In defense of objective morals

[Kenny]

What do you mean by that? Years ago sacrificing virgins to the Volcano God was perfectly morally acceptable, today it would be considered an atrocity. Then consider the idea of 30 yr old men marrying 12 yr old girls, Gay marriage, slavery, & racism, genocide during war; how are these values consistent with today just applied differently?

Let me start with two of your examples here.

1) Volcano God - why did people sacrifice virgins?

During that time human sacrifice was considered an acceptable practice to appease the Gods.

What is it they believed this would do?

Prevent the volcano from erupting and destroying everything.

2) Racism - Why was it seen as alright to have black African slaves in America?

Slavery was an a common and acceptable practice during that time.

Why did white people considers blacks "property" and not equals?

Because they were primitive in their own environment they were seen as inferior people.

I'm kind of feeding you words, but it's perhaps unavoidable.
So, if you don't mind answering these questions...?

That's okay; I'm curious to see where this is going.

K

[Kurieuo]

1) Volcano God - why did people sacrifice virgins?

During that time human sacrifice was considered an acceptable practice to appease the Gods.

What is it they believed this would do?

Prevent the volcano from erupting and destroying everything.

So, then. To save many, one is being sacrified.
If the virgin sacrificed themselves, then such is a quite virtuous act right?
If the tribe forced them, then notably it isn't good but they face a moral dilemma: preserve the fuller people or sacrifice one.

Would we be correct to conclude that what is at odds here is their knowledge, not necessarily moral values?
Even if their application based upon their knowledge is faulty.

2) Racism - Why was it seen as alright to have black African slaves in America?

Slavery was an a common and acceptable practice during that time.

Why did white people considers blacks "property" and not equals?

Because they were primitive in their own environment they were seen as inferior people.

It was before my own education, but my Dad has told me in high school he was taught that Australian aborigines were lesser evolved.
Biological science had shown they were more like monkey, had smaller brains.

In the past blacks were not considered equal but inferior.
In most extreme cases, they weren't considered persons, but rather commodities.
They were the property of the person who bought them. Therefore, the rights they had were those that persons at he time decided.
It was still illegal however, to have a white person as a slave or treat another "person" in this manner.

Nazi Germany was much the same with the Jews.
The Jews weren't persons, they were vermin that should be eradicated from every corner.
Many bought into the lie, although some made a stand,

Thus, a lot of difference seems attributable to be a difference in knowledge between societies at different places and in difference times.
In Nazi Germany it was still wrong to take the life of another person, another German person. Love was still good. Familes were still had and cherished. But, Jews were excluded because they were seen as less, and schools educated that they were parasites.
We've read the books, and seen the movies I'm sure.

So, while many of the same moral values were had, but either misapplied.
Some recognised when face-to-face with the horror that things weren't right.
They made what stand they could when faced with a society gone mad in their poor knowledge.
Then some people, really do prefer to express evils within their heart if such be permissible.

So here you have a lot of "moral actions" being calculated based upon misinformation.
Again, if two people perform a mathematical calculation and get different answers then either one if wrong or both are in how they applied their math. This difference is no more evidence for a subjective math standard. The fact the two are both using math though, shows there is something objective to it. Same for morality.

[Kenny]

1) Volcano God - why did people sacrifice virgins?

During that time human sacrifice was considered an acceptable practice to appease the Gods.

What is it they believed this would do?

Prevent the volcano from erupting and destroying everything.

So, then. To save many, one is being sacrified.
If the virgin sacrificed themselves, then such is a quite virtuous act right?
If the tribe forced them, then notably it isn't good but they face a moral dilemma: preserve the fuller people or sacrifice one.

Would we be correct to conclude that what is at odds here is their knowledge, not necessarily moral values?
Even if their application based upon their knowledge is faulty.

2) Racism - Why was it seen as alright to have black African slaves in America?

Slavery was an a common and acceptable practice during that time.

Why did white people considers blacks "property" and not equals?

Because they were primitive in their own environment they were seen as inferior people.

It was before my own education, but my Dad has told me in high school he was taught that Australian aborigines were lesser evolved.
Biological science had shown they were more like monkey, had smaller brains.

