is there any moral equivalency in this hypothetical situation?

Is the robber just as “right” as you are for shooting him? In my personal opinion, no, but if you’re asking for a definitive answer that I know is right (throughout the universe) I can’t say, but you knew that. There may be a guideline for everything in some galaxy for judging humanity’s moral questions that would determine you to be ultimately correct or it may determine the robber to be ultimately correct or there might not be a guideline at all.

it’s about motivation, was the motivation for the above for good (right) or for evil (wrong)?

I don’t think we’re too far off. The motivation for you (hypothetically) shooting the armed robber could be good (according to you), and for some people that’s well enough–so long as someone believes they’re doing good they aren’t really an evil person. For example, I’m sure you’ve heard the hypothetical moral question about whether it’s right or wrong for a man to steal a cancer-curing medicine for his dying wife from a man who is hording the cure. His motivation for stealing the medicine could be good (according to him and probably most other people), but to other people the act in it’s entirety could be evil. Ask this question to a group of people and you’re guaranteed almost half a dozen different answers. In the universe is there a right answer to this moral question? There very well could be, and there very well might not be, the one thing we do know is that there is no proof that this moral standard exists.

is there a moral equivalence between the brutal beheading murder of Dan Pearl by Islamists and American troops killing Islamists and the detention of captured Islamists at Gitmo?

Liberty or Death on July 4, 2007 at 5:44 PM

Again, I think you know my answer: no, the beheading of Mr. Pearl was not morally equivalent to what the U.S. is doing, but I cannot prove that one killing is worse than another (for example the Christian God might think that both murders are equally reprehensible and the Islamic God might think that the murder of an infidel is less of a crime than the murder of a Muslim).

if someone broke into my home while me, my wife, and child were present (a home invasion) to rob us and this person was armed and threatening to kill us and I shot this person dead, is there any moral equivalency here?

nonfactor, while you answered my second question regarding if I was justified in killing the intruder, you failed to answer my first question above, so I’ll pose it to you again, is there any moral equivalency in this hypothetical situation?

And right and wrong are very subjective ideals. So far as we know and can logically prove “right” and “wrong” were created by men to determine how we should live our lives. Which “right” and “wrong” are correct? Was Hamaruabi “right”? Was the Magna Carta “right”? Was the Constitution “right”? Now can you prove it?

As for your above comments, no I cannot “prove” if the above are right or wrong, however while it may not be possible to prove any of the above are “right” or “wrong” as I stated it’s about motivation, was the motivation for the above for good (right) or for evil (wrong)?

I’d also like to emphasize one more time the synonym for murder, in particularly the part about motive. Again, IMHO there is much less “gray area” when defining what is right and what is wrong when one examines the motive behind the act. Here’s the synonym once again for the word murder as the Merriam Webster dictionary describes it:

Synonym – MURDER specifically implies stealth and motive and premeditation and therefore full moral responsibility

So I’ll ask you another question in addition to the one you skated around in my earlier post nonfactor, is there a moral equivalence between the brutal beheading murder of Dan Pearl by Islamists and American troops killing Islamists and the detention of captured Islamists at Gitmo?

In other words, are the Islamo fascists that have declared war on the West and are indiscriminately MURDERING non-combatant civilians (like Pearl) are their acts and motives on equal moral footing with American forces that kill Islamo fascists combatants on the battlefield?

Just curious what your answer is….

I would like to ask nonfactor a hypothetical question, if someone broke into my home while me, my wife, and child were present (a home invasion) to rob us and this person was armed and threatening to kill us and I shot this person dead, is there any moral equivalency here?

I’d like to point out here that according to Jesus you should let the man take your material possessions. But you’re asking what I think? Let me remind you that I still believe there are things such as “right” and “wrong” on this Earth and I can justify them, but I’m not claiming that there is an ultimate “right” or “wrong” as established by a god or spirit because there is no more proof that these gods or spirits exist than unicorns or fairy’s (although it’s possible unicorns do exist just as it is possible that gods exist, but that has nothing to do with morality rather than the possibilities contained in the universe). Personally I think you’re well within your right to shoot a person who is robbing you and threatening your life, and if the moral question here is “can killing ever be justified” my answer would be yes. I can justify that answer through a principle of self-preservation and your natural right to autonomy, but I cannot prove that self-preservation is the absolute “right” thing throughout the universe.

right and wrong is usually best defined by the motivations of the person committing the act, not religious beliefs, empathy, or morality as these are very subjective factors.

