Bull.
A retaliation is a response to aggression as well.
When one leaves their own borders, it is no longer "self-defense".
We can stop reading at this.
This "retaliation" was defense of the Christian world.
Frankly it was nothing less than self-defense. The Christian world was perceived as coming to an end, there was a huge amount of milleniumism fervor going on about. With their religion, nations and entire existence legitimately threatened by Muslims on both side how is not protecting their boarders and taking back land that was taken from them not self-defense? You seem to with that the western christian world should have just gave up and acquiesced to Muslim invaders.
And would you consider Muslim retaking of palestine "self-defense"? It was originally theirs, after all. Retaking something no matter the case is not "self-defense" especially if it's several hundred years later.
Hardly... If you want to play that game. Palestine was Roman Christian territory after 313 AD (And before that it was still Roman territory) It was only 300 years later that the Muslims took it. So no, there is absolutely no way you can argue that Muslims had "first dibs" on the area. Other ethnic/religious groups sure, but not Muslims.
And who had it before the Romans, and who had it before them, and then who had it before that group and who before that? We can keep going back and back. It's an infinite regression. If everybody tried to retake land their ancestors lived on the world would fall into utter chaos. Point being simply because your ethnic or religious group lived somewhere does not automatically give you rites to those lands, it's barbarism. We are civilized people and live by the rules of society, we cannot simply take whatever we want.
So because your initial point was shown to be incorrect you resort to irrelevant babble about pacifism without making any attempt to understand what caused the reactions European Christians had during the Crusades 900 year ago. I'm sorry but your user text does not fit you.
And what exactly was my initial point? That retaliation is not self-defense? I'm curious as to how that was "shown to be incorrect". I'm waiting....
Also curious to how my post was irrelevant, on the contrary it is very relevant, If we do not have rights to a land then defending it is not "self-defense". And no matter what the crusaders reasons were it doesn't change the fact that what they did was not self-defense, you are committing the special pleading fallacy with that argument. But perhaps you are willing to overlook the atrocities committed by the crusaders because they are "on your side". I know you know I was right as soon as you read my previous post which is why you refuse to acknowledge the points I made.
Perhaps you should read it again...
I'll quote it for you to ease the difficult process. If you actually have questions or comments about what I have said then please post them. Your random tangent statements are useless and fail.
The Christian world was perceived as coming to an end, there was a huge amount of milleniumism fervor going on about. With their religion, nations and entire existence legitimately threatened by Muslims on both side how is not protecting their boarders and taking back land that was taken from them not self-defense? You seem to with that the western christian world should have just gave up and acquiesced to Muslim invaders.
Who says you don't have rights to land? You are trying to adapt a philosophy that is antithetical to that of any existing in the Western World c.1000ad. You can't judge the actions of the Crusaders (or the Muslims for that matter) with any level of academic or intellectual honestly by trying to apply a completely irrelevant and non existent philosophy to them.
What points did you make? You made none relevant to this. If you think you have feel free to repost them one by one and I will respond to each of them. I'm sorry but you have failed to produce an comment of substance regarding this topic. You have made plenty of bad assumptions and mistakes in your amateur attempts at history.
Don't bother replying if you can't answer a simple yes or no question.
What quote?
The only real Muslim threat to Christendom was the Moorish invasion of Spain, which was ended rather dramatically, the only succesful muslim force after that was Saladin's army which was raised in defense of the Muslim lands, but of course these Muslim warriors were no less brutal than their European cousins (the crusaders). After this there were 8 or 9 crusades (depending if you include the children's crusade), these wars were brutal and women and children were often massacred in the process. These wars were being pushed into places that were never really christian to begin with (Egypt for example). Of course the church tried to justify it as self defense but if this is what you call self-defense then I'd hate to see what you consider aggression.
Do you understand that idea? Yes or No?
The causes for the Crusade are numerous in its own right and cover non-religious, social and cultural factors and deeply religious ideological causes.
