quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Perhaps you might like to clarify what this means then. If this isn't an assertion that a morality based on a (unspecified) "divine Moral Law" (whatever that means) or sourced in an (unspecified) Moral Absolute (whatever that means) is innately superior to an atheist's "matter of judgment and opinion", then I am unsure what it means or how it is relevant.

It means what it says. Not what you infer from it, not what you imagine, but simply what it says.

If what is moral is a matter of judgment and opinion, we can only express our view of the matter and our rational for upholding it. For us to suggest that this view "may" be a moral position, when we obvously believe that it is or we wouldn't be promoting it, and when we do not believe that there is any absolute standard against which to measure such a claim in any case, makes no sense unless we are playing to an audience that we know believes in such a thing, and crafting our language accordingly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I raised two other objections to your initial argument which, thus far, you have declined to address. It seems to me that establishing the validity of any one of the three objections I raised is enough to negate your conclusion. As things stand, the status of two of the three objections seems to me to be valid by default.

Your second objection actually supports my observation, by using the example of theological disputation over what "may" or may not accord with divine moral law. If Harris was a theologian, arguing that his views "may" be seen to accord with the moral law, then you would have a point. My point is, he's not.

And your third objection that conditional "may" statements don't equate to "is" statements illustrates my claim that they reflect posturing, because he clearly and baldly "is" of the view that the pre-emptive murder of people who hold dangerous beliefs, even if they haven't done anything yet, is simply a matter of "self defense."

And incidentally, if someone contradicts an assertion that we went to the Moon by "objecting" that the astronauts did not return with cheese on their boots, their objection is not rendered "valid" by people ignoring such batshit.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
Not all other applications, and certainly not obliged if the writer is content for their text to be ambiguous or open to (mis)interpretation.  Only one express disavowal is needed to satisfy me, something like: I do not agree with or endorse such a course of action.  It is common practice for writers to issue such disclaimers when positing an extreme option for purposes of argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
He doesn't actually condemn it, much less as a crime, in the book excerpt. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
My reading here (post 425) and here (post 447).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
It means what it says. Not what you infer from it, not what you imagine, but simply what it says.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Kirata
It must be remembered that Harris is an atheist. There is, therefore, for him no moral Absolute to which this view "may" (or may not) be seen to conform. Whether it is ethical or justified is a matter of judgment and opinion, not divine Moral Law.

Sorry absence of a moral Absolute does not equal absence of morality. The implication that there can be no morality of consequence in the absence of a moral Absolute (whatever that maybe) is astonishingly arrogant.

All human pronouncements on matters of ethics are "matter(s) of judgment and opinion", irrespective of whether they are sourced in "divine Moral Law" or another source. The numerous disagreements between theologians and ethicists in a single tradition (eg Christian) all sourced in the same "divine Moral Law" are surely proof of this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Israel does it all the time... "pre-emptive killing" in the name of self-defence... I find these cold blooded Israeli murders abhorrent.

Would you feel better if they called it an "unconscionable" act of self defense? 

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

The consequences of silence should be obvious.

The consequences of silence will be that your hijack is ignored and doesn't get to go any further.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
He doesn't actually condemn it, much less as a crime, in the book excerpt. 

He not only calls it a crime but an unthinkable crime.

quote:

ORIGINAL Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pages 128-129
Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—

quote:

ORIGINAL Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pages 128-129
but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
My reading here (post 425) and here (post 447).

I reject several of your assumptions and opinions as unwarranted or even contradictory to the quote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Israel does it all the time... "pre-emptive killing" in the name of self-defence... I find these cold blooded Israeli murders abhorrent.

Would you feel better if they called it an "unconscionable" act of self defense?  K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

This is getting exasperating.

There is no need to hypothesise about States pretending that their cold-blooded murders are "pre-emptive killings" justified by the right to "self-defence".

Israel does it all the time. Has done so for years. Under the guise of "targeted assassinations" in "self defence". The current Israeli Defence Minister, Barak is well-known for his role in some such assassinations. They clearly qualify as "pre-emptive killing" in the name of self-defence. No doubt about that.

I find these cold blooded Israeli murders abhorrent. That's an unequivocal statement of where I stand. Any one care to join me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

The consequences of silence should be obvious.

The consequences of silence will be that your hijack is ignored and doesn't get to go any further.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Israel does it all the time... "pre-emptive killing" in the name of self-defence... I find these cold blooded Israeli murders abhorrent.

Would you feel better if they called it an "unconscionable" act of self defense?  K.

I'd prefer calling it "an unthinkably criminal, unconscionable, horribly ironic, perfectly insane, plausibly scenic, horribly absurd act of self-defense which the Muslim world must anticipate and prevent."