to make them forget they saw you and turn back - rather than fireball them to death. That's saving their lives with the spell.No not correct and good, where is that weird absolute coming from? It's not as evil to rob someone and not harm them, than it is to rob someone and also murder them. This is not a difficult ethical choice here.I doubt the bank teller thinks whether they are murdered or not is splitting hairs. It's absurd to say the difference between the person living or dying is inconsequential hair splitting. Again, if I didn't think you were doing this for the purposes of an argument on the internet, someone who actually seemed to believe that was a hair splitting scenario would, yeah, be having difficulty understanding the difference between right and wrong. But I feel pretty confident you know the difference and are just playing games here with this argument.Who said or implied "the high point of morality." That's not just an ordinary strawman it's a giant Godzilla sized strawman. That's a pretty disingenuous take on this. If you don't want to have the discussion and just figured I'd walk away if you behaved that way, maybe try just saying you're done with the conversation rather than resort to that?Well the rest of friggen humanity does in fact see meaningful differences between theft and murder, for instance. Things are not generally either "good" or "bad." They usually are somewhere on a line with one end of the line being the worst possible bad and the other end being the best possible good. Speeding 10 mph over the speed limit on the freeway is bad, but not very far down the line toward bad. Stealing a can of soda from a store is closer to the bad end than the good end than the speeding example. Murder is well further down that line towards the bad end than the good end, than stealing. And while not all morality is universal, THAT morality is pretty darn universal in all nations. Every non-psychopathic person understands murder is a worse bad than stealing a can of soda, as a generalization.Yeah that's no sense of pride in that. Any child could answer that level of morality question just as easily.It's why I never used the term "killing" but instead used the term "murder."It was a D&D example. Mind controlled the NPCs coming our way to forget they saw the party and turned the other way, rather than having to fireball them. I am pretty sure you understand the context of the example when first presented.People lose their life savings fairly often. In fact, a huge number of people have no life savings to steal. While some few might commit suicide over it, the overwhelming majority don't think it's the same as the end of their life. Because you have hope of recovery after a loss like that. Most people would answer pretty easily that murdering them is well worse than stealing their life savings. Why don't you ask some of your friends what they think of that question?I didn't say laws ARE morality. I said the basis of the laws are drawn from moral philosophy.But you know what? You knew that. You were quoting it, you saw it right there, and you again created an absurd strawman Which makes this conversation useless.It's well along that line towards bad, but not as far along the line as murder. Again, no matter how dramatic you make the example, the overwhelming majority of people prefer not being murdered to that scenario.Again, I am not calling you a psychopath. I am however saying you are exaggerating for effect during an internet debate and know darn well murder is worse than the basic scenarios I mentioned.You know, I know, everyone still reading this knows I never said or implied it was the "good morally right thing." I have always been, and continue to, say that both are bad but one is worse than the other. YOU knew that, because you said earlier you didn't see the point of making distinctions between two bad things. So you fully understand I was also saying it was bad just one was worse than the other. And yet repeatedly you've pretended I said one was morally good and right. It's rude. Why do you keep tossing that in there for the cheap shot at me when you know I never made such an argument?Now you're just outright lying about me. Damn, that is really rude.</blockquote>

Verification