Search results

Seven, you aren't really making any arguments here. Just running around in circles. fair enough :)

The questions i am asking are for the purpose of proving the flawed logic in your arguments, they aren't real inquiry questions. Was that not obvious? Do i really have to spell everything out for you? Forget for one second that i am a Muslim Seven, and lets just talk logic here. Do you not...

Because we don't agree with it, does not mean its new to us. So basically if we were living 700 years ago. Raping women would have been moral, because morality didnt evolve to what it is now at that time? Kant's categorical imperative?

There is no such thing as wrong by Sevens logic anyway. What you consider to be wrong, i may consider to be right. And both of us are acting morally.

But these laws will be made after determining whats "right" and whats "wrong". So before we reach the stage where we make laws, we have to find a way to determine whats right and whats wrong.

Which is why we need objective moral standards.

Ethical Relativism? We'll just go round in circles if we talk ethics then. No point discussing any further then is there?

There is the flaw right there. Meaning, you can't really condemn the Saudi's, because they are acting morally by your definition. I'll be waiting for your thoughts on Adolf.

If you've got the time in your hands, then by all means do. I'm interested to know why you think he thought it was immoral. In fact he really believed he was doing his race a favor by eliminating the jews from Germany But going by that logic Seven then i can conclude that laws in Saudi Arabia...

But if they did, then it would be moral? I too find this logic extremely flawed and has very dangerous implications. and just out of curiosity, what made you think that Hitler didn't believe the Holocaust was moral?

Actually i agree with you here. He is not mature enough to take his own decisions, and his parents are endangering his life this way. They should not be allowed to risk his life like that.