The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Isn't it strange though that this story is even included in the Bible? They never carried out this command. Why would these people add a story about their God commanding them to do something which they never carried out? Something it seems which goes against their own law. At least if they had actually carried it out then they (assuming they are making up the rules and not God) could point to God and say He told us to do it, but they never did it, so why include it in the record? It's included because God does exist and He did command them to do it and they did fail to carry it out. Now if God is immoral in your view then that means that He exists and atheism is false or if He doesn't exist then atheism is true and this story is made up by humans. But why would humans make up such a story when they never carried out the alleged command contained in the story in the first place?

There are a few bible stories going around so I'm not sure which one you're talking about but I don't know for sure why they would put the story in and neither do you, you'd have to ask them. I assume that there is some lesson behind this story, that it's not just in there as an example of badness for badness sake?

Which story is this?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Which being translated into English means that under your view there is no such thing as real right or wrong. Correct?

Nope. And it doesn't become any more true each time you say it

kiffer

Guys a quick question or three: is God's absolute objective morality rational?

Would you say things are wrong because God forbids them or does God forbid them because they are wrong?

If God has a rational reason to call something wrong wouldn't that rational reason stand whether or not God exists?
If God's reason is not rational then the morality isn't really objective, or is it?

Even if God existed and his morality was actually objective, would it not be the case that your personal understanding of that morality would be subjective and not absolute/objective?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

But I don't see any explanation for the story otherwise, the angels saved Lot from the destruction of the city because he helped them.

Wrong. They were come to save him and his family from the destruction which was to come on those cities at the request of Abraham to God. And this was done before the mod arrived. Lot was Abraham's nephew and feared God so much that he would rather have given his daughters to the mob instead of allowing the messengers from God to be harmed while under his roof. I can't imagine that was an easy choice to make could you? Lot obviously didn't think the messengers were powerful enough to deal with the mob themselves, he was wrong too.

Wicknight wrote: »

The fact that he helped them by throwing his daughters to the mob is not bad or immoral, it was in fact the righteous thing to do. Wasn't Lot great.

He didn't throw his daughters to the mob though. He offered them to the mob and they rejected the offer because they wanted the messengers of God instead.

Wicknight wrote: »

The idea that this was just something Lot did and the Bible is not coming down on the side of judging it as a good thing is frankly ridiculous. Throughout the entire story the Bible comments on the righteousness of Lot and the wickedness of the people of Sodom.

Just like Sam you are coming at this story with the view that there is no God. Lot feared God hence his decision to offer even his daughters instead of the messengers of God. But again the mob never got their hands on them anyway so alls well that ends well.

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There are a few bible stories going around so I'm not sure which one you're talking about but I don't know for sure why they would put the story in and neither do you, you'd have to ask them. I assume that there is some lesson behind this story, that it's not just in there as an example of badness for badness sake?

Which story is this?

Yous brought it up, you tell me

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Nope. And it doesn't become any more true each time you say it

So then you are admitting that there are absolute right and wrongs no matter what yeah? Which is it Sam? You seem confused

Mark Hamill

Soul Winner wrote: »

Wrong. They were come to save him and his family from the destruction which was to come on those cities at the request of Abraham to God. And this was done before the mod arrived. Lot was Abraham's nephew and feared God so much that he would rather have given his daughters to the mob instead of allowing the messengers from God to be harmed while under his roof. I can't imagine that was an easy choice to make could you? Lot obviously didn't think the messengers were powerful enough to deal with the mob themselves, he was wrong too.

So Lot feared God so much that he did something that would be considered completely immoral by almost everyone to keep him happy, and was still rewarded for it without anyone in the story saying anything to him about it at all?

Soul Winner wrote: »

He didn't throw his daughters to the mob though. He offered them to the mob and they rejected the offer because they wanted the messengers of God instead.

Just because the mob didn't "catch" them doesn't mean they weren't "thrown".

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just like Sam you are coming at this story with the view that there is no God. Lot feared God hence his decision to offer even his daughters instead of the messengers of God. But again the mob never got their hands on them anyway so alls well that ends well.

