Hans

Hypothetical, of course!!

I just brutally raped, sodomized, tortured, then burried alive a six year old child leaving the child in pure terror until the child dies of fright or sufficates.

End of hypothetical.

Your mission should you accept it (Mission Impossible music playing in the background), is to demonstrate how I (in the above hypothetical) have done anything wrong. Wrong as in I (in the above hypothetical) should feel guilty about it.

This tape will self destruct in five seconds.

Good luck!

MadMordigan

Wrong as in I (in the above hypothetical) should feel guilty about it.

Again, I couldn't give a shit less if you feel guilty about it. Any response I have will refernce the actions themselves and my moral outrage at those actions, regardless of your personal feelings of guilt.

Hans

MadMordigan

Ah! But then, whether I would or wouldn't feel guilty about it is irrelevent. Establishing why I should feel guilty is the matter at hand.

Haran

Hey, man! You tryin' to steal my thunder?!

Haran

Hans

Haran

What topic??

Didn't mean to step on any toes with a duplicate subject.

MadMordigan

Establishing why I should feel guilty is the matter at hand.

Obviously I have not made myself clear. The should or shouldn't feel guilty is none of my business. What goes on in your head is your own problem. What goes on in reality is what will be reacted to.

Hans

MadMordigan

You seem to want to imply it's immoral without demonstrating how it's immoral. Which of course is nothing more than being evasive.

Don't feel bad. It's a very tough challenge.

MadMordigan

You seem to want to imply it's immoral without demonstrating how it's immoral.

This scenario explicitly involves some of the most uncontroversial actions known to our society. The question is a red-herring, since no one is really interested in [/i]convincing[/i] the hypotetical actor in the scenario that his actions were immoral. No one cares what a such an actor thinks or feels about their actions. The question is as irrelevant as asking how to convince the hypothetical actor that the Earth is round.

Hans

MadMordigan

Exactly why it was chosen. How many people believe there is a god? Do their beliefs make it so?

Again we revert back to would or wouldn't, will or wont, instead of should. Who's shrowing out the red herrings?

Nor were they asked to. Another of your red herrings.

And your still just being evasive. Either there is a foundation for such actions to be immoral or there is not.

MadMordigan

This scenario explicitly involves some of the most uncontroversial actions known to our society.


Exactly why it was chosen. How many people believe there is a god? Do their beliefs make it so?

No, but it makes their belief in god real. Just as the moral outrage of the members of society is real.

The question is a red-herring, since no one is really interested in [/i]convincing[/i] the hypotetical actor in the scenario that his actions were immoral.

Again we revert back to would or wouldn't, will or wont, instead of should. Who's shrowing out the red herrings?

There is no should. I fail to see how I am being unclear about this.

No one cares what a such an actor thinks or feels about their actions.

Nor were they asked to. Another of your red herrings.

This is not a red-herring. It is, in fact, the very question you asked. The answer is still the same. There is no reason to convince someone that their past actions were immoral.

And your still just being evasive. Either there is a foundation for such actions to be immoral or there is not.

There is no 'foundation'. Actions are moral or immoral depending on the subjective view of the participant/witness. In a population that comes to a concensus against an action, the results of their response is the only 'objective' reason not to perform that action.