Jagged

**Please define "rational justification."**
Can you give a rational proof that God, an immaterial being, exists? are you saying that starting with an irrational belief - faith in god - you can attain rational justification for morality? THAT makes sense...

You have conspicuously ommitted any rebuttal to the final points of my post regarding holy wars. I would like to see you address them. sigh... to be honest luvluv, it was obvious to me a long time ago that you simply don't have an argument here. at least not an interesting one. so perhaps it's just not worth it to continue this exercise in futility with you.

luvluv

JLP:

Perhaps this is best.

Jagged

MM

I think the problem here is that you're saying - you must must must believe "x moral" is an absolute for it to be moral. For example "killing is wrong" must be an absolute that we are not allowed to "mess with" by considering for ourselves whether we should kill.

If this is indeed your requirement for morality then you are correct that I am not moral. I do not hold an a priori belief that killing is wrong. I know I do not wish to kill now. I know it is in my best interest not to kill even if I did wish to at some point in the future. But in the end I would not insist that this topic is closed to further examination.

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: Jagged Little Pill ]</p>

ManM

Jagged Little Pill,
You are right. I am taking something which comes from my moral intuition, "killing for pleasure is always wrong", and contrasting that with the conclusions of a moral theory. If you do not agree that killing for pleasure is always wrong, my argument means nothing to you.

No, you don't know this. Nothing guarantees this to be true.

And I find it quite disturbing that the morality of killing solely for pleasure is even up for debate.

Jagged

ManM, how can you talk about theistic morality and then turn around and say your views on killing come from your intuition? Intuition is innate, theism is not. Are you saying you have a superior sort of intuition than the rest of us?
You can criticize my opinions all you want, but DO NOT tell me what I do and do not know. Puh-leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaze... YOU are the one who keeps bringing this topic up! Why are you so infatuated? Do you feel the urge to commit mass murder? It's just NOT an interesting question for me. Ask me something *hard* like euthanasia... I have no desire to blow people away for the hell of it--it's a completely ridiculous proposition to me.

For god's sakes, it's hard to see around your superiority complex...

ManM

Jagged Little Pill,
Contrary to a theory based on self-interest, my theistic moral theory does not conflict with my intuition.

No. In fact, my argument only applies if you have the same intuition that I do.

You made the claim that killing would never be profitable for you, even if you desired to do it. This is something you cannot know with certainty unless you have knowledge of the future. Am I correct in assuming you are not psychic?

No. I am simply bringing out an argument against morality based on self-interest. And keep in mind that you are the one who wrote: "But in the end I would not insist that this topic [killing is wrong] is closed to further examination." As far as I'm concerned, it is always wrong to kill a person for pleasure. If you agree with me on this point, you should recognize that your moral theory cannot support such a strong claim.

This is what I get for trying to debate in a formal and concise manner? My argument would not work if I considered myself superior to you, or to anyone else. I am relying on the idea that our moral intuition is similar.

Jagged

I am honestly baffled by your continued insistence that not only does theistic morality involve intuition, but that self-interested morality does not. If you want to continue the conversation, could you please define intuition, self-interest, and theistic morality.

On second thot, let's not, I think I've had enough here