Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/08/06 8:09 pm:
Ken,

"in normal circumstances" is intended to exclude cases like self-defence.

The majority do not decide what is true but do they decide what is right? If they do not what does?

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/08/06 8:17 pm:
MG,

It would obviously be detrimental to the human race if everybody were entitled to kill but (acting as the devil's advocate) why should one be concerned about the human race or human happiness?

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/08/06 8:23 pm:
I don't think the question of perspective affects the issue. Why should time or space be relevant to the value of life?

Clarification/Follow-up by Dark_Crow on 08/08/06 8:37 pm:
It is normally wrong to kill a person, however there are exceptions; for instance, the exception as implied by Maxine Waters, a US Congresswoman (D-Calif) made at a Pro-Abortion Rally: "I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion". This defines an exception- according to the progressive worldview.

Clarification/Follow-up by Dark_Crow on 08/08/06 9:41 pm:
Right Jack.

Vasectomy- can save the world and bring peace, right! Only by Progressive Liberal social engineering can we accomplish this noble goal: the People must be forced to do the right things.

Clarification/Follow-up by jackreade on 08/08/06 11:24 pm:
Crow, I wasn't thinking of vasectomy. :):):)

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/09/06 7:29 am:
Jim,

We certainly have the ability to make moral judgements regardless of what is required by any authority, human or non-human. Socrates showed that what is right is not determined by the will of the gods but there is no reason why it should not be identical to what they command. If God is good it necessarily follows that what God commands is good. This need not imply that goodness is somehow prior to, or independent of, God. God can be equated with goodness and love.

You are right in saying different moral judgements would arise if the world were otherwise than it is. Undoubtedly killing would not be wrong if it were the only way to survive. It is a moral absolute that we conform with our nature.

Moral principles are unquestionably cultural artifacts but they are not arbitrary. They have arisen, as you say, because they specify behaviors that have helped culture survive. Killing one another is wrong because it negates the survival, development and happiness of social beings. Morality is insight into the nature of reality.

Clarification/Follow-up by MicroGlyphics on 08/09/06 9:29 am:
Tonyrey, your question was specifically frames as killing "in normal circumstances," so that needs to be better defined.

Also, regarding the moral argument I first established, if in is in the greater good, then so be it, but then you have to define greater.

Bush framed the invasion of Iraq in the terms of US or Them. Just saying it, doesn't make it so. If there were, a God, and Bush should hope there isn't, I feel he might be in some hot water...or fire and brimstone.

Clarification/Follow-up by MicroGlyphics on 08/09/06 9:33 am:
Dark Crow,

Vasectomy is first, rather self-inflicted; second, reversable; third, there are alternative methods of impregnation.

You are applying the same logic the Catholic church applies to condoms.

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/09/06 9:50 am:
MG,

Please refer to my clarification for Jim.

Clarification/Follow-up by Dark_Crow on 08/09/06 3:42 pm:
No, Jack and MG, I was joking around. I could not take your response seriously.

I have to say, I'm against the death penalty; I am however for public flogging.

Jim, the Darwin cult has the audacity to reduce everything to "just a theory."