The Horner Man's Salvation

[MD Marketers]

I think we can all agree it's only wrong if the other party doesn't like it.
It's called subjective morality & it's not objectively wrong.

I wonder how many of you noticed this before but think about it for a second. There is no such thing as "objective morality".
The problem with morality is it's always based on perspective. Actions aren't wrong unless you know the intention & the empathy of those affected by it.
Kinda scary huh?
I can prove it to you.

Give me any situation and I can give you a valid reason why it can still be considered good to someone else.

Take my challenge, anyone. I will pay for power seller status for 1 year if I fail or you can just collect the $1,200

Tuner can be the judge if I fail

[Slartibartfast]

What the story of a priest raping a nine year old altar boy?

[MD Marketers]

What the story of a priest raping a nine year old altar boy?

Morality is the objective reasoning we use to define wrong and right.
You seem to be claiming "rape" is a morally wrong physical act and should not be done no matter what the circumstances. This is an objectively moral statement. Meaning it doesn't matter what perspective you view it from.
I'm saying there is no such thing as objective Morality of a physical act.
Here is why objective Morality based on a physical act is intrinsically useless to humanity.

A priest was pulled into a room where your wife & 8 year old daughter were tied up, gagged & on the verge of being raped and burnt alive. In the next room was a 9 year old altar boy.

The priest was then given 2 options.
Option 1: He dies along with your wife & daughter
Or
Option 2. He could rape the little altar boy on camera & they will allow everyone to live out their lives so long as they don't say anything.

The priest chose option 2.
The priest action remains the same no matter how you look at it. Rape.

Which choice would you want the priest to make?
If he chose not to rape the little boy do you think it was the right thing to do?
If he chose to rape the little boy do you think it was the wrong thing to do?

My answer: I dont care if you think rape is wrong. I hope the altar boy has ky

If nothing in this situation is the right thing to do then why do we even care about objective morality of a physical act in the first place?
When faced with such situations that require a moral judgement more than anything else, objective morality based on a physical act is the last thing that can help us.
Objective Morality of a physical act is intrinsically useless if you apply perspective.
It's sad but true, no one can tell you what's right or wrong, not even God. Only you have that choice.
Thus objective morality is an illusion.

Don't despair folks.
This does not mean that there isn't such a thing as objectively good or objectively bad. I assure you there is.
It's called "will"
Your will is the only thing that can truly be classified as either "good" or "bad"
Eg. Good Will of an intention is always good no matter how you look at it.

So the next time you want to label an act as good or bad, don't look at the consequences, look at the will of the perpetrator & you will find the answer.

The priest had a good will in my scenario despite what you thought was a bad act.
Good or Bad acts carry no value.
It's only the good or bad will that counts

[desifemlove]

Nothing wrong in cheating.

And morality is not about rightbor wrong it just doesnt exist.

[MD Marketers]

Nothing wrong in cheating.

And morality is not about rightbor wrong it just doesnt exist.

It does exist in the conscious mind but not in reality.
Good will exists
Good acts do not exist

[Slartibartfast]

Give me any situation and I can give you a valid reason why it can still be considered good to someone else.

I just realised I misunderstood part of your question. I somehow missed the part in red. In that case you will always be right because of the "lesser of two evils" argument.

The argument I am putting forth now is that there are some actions that are objectively wrong. If the action is objectively wrong then efforts should be made to avoid it. In the case of the altar boy, him being assaulted is wrong. The priest however was basically forced to do it. Therefore the action of wrong doing would lie with the person forcing the priest to act.

The closest thing to objective morality I can come up with is "Do no harm" which can be extended to "Do as little harm as possible" or "Take the course of action that would result in the least amount of harm"

I say this is close to objective because it is open the subjective thoughts of the person taking action and what he/she perceives to be the course of action that would result in the least amount of harm being brought about. You would also need to factor in the risk of causing harm as well.
(Eg. A king sending young soldiers to die in war vs. risk allowing his entire country to starve from lack of resources by making all the young men work the lands).