In the past blacks were not considered equal but inferior.
In most extreme cases, they weren't considered persons, but rather commodities.
They were the property of the person who bought them. Therefore, the rights they had were those that persons at he time decided.
It was still illegal however, to have a white person as a slave or treat another "person" in this manner.

Nazi Germany was much the same with the Jews.
The Jews weren't persons, they were vermin that should be eradicated from every corner.
Many bought into the lie, although some made a stand,

Thus, a lot of difference seems attributable to be a difference in knowledge between societies at different places and in difference times.
In Nazi Germany it was still wrong to take the life of another person, another German person. Love was still good. Familes were still had and cherished. But, Jews were excluded because they were seen as less, and schools educated that they were parasites.
We've read the books, and seen the movies I'm sure.

So, while many of the same moral values were had, but either misapplied.
Some recognised when face-to-face with the horror that things weren't right.
They made what stand they could when faced with a society gone mad in their poor knowledge.
Then some people, really do prefer to express evils within their heart if such be permissible.

So here you have a lot of "moral actions" being calculated based upon misinformation.
Again, if two people perform a mathematical calculation and get different answers then either one if wrong or both are in how they applied their math. This difference is no more evidence for a subjective math standard. The fact the two are both using math though, shows there is something objective to it. Same for morality.

I do see your point. Of course Black/Africans weren’t the only ones subjected to slavery; during some of the Ottoman wars in Europe during the middle ages resulted in many Christian slaves. I think even your bible mentions slaves in Egypt.

You seem to be saying misinformation is what lead to much of the immoral actions (like slavery) of the past; what do you think of the idea that an increase of information is what lead to a change in morality? And as we continue to gain more and more information, morality will continue to change? After all; it’s been a heck of a long time already and we ain’t even close to getting it right yet! Your thoughts?

Ken

[Nicki]

1) Volcano God - why did people sacrifice virgins?

During that time human sacrifice was considered an acceptable practice to appease the Gods.

What is it they believed this would do?

Prevent the volcano from erupting and destroying everything.

So, then. To save many, one is being sacrified.
If the virgin sacrificed themselves, then such is a quite virtuous act right?
If the tribe forced them, then notably it isn't good but they face a moral dilemma: preserve the fuller people or sacrifice one.

Would we be correct to conclude that what is at odds here is their knowledge, not necessarily moral values?
Even if their application based upon their knowledge is faulty.

2) Racism - Why was it seen as alright to have black African slaves in America?

Slavery was an a common and acceptable practice during that time.

Why did white people considers blacks "property" and not equals?

Because they were primitive in their own environment they were seen as inferior people.

It was before my own education, but my Dad has told me in high school he was taught that Australian aborigines were lesser evolved.
Biological science had shown they were more like monkey, had smaller brains.

In the past blacks were not considered equal but inferior.
In most extreme cases, they weren't considered persons, but rather commodities.
They were the property of the person who bought them. Therefore, the rights they had were those that persons at he time decided.
It was still illegal however, to have a white person as a slave or treat another "person" in this manner.

Nazi Germany was much the same with the Jews.
The Jews weren't persons, they were vermin that should be eradicated from every corner.
Many bought into the lie, although some made a stand,

Thus, a lot of difference seems attributable to be a difference in knowledge between societies at different places and in difference times.
In Nazi Germany it was still wrong to take the life of another person, another German person. Love was still good. Familes were still had and cherished. But, Jews were excluded because they were seen as less, and schools educated that they were parasites.
We've read the books, and seen the movies I'm sure.

So, while many of the same moral values were had, but either misapplied.
Some recognised when face-to-face with the horror that things weren't right.
They made what stand they could when faced with a society gone mad in their poor knowledge.
Then some people, really do prefer to express evils within their heart if such be permissible.

So here you have a lot of "moral actions" being calculated based upon misinformation.
Again, if two people perform a mathematical calculation and get different answers then either one if wrong or both are in how they applied their math. This difference is no more evidence for a subjective math standard. The fact the two are both using math though, shows there is something objective to it. Same for morality.

That's what I was thinking - they didn't set out to do evil but thought they were doing right. The human sacrificers thought it was the best thing to sacrifice one person for the greater good. There is a human sense that we should do the right thing, even if we disagree about what that is.

[B. W.]

And K, the answer isn't to beat someone who thinks that slavery is okay. It's to enslave them. Once they are enslaved, ask them if they think it's okay.