The ends that satisfy god justify the immoral means?

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yous brought it up, you tell me

I don't know which story you're talking about. If you tell me I'm sure Jakkass can give us the moral lesson behind it which is the reason for its inclusion

Soul Winner wrote: »

So then you are admitting that there are absolute right and wrongs no matter what yeah? Which is it Sam? You seem confused

I'm saying that it's not a choice between God ordained morality or murder being grand because you can't tell me I'm wrong. Our instincts tell us what's right and wrong and the basic instinct of "treat others as you would like to be treated" is the same across the whole population because it was put into us by evolution.

I can tell you that what you're doing is wrong because if you do something wrong I can ask you "would you like it if someone did that to you" and if the answer is no, then you've just done something wrong. Simple as that


And again, the point you seem to be missing is that your morality is not objective and binding until the existence of your God is proven. Until that day you're just one more person with a subjective moral view but the moral view of some christians is wrong to me because they think its acceptable to force their morality on others, which violates the "treat others as you would like to be treated" rule

Sam Vimes

And to pre-empt the inevitable "what if he would like it done to him", I would then point out that the other person doesn't like it and ask "would you like if someone did something to you that they liked but you didn't?" at which point the answer would be no

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just like Sam you are coming at this story with the view that there is no God. Lot feared God hence his decision to offer even his daughters instead of the messengers of God. But again the mob never got their hands on them anyway so alls well that ends well.

So if I try and kill you and for some reason out of my control I fail to kill you that is ok because alls well that ends well

You guys are really bowling me over with Christian "morality" here :rolleyes:

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

If they had not killed them then they would have been brought into slavery by another tribe of people who might have done much worse to them. Remember God was primarily focused on the survival of His own people so that through them the promised Seed would come. Now you mightn't like that idea but if God exists then why should He be bothered with what you think of His doings? If He doesn't exist then the Israelites were just doing what every other tribe has done through out history, protecting their own. Why is it that the Israelites cannot do what some atheists in here think it is ok for anyone else to do to in any other circumstance?

Remember that I am not talking about what is morally right and wrong. I am saying a God who commands people to kill non-virgins, and keep the rest for themsleves is a God of needless cruelty, with no compassion for those girls. We can define such cruelty as morally right if we like, but the fact remains that this does not sound like the contemporary Christian God.

You said earlier that these people will be against God to the end. To be honest, I can't really blame them.

Soul Winner

kiffer wrote: »

Guys a quick question or three: is God's absolute objective morality rational?

I believe so but it doesn't have to be rational to our minds in order for it to be true does it?

kiffer wrote: »

Would you say things are wrong because God forbids them or does God forbid them because they are wrong?

If God exists then whatever He says is right IS right and whatever He says is wrong IS wrong. He says what goes. You don't have to like that but if His existing is not based on what you think then why should His standard of right and wrong be based on what you think either?

kiffer wrote: »

If God has a rational reason to call something wrong wouldn't that rational reason stand whether or not God exists?

No because God wouldn't be around to have the rational reason in the first place. Would the same thing be wrong if God didn't exist? For some it would be, but that is the whole point of this debate, it just becomes subjective. You might think its wrong but I mightn't. I might think something else is wrong and you mightn't. Without God there is no objective right or wrong. If you think there is then please explain why.

kiffer wrote: »

If God's reason is not rational then the morality isn't really objective, or is it?

How would you define rational though? And why should God assuming He does exist be bound by your definition of rationality and reason for why He should judge something as being right or wrong?

kiffer wrote: »

Even if God existed and his morality was actually objective, would it not be the case that your personal understanding of that morality would be subjective and not absolute/objective?

If He exists at all then morality is already objective whether we understand/perform it or not. If He doesn't exist then there is no such thing as objective morality. Everyone can basically do what they think is right even though others might think that it is wrong. Nobody can turn around and claim that their morality is better than anyone else's simply by virtue of the fact there is no standard from which to measure it. If you know of one then I'd like you to tell us. Under naturalism there is nothing really wrong with rape and murder. If someone rapes and murders your child (God forbid) then under naturalism all they've really done is follow their in built natural urges. Now if I found out tomorrow that there was no such thing as God I would still hate murder and rape but that doesn't mean that those acts are wrong, they are just acts which I hate. Which means I have no right to judge anyone who does them because in a universe without God their choice to rape and murder is a valid as my choice not to. Sounds terrible I know but that is the reality of the situation if God doesn't exist. Society might lock them up and/or execute them but nobody can say what they did was wrong. It was just not beneficial for them to do so for survival reasons or acceptance into the tribe reasons.