In France there has been a break down of centralized power, creating a situation where the king no longer had real authority and caused a society that had been constructed for war to have no other option but turn its aggression in on itself. An ?Ethos of violence? that had originated with invaders from the North had taken hold of all levels of society. #To combat this many local church authorities attempted to institute a ?Pax Dei?, or Peace of God which attempted to ban the use of force during certain time of the year or days of the week. Out of this, the idea that the aggressions of society could be put to a cause and serve the Church developed.#
Population growth and limited food production were also underlying social issues that would lead to a society more inclined to join a crusading movement. The population of Europe had grown to a level that the system of inheritance and marriage were being put under extreme pressures. Crusading would be seen as a colonial venture into a new land refereed to in scripture as ?flowing with milk and honey.?# This already present condition would be exacerbated when Northern Europe was devastated by a poor harvest in autumn 1095, the prospect of crusading would have been seen as a way for both serfs and land owners to rescue themselves from depressing economic conditions. # However, historian Frederic Duncalf counter argues that ?the crusading movement was not preceded by a period of exception distress is made more certain by the knowledge that the followers of Walther and Peter [the Hermit]?were not the product of hard times?, as there existed a readily available supply of money or significant property to mortgage that had made them capable for paying for more than five months of supplies.#
While various social factors may have created a society ready to crusade, the religious motivational factors were what created the need. The Crusades were ostensibly in response to Muslim domination of Jerusalem. From the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in 683, Jews and Christians remained tolerated minorities. [SIZE="5"]However, as Jerusalem grew as a pilgrimage site, intolerance towards Jews and Christians increased. By the tenth century Jews were prohibited from entering the Temple Mount. Soon after, Muslim intolerance of Jews and Christians would reach its peak when in 1009 when all Jewish and Christian places of worship in Jerusalem, including the Holy Sepulcher, were ordered destroyed by Fatimid Caliph Hakim;[/SIZE] which on its own prompted a bout of anti-Jewish violence in parts of France.# [SIZE="5"]The near total destruction of the Holy Sepulcher disrupted an increasing flow of pilgrims and probably increased anxiety over the millennium and the believed approach of the Last Days; as it would be in Jerusalem that the final acts would happen; the appearance of the Anti-Christ, return of the Savior, splitting of the tomb and General Resurrection. # [/SIZE]
Pope Urban II called the Crusades to be a war of Liberation and a vendetta against the occupiers of Jerusalem, saying ?Avenger our God, your father, your brother?whom you hear calling desolate and begging for aid.? # Using an ideology formed by St. Augustine, the crusade was to be a ?just war?, a war proclaimed against the threat of invasion and danger to the faith.# This continued a tradition that Urban II said started with the Spanish Reconquista. [SIZE="5"]Jerusalem would not be the only important Christian city that was under Muslim control. In 1096 the liberation of Nicaea was also a prime goal of the Crusaders. The Muslim occupation of Nicaea by the Turks in 1077, was a double outrage to Christians due to the city?s status as a symbol of the One True Faith as the birth place of the cult of the cross.#[/SIZE]
Now if you care to actually respond to the above explanation of the historical events and perception that Europe had of their world and what Muslims were doing to it, feel free to post.
So then i should judge them by their morals when their morals are so obviously tainted? Certainly not. I judge them by the merit of their actions. Whether or not the crusaders understood ethics makes them no more or less ethical.
I tire of repeating myself. My point two posts back was that simply because our ancestors lived somewhere does not give us an inherent right to uplift the people who currently live there. It would be the equivalent of modern Mexicans trying to retake the American southwest.
The one I put in quotations?
So you still didn?t respond to anything posted. Who would have thought, I guess that's par for internet forums. What a shame.
You are no much for a social historian are you. You can't understand social history with hindsight, which is what you are doing. You have to understand it through those that lived it.
I know you wont read the essay excerpt posted below but you should and it would do you great good in understanding the causes of the First Crusade.
As you can see, European Christiandom thought its world was ending, its very existence, the lives, everything that generations of people had known was believed on the brink of being lost forever, all due to the encroachment of Muslim powers into long held Christian lands.
Another tangent you bring up irrelevant to this topic that you and I are on (the origin of the crusades), is what the Crusades turned into (it is important that what Pope Urban II started was not what the Crusades became), yes they were horrible, lots of bad things happened due to a multitude of reasons. Its moot point that was never part of any part of my posts.
You?re cute, not that willing to learn, but still cut.
The sad part is, is that you are still applying modern ethics and morality to a world in which you have no understanding of. No historian, no person wanting to understand the past does this. Its flawed and juvenile thinking.
Since you're just spouting modern philosophical happy talk, what you wish to judge the crusaders, though not the Muslims by is intellectual and academic garbage.
Its sad, I?ve responded to every statement no matter how ridiculous or irrelevant its been, but you?re too much of an intellectual coward to even muster a anything but a ?who can be louder? reply.