But, but, what if they still think it ok?

If, as some think, people disagreeing over some moral belief means morality is subjective, then lets kill any dissenters so that moral beliefs are now objective.

That follows doesn't it?

Progressive liberalism, Socialism still enslave many to entitlements to garner votes. Such a system as this cannot be sustained for long. So yes, people can willingly become slaves, even in today's world.

All socialism is - is the worst of capitalism monopolized by a very few corporations whose company store model is enforced by governing bureaucrats enslaved to one central ruler.

So yes, people, mere men like the Pope Francis tout the supremacy of socialism in his speeches but fails to note that socialism is merely the most evil of monopolized capitalism and slavery. Makes no sense - so again yes, folks can willingly march into slavery, even the Pope...


Now for Kenny,

Are you absolutely sure that all morality is subjective?

If so, would not that be an objective moral statement?
-
-
-

[Kenny]

Now for Kenny,

Are you absolutely sure that all morality is subjective?

Well let me put it this way; I cannot think of a moral situation that is objective. Judging from my definition of "objective", can you?

If so, would not that be an objective moral statement?
-
-
-

The statement is neither moral nor immoral

Ken

[B. W.]

Now for Kenny,

Are you absolutely sure that all morality is subjective?

Well let me put it this way; I cannot think of a moral situation that is objective. Judging from my definition of "objective", can you?

If so, would not that be an objective moral statement?

The statement is neither moral nor immoral

Ken

So only your definition is moral?

How can you judge this moral or amoral?

How about the law of non-contradiction: contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time...

Now for Kenny, Are you absolutely sure that all morality is subjective?

Well let me put it this way; I cannot think of a moral situation that is objective. Judging from my definition of "objective", can you?

The law of non-contradiction is true. You just stated clearly that, yes, to you it is an absolute objective moral fact that that all morals are subjective and accordingly the law of non-contradiction nullifies your claim. You cannot claim that there are no objective morals while claiming subjective morality as an objective fact.

Objective facts, objective truth, objective morality are absolutes and do indeed exist.

One needs directions on what truth is, why something is right and wrong, what makes it wrong or right. Without that life is lived in the realm of contradictions.

How can you be here searching for truth when for you there is no truth that can be trusted. Are you absolutely certain about that?

Lastly, the objective evidence points clearly that you are Troll, however, a moderate Troll at that. So do you get paid for doing this or not? Curious???
-
-
-

[Kenny]

Now for Kenny,

Are you absolutely sure that all morality is subjective?

Well let me put it this way; I cannot think of a moral situation that is objective. Judging from my definition of "objective", can you?

If so, would not that be an objective moral statement?

The statement is neither moral nor immoral

Ken

So only your definition is moral?

How can you judge this moral or amoral?

The statement is just a collection of words. Words are neither right nor wrong; they just are. The right or wrong is determined by the way we react to the words.

How about the law of non-contradiction: contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time...


The law of non-contradiction is true. You just stated clearly that, yes, to you it is an absolute objective moral fact that that all morals are subjective and accordingly the law of non-contradiction nullifies your claim. You cannot claim that there are no objective morals while claiming subjective morality as an objective fact.

When did I ever claim subjective morality as an objective fact? Would you mind presenting a time and date I said this? Perhaps my words were taken out of context; it sounds like a misunderstanding.

Objective facts, objective truth, objective morality are absolutes and do indeed exist.

One needs directions on what truth is, why something is right and wrong, what makes it wrong or right. Without that life is lived in the realm of contradictions.

Are you speaking for yourself when you say this? Or are you speaking for all of mankind? Perhaps this is one of your laws of “non-contradictions” (LOL)

How can you be here searching for truth when for you there is no truth that can be trusted. Are you absolutely certain about that?

Okay lemme see if I’ve got this straight; you accuse me of something, then you ask if I am absolute certain about what you accused me of! You kiddin’ right???

Lastly, the objective evidence points clearly that you are Troll, however, a moderate Troll at that. So do you get paid for doing this or not? Curious???
-
-
-

[/quote]

Yeah you got me! They pay me $20 per hr to come here and spice things up a bit! (LOL)

Ken

[Kurieuo]

1) Volcano God - why did people sacrifice virgins?

During that time human sacrifice was considered an acceptable practice to appease the Gods.

