@εïз irma εïз we don't have to use the word evil then, we could use "bad" or "wrong"

Is it bad for a child to steal from a baker if they're starving?

@Josh42A
>me
>a post modernist
I am an ABSOLUTIST

@εïз irma εïз it's bad for anyone to steal, reason does not matter

nice try post modernist

perhaps it is wrong for the child to be starving

I can tell you're a absolutist because of the gaps in your logic.

but thieving is still wrong

@εïз irma εïз its not wrong in terms of nessesity , but it is in principle

@Josh42A you're the one with a morally relative ideology

morals *are* reletive

false

It is bad for ANYONE to steal, ignoring the context of specific situations. The necessity of starvation is more important than the morality of theft.

^literal post modernist though @Josh42A

didnt you say things have an intrinsic value

they do

Moral relativism is not a strictly post-modernist view.

then how are morals subjective?

@εïз irma εïз
>implying a justified act can't still be wrong
it's almost as if you're a relativist

morals are reletive because context matters

morals should be on principle

pragmatism is bullshit

if your morality is moveable, it shall be moved, and thus it is relativist

They should and they are, yet morals are not the same everywhere. Only morals that are a part of our biological shopping list are common across cultures.

yes just like society

if all the moral principals were in place the starving child wouldnt happen

Yes I quoted Foucault. 😎

@Rob Travis (Mason) this is literally true

sure

we would feed him before he felt the need to steal

But this is not the case. It never has been and it never will.

let me clarify

never have an ideology judged on its imperfections

only on its stated principles

Never express your ideology based on its imperfections.

St. Thomas of Aquinas is all the moral philosophy necessary to be sound and true

punishment for immoral actions must be relative

>implying punishment has even been brought up on our end

which is why we have different punishment for different crimes and how severe

>implying you have a monopoly on what is and is not discussed

>implying that this isn't a contained discussion between 4 people with 2 people falling relatively together