Now here is a better example. The act of killing (no context added) is harm and is therefore objectively wrong and should be avoided if possible. But consider a case where there is a team of five individuals hanging off of a cliff by a single tether than can only hold three. The third person down would need to cut off the other two, thereby killing them, in order to save himself and the other two individuals. Unlike my previous example, this time the person is forced by circmstances to do something that is inherently wrong. Therefore we are left with the curious case of a murder where the murderer cannot be blamed.

TL:DR "Do no harm" is the closest thing to objective morality we will get because it leaves room for subjective decisions.

Side note. I am sure we can all agree that the best course of action is to cut off two people to save yourself and the others if the only alternative is the five of you dying. Below are some questions that you can answer to show the subjective thinking behind your decision.

Would you be able to bring yourself to cut the chord if you were the third person down?
How would that make you feel (would you blame yourself?
Why?
Would you be able to bring yourself to cut the chord if you were the forth person down?

[MD Marketers]

Give me any situation and I can give you a valid reason why it can still be considered good to someone else.

I just realised I misunderstood part of your question. I somehow missed the part in red. In that case you will always be right because of the "lesser of two evils" argument.

The argument I am putting forth now is that there are some actions that are objectively wrong. If the action is objectively wrong then efforts should be made to avoid it. In the case of the altar boy, him being assaulted is wrong. The priest however was basically forced to do it. Therefore the action of wrong doing would lie with the person forcing the priest to act.

The closest thing to objective morality I can come up with is "Do no harm" which can be extended to "Do as little harm as possible" or "Take the course of action that would result in the least amount of harm"

I say this is close to objective because it is open the subjective thoughts of the person taking action and what he/she perceives to be the course of action that would result in the least amount of harm being brought about. You would also need to factor in the risk of causing harm as well.
(Eg. A king sending young soldiers to die in war vs. risk allowing his entire country to starve from lack of resources by making all the young men work the lands).

Now here is a better example. The act of killing (no context added) is harm and is therefore objectively wrong and should be avoided if possible. But consider a case where there is a team of five individuals hanging off of a cliff by a single tether than can only hold three. The third person down would need to cut off the other two, thereby killing them, in order to save himself and the other two individuals. Unlike my previous example, this time the person is forced by circmstances to do something that is inherently wrong. Therefore we are left with the curious case of a murder where the murderer cannot be blamed.

TL:DR "Do no harm" is the closest thing to objective morality we will get because it leaves room for subjective decisions.

Side note. I am sure we can all agree that the best course of action is to cut off two people to save yourself and the others if the only alternative is the five of you dying. Below are some questions that you can answer to show the subjective thinking behind your decision.

Would you be able to bring yourself to cut the chord if you were the third person down?
How would that make you feel (would you blame yourself?
Why?
Would you be able to bring yourself to cut the chord if you were the forth person down?

[Slartibartfast]

There is always good will to be considered in any situation. Only if no good will exists can an act be considered bad. Hence acts are only bad based on the perspective will of an individual

If I put you on the phone with my girl you could just tell her that for me?

[dougla_boy]

hue hue hue

nice discussion.....

but i cant answer nuh....i on the fence as to whether horning is wrong.....cuz i am not entirely sure it is....

[desifemlove]

Nothing wrong in cheating.

And morality is not about rightbor wrong it just doesnt exist.

It does exist in the conscious mind but not in reality.
Good will exists
Good acts do not exist

I don't believe it exists, period. Anything goes, no matter what the case in point is.

[desifemlove]

Give me any situation and I can give you a valid reason why it can still be considered good to someone else.

I just realised I misunderstood part of your question. I somehow missed the part in red. In that case you will always be right because of the "lesser of two evils" argument.

The argument I am putting forth now is that there are some actions that are objectively wrong. If the action is objectively wrong then efforts should be made to avoid it. In the case of the altar boy, him being assaulted is wrong. The priest however was basically forced to do it. Therefore the action of wrong doing would lie with the person forcing the priest to act.

The closest thing to objective morality I can come up with is "Do no harm" which can be extended to "Do as little harm as possible" or "Take the course of action that would result in the least amount of harm"

I say this is close to objective because it is open the subjective thoughts of the person taking action and what he/she perceives to be the course of action that would result in the least amount of harm being brought about. You would also need to factor in the risk of causing harm as well.
(Eg. A king sending young soldiers to die in war vs. risk allowing his entire country to starve from lack of resources by making all the young men work the lands).