Rubbish! Absolute Garbage! I don't care how society was at the time, what is wrong today was wrong yesterday and was wrong a hundred years ago and was wrong a thousand years ago. Morality does not flex, it does not bend to our thoughts and deeds. Morality does not conform to society, society must conform to morality. You are about to fall into the paradox of the moral relativist.
Actually I did read it, but there was not a single point that I have not already contended. But it's nice to see you piggyback on the work of others.
And at what point was Egypt a "christian land"?
Again here you go again trying to pass off every counter-argument as irrelevant. So how exactly is the murdering of women and children "self-defense"?
I see. If by "learn" you mean "agree with you", then yes. But don't be so pompous and self-centered as to think that you have some knowledge that I just won't accept, such a view is very base and juvenile, one you'd do well to discard.
Again, the "they thought it was okay at the time" argument isn't going to gain any ground.
Morality is suddenly modern philosophical happy talk? If that is what you think then I can understand why you'd think what the crusaders did was is any way acceptable.
I do not care for your condescending attitude.
No my friend, that is bull****. Morality does change, it always has it always will, morality is dictated by the people. That?s why at one point in time it was ok to stone a disobedient child, that?s why at one point it was ok to watch criminals get torn up by lions, that?s why at one time it was ok to own slaves, that?s why abortion is a politically defining issues. Because morality changes with those who define it. You want to make that thread you can and we can all watch you flounder there too. You are trying to pass off this new age morality of pacifism as if it has ever been philosophical constant. It wasn?t, it didn?t exist then. Each side had a religious and philosophical dogma that was wholly incompatible with the other. The both of them could not hold to the literal tenants of their religion, their world view, their existence without viewing the other as whole and legitimate threat to their existence.
Now you with to hold on to this idea that the land was always someone?s, ok so whose was it first?
Why shouldn?t cultural Darwinism dictate who ruled? It worked for every other civilization to that point? Do you ascribe to some unidentifiable ?why can?t we all just get along? ideology.
Another tangent to what the 4th crusade? Isn?t this a little irrelevant to the start of the crusades? Sorry I specialized in the first.
Because they have nothing to do with the start of the crusades! Is your inferiority on this subject matter so great that you can?t even keep to the topic.
Now if you would like me to post the rest of that paper you might learn about that too. I?ll quickly sum it up though, the violence against the Jews that occurred in 1096 was not any part of Urban?s decree. It was wholly at the hands of rouge and unofficial crusading parties. If you are referring to violence against Mulims?then you need to brush up on your understanding of religious dogma during the turn of the millennium. To each side, if you were the opposition?s religion you were the enemy, there was no innocent victim in the cultural eyes of Christiandom. (or Islam)
Since you are unwilling to accept facts, one is only left with few other options to consider.
Then it is unfortunate that your understanding of social history will remain too na?ve and sophomoric. Perhaps more study in the area, rather than using modern dogmatic views that are an impossible fit with the time frame in discussion would do you good.
Since the morality you wish to apply to the situation did not exist in 1000ad, yes. Pretty simple don?t you think.
And I don?t care for your ignorance, arrogance and flat out intellectually and academically dishonesty.
I see, well, if that's the direction you want to go with this discussion then It will be a long and difficult road. Your moral relativism is intellectually bankrupt.
There is no merit with such a position and the ensuing paradox is inescapable. Society does not define morality, no person or group defines it. If that was true would it be moral to murder you and your family if society deemed it acceptable? If society decided it was okay to kill all differing ethnic groups, would it then be okay. If I decided it was okay to hurt you then you could have no objections.
Society does not define morality, no person or group defines it.
If I decided it was okay to hurt you then you could have no objections.
If that was true would it be moral to murder you and your family if society deemed it acceptable? If society decided it was okay to kill all differing ethnic groups, would it then be okay.
In your view morality is entirely arbitrary and without base, shifting as the wind, absolutely anything society thought was good must be acceptable, but that is not the case is it? You must at least have a rudimentary understanding of ethics to know the base and foundation of it. You must understand why morality exists to understand what it is and why. We know morality does to some degree have a common foundation and purpose by simply examining different cultures. Different cultures have different ideas of morality but it is the similarities that tells us the basis of morality. Something you don't seem to comprehend.
We don't know who's it was first which is why we can't claim rights to a land simply because of where our ancestors lived.
We know who owns a land based on who lives there CURRENTLY.
