Why what? You claimed lying was always bad, I offered an example where I thought it was not, and you agreed, thus your claim was wrong even by your own subjective moral standard, and your original claim (lying is always bad) is a subjective one, not objective truth as you had asserted.
So it follows that hatred does not always lead to immoral acts, as you keep claiming, thus your claim is demonstrably wrong even by your own subjective moral standard. Furthermore, whatever emotion you cite as the cause, the claim the result is moral or immoral always rests on a subjective opinion. Unless you can demonstrate it is objectively true that hating child abuse is moral or immoral? Give it a shot, and see if you can do it without making a subjective claim.
All you offered was a subjective claim, ipso facto it is a subjective opinion. However if you think you can demonstrate that it is objectively true that causing suffering is immoral, then please do so, I am dubious.
I can’t, can you then? If so I am wondering why you’ve not done so already?
On the contrary, I do state unequivocally that I think it is wrong. What I cannot do is demonstrate that the claim genocide is wrong, is objectively true, without resorting to a subjective claim, but again if you think you can please do so, as so far you have in every instance resorted to subjective claims.
I don’t care what motivates it, and I am dubious about your claim as well, but these are irrelevant. Focus on the relevant fact that you have failed to show that anything is objectively immoral or moral without ultimately resting the claim on a subjective opinion. Do you imagine I have not tried this myself?
Irrelevant, as each time you cite an immoral act (you claim those emotions) must cause, it is a subjective opinion that they are immoral acts, you have not demonstrated that it is objectively true that the results of those emotions can only cause immoral acts, so the claim the results were immoral, would remain a subjective one, but again please do demonstrate otherwise.
That is a subjective opinion, not objective evidence. I am also dubious that your conclusion follows from your premise, and have offered counter examples to refute this, but it’s irrelevant, since the claim remains a subjective one. You are teetering on a circular argument.
Try addressing the fact that you cannot objectively evidence that divine law exist, thus using a word that means it has been violated is meaningless.
What a spectacularly stupid claim? I can only hope this is levity?
That remains a subjective claim, why do you subjectively (thus far) believe those motives always immoral? I have also demonstrated this subjective reasoning is facile and the results are relative. I hate fascism, why is that immoral in your opinion?
I absolutely can, you would just hold a different opinion, now can you demonstrate any objective evidence to support your claim without teetering over into the circular reasoning fallacy you’re heading for?
To what end? I don’t have enough information.
Killing a child abuser, it might be, I can’t say, I would need more context. You see morals claims as well as being subjective are relative. Since I might think killing a child abuser might be moral in one context, but immoral in another.
Indeed, since laws are objective, but morality is not. The nazis passed paws that would likely have been at odds with my subjective morality.
Morality is defined as “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.”
That a subjective claim, and a dubious one, love can describe a very complex range of emotions, the resulting actions are equally complex, your reasoning is again facile and bordering on a circular reasoning fallacy. Many people loved Hitler, and fascism, was this (in your opinion) moral then?
Of course it can, since morality is complex, unless one is a moral automaton, blindly following a set of doctrines, then yes if one considers the consequences of one’s actions, then one might absolutely commit an act they consider moral in that context, and still be bothered by it. your reasoning is again a facile, a black and white or right and wrong blinkered view of morality.
If you could save ten lives only by switching some rail tracks to divert a runaway rail cart, but it must unavoidably kill one life as a result would you do it? Either answer would bother me, and I can see the morality in both positions.
Not necessarily, their conscience might be clear because they consider the act a moral one, the man who regrets it might go on to do it again and again. You are trying to apply a facile either or rationale to a very complex subject, thus it is doomed to have you repeating the same errors in reasoning we see you making here over and over.
You are putting your wheezy clapped out old pony behind your cart ratty. A conscience depends on one’s moral perspective, it is therefore both subjective and relative.
conscience
noun
a person’s moral sense of right and wrong, viewed as acting as a guide to one’s behaviour.
Your conscience does not magically cause morality, it is derived from it.