Sam Vimes

I must say Soul Winner you spectacularly avoided the question there

kiffer

oh... So it's might makes right and God has no rational reason for his morality. Thanks.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

If He exists at all then morality is already objective whether we understand/perform it or not. If He doesn't exist then there is no such thing as objective morality. Everyone can basically do what they think is right even though others might think that it is wrong. Nobody can turn around and claim that their morality is better than anyone else's simply by virtue of the fact there is no standard from which to measure it. If you know of one then I'd like you to tell us.

Soul Winner, would you like someone to kill you? <---The standard from which to measure it

The answer to that question is obviously no

Soul Winner, if you wouldn't like someone to kill you, doesn't it follow that the moral action is not to kill someone else?

There you go, I've just explained to you why something is wrong and the Judeo-Christian God wasn't mentioned once. Care to point out the flaw in my reasoning?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

So if I try and kill you and for some reason out of my control I fail to kill you that is ok because alls well that ends well

If that happened it would be a bad day for you . Seriously though, if you had killed me then what really happened? Under naturalism it was just an event which ended bad for me but no different to any other event in nature. In other words nature is not going to seek vengeance for me on you is it? Not at all. If nature is all that there is then you're desire to kill me was a natural one and the resulting end for me was a natural one too. Now you might be kicked out of the tribe for doing it but it was still just a natural act caused by a natural desire. If all that exists is nature then everything that happens in nature is natural. For society to function in the way that the majority would like it to then we must set up a system of rules where certain acts will not be accepted but that doesn't mean that those acts are wrong. They’re just not socially acceptable. But we all just know that certain things are wrong. Sam can believe that evolution did this and I can believe that it is because God exists but the fact is we both agree that certain things are just wrong end of. Which means that we have in this universe objective moral values. And I don't believe evolution had anything to do with it. If they are wrong at all then they were always wrong even before we found it out them, and as such will always be wrong even if we evolve to such a degree where it becomes necessary for survival that we do such things. God forbid that ever happening but under naturalism it would be ok because all that is important under naturalism is survival.

Wicknight wrote: »

You guys are really bowling me over with Christian "morality" here

Don't mention it

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

If that happened it would be a bad day for you Seriously though, if you had killed me then what really happened? Under naturalism it was just an event which ended bad for me but no different to any other event in nature. In other words nature is not going to seek vengeance for me on you is it? Not at all. If nature is all that there is then you're desire to kill me was a natural one and the resulting end for me was a natural one too. Now you might be kicked out of the tribe for doing it but it was still just a natural act caused by a natural desire. If all that exists is nature then everything that happens in nature is natural. For society to function in the way that the majority would like it to then we must set up a system of rules where certain acts will not be accepted but that doesn't mean that those acts are wrong. They’re just not socially acceptable. But we all just know that certain things are wrong. Sam can believe that evolution did this and I can believe that it is because God exists but the fact is we both agree that certain things are just wrong end of. Which means that we have in this universe objective moral values. And I don't believe evolution had anything to do with it. If they are wrong at all then they were always wrong even before we found it out them, and as such will always be wrong even if we evolve to such a degree where it becomes necessary for survival that we do such things. God forbid that ever happening but under naturalism it would be ok because all that is important under naturalism is survival.

Soul Winner, would you like someone to kill you? <---The standard from which to measure morality

The answer to that question is obviously no

Soul Winner, if you wouldn't like someone to kill you, doesn't it follow that the moral action is not to kill someone else?

There you go, I've just explained to you why something is wrong and the Judeo-Christian God wasn't mentioned once. Care to point out the flaw in my reasoning? Why is anything else required?