Liberty or Death on July 4, 2007 at 4:01 PM

And right and wrong are very subjective ideals. So far as we know and can logically prove “right” and “wrong” were created by men to determine how we should live our lives. Which “right” and “wrong” are correct? Was Hamaruabi “right”? Was the Magna Carta “right”? Was the Constitution “right”? Now can you prove it?

This statement is just as “proveable” as my belief that the Bible is the ultimate truth.

dave_lantos on July 4, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Until somebody can prove that their moral standard is the absolute standard throughout the universe (which will never be done apart from a god or spirit – which nobody has yet proven to exist – revealing this standard to us) the statement “nobody can prove their morality to be the ultimate prescient” is true because it’s simply a statement of facts. Or maybe I should have said “nobody has proven…” either way there is no evidence for an ultimate moral standard in the universe (yet).

When did I claim that my moral belief system was the only correct one throughout the universe?

When you said:

the truth is nobody can prove their morality to be the ultimate prescient.

This statement is just as “proveable” as my belief that the Bible is the ultimate truth. My bible says, “don’t murder”, your bible says, “nobody can prove their morality to be the ultimate prescient”. They are both statements of pure faith, and yours is indeed an expression of absolute moral truth. That you feel it should instead be called an “absolute truth” (ie. incontestable) only shows that you are oblivious to its subjective, faith-based nature, which in turn reveals you to be somewhat of an extremist. The statement “nobody can prove their morality to be the ultimate prescient” cannot be proven by doing any sort of empirical measurement.

Regardless if you believe in God, the bible, the 10 commandments, etc., am I justified in taking this person’s life to protect my family and myself?

One could argue there was or is no moral equivalence on both sides all day long, for example, some may see me as a murderer because the person that invaded my home to rob me and my family was somehow forced to do what he did because he had been marginalized by society (disenfranchised, poor, drug addict, etc.) and thus had to resort to such an act for his survival.

On the other hand others would not see me as murderer, but instead as someone that was put in a very difficult situation and did what they had to do to protect themselves and their family.

The point I’m attempting to make here is one cannot assign moral equivalency based solely on empathy (as pointed out by progressoverpeace) because if one uses empathy as a guiding factor it clouds common sense and reasoning, it’s really not about religion or empathy, it is about what is right or wrong, and right and wrong is usually best defined by the motivations of the person committing the act, not religious beliefs, empathy, or morality as these are very subjective factors.

Example, one could come up with many reasons why a person would be compelled to invade someone’s home to rob and potentially cause harm to them; was the person subject to abject poverty, was the person marginalized by society, was the person a victim of their environment growing up, were they abused, were they disenfranchised with society and their lot in life, etc, etc.

While it may be normal and ok to have empathy for what would drive a person to commit such an act it does not however excuse the act itself! There is no moral equivalent or justification for a person to break into a home to steal and possibly do harm to the occupants irregardless of the person’s situation in life or past experiences! There really is no ambiguity here, what they did was wrong, and while I may have killed the home invader I did not MURDER the home invader, this too is also unambiguous. There is no moral equivalent to someone that is place in a difficult situation (not of their doing) and takes the life of another person to protect themselves or others and of a person that indiscriminately murders people motivated not because they are oppressed, marginalized, etc (as the recent London/Scotland attacks prove since the perps were middle to upper-middle class doctors!) but instead the murderers are motivated by a fanatical religious/political ideology, again, the difference is not difficult to see, there is no moral equivalence between the two when one looks at it with reason and not through the prism of empathy!

For nonfactor I will provide the definitions from the Merriam-Webster dictionary of the words kill and murder, as there is a difference that is also unambiguous and proves there is no moral equivalence between the gruesome murder of Pearl and the killing of our enemy and/or the incarceration of enemy combatants at Gitmo:

Kill = 1 a: to deprive of life: cause the death of; synonym – KILL merely states the fact of death caused by an agency in any manner

Murder = 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought; synonym – MURDER specifically implies stealth and motive and premeditation and therefore full moral responsibility

That’s just a stupid statement. If this were true then it’d mean that nobody on the left thinks that something is “right” or “wrong.” You simply need to look at every political issue to see that this isn’t true.

Nonfactor on July 4, 2007 at 3:06 PM

Pointing out the hypocrisy and stupidity of the left doesn’t really back your argument at all. Yes, the left operates on a very strict set of ideas of “right” and “wrong”, but they refuse to accept the idea that there exists anything that is “right” or “wrong” in their theory of “moral relativism”.

The left loses both sides of the argument … I wouldn’t grab that fact as proof of anything.

