Reply to thread

There's an old saying: "It takes an idiot to argue with a genius".


Indeed, only moral relativist utilitarians would ever argue with an ontologically based ethicist, stipulating, as the utilitarians do, that murder is okay.


The idiocy of the moral relativist utilitarian argument, that it is okay to murder newly conceived people because the murderer's "freedom of choice" supercedes the foundational right to life of the person so murdered, is obvious, not only to geniuses, but to everyone else, everyone else, of course, except the moral relativist utilitarian.


Indeed, it doesn't take a genius to grasp that the right to life supercedes the right to freedom of action, as evidenced by the good law throughout human history that has compelled monarchs and dictators to cease and desist their "freedom of choice" previous practice of conveniently murdering anyone whom they found to be a political obstacle.


That utilitarian moral relativists actually argue vice versa, that freedom of action overrides right to life, is truly idiotic.


And, of course, the utilitarian moral relativist arguements are, not surprisingly, laced with error of facts, false accusations against the character of the ontologically based ethicists, and immature childish name-calling ... further substantiating the incredible idiocy of their position.


Back
Top