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Soul Winner, would you like someone to kill you? <---The standard from which to measure it

The answer to that question is obviously no

Soul Winner, if you wouldn't like someone to kill you, doesn't it follow that the moral action is not to kill someone else?

There you go, I've just explained to you why something is wrong and the Judeo-Christian God wasn't mentioned once. Care to point out the flaw in my reasoning?

Ok then, but what if I did want someone to kill me and somebody actually accommodated me on it? Would the accommodator have done something wrong in your view? Example: Did the German cannibal do something wrong when he killed and ate someone at the behest of the victim? If yes, then the victim wanting it done to him has no baring in whether it is wrong or not, right. If not then that means that if someone wants you to kill and eat them then you'd think that was ok simple because they want it done to them. So which is it Sam? If its wrong no matter what then we are back to square one aren't we?

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ok then, but what if I did want someone to kill me and somebody actually accommodated me on it? Would the accommodator have done something wrong in your view? Example: Did the German cannibal do something wrong when he killed and ate someone at the behest of the victim? If yes, then the victim wanting it done to him has no baring in whether it is wrong or not, right. If not then that means that if someone wants you to kill and eat them then you'd think that was ok simple because they want it done to them. So which is it Sam? If its wrong no matter what then we are back to square one aren't we?

I don't think he did anything wrong. It was a choice between two consenting adults. No one was forced to do anything they didn't want to do

There is the issue of his loved ones but, again, they should acknowledge his wishes and say to themselves that if they wanted to do something they wouldn't want their family to stop them even if it made them sad (although they might try to talk him out of it), so the same should apply here.

Sam Vimes

This is the good thing about subjective morality btw, I can take the circumstances and wishes of the people involved into account because I don't get my morals from a dogmatic old book

Sam Vimes

All of the above is of course contingient on the idea that the "victim" was of sound mind. If he wasn't then he was incapable of giving consent and the cannibal would be taking advantage of him. To give a definitive answer on this we'd have to ask the "victim" unfortunately

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't think he did anything wrong. It was a choice between two consenting adults. No one was forced to do anything they didn't want to do

There is the issue of his loved ones but, again, they should acknowledge his wishes and say to themselves that if they wanted to do something they wouldn't want their family to stop them even if it made them sad (although they might try to talk him out of it), so the same should apply here.

What if all the family of the young man who wanted to be killed and eaten approved of his idea? Would you think that they would be regarded as a normal functioning family? Would you not try and persuade them that what he is doing is crazy? What if the local authorities got wind of the plan and tried to stop it happening? Under your view what the authorities would be doing in stopping this from happening would be wrong, because they are forcing on someone else something that that someone doesn’t want done to them.

Mark Hamill

Soul Winner wrote: »

Seriously though, if you had killed me then what really happened? Under naturalism it was just an event which ended bad for me but no different to any other event in nature. In other words nature is not going to seek vengeance for me on you is it? Not at all. If nature is all that there is then you're desire to kill me was a natural one and the resulting end for me was a natural one too. Now you might be kicked out of the tribe for doing it but it was still just a natural act caused by a natural desire. If all that exists is nature then everything that happens in nature is natural.

But that has no basis on wether its right or wrong. You are falling into the same trap as health food morons who think that because something is "natural" it should be embraced. When you point to an act being natural, all you are saying is that it is physically possible, but that has never had any effect on wether it is moral or not. There are things that could happen to this earth which, while "natural" (ie physically possible) that would be bad for nature (eg asteroid hits the earth). Your argument also shows hints of seeing nature as a driven intelligence if god din't exist (the idea that nature would want to seek revenge- what has that got to do with anything?) which is really coming from nowhere.

Soul Winner wrote: »

For society to function in the way that the majority would like it to then we must set up a system of rules where certain acts will not be accepted but that doesn't mean that those acts are wrong. They’re just not socially acceptable.

Thats what it means to be wrong - not acceptable in a particular situation. Something is deemed immoral for beeing wrong in a social situation.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But we all just know that certain things are wrong. Sam can believe that evolution did this and I can believe that it is because God exists but the fact is we both agree that certain things are just wrong end of.