Nice try. :p
I see how you try to ignore the part that contradicts your argument. This is about the crusades, you know, all of them. To say the crusades were for self-defense is different than saying the first crusade was in self-defense.
Um.....No!
It wasn't about the "start" of the crusades, it was about the crusades as a whole, if I meant the start I would've said the start. Quit trying to change the argument when you know you're wrong.
Because What a religion says is automatically true, right? It doesn't matter if they believed there were no innocents, it matters that they killed innocent people, which is once again, not self-defense.
Of course.
*rolls eyes*
Don't be so obtuse, you know this isn't about "study", this is about how one defines self-defense. And I believe I've made a compelling case of why the crusades do not constitute self-defense.
You mean not murdering women and children, didn't exist in 1000ad? Or more accurately 1000 CE (common era).
And yet I put up with yours.
Hmph.....
Bwahahahahah oh god. You?re a ***ing comedian aren?t you? That was good. Another dogmatic statement without even the slightly support. Who would have thought that Fatal Freedoms fatal flaw was that he never actually produces an intelligible argument supported with anything.
You are sadly ill educated on the topic of morality. I would love you to describe your imaginary paradox in depth. You brought it up now support its existence. Your above statement is riddled with intellectual mistakes. I?ll help you out though and go through them one by one.
No? How did slavery become immoral?
It was an acceptable practice for all of the western world for 3000+ years.
The Greeks had it, the Romans had it, the European Kingdoms of the Dark, Middle and Early Modern Ages had it. It was a stable and acceptable practice until the 1700?s. Right, you?ve come to a most simple of brick walls in your limited argument. Morality changed, it was no longer culturally acceptable to hold innocent (or criminal) people against their will for the servitude of others.
No, here you fail. If SOCIETY DECIDED, not just you, it was ok to hurt me, as you would not be committing an immoral act. That says nothing of me allowing you to do it freely. Morality does not force me to acquiesce, just as it doesn?t force you to hurt me.
But then again we have that same thing already, it?s called the death penalty. And it?s a moral issue that is began to change in our life times.
Yup it sure would be. Just as for a majority of American history it was ok to publicly kill criminals. Only lately has that cultural moral belief began to change, now some states don?t have the DP and plenty of people argue against it.
That?s an example of American morality changing in front of us.
Morality is arbitrary. It always has been and it always will be. Make a single claim that supports it being otherwise. I beg you.
You are confusing altruism with morality. And BINGO BANGO you just state
?Different cultures have different ideas of morality but it is the similarities that tells us the basis of morality?
So what?s vague and undefined yet never changing basis of morality, that allows some morals(? Already contradicting yourself here) to differ by social/cultural group but not other morals? Enlighten the forum with your knowledge here I plead you.
So how do we claim rights to land? Does that mean I can just punch you in the mouth and take your house?
Are you going to fight me for it? Are you going to call the cops, oh wait?that getting into defending yourself through the established (through societal and cultural acceptance) legal system.
What would you do? What do you have the right to do? Answer.
So when the Muslims invaded the land currently owned by Christian nations, those nations had no right to defend themselves? Or try to take that land back? You are a typing contradiction here. What do you mean and how does that relate to the causes/justification of the Crusades?
Lying will get you no where here so cut this crap. 90% of that content you never ever touched upon. You never mentioned anything about millennialism, about Muslims forcefully taking long time Christian land, about what Pope Urban II authorized the first crusade to be, about the Ethos of violence that permeated central European culture. Or did you? Please don?t kid yourself.
I take it you forgot to respond to this or you just wished it would go away?
How does it contradict anything? The 4th Crusade is not the 1st Crusade. Christendom lost Jerusalem again to Saladin. The entire effort was to get that land back. Those initial causes never ended, they didn?t go away. But yes the crusades evolved and many INDEPENDENT leaders of it did many terrible terrible things. Militarily going into Egypt was plenty justified, it was the damn central command of the Muslim forces.
And as we know?Islam and Christianity were wholly incompatible with each other at that time. You could not follow the morality or rule of law of your religion without doing everything in your power to rid the world of the infidels.
I?m sorry, maybe I?ll take a play out of your book and just type louder than you next time.
But, if you go read the first post in the thread, which I question if you actually did. The poster is referencing only the 1st crusade.
And another question?do you even read what you post? In your big copy/paste history of the crusades from wiki found here:
http://www.conflictingviews.com/society/history/crusades-3362-3.html#post63456
It even states that the happening of the 4th crusade ?which was totally diverted from its original course.? And that the pope excommunicated people for their war crimes and that it was Noblemen, not church leaders who lead most of the destruction.