What is it they believed this would do?

Prevent the volcano from erupting and destroying everything.

So, then. To save many, one is being sacrified.
If the virgin sacrificed themselves, then such is a quite virtuous act right?
If the tribe forced them, then notably it isn't good but they face a moral dilemma: preserve the fuller people or sacrifice one.

Would we be correct to conclude that what is at odds here is their knowledge, not necessarily moral values?
Even if their application based upon their knowledge is faulty.

2) Racism - Why was it seen as alright to have black African slaves in America?

Slavery was an a common and acceptable practice during that time.

Why did white people considers blacks "property" and not equals?

Because they were primitive in their own environment they were seen as inferior people.

It was before my own education, but my Dad has told me in high school he was taught that Australian aborigines were lesser evolved.
Biological science had shown they were more like monkey, had smaller brains.

In the past blacks were not considered equal but inferior.
In most extreme cases, they weren't considered persons, but rather commodities.
They were the property of the person who bought them. Therefore, the rights they had were those that persons at he time decided.
It was still illegal however, to have a white person as a slave or treat another "person" in this manner.

Nazi Germany was much the same with the Jews.
The Jews weren't persons, they were vermin that should be eradicated from every corner.
Many bought into the lie, although some made a stand,

Thus, a lot of difference seems attributable to be a difference in knowledge between societies at different places and in difference times.
In Nazi Germany it was still wrong to take the life of another person, another German person. Love was still good. Familes were still had and cherished. But, Jews were excluded because they were seen as less, and schools educated that they were parasites.
We've read the books, and seen the movies I'm sure.

So, while many of the same moral values were had, but either misapplied.
Some recognised when face-to-face with the horror that things weren't right.
They made what stand they could when faced with a society gone mad in their poor knowledge.
Then some people, really do prefer to express evils within their heart if such be permissible.

So here you have a lot of "moral actions" being calculated based upon misinformation.
Again, if two people perform a mathematical calculation and get different answers then either one if wrong or both are in how they applied their math. This difference is no more evidence for a subjective math standard. The fact the two are both using math though, shows there is something objective to it. Same for morality.

I do see your point. Of course Black/Africans weren’t the only ones subjected to slavery; during some of the Ottoman wars in Europe during the middle ages resulted in many Christian slaves. I think even your bible mentions slaves in Egypt.

You seem to be saying misinformation is what lead to much of the immoral actions (like slavery) of the past; what do you think of the idea that an increase of information is what lead to a change in morality? And as we continue to gain more and more information, morality will continue to change? After all; it’s been a heck of a long time already and we ain’t even close to getting it right yet! Your thoughts?

Ken

Hi Ken,

Yes, it seems evident to me that different information can lead to different moral actions (or “calculations” if you will). This doesn’t necessarily mean “morality” has changed.

In the examples previously provided (volcano sacrifice, racism) there was only different information. The moral values being used to calculate particular actions were much the same, only working with different information.

For example, self-sacrifice is a good quality. It is seen as good and virtuous, even if it logically seems quite stupid to give up our lives since they're the only ones we'll presumably ever have.

In addition to information, there are also differences in circumstance that can change a moral calculation. For example, I think we both would agree that it is wrong for someone to steal for no reason. Yet, I think we would both agree stealing food to survive, while not ideal, is justified.

This does not mean we believe stealing is now good – stealing is still wrong – but we’re faced with a moral dilemma. That is, there is no good outcome either way. If we value someone’s life more, than stealing is an acceptable course of action. If we value honesty more than life, then not stealing even unto death will be seen as the better thing.

This brings us to another condition that gets calculated into moral actions. And that is the weighting assigned to moral values. These can differ from one society, culture or person to the next and while all things equal we generally agree on good and bad things, we might value some virtues and/or detest some actions more than others.

To provide an extreme example, in the Hudson Bay tribes children strangled their own parents. How immoral! Right? On the surface it seems quite repulsive and immoral, but digging deeper we see great value being placed on the virtue of self-sacrifice. When a person became too old to support themselves and starting weighing down the tribe, then it was considered an honour to die for the group. Refusal was seen as humiliation because dying for the sake of the group was such a high point of honour.

Indeed, this is precisely what soldiers do right? They fight for their country and fellow country men and women, and they are prepared to die doing so. And then we all consider them honourable having died fighting for their families, us, our freedom and country.

