Morality, Immorality, & Amorality

[emprworm]

hahaha.  your anger is getting to you.  you didn't answer my question.

Is this a moral statment:  "HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG?"

yes or no.

anything else is you dodging the question in cowardice.

[emprworm]

actually i take it all back...you are just a kid who has no idea what you are talking about.

[EWS]

Homosexuality is wrong is a moral statement.  It comes from the Divine Command Theory.  Hence a moral for Christians.

Actually if you knew anything about morality at all, you would know that opinion is  subjective morality. Twat

[emprworm]

Homosexuality is wrong is a moral statement.

[emprworm]

Homosexuality is wrong is a moral statement.

[emprworm]

Homosexuality is wrong is a moral statement.

[emprworm]

Homosexuality is wrong is a moral statement.

[Caid Ivik]

All what I ment with my post was to calm you down, as the given definitions were shown as useless. But as I look at the word fight between emp and ews it seems I was incorrect...

[Dante]

Besides the fact that you don't need to post the same thing four times in a row...

Dustscout claims to be amoral.

Proof against his claims lies with Bush.  When his own hostility towards Bush that he has displayed here, that is valid proof against his claim.

Bush is relevant.  Dust dislikes Bush, and with emotion.

his claims are inherently false.

because it has a basis in emotion, based upon a judgment of actions and/or character.  please tell me how you can have a negative emotion against someone that is compeltely apart from morality and strictly with logic.

if dust is truly amoral, he would say:  "Bush is an illogical being.  I neither like nor dislike him, but I conclude, based upon my personal observations, that his actions are harmful for the general society."

He's trying to be like a "DATA" from star trek. 

Dust has said more than once that Bush's actions were "wrong" which is not something an amoral person can logically do

Go read Dusts original post in this thread.  Point #2.

"lying is wrong" is a moral statement he says. 

if "lying is wrong" is a moral statement, "Bush is wrong" is even MORE of a moral statement.

Amoral people are allowed to hold emotional opinions. Emotions are not tied in with morality. Hate is, roughly speaking, an emotion and it is possible to feel hate for a person amorally.

It is possible to hate someone for being stupid due to an inherant dislike of stupidity. It is possible to hate someone for being rude due to a belief that polite people don't spend their time pretending to be superior to others. Neither of these examples adheres to any particular moral rule and thus emotions are not tied in with morals.

The word 'wrong' is a broad term. I use it all the time. But you will notice (I hope) that not once in all of my posts here on FED2K have I ever ever used the term 'morally wrong.' If I have then I've learned better by now.

There is no such thing as 'morally wrong' there is only 'morally wrong in my opinion.' Just using the word 'wrong,' let's say in the sentance, "Bush was wrong." Does not by any means imply "Bush was morally wrong." I didn't say that, I didn't mean it. My amoral status remains intact.

And also, the only reason I didn't write "lying is morally wrong" in the game was because I thought that would make it too easy for the people struggling through it.

Emprworm, would you like to tell me what the word also (as in 'may also be') does in Caid's post?

Emprworm, you may want to pay attention to that statement.

i believe it is a fact that Dust claims to be amoral.

but such is not the case, as I dont believe any human can be 100% amoral.

Perhaps not. Perhaps so. But I'm a lot more amoral than a lot of other people out there.

actually i take it all back...you are just a kid who has no idea what you are talking about.  just go about your business.

opinions are the BASIS of moral statements nim wit.

you say that "its JUST my opinion" as if an opinion isn't a moral judgment.

using that idiot argument, then there is no such thing as moral at all.  Every preacher who gives his opinion is amoral.  Just like dustscout.

*rolls eyes*

what a bafoon.

Not all opinions are moral judgements, but all moral judgements are opinions. A moral judgement has no basis in fact to an amoral person, and thus it is an opinion. But an opinion need not be based on morality, it may be empirical (green is a nice colour) or logical (1 + 2 = 3).

Objective morality states that opinion is not the basis for morality, and that in actuality there are moral 'facts,' such as 'killing is wrong.' Using the word 'wrong' in the moral sense of course.

