If it's morally wrong to rape an infant regardless of human opinions, God must exist.

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 40
#31
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Axioms are different than definitions. An axiom is something that is widely accepted or self-evidently true.
An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true (even hypothetically), to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments (for example in syllogistic logic). 

A definition describes the meaning of something. I think you meant to say that stealing, murder, and molestation are wrong by definition. There's a difference between "legally wrong" and "morally wrong." I dont see anywhere where any of these terms are morally wrong by defintion.
Please explain to me when "murder" is NOT "morally wrong"?  I'm not even sure what your hair-splitting is attempting to highlight.

And as far as molesting infants, please explain which god (specific holy law) protects them better than pure human instinct?
#32
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain to me when "murder" is NOT "morally wrong"? 
Killing Hitler?


#33
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Killing Hitler?
This would presumably qualify as a justified/justifiable (human) killing.

Murder is defined as an unjustified/unjustifiable (human) killing.
#34
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
But how bad does a person have to be for their murder to be justifed?   Fred West?  Jimmy Saville?

#35
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@keithprosser
  Hitler should have been charged and brought in to be tried for his crimes.

Topic's author
#36
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another person, not an "unjustified" killing.

Topic's author
#37
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Your moral framework is based on seretonin/dopamine levels, not widely agreed upon or self-evident premises. Under your moral framework, which you seem to have abandoned, murder is *morally* wrong based solely on the levels of seretonin and dopamine levels in the brain. Let's abandon this moral framework altogether, shall we? It's so preposterous at this point.

Topic's author
#38
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
I don't think that abandoning moral realism for not having an empirical or quantifiable means of validating or invalidating whether certain behaviors are moral or immoral is rationally justified. 

Moral non-realism is rationally justified when it does a better job of explaining the evidence than moral realism does. The evidence is our starting point.
#39
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Your [hypothetical] moral framework is based on seretonin/dopamine levels, not widely agreed upon or self-evident premises [in my opinion]. Under your [hypothetical] moral framework, which you seem to have abandoned[?] [in my personal opinion], murder is *morally* wrong based solely on the levels of seretonin and dopamine levels in the brain [of the attacker]. Let's abandon this moral framework altogether, shall we? [in favor of what exactly?] It's so preposterous [in my personal opinion, which is apparently based on nothing] at this point.
Below average serotonin levels are very consistently associated with anti-social and specifically with criminal behavior.

Addiction to abnormal behaviors and substances associated with dopamine dysfunction are also strongly associated with anti-social and specifically with criminal behavior.

I see no reason to completely abandon such a hypothesis at this point (pending possible refinement), especially since there does not appear to be a more reliable alternative.

How does your "god hypothesis" solve your proposed dilemma?  It seems like an obvious non-sequitur to me.
#40
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Moral non-realism is rationally justified when it does a better job of explaining the evidence than moral realism does. The evidence is our starting point.
How does your "god hypothesis" solve your proposed dilemma?  It seems like an obvious non-sequitur to me.