Now here is a better example. The act of killing (no context added) is harm and is therefore objectively wrong and should be avoided if possible. But consider a case where there is a team of five individuals hanging off of a cliff by a single tether than can only hold three. The third person down would need to cut off the other two, thereby killing them, in order to save himself and the other two individuals. Unlike my previous example, this time the person is forced by circmstances to do something that is inherently wrong. Therefore we are left with the curious case of a murder where the murderer cannot be blamed.

TL:DR "Do no harm" is the closest thing to objective morality we will get because it leaves room for subjective decisions.

Side note. I am sure we can all agree that the best course of action is to cut off two people to save yourself and the others if the only alternative is the five of you dying. Below are some questions that you can answer to show the subjective thinking behind your decision.

Would you be able to bring yourself to cut the chord if you were the third person down?
How would that make you feel (would you blame yourself?
Why?
Would you be able to bring yourself to cut the chord if you were the forth person down?

The laws of physics are objective. morality isn't. Morals are created by humans, hence they cannot be truly objective.

[MD Marketers]

Give me any situation and I can give you a valid reason why it can still be considered good to someone else.

I just realised I misunderstood part of your question. I somehow missed the part in red. In that case you will always be right because of the "lesser of two evils" argument.

The argument I am putting forth now is that there are some actions that are objectively wrong. If the action is objectively wrong then efforts should be made to avoid it. In the case of the altar boy, him being assaulted is wrong. The priest however was basically forced to do it. Therefore the action of wrong doing would lie with the person forcing the priest to act.

The closest thing to objective morality I can come up with is "Do no harm" which can be extended to "Do as little harm as possible" or "Take the course of action that would result in the least amount of harm"

I say this is close to objective because it is open the subjective thoughts of the person taking action and what he/she perceives to be the course of action that would result in the least amount of harm being brought about. You would also need to factor in the risk of causing harm as well.
(Eg. A king sending young soldiers to die in war vs. risk allowing his entire country to starve from lack of resources by making all the young men work the lands).

Now here is a better example. The act of killing (no context added) is harm and is therefore objectively wrong and should be avoided if possible. But consider a case where there is a team of five individuals hanging off of a cliff by a single tether than can only hold three. The third person down would need to cut off the other two, thereby killing them, in order to save himself and the other two individuals. Unlike my previous example, this time the person is forced by circmstances to do something that is inherently wrong. Therefore we are left with the curious case of a murder where the murderer cannot be blamed.

TL:DR "Do no harm" is the closest thing to objective morality we will get because it leaves room for subjective decisions.

Side note. I am sure we can all agree that the best course of action is to cut off two people to save yourself and the others if the only alternative is the five of you dying. Below are some questions that you can answer to show the subjective thinking behind your decision.

Would you be able to bring yourself to cut the chord if you were the third person down?
How would that make you feel (would you blame yourself?
Why?
Would you be able to bring yourself to cut the chord if you were the forth person down?

There is a lot more to be considered than that.
No I won't cut the cord. I would ask the ones above to climb out & if they cant i will attempt to climb over anyone above me, get out & then try my best to save the rest.

[Slartibartfast]

Let's say the last tether is already coming lose. Trying so climb or moving about too much will cause it to breake free. Staying still buys you some time but it the tether is slipping. You have about 30 secinds before you all. Plumet to your death. 5 seconds if you move about too much and try to climb over eachother.

The details arent important. Just the fact that everyone is not going to live. Either a choice is made to let some die or all die through inaction or taking a more risky move.

[MD Marketers]

Let's say the last tether is already coming lose. Trying so climb or moving about too much will cause it to breake free. Staying still buys you some time but it the tether is slipping. You have about 30 secinds before you all. Plumet to your death. 5 seconds if you move about too much and try to climb over eachother.

The details arent important. Just the fact that everyone is not going to live. Either a choice is made to let some die or all die through inaction or taking a more risky move.

