The morality of Evil and immorality of Good

It happens in life. This is true. The issue isn't that it happens, but with what's attached to the act, namely reason and how we feel about it. It gets complicated, naturally, but down the line, unless initiated for survival or self preservation, it would be an injustice or an infringement of a truth of some type.

I just considered murder to be an infringement of a truth almost always subjectively. I would personally view killing and/or murder as an act of malice, an evil, a type of moral transgression against my own self preserving character. Typically, I view them separate (Murder vs. Killing) That's my subjective stance of morality on killing, which I would suggest is shared by most other self preserving creatures like myself.

Our social structures permit hunting, but not for us to kill each other. I agree with this structure, but when we are forced into self preserving modes, like during war, it would be classified as a necessity.

Morals, then are about truths. That has been my findings.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, so yes your earlier claim: "true is right and untrue is wrong ... That's my concept of morality. The difference between truth and error. "
is a vast over-simplification of much more subtle process.

I don't suppose you're going to apologize gmilam for accusing him of being "daft"?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is not helpful sir. You have been very respectful so far.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What I was getting at is there are things mandated in the Bible that today we would find immoral.

 

That makes no sense. But I no longer have an interest in your arrogance. Welcome to ignore.

 

No disrespect, but the statement stands. Morality is grounded in truth despite religious leanings, both objective and subjective. I think both are associated with religion. Truths or falsehoods are the implications I'm making.

 

I would agree or disagree depending on situational realities of the time.

 

No, but it can get complicated and personal. Some morals are shared, others are more individual. I brought up self/pack/species preservation. That's an important part of my position.

 

So...

 

Name calling does not help was my point. You lose the person otherwise.

 

Ok, so gmilam seemed to purposely contend with a statement I made, so I asked if gmilam was being intentionally daft or somehow misunderstanding the statements made. I don't know gmilam but I am required, if not expected, to be honest in my replies. If I am wrong in that assessment, it would be nice for someone to clarify and/or point out my error. If not, I have no reason to apologized given I was asking a question, albeit not one that would appear very friendly.

 

I did. Post 22.

Here's the play-by-play:

gmilam questioned some implications of your views: Post 16.
You implied your views were super-simple; by summing them up in less than a dozen words, as if that's all their was to them: Post 17.
And accused gmilam of being daft: Post 17.
I too questioned some implications of the simple views you had espoused: Post 20.
My question resulted a multi-paragraph clarification of your earlier overly-simplified summary of your views: Post 21.

So, your (initial) too-simplistic views were not sufficient to transfer the (subsequent) nuances of your actual views which you later had to clarify... yet you accuse gmilam of being daft. And now you've lost a reader for it.

 

True equates to true/right and wrong equates to error. The difference between right and wrong. Morals are based on truths, be they objective or subjective.

There is nothing subtle about them aside from personal subjective views of. Objective truth and subjective truth are different.

That much has been stated from near beginning of thread.