You know, C.S. Lewis had a photographic memory and was known for being able to recall page and words in books he had read. He explored many different cultures and societies. It was his belief that we shouldn't just accept what our current society says, but to have the best perspective with which to see the truth required examining all cultures and societies at different times. Anyway, in his Mere Christianity he challenges,

• "If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own."

I find it interesting that whether in a movie, good novel or a fairy tale, we always find some values repulsive such as someone who is unfair, greedy, selfish, hateful, irresponsible, dishonest. BUT, we respect and are drawn to those who are loving, caring, respectful, fair, trustworthy or of noble character. And a mix both in a character can both intrigue and repulse us.

In any case, if you agree with me that anyone who’d think torturing and raping innocent little girls are morally wrong regardless of what anyone thinks -- if you embrace just one thing that you believe is wrong for everyone -- then you are embracing objective moral values of some sort with or without knowing it.

[B. W.]

Now for Kenny,

Are you absolutely sure that all morality is subjective?

Well let me put it this way; I cannot think of a moral situation that is objective. Judging from my definition of "objective", can you?

If so, would not that be an objective moral statement?

The statement is neither moral nor immoral

Ken

So only your definition is moral?

How can you judge this moral or amoral?

The statement is just a collection of words. Words are neither right nor wrong; they just are. The right or wrong is determined by the way we react to the words.

Yeah you got me! They pay me $20 per hr to come here and spice things up a bit! (LOL)

Ken

Kenny your Solipsism is showing...

During the Solipis international 'Meeting of the Minds' convention held at the prestigious Luxor Hotel in Las Vegas, all participants stayed in their rooms.

Two Solipis meet at a bar a miss each other by mile

When a solipis walks into a crowded room full of chatting people, no one else is there...

How can a solipis get paid by another to buzz a forum if whom they work for have their own minds?
-
-
-

[Kenny]

Now for Kenny,

Are you absolutely sure that all morality is subjective?

Well let me put it this way; I cannot think of a moral situation that is objective. Judging from my definition of "objective", can you?

If so, would not that be an objective moral statement?

The statement is neither moral nor immoral

Ken

So only your definition is moral?

How can you judge this moral or amoral?

The statement is just a collection of words. Words are neither right nor wrong; they just are. The right or wrong is determined by the way we react to the words.

Yeah you got me! They pay me $20 per hr to come here and spice things up a bit! (LOL)

Ken

Kenny your Solipsism is showing...

During the Solipis international 'Meeting of the Minds' convention held at the prestigious Luxor Hotel in Las Vegas, all participants stayed in their rooms.

Two Solipis meet at a bar a miss each other by mile

When a solipis walks into a crowded room full of chatting people, no one else is there...

How can a solipis get paid by another to buzz a forum if whom they work for have their own minds?
-
-
-

Hummm..... You might be taking this joke a tad more seriously than it was intended to be taken. Something to think about.

Ken

[Kenny]

Hi Ken,

Yes, it seems evident to me that different information can lead to different moral actions (or “calculations” if you will). This doesn’t necessarily mean “morality” has changed.

Perhaps morality hasn't changed, but what people see as moral/immoral has.

In the examples previously provided (volcano sacrifice, racism) there was only different information. The moral values being used to calculate particular actions were much the same, only working with different information.

For example, self-sacrifice is a good quality. It is seen as good and virtuous, even if it logically seems quite stupid to give up our lives since they're the only ones we'll presumably ever have.

I agree!

In addition to information, there are also differences in circumstance that can change a moral calculation. For example, I think we both would agree that it is wrong for someone to steal for no reason. Yet, I think we would both agree stealing food to survive, while not ideal, is justified.

This does not mean we believe stealing is now good – stealing is still wrong – but we’re faced with a moral dilemma. That is, there is no good outcome either way. If we value someone’s life more, than stealing is an acceptable course of action. If we value honesty more than life, then not stealing even unto death will be seen as the better thing.

I agree and I think you are making a case for subjective morality. On a previous thread we were discussing (at least I believe it was you; if not my apologizes in advance) I made the point that if morality were objective and lying is wrong, and it were the year 1938 and you lived in Germany, and the SS came knocking at your door asking if you had any Jews in the house and you knew you had a Jewish family hiding in your attic, if you believed morality were objective you would have to either refuse to answer them (which would prompt them to search the house) or tell the SS where this family were hiding so they can be taken to the death camps; because under objective morality; lying is immoral no matter the circumstance, personal opinions, assumptions, or beliefs.