Lol
I know your trying hard to fabricate a good moral paradox situation but your gonna have to refine the scenario.

Firstly, how would anyone lower than the one below the faulty tether know it was coming lose?
The only person that can see the faulty tether are the ones directly above and below it.
The guy above the faulty tether will not be affected by it, so he has no reason to cut it.
The guy below it will obviously not cut it whilst he is holding below it or he will die. He will just hold above it. Why on earth would he waste his energy trying to cut the tether when he can just hold above it.
Assuming that everyone is very close then the others can just hold on to the ankles of the ones above the tethers and then climb up to safety from the bottom up.
If the tether was far from the reach of the one below it how was he able to determine it's strength?
Would it not be the smarter thing to do to spend as little time on the rope as possible by climbing up rather than wasting precious time cutting it?
The line is already maxed out, so there is no more weight that can be added to it by you cutting it and if anyone saw you cutting it they will automatically take a more aggressive stance and start to shake the line whilst trying to get above you

You need a better scenario

[Slartibartfast]

Lol. You are thinking way too much into it. The details of the dilemma are not important. Btw the tether is above them all like holding a string with 5 beads on it. I can come up with a better example but have no need to as it is only meant as a metaphor. Not writing a fact based novel or an episode of CSI.

If you want you may come up with your own details but for the sake of the argument you have only two choices, cut or dont cut. Interested in your response as the third man down and as the fourth man down. What will your reaction be?

Moral dilemma
You are in a situation where everyone will die if a decision is not made. The only decision available includes sacrificing the life of half the people present. Can you make that decision to sacrifice the life of others? Can you make that decision to sacrifice your own life if you were among those whose lives needed to be sacrificed? Fell free to come up with your own scenario if you need a visualization. I am only interested in your decision and your moral basis for it.

[MD Marketers]

Lol. You are thinking way too much into it. The details of the dilemma are not important. Btw the tether is above them all like holding a string with 5 beads on it. I can come up with a better example but have no need to as it is only meant as a metaphor. Not writing a fact based novel or an episode of CSI.

If you want you may come up with your own details but for the sake of the argument you have only two choices, cut or dont cut. Interested in your response as the third man down and as the fourth man down. What will your reaction be?

Moral dilemma
You are in a situation where everyone will die if a decision is not made. The only decision available includes sacrificing the life of half the people present. Can you make that decision to sacrifice the life of others? Can you make that decision to sacrifice your own life if you were among those whose lives needed to be sacrificed? Fell free to come up with your own scenario if you need a visualization. I am only interested in your decision and your moral basis for it.

Thank you for refining the scenario.
This is the Moral paradox scenario that should be addressed.

The logic behind it all:
The question you asked is "which choice would I choose" & more importantly "why?"
The question is not "which choice would everyone choose". This can never be truly answered unless I am omniscient.
So to answer the first question based on time constraints & being limited to only a live or die option the answer is:
I would choose to live or die based on the value of my life (to me) compared to the value of the others life (to me)

Why?
Because:
1. If I value my life equal to theirs & we both had equal opportunity to survive absent my action, then I will give everyone equal opportunity to survive
2. If I value my life less than theirs & we both had equal opportunity to survive absent my action, then I will give them more opportunity to survive than me.
3. If I value my life more than theirs & we both had equal opportunity to survive absent mu action, then I will give them less opportunity to survive than me.

So the answer varies based on perspective value of me.

Scenario 1: My Wife & I. Either we both live together or die together. We climb.
Scenario 2. My daughter. Daughter gets more opportunity than me. I let go.
Scenario 3. My Ex Wife & I. I get more opportunity than her. I would bite the rope if I didn't have a knife.

Please note for each scenario I am assuming that everyone else on the rope other than the ones mentioned are of lesser value to me.

Let me know if you would like to discuss how we determine the value of another human being

Purely hypothetical situation. I don't have an ex wife or daughter.

[Monk BANzai]

hue hue hue

nice discussion.....

but i cant answer nuh....i on the fence as to whether horning is wrong.....cuz i am not entirely sure it is....

*throws him keys to white Xtrail.

Just doh crash it...

