Apparently, the religious on RF don't even know the difference between good and bad.

[Autodidact]

Well, actually you have. It's called manslaughter.

Not in Colorado.

 

[Beaudreaux]

As "moral" means knowing the difference between good and bad, isn't "morally good and morally bad" tautology?

Only if a "good" steak is the same as a "good" deed.

 

[Willamena]

Not in Colorado.

So morality is localized.

 

[Enoch07]

Well, actually you have. It's called manslaughter.

Not where I live. Long as the intruder is inside your house you have the right to defend yourself to the death.

 

[Enoch07]

I find that frequently OT defenders respond to these genocidal passages by making things up. Here's the real reason, as stated in the real Bible:



The reason was vengeance. What was the vengeance for? It's very weird. It's because God decided to stop spreading plague after a Midianite woman walked by with an Israelite man, after the Israelite men had been consorting with Moabite women. The whole story is here. Here's the money line: Just to clarify: God spread a plague because he was mad about Israelites consorting with Moabites, a Midianite woman was seen with an Israelite man, so God decreed vengeance against all Midianites. Totally weird.

And as a result, you're saying that it was just to slaughter Midianite newborn babies? Is that your idea of justice?

Frankly, you religionists sicken me.

No idea what you are talking about. I believe you are misinformed.

 

[Beaudreaux]

So for those who have answered, it seems like the theme is that kindness is moral, and cruelty, or deliberately inflicting suffering, is immoral, correct?

That's my take on it. Actions which needlessy increase human suffering and needlessly decrease human happiness are evil in my book. Sure, a surgeon who operates on my hernia is increasing my suffering, but he is doing so to decrease my suffering in the long run.

Same thing with good actions. Actions that decrease human suffering and/or increase human happiness are good in my book. Again, feeding someone a high-fat, high-carb diet may increase their happiness NOW (tastes goooooood), but in the long run it will increase their suffering (obesity, diabetes, etc.).

 

[Enoch07]

Again, feeding someone a high-fat, high-carb diet may increase their happiness NOW (tastes goooooood), but in the long run it will increase their suffering (obesity, diabetes, etc.).

/sigh you had to say that as I munch on a salami sandwich and a handful of chips.

 

[Beaudreaux]

/sigh you had to say that as i munch on a salami sandwich and a handful of chips.

evil!!!! Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil!!!!!!!!!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Never said that. You are jumping to conclusions.

No, I'm not. That's why I phrased it as a question. You said:

Murder is the killing of another human being with intent or malice forethought.

You also said:

For instance soldiers fighting in a war. It is not murder when they kill an enemy in combat.

Unless war is never waged with intent or malice aforethought, these two statements conflict; either one or the other (or both) is not always true.

As stated clearly above it depends on whether you are the attacker or defender and your intent.

Okay... how does it depend on these things? How does the morality of an action change with intent or with status as attacker or defender?

Hypothetical: If I am at home and someone breaks in. I shoot the guy in the chest and he drops to the ground. I immediately call 911 get paramedics and police over but the intruder dies nonetheless. In that case I have done nothing wrong either in the eyes of the God's law or man's. Now same situation but instead of dialing 911,I watch him bleed to death on my carpet just for spite, then call for help after he dies. In that case it is murder in the eyes of God and breaks mans laws.

OTOH, under certain circumstances, if you go forth with no more provokation than a demand from your prospective father-in-law, slaughter 200 of your enemies, collect their foreskins and give them to your bride's father as a dowry, God smiles upon you... right? How is that not murder?

Not where I live. Long as the intruder is inside your house you have the right to defend yourself to the death.

All this is irrelevant: we're talking about morality, not human law, aren't we?

 

[Enoch07]

Okay... how does it depend on these things? How does the morality of an action change with intent or with status as attacker or defender?

Easy. If you are defending your home (country) from attackers it is not morally wrong to defend yourself with deadly force.

Not where I live. Long as the intruder is inside your house you have the right to defend yourself to the death.

All this is irrelevant: we're talking about morality, not human law, aren't we?

Was speaking to Willamena who said that my hypothetical was manslaughter which is human law. Just fyi.

 

[Enoch07]

evil!!!! Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil!!!!!!!!!

I know I am so ashamed!

 

[McBell]

I believe you are misinformed.

yes, the Bible does that.

 

[Autodidact]

No idea what you are talking about. I believe you are misinformed.

Then show us. What do you think the Midianite babies did that justifies God ordering His followers to kill them?

I thought it derived from Numbers 25, when God declares vengeance on the Midianites.

 

[Freelancer7]

Example: A Hungry Dog

Positive Intelligence: Good, Loving Action: FEED DOG

Negative Intelligence: Bad, Evil Action: KICK DOG THEN SHOOT IT (kicking dog is bad anyway)

 

[Azakel]

Then show us. What do you think the Midianite babies did that justifies God ordering His followers to kill them?

I thought it derived from Numbers 25, when God declares vengeance on the Midianites.

Or even all those first born kids in Egypt. That he himself killed(or sent an Angel, but what's the difference).
Just felt like adding something ^_^

 

[Beaudreaux]

Example: A Hungry Dog

Positive Intelligence: Good, Loving Action: FEED DOG

Negative Intelligence: Bad, Evil Action: KICK DOG THEN SHOOT IT (kicking dog is bad anyway)

So, you believe morality extends to animals. This is interesting to me. I certainly consider Michael Vicks actions against those dogs to be immoral, yet I regularly enjoy a lovely roast cow sandwich. I have never been able to reconcile the two....

 

[Beaudreaux]

BTW, for all you "Beaudreaux is gonig to trick us!" conspiracy theorists, we are on post 197 and the few courageous souls who have shared their view on what constitutes good and evil actions have not been pounced on by me.

 

[Freelancer7]

to eat a beef sandwich is stay alive, food for the soul and belly

to kick and kill a dog for the sake of it is negative.

Whether one day a higher level of understanding where if you have a bowl of fruit and an animal and you are hungry, but kill the animal when the bowl of fruit should have been taken first will be a question for a much, much, much,much later date in our Intelligent evolution for sure, the state and corruption of places at the moment

 

[Enoch07]

evil!!!! Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil!!!!!!!!!

lies!

 

[Vile Atheist]

So, you believe morality extends to animals. This is interesting to me. I certainly consider Michael Vicks actions against those dogs to be immoral, yet I regularly enjoy a lovely roast cow sandwich. I have never been able to reconcile the two....

While we all love a fat cow-*** to dig into, I think we're all for greater animal rights and ensuring they die in as painless conditions as possible and they are kept in humane conditions.

Feeding humans is a bigger moral good than ensuring chickens get to leave their coop before some Mexican factory worker chops its head off with a cleaver.