Even your own posts are being used against you know.
:ugh: When you?re whole existence and perception the world is based on your religion, then yes it is the only truth you know. You are again using hindsight in poor attempts to understand the cause of events 1000 years ago. To the Christians no Muslim was innocent, (and vise versa) that was everything they knew. To them, to everyone they knew what they were doing was self defense. I don?t even want to hear what you would have to say about the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. I can only imagine how funny that would be.
You are, even when presented in front of you, you just ignore them.
You?ve built a case on nothing though. Your own citation doesn?t support your claims. You had no case, no evidence, no argument regarding the actual start of the Crusades. The best you?ve mustered is the 4th and Childrens crusades, both of which you have shown to have no historical knowledge of. So yes, this is very much about study and not your personal feelings.
They were criminals, they were guilty by being Muslims (and vise versa). Their mere existence was a crime to all Christian nations. It also doesn?t help the fact that they (Muslims) were under control of long time Christian cities and were oppressing those Christians that were allowed to lived there.
I?m sorry, I?ll stop using reason and evidence. I?ll just yell louder next time.
And who had it before the Romans, and who had it before them, and then who had it before that group and who before that? .....
God.
There was once a scientist who learned how to animate chemicals and dust into slime. He thought he was clever and wanted to prove he was just as capable as God. He told God watch me make life. God said, go ahead. The scientist said first I take some dust. God said, Stop, get your own dust.
I can see a civil conversation with you is out of the question, perhaps if you weren't so emotionally attached to this issue you could discuss this with something other than crude remarks and stubborn belligerence.
The paradox is quite simply really, so simply i'm sure even you with you zealous bigotry could understand it:
A moral relativist believes whatever society thinks is right is right, so if that same society oppress and condemns the existence of that very same moral-relativist, he can have no objections.
Slavery didn't BECOME immoral, it always was immoral.
Simply because it was acceptable doesn't make it morally correct.
Morality didn't change, society changed.
Okay, if SOCIETY decided, you could say nothing of it. Why would you stop society from doing a moral act, by doing so you would become immoral according to your own reasoning.
Well at least you're honest. Willing to die for absolutely nothing simply because the times call for it. Honest, but you have no principals, and have no understanding of morality. Might doesn't make right. If it did then Hitler must've been a pretty okay guy, right?
AN example of CULTURE changing.
Okay, I'll give you a piece of information so you are not quite so clueless. There is a reason why isolated cultures share common ideas of morality, there is a reason why murder of innocents is condemned in virtually every culture, why stealing is considered wrong, if morality was arbitrary there would be no common ground, but there is.
Different cultures share similar but varied ideas of morality
because they share a common foundation of morality, a foundation they themselves didn't understand very well, yet they acted and thought upon these principals.
I'll give you a hint. Morality is an evolved trait. Morality gives humans an advantage. Morality exists because the existence of society depends on it. Morality is a system of thought that preserves society, this is why different cultures share commonalities, because all cultures want to survive and thus all cultures use morality based on the same thing: Survival.
There is no contradiction
ideas of morality =/= morality
The differences is that some actions may be beneficial in some circumstances and not others, this is what accounts for the variability.
You could try.
You are confused here. Simply because morality is not dependent on ideas of society does not mean morality never coincides. Remember morality is survival, and taking my home is a matter of survival so I am justified in defending it from you or anyone else. In the rare case that your survival depends upon taking my home, you would not be wrong in doing whats necessary to survive, but neither would I.
What the crusaders did far exceeded mere self-defense, they we not just defending themselves they were taking lands that they had no right to own in the first place. .
Oh, so now you accuse me of lying? You become very antagonistic don't you? I suppose I am questioning something that you hold very dear to you, that is expected. And yes, I have talked about about Muslim taking of lands and I have talked about culture, and no I did not talk specifically about millennialism nor is it necessary to the conversation.
Again the question was whether the Crusades were self-defense. I don't really care if you think going into Egypt was "justified" it still is not "self-defense" which is what this topic is actually about.
And I care why? They may have believed they were doing the right thing, but in reality they were not. And I don't give a damn about your moral-relativist bull****.
And How does one type loudly?
I am not talking to the poster am I?
I've not copy and pasted anything in our discussion.