There are absolute truths in the world,

Nonfactor on July 4, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Incorrect. All knowledge is relative – so far as humans are able to discern.

P.S. Just the idea that the universe is a rational place is a point of faith. It is a faith that most scientists adopt (since science in an irrational world is a total waste of time) but they understand that it is nothing more than faith.

Just the idea that there exist mathematical models that describe the “true” inner workings of the universe is a construction of humans based on the minimal set of tools that we have available to us. I happen to subscribe to this point of faith, but I understand that it is not an absolute truth of any sort, but merely my decision to believe it because, otherwise, the universe would make no sense to me.

but not absolute moral truths.

Moral “truths” are the same. They require a certain amount of faith, but no more than is required to declare science and mathematics to be worthwhile pursuits (which I believe they are).

The only moral certitude the left holds is that there is no moral certitude.

Irenaeus on July 4, 2007 at 2:54 PM

That’s just a stupid statement. If this were true then it’d mean that nobody on the left thinks that something is “right” or “wrong.” You simply need to look at every political issue to see that this isn’t true.

That itself is a statement of absolute truth. In other words, you yourself possess a religion with its own dogma, whether or not you are conscious of it.

There are absolute truths in the world, but not absolute moral truths. If you can prove that your moral standard is ultimate across the universe I’d gladly retract my statement. So far, however, there has been no proof that (for example) “Catholics are right and Presbyterians are wrong” et cetera. Justification can be made as to why we should follow one moral standard and not another (i.e. following X moral standard ensures that humans survive), but who is to say that this goal is the “right” goal as defined by the universe? And just as you cannot (currently) prove there is a god of any kind, you cannot (currently) prove there is a standard moral guideline for this universe.

Whenever a God or spirit enters the discussion of morality the discussion begins to be pointless. There can be a factual basis for morality and God does not have to enter into the equation.

The only difference between you and a self-admitted religious person is that the religious person is honest and up front about their faith.

dave_lantos on July 4, 2007 at 11:18 AM

When did I claim that my moral belief system was the only correct one throughout the universe? Oh, I didn’t? Then there are more differences between me and a religious person than you may think.

BTW, it is not incumbent on anyone to prove God exists)

moc23 on July 4, 2007 at 12:08 AM

If you claim God exists the burden of proof is on you. You don’t need to, but if you want to be taken seriously in a logical argument it is incumbent of you.

But I DID prove he exists !! You obviously didn’t read my post in the Harry Caray thread. Until you read that post, I can’t take you seriously.

the truth is nobody can prove their morality to be the ultimate prescient

That itself is a statement of absolute truth. In other words, you yourself possess a religion with its own dogma, whether or not you are conscious of it.

Existentialists essentially believe that human beings are their own gods and that morality isn’t derived from some spirit discussed in an ancient book, but rather it is derived from one person to another.

Is this what you believe? Again, this is pure faith.
The statement “there exists no absolute truth” is itself a statement of absolute truth, and hence contradicts itself. The only difference between you and a self-admitted religious person is that the religious person is honest and up front about their faith.

progressives actually believe that your “moral compass”, or center is found by stumbling around blindly

Rode Werk on July 4, 2007 at 4:02 AM

Stumbling around blindly? And what do you call reading a book and believing every word of it? That’s about as blind as one can get. Actually deriving your morals from human experiences is the best thing we humans can do (seeing as morality is a human quality). It is more sane to “stumble around blindly” than blindly accept a religion or more to the point accept the writings of men in a supposed holy book.

If there is an ultimate right and wrong in the universe where did it come from? “God” will say the religious, and I’d respond in asking for proof. Don’t expect me to blindly accept as you have that something is “right” or “wrong” because men said that an invisible being said so.

Existentialists essentially believe that human beings are their own gods and that morality isn’t derived from some spirit discussed in an ancient book, but rather it is derived from one person to another.

Tragically, the liberal elites, and progressives actually believe that your “moral compass”, or center is found by stumbling around blindly, and flailing at what you might determine right or wrong. To them there is no foundation, hence no real right or wrong. What determines right or wrong is nothing more than your own experience or perspective.

Rode Werk on July 4, 2007 at 4:02 AM

Exactly right, Rode Werk. It’s really funny, because the modern libs hate Judeo-Christian culture, but what guides them, often, is nothing more than a woefully poor understanding of the Golden Rule. Modern liberals let their empathy run amok (as gauged by the most hypersensitive among us), without having the intellectual honesty to admit that empathy is not a good gauge for many situations in ones own culture, let alone having its application spread across vastly different cultures.