[Slartibartfast]

@ the ex wife option. The question was just assuming you and four other tuners hanging on a chord by a single hook. The scenario assumes all individuals are equals (bunch of random climbers meet up for a climb). Also, you can only choose to sacrifice those below you but you cannot control who is below you.

Side note. I am sure we can all agree that the best course of action is to cut off two people to save yourself and the others if the only alternative is the five of you dying. Below are some questions that you can answer to show the subjective thinking behind your decision.

Would you be able to bring yourself to cut the chord if you were the third person down?
How would that make you feel (would you blame yourself)?
Why?
Would you be able to bring yourself to cut the chord if you were the forth person down?

Here are my answers

1. Assuming no other alternative than let all others die (for the sake of the argument), yes I would cut the chord.
2. I would not blame myself
3. Because it was the best option. (Unless I caused us to be in that situation then yeah I would definitely blame myself and would even be hesitant to cut the chord)
4. I doubt I'll be able to bring myself to cut it but I wont stop the person above from cutting it or blame them during my final descent.

Btw, back the priest and acolyte problem. You assumed that there was someone forcting the priest to commit the act (but this is hardly the case). So in a case where the priest chooses to commit the act and convinces the young boy it is ok, who is the situation good for?

[MD Marketers]

:lol: @ the ex wife option. The question was just assuming you and four other tuners hanging on a chord by a single hook. The scenario assumes all individuals are equals (bunch of random climbers meet up for a climb). Also, you can only choose to sacrifice those below you but you cannot control who is below you.

Side note. I am sure we can all agree that the best course of action is to cut off two people to save yourself and the others if the only alternative is the five of you dying. Below are some questions that you can answer to show the subjective thinking behind your decision.

Would you be able to bring yourself to cut the chord if you were the third person down?
How would that make you feel (would you blame yourself)?
Why?
Would you be able to bring yourself to cut the chord if you were the forth person down?

Here are my answers

1. Assuming no other alternative than let all others die (for the sake of the argument), yes I would cut the chord.
2. I would not blame myself
3. Because it was the best option. (Unless I caused us to be in that situation then yeah I would definitely blame myself and would even be hesitant to cut the chord)
4. I doubt I'll be able to bring myself to cut it but I wont stop the person above from cutting it or blame them during my final descent.

Btw, back the priest and acolyte problem. You assumed that there was someone forcting the priest to commit the act (but this is hardly the case). So in a case where the priest chooses to commit the act and convinces the young boy it is ok, who is the situation good for?

In each of your scenarios you claim omniscience.
There is no such scenario.
In the example I gave, the boy claimed he got raped and it was caught on camera.
The priest and your family will be killed if they talk.
These are the facts.
The resulting answer is the priest didn't do wrong because he did it out of good will.

When you claim omniscience and then ask the question:
"If everyone knew it was wrong would you think it was wrong",
Would I not be part of the "everyone"?
Therefore I cannot answer differently.
If I weren't part of the "everyone" then I could be in a situation like your wife and therefore I could make the claim "it was the right thing to do"

I'm not going to answer a question if you phrase it with omniscience because you will already know the answer and anything I say to the contrary would be a lie.

[dougla_boy]

hue hue hue

nice discussion.....

but i cant answer nuh....i on the fence as to whether horning is wrong.....cuz i am not entirely sure it is....

*throws him keys to white Xtrail.

Just doh crash it...

[Slartibartfast]

MD, omniscience must be claimed at one point or another to in most arguments to give the argument meaning. This is similar to some scientific experiments where assumptions must be made in order to proceed with the first iteration of the experiment and its conclusion. In general it must be done to establish some sort of common ground before proceeding.

To do this in my case an overly simplified problem must be presented. In the case of the priest I claimed that further details are irrelevant. In your case you approached the problem from a different point of view after fabricating details. You are argument is also omniscient as it also assumes all further details are also irrelevant (or all relevant information is already known). It therefore just adds an unnecessary complexity to the problem presented without get rid of the problem of omniscience.

