"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> >> > Could you please clarify "not wrong".
>> >>
>> >> Could you please clarify what you mean by "please clarify "not wrong"?
>> >
>> >> Cute little game you have going.. continuously making objections and
>> >> probing
>> >> for clarifications, never making a point of your own.
>> >
>> > In my view, "not wrong" is an avoidance of stating that killing
>> > animals,
>> > for example, is right or morally netural. I find that you do that quite
>> > often. In all of the discussions thus far, you have avoided stating
>> > something as morally neutral or just plain "right".
>>
>> It's the same thing, just addressed from a slightly different
>> perspective.
>> Killing animals, under the proper circumstances, is "not wrong", "right",
>> "acceptable", "moral", "ethical", "justifiable", "morally neutral",
>> however
>> you want to look at it. This is not an objection with any substance,
>> you're
>> grasping.
>
> Well, let me give you a few examples of what I experience when I read
> your comments. It's not wrong to get married. It's not wrong to have
> children. It's not wrong to go to work and be productive in society. How
> odd is that I would label these acts as not wrong versus labeling them
> as expected, normal, natural, right, and so on.

I would not have called those things "not wrong" either because there is no
indication to me that anyone would consider them wrong, i.e. there is no
harm involved.

>> >> > I find you more confusing than
>> >> > ever.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe your game isn't so functional as you wish it were. If your
>> >> objections
>> >> and requests for clarification game was working you should be in a
>> >> better
>> >> position to understand my position.
>> >
>> > I do. You avoid responsibility for actions and you make excuses for
>> > others.
>>
>> Never.
>
> Frequently. You've done it with respect to pot use, veganism, child
> abuse, and killing in several situations.

Wrong.

>> > The person who kills the animal is killing the animal.
>>
>> Tautology.
>>
>> > They do
>> > so because they want to, otherwise they wouldn't.
>>
>> They probably do it because it's the only job they can get and they need
>> the
>> money.
>
> Absolution, forgiveness, excuses, justification, mitigation, etc. The
> language is filled with words that describe what you accomplished in
> that sentence.

Nope, just a fact, they are doing a difficult, unpleasant, low wage job
because they need the money. They are not looking for forgiveness.

> Of course, how could anyone want to hurt an animal? There _must_ be
> another reason. How could we function as humans to know that we are
> aggressive animals on this planet with behaviours that span a spectrum
> from "gentle" to "cruel". How could we maintain a guiding principle of
> not doing harm unless we created motivation and intent to exhonerate
> ourselves from our actions.

Was that a question? It kinda sounded like a speech, and it didn't make much
sense.

>
>> > Justification and
>> > mitigation are just ways the human beast satisfies it sense of guilt
>> > and
>> > shame at publicly accepted and enforced codes.
>>
>> Hogwash.
>
> Are you disputing this?

What do YOU think?

>> >> > There are a variety of possibilities such as wrong, neutral or
>> >> > right. I imagine with could anything across a spectrum from almost
>> >> > right
>> >> > to not quite wrong.
>> >>
>> >> You are decribing the moral ambiguity of veganism. I think you should
>> >> address the question to them.
>> >
>> > No. I'm addressing your fondness for using "not wrong". Please clarify
>> > do you mean right, or morally netural when you use this term, or is
>> > there some other explanation that you have for not wrong.
>>
>> Nope, all of those terms are synonyms with nearly identical meanings.
>
> Agreed. It's not wrong for a married couple to engage in sex for bonding
> or to procreate. and, it's not wrong to kill humans in some circstances.
> Does this demonstrate for you how you use the term.

Not really. I would never have contemplated that married sex was wrong, it's
not a moral issue to me.

>> >> > Please clarify what you mean by "not wrong."
>> >> > For example, is paying my taxes "not wrong"?
>> >>
>> >> For the most part, yes, of course. I can see nothing wrong in paying
>> >> one's
>> >> taxes. What do *you* think?
>> >
>> > I think you continue to evade the question.
>>
>> What question?
>
> You did clarify somewhat. So can we discuss the functional difference
> between wrong, not wrong, almost right and right or acceptable.

Let's not, you're putting me to sleep.

>> > As I've stated the act of giving money is morally neutral. As humans,
>> > we
>> > attach moral value to the purpose, function, motivation and so on.
>> > Paying 10K to the taxman = good. Paying 10 K to a prostitue or drug
>> > dealer = bad. The actions involved are the same. What is being "judged"
>> > is the motive and intent.
>>
>> Yes, combined with the action. Thinking about doing a wrong act is not
>> wrong. Thinking about doing an unselfish act is not commendable. The
>> action
>> is required. The circumstances are also required to assess the morality.
>
> The the action is not being assessed.
>
> A "john" pays a prostitute 10K for a weekend of sex. The general
> perception is that this is wrong.

Not really, not if it is mutally agreeable. It's not even illegal in this
country.

> The prostitute uses the money to feed
> her child, pay the rent so the child has a safe place to live and then
> invests 5K in an education fund for the child's future. Her actions are
> now the same as many parents. Is the act of her prostitution still
> "wrong"? Her actions have not caused harm, but are beneficial for her
> child.

Yea, so?

> You've argued that circumstances mitigate morality. Does it?

Always.