Well no, when asked why they are wrong, Sam can reason out why they are wrong - point to how they are bad for society. You just say because god says so (with the underlying caveat that if god says otherwise, they are not wrong).

Soul Winner wrote: »

Which means that we have in this universe objective moral values.

It just means that we have some evolutionly-derived societally-instilled "morals" that are almost (but not quite) universally held.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If they are wrong at all then they were always wrong even before we found it out them, and as such will always be wrong even if we evolve to such a degree where it becomes necessary for survival that we do such things. God forbid that ever happening but under naturalism it would be ok because all that is important under naturalism is survival.

Well, most people would think slavery is wrong, and yet the new testament never comes out against slavery in the bible even though it talks about it in several places (eg Ephesians 6:5-9, Luke 12:45-48). Are they wrong? Is slavery ok?

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is the good thing about subjective morality btw, I can take the circumstances and wishes of the people involved into account because I don't get my morals from a dogmatic old book

Nah, I just think its because you know I got ya

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

What if all the family of the young man who wanted to be killed and eaten approved of his idea? Would you think that they would be regarded as a normal functioning family? Would you not try and persuade them that what he is doing is crazy? What if the local authorities got wind of the plan and tried to stop it happening? Under your view what the authorities would be doing in stopping this from happening would be wrong, because they are forcing on someone else something that that someone doesn’t want done to them.

What's normal is a matter of opinion. I said above that it was contingient on him being of sound mind. If it could be shown that he wasn't insane then it's just what he wants to do and it's no one else's business. It's my life and I'll do what I want with it

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Nah, I just think its because you know I got ya

No I remember when this case came out and I remember thinking that he shouldn't be jailed because he only did what the guy wanted him to do. I think he was convicted of "killing on request" in the end because no one was quite sure how to deal with it. Whether or not he did something wrong depends on the mindset of the "victim". It's not just a clear cut case of always wrong.

Sam Vimes

Also Soul Winner, even if you could give a few situations where the correct answer is not immediately obvious, that's a far cry from the idea that there's no way of telling right from wrong without God, that murder is just something someone wants to do and I can't tell them they're wrong

And the fact remains that you have no more right to tell someone they're wrong than me until your God's existence is proven because the question of his existence is subjective, therefore the morality he supposedly gave us is subjective

wolfsbane

lugha said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But again, my argument is that, for the materialist, man knows he is a product of evolution and knows his 'conscience' is just a part of that. He is therefore free to act how he pleases and logically you are not able to condemn him. Who does he owe any account to? Are they not just the same as he?
You could point to a similar failing in morality derived from Christianity. Almost no sin if any at all (?) is unforgivable so an individual can do wrong and if his contrition is genuine then he can seek redemption. No doubt you will say genuine is the important word here. Maybe so. But is it hard not to suspect that an “everything is forgivable” moral framework will not lead to less than moral society. In the extreme case you might even get those who believe (wrongly perhaps, but believe nonetheless) that they can lead as an immoral life as they please and seek redemption on their death beds.

What has that got to do with my argument for honesty in atheists about morality? If our morality is biological conditioning, let us admit we may properly pick and chose which we wish to observe, instead of pretending that it really is wrong to do some things.

Now to your comment on Christian morality: no one who holds sincerely to Christian morality can think they may sin as they wish and be sure of forgiveness. Death-bed repentance is not promised to anyone. Some get it by God's mercy, most do not.

So real Christianity is a powerful restraint on evil behaviour.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Wolfsbane, I can acknowledge that objective morality passed down from a God can be superior to morality that is arrived at through instinct and consensus (depending on the God of course. There are lots of religions out there whose rules I'd hate to live under)

But, and it's a very important but, the fact that morality might be better if it was objective, binding and unquestionable does not mean that it is objective, binding and unquestionable.

It is - but that is not my argument. I'm not debating the merits of our respective moralities - I'm pointing out that the materialist has no grounds for saying any behaviour is any better or worse than another, much less expressing moral indignation at the offender. The murderer is doing nothing essentially different than the gardener or the mechanic - he is merely rearranging matter.