Your argument is that morality cannot be objective. I almost completely agree with your statement. My argument is that some of it can be (or an acceptable morality can at least be objectively derived from the statement "Do no harm" and its extensions mentioned earlier) as this leaves room for subjective interpretation which is definitely needed.

To show this I came up with an argument with as little subjective interpretation as possible to see if there was any agreement on the first iteration of my premise. All other variables are held constant (just like a scientific experiment) so that this one statement can be analysed. If you have problems wrapping your head around this I can look for a local news story that I think is bad and you can show me what is good about the situation (the news story will be limited to events that arise from intentional actions of others... i.e. not accidents etc.)

[MD Marketers]

MD, omniscience must be claimed at one point or another to in most arguments to give the argument meaning. This is similar to some scientific experiments where assumptions must be made in order to proceed with the first iteration of the experiment and its conclusion. In general it must be done to establish some sort of common ground before proceeding.

To do this in my case an overly simplified problem must be presented. In the case of the priest I claimed that further details are irrelevant. In your case you approached the problem from a different point of view after fabricating details. You are argument is also omniscient as it also assumes all further details are also irrelevant (or all relevant information is already known). It therefore just adds an unnecessary complexity to the problem presented without get rid of the problem of omniscience.

Your argument is that morality cannot be objective. I almost completely agree with your statement. My argument is that some of it can be (or an acceptable morality can at least be objectively derived from the statement "Do no harm" and its extensions mentioned earlier) as this leaves room for subjective interpretation which is definitely needed.

To show this I came up with an argument with as little subjective interpretation as possible to see if there was any agreement on the first iteration of my premise. All other variables are held constant (just like a scientific experiment) so that this one statement can be analysed. If you have problems wrapping your head around this I can look for a local news story that I think is bad and you can show me what is good about the situation (the news story will be limited to events that arise from intentional actions of others... i.e. not accidents etc.)

Science & Logic does not assume omniscience. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Where did you learn this?
Science & Logic makes the best decision possible given the evidence provided. Science never assumes that the evidence provided is all there is.

It's like this:
I say: "This color looks red to me"
2 other people say: "This color looks blue to us"
Then an eavesdropper assumes "the color looks blue to everyone including me"
They cannot make that conclusion based on logic.

I'm dealing with logic.

"Irrelevant perspective" means you assume that no one else opinion matters or no one else exists.
To the best of my knowledge no such situation exists. This is a fantasy world you created to prove a point about an act being subjectively wrong from all perspectives.
It's no different than asking me what color is blue.

[Slartibartfast]

Seems that this will not be resolved between us so I'll just move on unless you will like to add something new then I will come back to it.

http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-11-24/brasso-seco-residents-we-are-relieved
Who can these murders be considered good to?
How can these murders be considered good?

[MD Marketers]

Seems that this will not be resolved between us so I'll just move on unless you will like to add something new then I will come back to it.

http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-11-24/brasso-seco-residents-we-are-relieved
Who can these murders be considered good to?
How can these murders be considered good?

There is nothing to be resolved because you keep asking a rhetorical question to a statement I never made

The question was something like this:
"If a priest rapes an altar boy can anyone find good in such a situation?"

I'm saying:
"We cannot know for sure because we are not omniscient".
I then go on to describe a situation where there is Good Will that comes out of the situation.

You are saying:
"We can know for sure if we assume omniscience".
Then you sit in wait for me to try to defend a statement I never made.

What kind of game is this we are playing here?

Confuse the question?

[Sundar]

What the story of a priest raping a nine year old altar boy?

Morality is the objective reasoning we use to define wrong and right.
You seem to be claiming "rape" is a morally wrong physical act and should not be done no matter what the circumstances. This is an objectively moral statement. Meaning it doesn't matter what perspective you view it from.
I'm saying there is no such thing as objective Morality of a physical act.
Here is why objective Morality based on a physical act is intrinsically useless to humanity.

A priest was pulled into a room where your wife & 8 year old daughter were tied up, gagged & on the verge of being raped and burnt alive. In the next room was a 9 year old altar boy.

The priest was then given 2 options.
Option 1: He dies along with your wife & daughter
Or
Option 2. He could rape the little altar boy on camera & they will allow everyone to live out their lives so long as they don't say anything.