On a side note, how on earth do you expect to get anywhere in a mature debate by calling your opponant 'kid,' 'nim wit,' or 'bafoon' ? Rolling eyes doesn't help either. And incidentally, insults are best served when spelt correctly.

thanks for calling me a 'twat'.

[Caid Ivik]

I wondered why I couldn't connect for a whole day here, emp is filling Gob's server  ;D

[emprworm]

"Emotions are not tied in with morality"

They are when you make a judgment of anothers actions.

[Dante]

The difference between 'lying is wrong' and 'lying is morally wrong' should be perfectly obvious.

The first implies moral incorrectness, but only because of the way it is interpreted. It does not literally mean that. It could just as easily mean 'lying is logically wrong,' which does make sense. There is a difference between claiming that lying is wrong because it is logically unworkable and claiming that it is wrong simply because it is wrong.

I say: Emotions are not tied in with morality.

You say: They are when you make a judgment of anothers actions.

I reply: How so? A judgement need not be moral. It is perfectly possible to call someone "a good person," without reference to morals. It is not possible to call someone "a morally good person," without reference to morals. They may for example be good in that they are friendly, or generous; neither of which are automatically morally 'good.'

When Hitler said (Correction, If Hitler said): 'Jews are trash,' then yes, he was expressing an opinion. A racist, logically incorrect and therefore foul opinion, but an opinion nonetheless, and not based on any moral rules except his own. Which are opinions.

Had he said: 'The Jews are evil,' then this would have been a moral statement because it makes reference to direct immorality.

There is a difference between stating "X is wrong," "X is logically wrong," and stating "X is evil." There is however little or no difference between the statements "X is morally wrong," and "X is evil."

You, and moral people, either say or imply 'evil' or 'negative' when using the word "wrong." I don't. I say "wrong," and imply nothing else except maybe "incorrect by logic."

Thus you saying:

That guy having sex with another guy is wrong

Should, as you do not claim to be amoral, imply that the act is morally wrong and to some degree 'evil.'

But me saying: "Person X is a liar," implies nothing other than my opinion that Person X is lying or has lied. I make no moral judgement.

It is true that I am not completely and entirely 100% amoral, but I'm amoral enough to count as amoral in most debates. You are not amoral, as far as I know, and neither is Billy Graham.

...Whoever he is....

[emprworm]

It is true that I am not completely and entirely 100% amoral,

i can respect that.

[Caid Ivik]

Can you please define word "wrong" closer? Is it as unacceptable, destructive, unfair or just false? English here shows rather hard use, we should turn on german once...

[Dante]

On it's own it just means 'incorrect,' though the implications can change this slightly. "Morally wrong" can be equated to 'evil' while "Terribly wrong" can be anything from 'evil,' to 'destructive,' to 'very incorrect.'

Emprworm, are you trying to say something?

[Caid Ivik]

So, "lying is wrong" means "lying is incorrect"? Well, considering word's (lying) sense, it might be a logical statement...

[Dante]

Well yeah. Think about it, If everybody lied, then we'd never get anything done. Therefore to get things done it logically makes sense to tell the truth.

[Caid Ivik]

So, it can be then logical and moral too. One step closer to God, great Cusanius would say...

[Dante]

'Wrong' on its own can, yes. Hense the need for clarifying terms. I use 'wrong' without reference to morals, others use 'wrong' with reference to morals.

[Caid Ivik]

Problem of whole english language. Too many homonyms, too much senses for one word. Germans have a good word for such, "vielumfassend".

[Dante]

I don't think any language can really express concepts properly, but granted English is probably worse than most. It's so boring. No flair.

[emprworm]

Emprworm, are you trying to say something?

just pointing out that when someone says "homosexuality is wrong" that isn't necessarily a moral statement.

[Dante]

That's what I've been saying...

[Caid Ivik]

Well, you see. This is a unusual end of philosophic debate in english...

[emprworm]

That's what I've been saying...

people that dislike Bush are wrong.

people that are against the war are wrong

comitting incest is wrong

comitting polygamy and homosexuality is wrong

taking drugs is wrong

not liking me is wrong

i am amoral.  all of my above statements completely lack moral claims in them.  ;)