Ethics question...

[Egaladeist]

Draxx,

Wouldn't that be: if ethics/etc. were outside of man, then there would be a force that would condemn me for killing? Whichever, why are laws included? Aren't laws merely an attempt to make ethics (which as we agreed are subjective) into an objective form?

I think you misunderstood both zencoder's post and my reply.

[rcgreen]

So, if it is not possible to hold an objective, i.e. undeniable, point in a non-objective system, and ethics/morals are a non-objective system, then how can we argue an undeniable moral point?

But we haven't necessarily agreed that "ethics/morals are a non-objective system". I believe that
it is a very objective system with dogmatic truths that cannot be overthrown, not by individuals,
nor by a majority, and not by the unanimous agreement of both. Since the almighty will have the last
laugh, he's the only one who can say what is really right or wrong. The rest of us
may have opinions, but our opinions could very well be in error.

[Draxx]

But we haven't necessarily agreed that "ethics/morals are a non-objective system". I believe that it is a very objective system with dogmatic truths that cannot be overthrown, not by individuals, nor by a majority, and not by the unanimous agreement of both. Since the almighty will have the last laugh, he's the only one who can say what is really right or wrong. The rest of us
may have opinions, but our opinions could very well be in error.

So regardless of our thoughts, God has the final word on ethics, eh. So how do we know what is ethical or not? Do we follow the Bible? Or is it inherent within us although it originated from Him? How do we know ethics?

You could blow up a school of children, rape a thousand women, murder a million people...as long as you don't get caught...nature is amoral, justice does not exist, and death will absolve you!

So what is good?...since murder, rape, etc. is self-evidently wrong. Doesn't this mean war is wrong? Which raises the question if murder is wrong, and a murderer is about to be murdered, is it good?

I think you misunderstood both zencoder's post and my reply.

Ha! No, when I last posted I hadn't slept in a while, which probably explains why it appears as a series of assertions.

[Egaladeist]

Your looking for absolutes and it doesn't work that way...sometimes it's good to kill and sometimes it's wrong...if you read my other posts you would know where I stand on this.

To be slightly more specific...an action cannot be either moral nor immoral in and of itself...it is basically the difference between a selfless act and a self-serving act...if I kill you out of malice or greed that would be wrong...however if I kill you to save you from a more horrible fate ( everlasting ignorance, for example ) that would not be wrong.

[Draxx]

Your looking for absolutes and it doesn't work that way

But if something were independent of human perception, wouldn't that make it absolute by definition?

To be slightly more specific...an action cannot be either moral nor immoral in and of itself...it is basically the difference between a selfless act and a self-serving act

So it is the intent rather than either the action or the outcome that determines the morality of a situation?

If I aim to shoot a child out of evil, yet instead a bank robber is running in the path of the bullet and I inadvertantly stop him, is that good or evil? If I try top run over a good man in my car, but an evil man tackles him and allows the good man to flee, resulting in me running over the evil man, is that good or evil?

if I kill you out of malice or greed that would be wrong...however if I kill you to save you from a more horrible fate ( everlasting ignorance, for example ) that would not be wrong.

How do you decide whether someone will face a more horrible fate? What is the criteria for this? Everlasting ignorance may be bad, but shirking from intellectual responsibility is no better.

[Egaladeist]

If I aim to shoot a child out of evil, yet instead a bank robber is running in the path of the bullet and I inadvertantly stop him, is that good or evil? If I try top run over a good man in my car, but an evil man tackles him and allows the good man to flee, resulting in me running over the evil man, is that good or evil?

Again, it's not the action...therefore, your " intent " would be the same...regardless of the outcome.

So it is the intent rather than either the action or the outcome that determines the morality of a situation?

Yes and no.

How do you decide whether someone will face a more horrible fate? What is the criteria for this? Everlasting ignorance may be bad, but shirking from intellectual responsibility is no better.

My comment on ignorance should have been obvious as a joke...if you had read my other posts you would know that I've already made my point on this as much as I want to...that, it is again, intent ( persay ) ...if we are on a battlefield and you are seriously/critically wounded and moments before I witnessed our only medic go down and there is no way I personally could save you, and to prevent your continued suffering I were to kill you rather than leave you there to bleed out and to die alone...I would think that this would qualify.

Draxx, I have absolutely no desire to get too involved with my philosophical veiws...there is, obviously, alot I leave out and will never discuss in an open forum...suffice it to say that there is no way that you can understand what I believe or why I believe it based upon the little information I am willing to provide.

Philosophy/theology is like any course of study...the only difference is that with philosophy/theology most people assume they can simply form opinions without having to study...they form opinions that are generated by the influences around them...and not upon any actual knowledge...if you really want to form your opinions based upon a foundation of knowledge...I would suggest that you begin by studying the seven major religious texts, as well as the writings of their historians ( eg. Josephus )...then study the writings of the philosophers...then, when you're done that...study the related texts and historical documents of the period around the authors...and then you can focus on the histories of the religions and philosophies themselves ( eg. the Convention of Bishops in 300AD to form the present day bible )...and when you're done that, study other semi-related material to the periods previously studied ( eg. Caesars' own diaries )...then come back and ask your questions...and I will give you course number two.
Until you have established a working background of study...the best you can offer is an opinion based upon a foundation of ignorance , with no more validity than my advice/opinions on computer forensics, as an example.
Philosophy is much more than science and ethics...it is the study of human thought and behaviour...more particularly your own thought processes and behaviour and why...as the old axiom goes..." Know Thyself! "

[Draxx]

All right, so the intent is what matters rather than the outcome of it. But that makes all of my examples with good outcomes be immoral, wouldn't it?

My comment on ignorance should have been obvious as a joke

Yes, I know. I'm using it as an example, ironically enough.

that, it [morality] is again [based on], intent ( persay )

But morality is a lot like advice, you judge it based off of the outcome rather than its intent. For example, Don Quixote intended to slay giants, instead he tilted the windmills. The former would be noble, the latter is madness. So how should we look at DQ, as a saint or a screwball?

Philosophy/theology is like any course of study...the only difference is that with philosophy/theology most people assume they can simply form opinions without having to study

Meh, I would have said the difference would be that everyone is simultaneously right and wrong, whereas other fields its "either/or".

the best you can offer is an opinion based upon a foundation of ignorance , with no more validity than my advice/opinions on computer forensics, as an example.

But you are assuming that I haven't studied, which is a pretty big leap. I have studied a few philosophers myself, and find this suggestion mildly amusing (no offense).

[Egaladeist]

Draxx,

But you are assuming that I haven't studied, which is a pretty big leap. I have studied a few philosophers myself, and find this suggestion mildly amusing (no offense).

No leap at all...as I was making a general statement not directly to you.

Meh, I would have said the difference would be that everyone is simultaneously right and wrong, whereas other fields its "either/or".

The statement you are replying to was a comment that was made to reflect that in any other field of study we expect the person to be trained in that field...however, everyone fancies themselves an expert in philosophy simply through the act of living.

As for the rest...I've already stated that it would be a waste of time to fully explain what I am saying and why I believe it to be so...it is impossible for you to understand what I believe and why I believe it without looking at all of it in the context and manner it is intended. You cannot see the real relationship in the pieces if you cannot see it in the context of the whole.

And I have already answered your question, so there is no need to further deviate from the original post.