The priest chose option 2.
The priest action remains the same no matter how you look at it. Rape.

Which choice would you want the priest to make?
If he chose not to rape the little boy do you think it was the right thing to do?
If he chose to rape the little boy do you think it was the wrong thing to do?

My answer: I dont care if you think rape is wrong. I hope the altar boy has ky

If nothing in this situation is the right thing to do then why do we even care about objective morality of a physical act in the first place?
When faced with such situations that require a moral judgement more than anything else, objective morality based on a physical act is the last thing that can help us.
Objective Morality of a physical act is intrinsically useless if you apply perspective.
It's sad but true, no one can tell you what's right or wrong, not even God. Only you have that choice.
Thus objective morality is an illusion.

Don't despair folks.
This does not mean that there isn't such a thing as objectively good or objectively bad. I assure you there is.
It's called "will"
Your will is the only thing that can truly be classified as either "good" or "bad"
Eg. Good Will of an intention is always good no matter how you look at it.

So the next time you want to label an act as good or bad, don't look at the consequences, look at the will of the perpetrator & you will find the answer.

The priest had a good will in my scenario despite what you thought was a bad act.
Good or Bad acts carry no value.
It's only the good or bad will that counts

and what if this alter boy after being raped by a priest, hates society and becomes a serial rapist/killer?

[Slartibartfast]

Seems that this will not be resolved between us so I'll just move on unless you will like to add something new then I will come back to it.

There is nothing to be resolved because you keep asking a rhetorical question to a statement I never made

Give me any situation and I can give you a valid reason why it can still be considered good to someone else.

I just realised I misunderstood part of your question. I somehow missed the part in red. ...
...The argument I am putting forth now is that there are some actions that are objectively wrong.

This is therefore meant as a new discussion and not a response to your initial statement. You therefore have nothing to defend. Hope this eases you up a bit.

I'm saying:
"We cannot know for sure because we are not omniscient".
I then go on to describe a situation where there is Good Will that comes out of the situation.

You are saying:
"We can know for sure if we assume omniscience". This scenario was meant to give rise to a premise and not my argument and was purposefully simplified to to not distract from my argument. Being rhetorical is not a problem here. I wanted to give you the opportunity to point out any error I made so far. Instead you focused on arguing irrelevancies that I don't feel to elaborate on as they are pointless. Hence the reason why I am moving on.
Then you sit in wait for me to try to defend a statement I never made. It was a new discussion that I was starting. Granted it first started when I misunderstood your initial question. I was curious to see where the discussion would end up. Again... moving on... (no need for you to defend anything here).

Give me any situation and I can give you a valid reason why it can still be considered good to someone else.

http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-11-24/brasso-seco-residents-we-are-relieved

Who is the someone else that these murders may be considered good to?
Why can these murders be considered good?

This question is now directly aimed at your initial question and not at the discussion that I started.

[MD Marketers]

What the story of a priest raping a nine year old altar boy?

Morality is the objective reasoning we use to define wrong and right.
You seem to be claiming "rape" is a morally wrong physical act and should not be done no matter what the circumstances. This is an objectively moral statement. Meaning it doesn't matter what perspective you view it from.
I'm saying there is no such thing as objective Morality of a physical act.
Here is why objective Morality based on a physical act is intrinsically useless to humanity.

A priest was pulled into a room where your wife & 8 year old daughter were tied up, gagged & on the verge of being raped and burnt alive. In the next room was a 9 year old altar boy.

The priest was then given 2 options.
Option 1: He dies along with your wife & daughter
Or
Option 2. He could rape the little altar boy on camera & they will allow everyone to live out their lives so long as they don't say anything.

The priest chose option 2.
The priest action remains the same no matter how you look at it. Rape.

Which choice would you want the priest to make?
If he chose not to rape the little boy do you think it was the right thing to do?
If he chose to rape the little boy do you think it was the wrong thing to do?

