Let's quarrel over morals!

[Helcasia]

Why is witchcraft a bad thing?

it causes people to get sick and die. it causes extreme weather. it causes pregnant women to miscarry. maybe other things depending on your culture.
where its bad its bad. probably god told them so.

LIES!!! All of it, LIES!!!

[Celebel]

I don't understand you're question- it's a bit redundant. What I agree, if that's what you're saying, is that not doing anything would be more immoral than shooting the criminal, yes.

Alright, so here's my argument.

1. There are only two options.
2. Option A is more moral than option B.
3. Therefore Option A is a moral choice.
4. As there are no other options, option A is the moral choice.

So if the conscience "tells" you that neither options are a moral choice, the conscience can not be a trustworthy moral standard.

Firstly, your argument is valid- though your scenario, sniper rifle or not, has many loopholes.
But as for the latter part of your argument, I reject the statement that the conscience is not trustworthy, because as you yourself say, neither option is compltely moral- one is just better than the other. And technically the conscience is right: neither option is completely 'good', because in one you kill a person and in the other you allow people to be killed. So the conscience judges rightly by saying that neither is moral, yet it also tells you that choosing A is the lesser of two evils.
And let me add that after a little research- here I am correcting myself, btw- that it is lawful to kill someone if they are about to commit a hideous wrong.

[Alyekra]

Alright, so here's my argument.

1. There are only two options.
2. Option A is more moral than option B.
3. Therefore Option A is a moral choice.
4. As there are no other options, option A is the moral choice.

So if the conscience "tells" you that neither options are a moral choice, the conscience can not be a trustworthy moral standard.

Firstly, your argument is valid- though your scenario, sniper rifle or not, has many loopholes.
But as for the latter part of your argument, I reject the statement that the conscience is not trustworthy, because as you yourself say, neither option is compltely moral- one is just better than the other. And technically the conscience is right: neither option is completely 'good', because in one you kill a person and in the other you allow people to be killed. So the conscience judges rightly by saying that neither is moral, yet it also tells you that choosing A is the lesser of two evils.

There's our problem, I hold that shooting the criminal was morally right due to lack of any other options.

[Celebel]

Firstly, your argument is valid- though your scenario, sniper rifle or not, has many loopholes.
But as for the latter part of your argument, I reject the statement that the conscience is not trustworthy, because as you yourself say, neither option is compltely moral- one is just better than the other. And technically the conscience is right: neither option is completely 'good', because in one you kill a person and in the other you allow people to be killed. So the conscience judges rightly by saying that neither is moral, yet it also tells you that choosing A is the lesser of two evils.

There's our problem, I hold that shooting the criminal was morally right due to lack of any other options.

(I'm sorry for arguing so much) You're right. I admit and agree and all those other words that you should, in fact, shoot the criminal- even though killing a person is never a completely good thing.

[NMaa942]

There's our problem, I hold that shooting the criminal was morally right due to lack of any other options.

There's no such thing.

[Ethel mermania]

Why is witchcraft a bad thing?

it causes people to get sick and die. it causes extreme weather. it causes pregnant women to miscarry. maybe other things depending on your culture.
where its bad its bad. probably god told them so.

those fingers in my hair
That sly come hither stare
That strips my conscious bare
Its witchcraft !

[Celebel]

There's our problem, I hold that shooting the criminal was morally right due to lack of any other options.

There's no such thing.

What are you talking about? If you went back a page or so you would see that Inalready argued about a lot of other alternatives.

[Alyekra]

There's our problem, I hold that shooting the criminal was morally right due to lack of any other options.

There's no such thing.

There's no such thing as any other options?

There's our problem, I hold that shooting the criminal was morally right due to lack of any other options.

(I'm sorry for arguing so much) You're right. I admit and agree and all those other words that you should, in fact, shoot the criminal- even though killing a person is never a completely good thing.

Oh, goodness no, don't apologize this is the Socratic method at it's best!

Though I think I may have do a bit of thinking now

[NMaa942]

What are you talking about? If you went back a page or so you would see that Inalready argued about a lot of other alternatives.

Morality is a bogey for primitive cultures.

[Alyekra]

What are you talking about? If you went back a page or so you would see that Inalready argued about a lot of other alternatives.

Morality is a bogey for primitive cultures.

So I can shoot you in the face and it would be fine?

