More ethical paradoxes

[Delta4Embassy]

"Homosexuality is immoral because it's unnatural." So the inference is, anything unnatural is probably immoral, and anything "natural" therefore is moral.

BUT, killing is extremely natural. Especially when competition for mates, food, other resources is in play. So why is killing someone ahead of you in a checkout line "immoral" if eliminating competition is perfectly natural?

 

[Avatar4321]

It's not obvious?

Btw something being natural is not the standard of what is good. Sin is natural in our fallen state. And the natural man is an enemy of God and has been so since the Fall of Adam and will be forever and ever until he puts off the natural man and yields to.the enticing of the holy Spirit becoming a saint and being born again.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It's not obvious?

Btw something being natural is not the standard of what is good. Sin is natural in our fallen state. And the natural man is an enemy of God and has been so since the Fall of Adam and will be forever and ever until he puts off the natural man and yields to.the enticing of the holy Spirit becoming a saint and being born again.

Your arguement assume God is real. If you can prove that by all means. Otherwise inviting God into the equation doesn't establish a valid arguement since it'd be like saying "Because a pixie says so."

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If you have something I want, and are unwilling to give it to me, then in order to obtain it I have to fight and take it from you, just as every other animal does it 'natural' competition. Yet we say that that's unethical (to say nothing of illegal) despite it being perfectly natural.

But we condemn homosexuality (however inaccruately) because it's "unnatural." And heterosexuality is ethical because that's "natural."

Well bonking someone over the head and taking their lollipop's the human equivilent of what animals do so why'd we make that illegal? Why is it unethical?

 

[zaangalewa]

"Homosexuality is immoral because it's unnatural." So the inference is, anything unnatural is probably immoral, and anything "natural" therefore is moral.

"Natural" is in the opposit of "manmade". Take the human rights as an example. Some people are thinking human rights are rights made from human beings for human being and subsumize "abortion" under the human rights. Others are thinking the human rights are natural human rights only expressed from human beings for human beings while the background of this rights is transzendent - and in this case it is impossible to subsumize abortion under "human rights", because in this case the right to kill human beings is not able to be a human right. That would be contradiction. In the declaration of independence of the USA they wrote for example "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..." This form of "self-evidence" is nearly the same like the use of the word "natural".

BUT, killing is extremely natural.

But killing is not a natural right for human beings. Why? We have the same rights to take care for our food like animals - but we are not in the position of animals who are only able to take care for their own energy. We are the souvereigns - what doesn't mean we can do whatever we like to do. A sovereign can have all might, but has not every right. We have to take care for the living creation of god and we are responsible for his creation in the eyes of the Lord himselve. It was for example a very very great sin when people shot down buffaloes without eating them, but with the motivation to let red indian tribes die on hunger. This was "naturally" (self-evident) "successfull" (in sense of racism, darwinism). The "darwinistic fit" whites wan and the "darwinistic unfit" reds died. But feels anyone who is born in the third millenium comfortable with such a historical fact? We are all children of god. So what will god think about?

Especially when competition for mates, food, other resources is in play. So why is killing someone ahead of you in a checkout line "immoral" if eliminating competition is perfectly natural?

Your problem exists maybe because you think the word "natural" exists since Charles Darwin created the world - but he explained only something about some little elements of this world here. "Nature" itselve is much older and not manmade.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Your arguement assume God is real. If you can prove that by all means. Otherwise inviting God into the equation doesn't establish a valid arguement since it'd be like saying "Because a pixie says so."

But if a pixie would say god is not existing? ... Keeps one question: ... What is a pixie? ... Ah - a pixie - got it - wonderful. I believe your pixie is right and my pixie is wrong while you believe your pixie is wrong and my pixie is right.

 

[zaangalewa]

If you have something I want, and are unwilling to give it to me, then in order to obtain it I have to fight and take it from you,

Robbery?

just as every other animal does it 'natural' competition.

Did you ever in your life communicate with an animal? Did for example never a cat bring you a mouse because she loved you and she liked to teach you how to catch mice?

Yet we say that that's unethical (to say nothing of illegal) despite it being perfectly natural.

But we condemn homosexuality (however inaccruately) because it's "unnatural." And heterosexuality is ethical because that's "natural."

If you should think homosexuality is a sin then you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin.

Well bonking someone over the head and taking their lollipop's the human equivilent of what animals do

Birds for example are feeding their breed with Lollipops ah sorry: warm worms. They don't steal worms from their breed.

so why'd we make that illegal? Why is it unethical?

Because only idiots will survive in your anarchic system and not octopods?