My answer: I dont care if you think rape is wrong. I hope the altar boy has ky

If nothing in this situation is the right thing to do then why do we even care about objective morality of a physical act in the first place?
When faced with such situations that require a moral judgement more than anything else, objective morality based on a physical act is the last thing that can help us.
Objective Morality of a physical act is intrinsically useless if you apply perspective.
It's sad but true, no one can tell you what's right or wrong, not even God. Only you have that choice.
Thus objective morality is an illusion.

Don't despair folks.
This does not mean that there isn't such a thing as objectively good or objectively bad. I assure you there is.
It's called "will"
Your will is the only thing that can truly be classified as either "good" or "bad"
Eg. Good Will of an intention is always good no matter how you look at it.

So the next time you want to label an act as good or bad, don't look at the consequences, look at the will of the perpetrator & you will find the answer.

The priest had a good will in my scenario despite what you thought was a bad act.
Good or Bad acts carry no value.
It's only the good or bad will that counts

and what if this alter boy after being raped by a priest, hates society and becomes a serial rapist/killer?

The purpose of Moral judgement is to help make a decision before an act is made.
At the point in time the priest has to make the best decision based on the direct consequence.
Assuming indirect consequences as the basis for decision making is not the proper way to make decisions although we do it from time to time.

[MD Marketers]

Seems that this will not be resolved between us so I'll just move on unless you will like to add something new then I will come back to it.

There is nothing to be resolved because you keep asking a rhetorical question to a statement I never made

Give me any situation and I can give you a valid reason why it can still be considered good to someone else.

I just realised I misunderstood part of your question. I somehow missed the part in red. ...
...The argument I am putting forth now is that there are some actions that are objectively wrong.

This is therefore meant as a new discussion and not a response to your initial statement. You therefore have nothing to defend. Hope this eases you up a bit.

I'm saying:
"We cannot know for sure because we are not omniscient".
I then go on to describe a situation where there is Good Will that comes out of the situation.

You are saying:
"We can know for sure if we assume omniscience". This scenario was meant to give rise to a premise and not my argument and was purposefully simplified to to not distract from my argument. Being rhetorical is not a problem here. I wanted to give you the opportunity to point out any error I made so far. Instead you focused on arguing irrelevancies that I don't feel to elaborate on as they are pointless. Hence the reason why I am moving on.
Then you sit in wait for me to try to defend a statement I never made. It was a new discussion that I was starting. Granted it first started when I misunderstood your initial question. I was curious to see where the discussion would end up. Again... moving on... (no need for you to defend anything here).

Give me any situation and I can give you a valid reason why it can still be considered good to someone else.

http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-11-24/brasso-seco-residents-we-are-relieved

Who is the someone else that these murders may be considered good to?
Why can these murders be considered good?

This question is now directly aimed at your initial question and not at the discussion that I started.

Does the question assume empathy?
To answer the question I need to know if the question is stated from the point of view of omniscience or the point of view a particular person or group of persons.

My answer will start with:
From the point of view of ...xyz... it is ... wrong/right ... because ... ABC

Your answer will be along the lines of:
Yes/No ... From the point of view of ...xyz... it is ... wrong/right ... because ... ABC

Then we get to discuss the logic in each persons answer to discern which ones makes more logical sense

[Slartibartfast]

No argumentative tricks in this one. This is just a simple question from me to you. You must prove to me that action of committing the murders were good. You may assume the answer from any person's point of view as long as you do not add information/"facts" that are not there.

[desifemlove]

Lol. You are thinking way too much into it. The details of the dilemma are not important. Btw the tether is above them all like holding a string with 5 beads on it. I can come up with a better example but have no need to as it is only meant as a metaphor. Not writing a fact based novel or an episode of CSI.

If you want you may come up with your own details but for the sake of the argument you have only two choices, cut or dont cut. Interested in your response as the third man down and as the fourth man down. What will your reaction be?

Moral dilemma
You are in a situation where everyone will die if a decision is not made. The only decision available includes sacrificing the life of half the people present. Can you make that decision to sacrifice the life of others? Can you make that decision to sacrifice your own life if you were among those whose lives needed to be sacrificed? Fell free to come up with your own scenario if you need a visualization. I am only interested in your decision and your moral basis for it.

there is no moral basis. completely subjective.

depends entirely on the situation at hand.