In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> > Could you please clarify "not wrong".
> >>
> >> Could you please clarify what you mean by "please clarify "not wrong"?
> >
> >> Cute little game you have going.. continuously making objections and
> >> probing
> >> for clarifications, never making a point of your own.
> >
> > In my view, "not wrong" is an avoidance of stating that killing animals,
> > for example, is right or morally netural. I find that you do that quite
> > often. In all of the discussions thus far, you have avoided stating
> > something as morally neutral or just plain "right".
>
> It's the same thing, just addressed from a slightly different perspective.
> Killing animals, under the proper circumstances, is "not wrong", "right",
> "acceptable", "moral", "ethical", "justifiable", "morally neutral", however
> you want to look at it. This is not an objection with any substance, you're
> grasping.

Well, let me give you a few examples of what I experience when I read
your comments. It's not wrong to get married. It's not wrong to have
children. It's not wrong to go to work and be productive in society. How
odd is that I would label these acts as not wrong versus labeling them
as expected, normal, natural, right, and so on.

> >> > I find you more confusing than
> >> > ever.
> >>
> >> Maybe your game isn't so functional as you wish it were. If your
> >> objections
> >> and requests for clarification game was working you should be in a better
> >> position to understand my position.
> >
> > I do. You avoid responsibility for actions and you make excuses for
> > others.
>
> Never.

Frequently. You've done it with respect to pot use, veganism, child
abuse, and killing in several situations.

> > The person who kills the animal is killing the animal.
>
> Tautology.
>
> > They do
> > so because they want to, otherwise they wouldn't.
>
> They probably do it because it's the only job they can get and they need the
> money.

Absolution, forgiveness, excuses, justification, mitigation, etc. The
language is filled with words that describe what you accomplished in
that sentence.

Of course, how could anyone want to hurt an animal? There _must_ be
another reason. How could we function as humans to know that we are
aggressive animals on this planet with behaviours that span a spectrum
from "gentle" to "cruel". How could we maintain a guiding principle of
not doing harm unless we created motivation and intent to exhonerate
ourselves from our actions.

> > Justification and
> > mitigation are just ways the human beast satisfies it sense of guilt and
> > shame at publicly accepted and enforced codes.
>
> Hogwash.

Are you disputing this?

> >> > There are a variety of possibilities such as wrong, neutral or
> >> > right. I imagine with could anything across a spectrum from almost
> >> > right
> >> > to not quite wrong.
> >>
> >> You are decribing the moral ambiguity of veganism. I think you should
> >> address the question to them.
> >
> > No. I'm addressing your fondness for using "not wrong". Please clarify
> > do you mean right, or morally netural when you use this term, or is
> > there some other explanation that you have for not wrong.
>
> Nope, all of those terms are synonyms with nearly identical meanings.

Agreed. It's not wrong for a married couple to engage in sex for bonding
or to procreate. and, it's not wrong to kill humans in some circstances.
Does this demonstrate for you how you use the term.

> >> > Please clarify what you mean by "not wrong."
> >> > For example, is paying my taxes "not wrong"?
> >>
> >> For the most part, yes, of course. I can see nothing wrong in paying
> >> one's
> >> taxes. What do *you* think?
> >
> > I think you continue to evade the question.
>
> What question?

You did clarify somewhat. So can we discuss the functional difference
between wrong, not wrong, almost right and right or acceptable.

> > As I've stated the act of giving money is morally neutral. As humans, we
> > attach moral value to the purpose, function, motivation and so on.
> > Paying 10K to the taxman = good. Paying 10 K to a prostitue or drug
> > dealer = bad. The actions involved are the same. What is being "judged"
> > is the motive and intent.
>
> Yes, combined with the action. Thinking about doing a wrong act is not
> wrong. Thinking about doing an unselfish act is not commendable. The action
> is required. The circumstances are also required to assess the morality.

The the action is not being assessed.

A "john" pays a prostitute 10K for a weekend of sex. The general
perception is that this is wrong. The prostitute uses the money to feed
her child, pay the rent so the child has a safe place to live and then
invests 5K in an education fund for the child's future. Her actions are
now the same as many parents. Is the act of her prostitution still
"wrong"? Her actions have not caused harm, but are beneficial for her
child.

You've argued that circumstances mitigate morality. Does it?