Under Subjective morality, you have the option of taking extenuating circumstances into consideration and determine that lying to be the moral thing to do in this particular situation.

Using your example of stealing, perhaps it is moral to steal to feed a starving child rather than allow him to starve to death. Objective morality would require you allow him to starve (assuming there is no other option)


Ken




T

[RickD]

Ken wrote:

I agree and I think you are making a case for subjective morality. On a previous thread we were discussing (at least I believe it was you; if not my apologizes in advance) I made the point that if morality were objective and lying is wrong, and it were the year 1938 and you lived in Germany, and the SS came knocking at your door asking if you had any Jews in the house and you knew you had a Jewish family hiding in your attic, if you believed morality were objective you would have to either refuse to answer them (which would prompt them to search the house) or tell the SS where this family were hiding so they can be taken to the death camps; because under objective morality; lying is immoral no matter the circumstance, personal opinions, assumptions, or beliefs.

Under Subjective morality, you have the option of taking extenuating circumstances into consideration and determine that lying to be the moral thing to do in this particular situation.

Using your example of stealing, perhaps it is moral to steal to feed a starving child rather than allow him to starve to death. Objective morality would require you allow him to starve (assuming there is no other option)


Ken
T

This has to be the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.
Kenny,
You REALLY don't get it, do you?

[Kenny]

Ken wrote:

I agree and I think you are making a case for subjective morality. On a previous thread we were discussing (at least I believe it was you; if not my apologizes in advance) I made the point that if morality were objective and lying is wrong, and it were the year 1938 and you lived in Germany, and the SS came knocking at your door asking if you had any Jews in the house and you knew you had a Jewish family hiding in your attic, if you believed morality were objective you would have to either refuse to answer them (which would prompt them to search the house) or tell the SS where this family were hiding so they can be taken to the death camps; because under objective morality; lying is immoral no matter the circumstance, personal opinions, assumptions, or beliefs.

Under Subjective morality, you have the option of taking extenuating circumstances into consideration and determine that lying to be the moral thing to do in this particular situation.

Using your example of stealing, perhaps it is moral to steal to feed a starving child rather than allow him to starve to death. Objective morality would require you allow him to starve (assuming there is no other option)


Ken
T

This has to be the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.
Kenny,
You REALLY don't get it, do you?

If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to do a little bit better than calling something ridicules then walking away. A little explanation goes a long way

Ken

[B. W.]

Ken wrote:

I agree and I think you are making a case for subjective morality. On a previous thread we were discussing (at least I believe it was you; if not my apologizes in advance) I made the point that if morality were objective and lying is wrong, and it were the year 1938 and you lived in Germany, and the SS came knocking at your door asking if you had any Jews in the house and you knew you had a Jewish family hiding in your attic, if you believed morality were objective you would have to either refuse to answer them (which would prompt them to search the house) or tell the SS where this family were hiding so they can be taken to the death camps; because under objective morality; lying is immoral no matter the circumstance, personal opinions, assumptions, or beliefs.

Under Subjective morality, you have the option of taking extenuating circumstances into consideration and determine that lying to be the moral thing to do in this particular situation.

Using your example of stealing, perhaps it is moral to steal to feed a starving child rather than allow him to starve to death. Objective morality would require you allow him to starve (assuming there is no other option)


Ken
T

This has to be the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.
Kenny,
You REALLY don't get it, do you?

If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to do a little bit better than calling something ridicules then walking away. A little explanation goes a long way

Ken

Kenny the biblical definition of lying is akin to slander and character assassination... has nothing to do with your examples

Proverbs 6:16-19 NASB, There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying (slanderous) tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, 19 A false witness who utters lies (character assassination), And one who spreads strife among brothers....

Big difference - one protects and defends the weak and other seeks their demise...

Read these verses - Isaiah 1:17, Psalms 82:3-4, Proverbs 31:9, Jer 22:3

You do not know the bible but that is understandable since you reject all notions of God. However, if you really do reject all notions of God, you would not be wasting your time here would you
-
-
-