Irrelevant. Original course or not, it still doesn't constitute self-defense.
So I should just accept it because they believed it? Surely you jest. Such an intellectually incompetent statement does not even deserved to be on an internet forum.
Or so you insist.
I've made a negative statement, i'm merely criticizing your position, in this case the burden of proof lies on you to show that it was self-defense and so far the only thing you've been able to muster is "they believed this and that" nonsense. Your whole argument relies on an unfounded assumption. A bad one at that. That because they believed it was okay then it is.
again the "they believed this..." argument isn't going to get you anywhere.
I wasn't aware you ever started.
Well my friend you?ve done little to keep it so. I would like to say that I believe capable of learning anything, but in your 3.5k posts I doubt you?ve changed your stand on anything, no matter what evidence or reason is given to you.
Yes moral relativism is the only morality supported in the entire human existence.
But you do not apply it correctly. You are purposefully misrepresenting it as something its not. Because so society changes it morality, doesn?t mean the individual has to acquiesce to it.
It?s a bad counter argument used against moral relativism, its one that asked the moral relativist to say that another set of morals are wrong. When they don?t have to say they are wrong, but they don?t have to accept harm either.
In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.
Ok.. you?re time to do some supporting for once. According to what provable absolute standard? GO!
Sure it does! Unless you are able to prove that some other standard should be used.
I could say plenty about it, I can?t judge it though. That?s the huge point you can?t grasp. We have the DP in our current society, its morally acceptable to kill people who have committed certain crimes. People do a lot of things to avoid it though, but legal and otherwise, I would not say that all these attempts are immoral.
No?again you have problems, boarding on lying really. I would die for something, I accept the DP as a possible punishments for certain crimes, those crimes are not nothing are they? No, they are agreed to set standards of behavior that have been violated.
You continue to miss what moral relativism is. It does not allow me to judge the actions of Hitler are immoral or not. As morality has a temporal nature, he made right for a lot of people Germans didn?t he.
And that is to say that CULTURE defines MORALITY. At least until you can prove the existence of a meta-physical morality higher than that. I?m waiting?
Accept there is common ground among thieves, among tyrannical dictators, among the religious. Those commonalities exist because of moral evolution, because society generally works better that way. But every moral standard makes the exception to one of those at some point in time.
So morality CAN and DOES differ? By what amount? 2% 10% if morality can differ by that much why can?t it differ by 50%? See the inescapable problems you?ve fallen into? You?ve admitted that morality can differ between groups yet you can?t establish the bases for morality.
What?s that foundation? What does it consist of? Identify and prove it.
Oh ****!!! You just defined changing morality!!! Morality evolved? What evolution? Evolution is change over time correct.
I love that you brought up the need to survive. Because that is what changes morality. That is what makes the killing of an innocent moral, because it allowed of the survival of a group, that is what makes stealing ok, because it makes for the survival of a person.
I?ll give you 2 situations please answer them both.
You?re a group of 12-20 Jews trying to escape Nazi territory. You are 10 yards from freedom but there are 10 Nazi troops in your immediate area. This is the only chance you will ever had to escape, if found you will be killed then, if you return you?ll be killed tomorrow. If you escape you all will live a happy life to its natural end at old age. The baby cries (its going to die tomorrow anyways) you have 1 second to decide on action. You can kill it without a sound and escape, or be found. Killing the baby, gives everyone that long happy life. Is not life for 19 better than death for 20?
Or?
It is post apocalyptic America, general enforcement of law has come to an end. You and your family are hungry, in fact if you don?t eat today you?re baby is going to die. In your searches you come to delusional man on his death bed. Maybe 3 days to live, but he?s horded enough food to last you and your family months. He can?t feed himself, and he doesn?t give you authority to take any food. He is going to die soon, but your baby will die sooner if she doesn?t eat. Do you steal his food? It is moral in this case to take something without permission because it will ensure the life of a child?
Damn?what a conundrum you just fell into. I?m sorry, I hope your morality doesn?t let you or your child die.
Which means that morality is variable and dependent on circumstance. Morality is either 100% universal in every respect or it has the ability to differ between time and culture. Any variability at all dismisses the idea that there is any sort of absolutism in morality.
So you would defend your property. But you yourself just said that the Christian nations had no right to defend their own existence from the Muslims. Hypocrisy much?
So it?s ok to be immoral in a given situation? If in that situation the immoral action intended and does produce a net good how is that action still immoral? Can you directly explain that?