[The Blaatschapen]

Challenge accepted. Here's a totally secular definition:

Something can only be immoral if it infringes or deprives a person or group of people their reasonable rights without their informed consent.

Something can be moral if it grants or preserves the reasonable rights of a person or group of people.

Everything else is morally neutral.

Not bad

Except: "Reasonable rights" - What rights? Rights are something that we made up.

So, as much as I hate to get into a semantic argument here... your definition is what I would call "ethics" rather than "morality".

Unfortunately this is one of those words based arguments but... "morality" implies that it has been imposed by a higher power/higher definition whereas "ethics" does not attempt to claim that it came from anything other than humans deciding for themselves what they define as "good" and coming to a consensus it with other humans.

Where did the implication of a higher power come from? What definition of morality is that?

Anyway, I, as an atheist, do have a morality.

mo·ral·i·ty
   [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA
noun, plural mo·ral·i·ties for 4–6.
1.
conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2.
moral quality or character.
3.
virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4.
a doctrine or system of morals.
5.
moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.

(source: www.dictionary.com)

Definition 4, I have a system or doctrine. Is it arbitrary? Probably. But so is one imposed by a god.

[NMaa942]

So I can shoot you in the face and it would be fine?

I would be displeased that you couldn't be bothered to shoot me somewhere more immediately fatal.

[Celebel]

Morality is a bogey for primitive cultures.

So I can shoot you in the face and it would be fine?

I'd say that merits a Touchè. And if what you say is true, then you are part of a primitive culture. If there were no morality there would be no law, no justice, no sense of right and wrong of any kind and muderers would roam the streets.

[NMaa942]

I'd say that merits a Touchè. And if what you say is true, then you are part of a primitive culture. If there were no morality there would be no law, no justice, no sense of right and wrong of any kind and muderers would roam the streets.

You can have law without morality, ancient China did.

[Alyekra]

So I can shoot you in the face and it would be fine?

I would be displeased that you couldn't be bothered to shoot me somewhere more immediately fatal.

Why? Is there something better about shooting a person in one place than another?

[Celebel]

There's no such thing.

There's no such thing as any other options?

(I'm sorry for arguing so much) You're right. I admit and agree and all those other words that you should, in fact, shoot the criminal- even though killing a person is never a completely good thing.

Oh, goodness no, don't apologize this is the Socratic method at it's best!

Though I think I may have do a bit of thinking now

Thanks for the brilliant argument. It's the most thought-provoking fun I've had in ages.

[NMaa942]

Why? Is there something better about shooting a person in one place than another?

I personally would prefer something more immediately fatal.

[Alyekra]

I'd say that merits a Touchè. And if what you say is true, then you are part of a primitive culture. If there were no morality there would be no law, no justice, no sense of right and wrong of any kind and muderers would roam the streets.

You can have law without morality, ancient China did.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/chin ... hina_2.htm

And of course can have laws, but I hold that there's no justification for them without a transcendent being.

[Celebel]

I'd say that merits a Touchè. And if what you say is true, then you are part of a primitive culture. If there were no morality there would be no law, no justice, no sense of right and wrong of any kind and muderers would roam the streets.

You can have law without morality, ancient China did.

Are you sure you're not confusing morality with religion?

[Alyekra]

Why? Is there something better about shooting a person in one place than another?

I personally would prefer something more immediately fatal.

There's no morality, I could slowly torture you to death and it would be fine. Stop imposing your morals onto me.

[Celebel]

You can have law without morality, ancient China did.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/chin ... hina_2.htm

And of course can have laws, but I hold that there's no justification for them without a transcendent being.

I agree. If not, then why bother?

[The Blaatschapen]

You can have law without morality, ancient China did.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/chin ... hina_2.htm

And of course can have laws, but I hold that there's no justification for them without a transcendent being.

Why does it need justification from a transcendent being?

[NMaa942]

I agree. If not, then why bother?

So that you can go three days without having you house sacked.

[Celebel]

I agree. If not, then why bother?

So that you can go three days without having you house sacked.

Without morality laws would have not been created and humanity would not have progressed past the Tower of Babel- if that.

[Natair]

Beecuz wifout ceiling cat ai can sez screw da ruelz, I has a gun.

Actually, I have no idea why some intangible presence would be needed for laws to exist. I vote was all convert to Norrisism and be done with it. Chuck will save you.