Many of them may actually believe that those who murdered Daniel Pearl were justified. Those that apologize for the jihadists make no distinction between beheading a infidel, or executing a proven murderer. To try to justify that kidnapping and murdering Daniel Pearl was a logical outcome of detaining jihadists in Guantonimo is an obvious truth to moral relativists.

You also don’t need a God to have a basis for morality.

Nonfactor on July 4, 2007 at 2:13 AM

You don’t need a G-d, but you certainly have to ascribe some level of real existence to a metaphysical structure. It does not have to be “G-d”, but it must be something that is both distinct from the physical universe, yet pursued by those in the physical universe.

Anyone who believes that there is nothing more than the physical can never demonstrate any real interest in anything beyond how it affects his own, personal feelings – since that is all there is for him.

But, you can believe that Man has a metaphysical purpose without believing in G-d, if that is what you had meant, though it is not really much different. Just blind faith of a different sort. But that is what is necessary. Otherwise, there is no reason to do or not do anything, other than how it make you personally feel.

Secondly, you don’t need to prove that God exists or that there is any such thing as morality/ethics.

I never said you needed to prove God exists. I said you needed to prove he exists if you want to be taken seriously in a logical argument.

But then you essentially reduce life to the “state of nature” in which might makes right.

You don’t need a God to get out of the hypothetical state of nature. You also don’t need a God to have a basis for morality.

The real problem is that even something as “enlightened” as a basic social contract, based on anything other than a judeo-christian ethic, is completely unworkable and has always failed.

urbancenturion on July 4, 2007 at 1:25 AM

Correlation does not equal causation. Given time every social contract will fail, even those based in the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Go try to talk to libs about the London attacks and see how far you get before they try to make absurd comparisons and call you a bigot.

How does a moral relativist answer this dilemma? If I walk up to one of them and punch him in the eye, will they call the cops? Indubitably–followed by a lawsuit, also enforced by law enforcement. So he gets to call the cops. If I, as an American, suffer a similar indignity, do I get to call the cops? or am I expected to just take it because I “brought it on myself”?

Pablo, moc23, and profitsbeard; first don’t feed the trolls.
Secondly, you don’t need to prove that God exists or that there is any such thing as morality/ethics. But then you essentially reduce life to the “state of nature” in which might makes right. In that case, we are perfectly justified inhunting these fools down and killing them in their sleep–because we can. This is no doubt an unacceptable arrangement to these left-tards–who would be calling the cops ASAP.

The real problem is that even something as “enlightened” as a basic social contract, based on anything other than a judeo-christian ethic, is completely unworkable and has always failed.

(BTW, it is not incumbent on anyone to prove God exists)

moc23 on July 4, 2007 at 12:08 AM

If you claim God exists the burden of proof is on you. You don’t need to, but if you want to be taken seriously in a logical argument it is incumbent of you.

…prove that murder is wrong. Can’t do it.

Murder is wrong because it steals. Life.
It is the most heinous form of theft.

Theft is wrong because you don’t own other people’s possessions.

And trying to take them by force or stealth proves you to be lazy and greedy. Two of the seven Deadly Sins.

You don’t need a “God” to know what is yours.

Or that what is another’s is not yours.

(The immune system knows this instinctively before the word “God” was ever conceived. The “other” [virus, bacteria, etc.] is attacked by your bio-defenses through a recognition system as primordial as life itself.)

Becoming conscious only allows us to appreciate and refine and make sublime the natural world’s inherent “judgments” (ur-morality).

So, murder sure as hell is wrong.

Even your cells know it.

Religious people get off easy in a debate on morality where all they need to say is “murder is wrong because God says it’s wrong,” but that still doesn’t prove murder is wrong until you prove God exists. There might very well be an answer in the universe for moral questions, but if there is humans haven’t been able to prove it.

Hey NonFactor. Go read my post in the Harry Caray thread, and then tell me God doesn’t exist.

(BTW, it is not incumbent on anyone to prove God exists)

But the truth is nobody can prove their morality to be the ultimate prescient. I’d like to believe that what I believe in is “good,” and I can justify many of my positions, but ask be to unequivocally prove that murder is wrong? Can’t do it. Religious people get off easy in a debate on morality where all they need to say is “murder is wrong because God says it’s wrong,” but that still doesn’t prove murder is wrong until you prove God exists. There might very well be an answer in the universe for moral questions, but if there is humans haven’t been able to prove it.