"But who are you to deem what's reasonable?"
Is a fair point. I am no-one of importance. And the same could be said for any individual, which I know is the point you are making. That you get to be disparaging about my point of view is just a happy by-product!
I think - finally! - we have managed to communicate our perspectives.
I have been Googling this all day, and I am sure you won't be surprised to hear that there is no consensus about all this, just loads of opinions.
I suppose I am saying that, to use genocide as an example, that as I cannot think of any moral or ethical justification (even theoretically) that would make it okay, then I am suggesting "Genocide is wrong" is a moral absolute. The same goes for rape. The same goes for paedophilia.
Now, I know that you are not seeking to defend genocide, rape or paedophilia, but I think you are now in the peculiar position of having to argue that there could be a given set of circumstances when these actions would be okay, if you don't want accept my position which is all three are absolutely and inarguably wrong.
Good luck with that!
Okay, well, this is where our opinions differ. I argue that those with 'unreasonable' (to us) mindsets could think up a whole load of reasons as to why these 3 things are okay. As to how they would morally justify their actions I have no clue whatsoever - because I am neither these three.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I know you're not!
I think this has run it's course! I believe that we are advanced enough morally and ethically to be able to arrive at an definitive answer to these three examples, which would make them absolute.
I believe you disagree with this statement!
And I think this fascinating exchange is at an end...I believe this is an impasse.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit