The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Religion & Culture / Christian Fools


Subject:  Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date:  10/3/2012  12:05 PM
Author:  Frydaze1 Number:  183188 of 197784

Doesn't it depend on what we mean by "real"? And "wrong"?

I mean objective, existing outside of the human mind. You and Frydaze don't believe that morality exists objectively.

If it's not objective is it real? You don't think so, so I'm not sure what your beef is.

There's a difference between "wrong" and "immoral". The words have completely different meanings. Let's not mix them up, since that muddies the discussion.

Again, I wasn't saying she thinks it is ok for others to rape someone. I'm saying she has no objective basis for saying someone else's code is immoral.

True... though not the way you meant it.

A man sees a hole in a wall, and his friends tell him he should have sex with that hole. He does so. Unbeknownst to him, there is a woman (or a little girl - though it should make no difference), tied and gagged, on the other side of that hole and he has actually raped her. Was his act immoral? No. In order for it to be immoral he has to have known that he was hurting her. It was, however, wrong. Because his knowledge was incomplete.

Rape is such an emotionally charged subject, which makes it difficult for people to even discuss it objectively. So let's try this instead:
A parent, honestly believing their child to be demon possessed, and honestly believing that the only cure to this condition is a beating, beats their child. Is this act immoral? No. They are