Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Trump's point man in Europe

Tyrone

Why introduce the morality of murder when the essential question apropos to the thread is:

Because murder is a convenient point to ponder because we can pretty much all (except for maybe dictators and drug lords) agree that it is wrong.

Until people agree on something, they can't even begin to address the "why" behind it.

ETA: Kind of funny, but I could have easily replaced "murder" with "homosexuality" in Kingston's arguments and it would have been exactly as reasonable. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me that if you took the entirety of history, murder is much more "normative" than homosexuality. So much for "normativity"!

Do you have an answer to AS's question?

How about Normative ethics identifies such prohibitions as societal pacts that have obvious benefits for all members?

https://pastebin.com/nxJ0hnGt
https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/ht...-and-more-prone-to-pedophilia-and-murder
https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/medical-consequences-of-homosexual-sexual-behaviors
http://home60515.com/4.html

Again...

√2

Thank you for the provided links. I've perused through some of them and the claims being made appear to be based entirely on agenda driven research. Moreover, I could not find any of the research independently corroborated by credentialed academics. All that I could find was just more 'guessing' by other agenda driven amateurs published in questionable vanity presses.

I cannot accept your argument of negative societal impact since it appears to be based on junk science.

Indeed.

At least they are not BS'ing us about how they are gonna vote for Trump...but......

Yes, And those social pacts are built around the concept of reciprocity and certain moral axes, the most common being the Harm/Care axis, and Fairness/Cheating axis.

Did you have siblings?

Ever been in the situation where there's one cookie but two kids? Your parent makes you break the cookie in two, and the other kids gets to choose first?


Lets apply the "Veil of ignorance" to what you are assenting is a "just" society. Sure the ability of dictators and drug lords to kill whom they want with out consequence might be nice for them, but is this how you would design a society if you had not idea what roll in it you might play??


Lets take this a step further. Think of how you think gays should be treated. If that how you would design it if you had no idea if you would be assigned the role of a gay person?

How about your kids. If one or more of them turn out gay, how do you want them to be treated? Should they be killed per Leviticus 18 and 20??

I pointed out cases that make simple normative ethics an incomplete view lacking in depth. It's the same view that brought us insane things like abortion and transgender ideology along with intersectionality.
What do you think would happen if you explained normative ethics to a dictator or drug lord?


I was born a lecher, so I sympathize with homosexual's feelings of not being able to completely express their sexuality under the ethics system God wants us to live under. So, how I would want to be treated and how I am treated is I go with what is right, sacrificing my selfish desires.


Homosexuals persued one of my children quite heavily, so this is a question I have pondered. If they did decide that they wanted to engage in that behavior or were curious about it, I expect society to support me and support them to instead make the right decision and act justly, i.e. in a heterosexual manner.

And if your son was the one actually born gay, pursuing other gay men of his own free will?

What would it mean for society to.....make the right decision. Should he be stoned to death per Leviticus?

Normative ethics is a huge subject including a couple dozen sub-categories. Additionally, I'm not certain any fully formed moral system can be completely prescriptive. Drug lords tend to act as government themselves, so I'd begin with Drug lords and Dictators a good guide line for all in government: '"Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself." (borrowed from Kant).

You like sex. That just means you are male. Why do you need a supernatural being to form ethical views on sex?

Are you not imposing on others by only engaging with other consenting adults? Are you being fair to the other(s) person(s)? Are you being fair to society by not foisting the care of your offspring upon them? Is it not interfering with your work? Again, this is just basic stuff that doesn't require an appeal to the super natural.

If you look at abortion alone, your normative ethics fail. Abortion is a product of your normative ethics.

Plenty of white ‘christians’ killing babies.........

Speaking of white ‘christians’ killing babies, consider the millions, if not billions, of pregnancies that never reached full term despite every human effort to prevent the spontaneous abortion. How is that not God killing fetuses? Considering the numbers, God must be the greatest abortionist.

Forcing 50 Million unwanted babies onto the world....what could possibly go wrong with that?

awwwwww, fer Pete's sake!