- Thread starter
- #121
Logic's.So who's moral law then, yours?Not a physical law of nature, dummy."Not always and not immediately" so it doesn't work like a real law of nature. Thanks for clearing that up.Not always and not immediately, dummy. This is why it's a waste of time discussing things with you. You can't even get right what you have been told.The consequences of doing something immoral was victory. So much for your law. Doofus.I've only addressed this a dozen times with you, Taz.So if dropping nukes on civilians is amoral, what were the consequences for having broken that law?I don't see how I am walking anything back, Taz. Truman himself said it wasn't moral. People do immoral things, Taz. Deal with it.So now you're walking this back "This is the moral law at work." Good for you, it was nonsense.I don't care about his behavior or the outcome of his decision. I only care that he believed it was the lesser of two evils.Truman's behaviour had a good outcome, so according to you, it's morally right to drop nukes on civilians.Truman called it the lesser of two evils.Dropping nukes on Japan was good for us but not so good for the civilians of those 2 cities. Morally ok or not to drop nukes on civilians?So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work.
Dropping the nukes was the lesser of two evils and has absolutely nothing to do with the moral law at work. If you want to see the moral law at work just stop being virtuous to everyone you love. You'll see it then.
So you tell me.