You can spend all day telling us how superior objective morality is to all other forms but that brings you no closer to proving that it actually exists. It's like me saying "flying cars are better than normal cars", to which the obvious response is "I agree but flying cars don't exist so what's your point?".

Human beings have to make do with the morality we have. It's not perfect but it's imperfection does not entitle us to make stuff up to try to compensate for it

I agree. But my point is that the materialist should not consider himself bound by the morality we have. He may rightly pick and choose what pleases him.

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

The materialist man is NOT free! Evolution has determined that we have a conscience therefore it is our primary instinct to look out for one another. However, because this isn't always optimal for survival we have evolved so that we can choose to ignore it at times (though it can be verryyyyyyy difficult for some ).
Empathy is one of the first instincts a newborn gets
Ignoring that primary urge is difficult, even when the rational minds says it is better to do so.

I did not mean he was emotionally free - rather, rationally free. Sure, the non-intellectual will mostly not reason through to amorality from materialism - but the enlightened materialist will. While the little people agonise over their consciences, he is able to exploit them to the full.

Of course, for practical reasons he may live according to their morals, but if the circumstances permit no retribution he can happily live like a devil. And you have no grounds to say he should not.

All I'm wanting you to face up to is the fact that, for the materialist, the serial sex-killer is no worse than the serial philantrophist.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

If that happened it would be a bad day for you . Seriously though, if you had killed me then what really happened?

That isn't actually what I asked. I asked if I try to kill you and fail does that mean I've done nothing wrong. That is your logic behind excusing what Lot did, his daughters didn't get raped so it was not wrong of him to offer them up to be raped.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Now you might be kicked out of the tribe for doing it but it was still just a natural act caused by a natural desire. If all that exists is nature then everything that happens in nature is natural.

And .. ?

The Black Death was natural. That doesn't suggest I'm ok with it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

For society to function in the way that the majority would like it to then we must set up a system of rules where certain acts will not be accepted but that doesn't mean that those acts are wrong.They’re just not socially acceptable.

But that is the same thing. They are wrong according to society. They are wrong according to me. They are wrong according to Mr. Pinkerton who lives down the road. They are wrong according to God. It is all the same thing.

Right and wrong are simply opinions, like was White Chicks a good movie or not.

You can value God's opinion over everyone elses, the same way a you might value the opinion of a film buff how has seen ever film ever made, but that does not make it universal.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Which means that we have in this universe objective moral values.

No it doesn't. It means you have moral opinion that you apply universally. I think it is wrong for people to rape babies. I believe that is wrong universally, but it is still my opinion.

God thinks it is wrong for people out of wedlock to have sex. He applies that universally, but it is still just his opinion. Pre-marital sex is wrong is not something that exists independently of God's opinion on the matter. If God didn't exist that wouldn't still be true, like 2+2=4 would.

There is no universal morality, in the Christian version or the atheist version. Christians saying "Well we believe because of what God is that makes his opinion a universal fact" is nonsense and paradoxical. You get into the age old question of whether or not God is forced to conclude something is wrong because it is a universal fact or is it a universal fact because God concludes it is wrong (neither of which make any sense)

Soul Winner wrote: »

And I don't believe evolution had anything to do with it.

Well given the mountain of evidence that it did that doesn't bother me too much. As I keep explaining to Wolfsbane, some people believe the Earth is flat. :P

Soul Winner wrote: »

God forbid that ever happening but under naturalism it would be ok because all that is important under naturalism is survival.

I'm unaware of any atheists who believes all that is important "under naturalism" is survival. If you need to make up a moral position (all that is important in Christianity is people suffering in hell!!!) in order to make your point then surely you must know you are doing something wrong.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
And if that instinct tells you to seduce your neighbour's wife/have sex with your mother/drink blood/drink no alcohol? One man's morals are another man's sins. Evolution produces all sorts - so how can you condemn any thing as being actually wrong, rather than just wrong to you?
Through societal consensus, we call it the law round these here parts

So if they agree that enslaving everyone other than themselves is a good thing, it is a good thing? And your idea that the next tribe ought to be respected and loved - that is an immoral thing?