»Is homosexuality immoral?«

Finding things that are always true and never change is EASY Knn!

Um yes but to say an electron is only negative if it exists is to bed the question. Can you give me an instance of an electron that is not negatively charged?

Laws of logic are unchanging and absolute.

Ok Ayn Rand, then you have reduced morality to "what is in one's own best interest." That is equivalent to no morality at all.

Wrong again. It doesn't require faith. It requires logic. If I hit someone, I have every reason to believe they'll want to hit me back --- human nature. To avoid being hit by that person, I should avoid hitting that person.

This code is softened by empathy and compassion. However, in its essence, it's plainly logical.

Do you even bother to read responses?

[Morality] doesn't require faith. It requires logic.

If I hit someone, I have every reason to believe they'll want to hit me back --- human nature. To avoid being hit by that person, I should avoid hitting that person.

This code is softened by empathy and compassion.

It doesn't require faith. It requires logic.

It's clear that there is no point in responding to a thread/post of yours

You're just on IMO for airtime.

I think, by saying this, you were attempting to salvage your previous quote, which was so obviously fallacious. However, this statement is no help to you. Now we're at the same place we were (before you claimed that morality simply requires logic), where we are lacking the imperative which tells us to be compassionate and empathetic.

nowhere did you set up the axiom "do what is in one's own best interest."

you only seem capable of personal attacks

If you don't want people to launch personal attacks against you

Problems with 1 - Setting this code up as "basic" is completely arbitrary.

Problems with 2 - In order for this code to be "logical," the axiom "do what is in one's own best interest" must be set up.

Self-interest is what is telling me that I don't want people to hurt me, correct?

If so, your code which says "don't hurt others so they don't hurt you" is only logical if the principle of self-interest is assumed.

You said yourself that morality often combats self-interest.

If this is so, and we must not always follow what is in our own best interest

then I have no reason to follow your "logical" code.

Unless I am supposed to look out for my own good, why must I avoid hitting someone who I know will hit me back?

Problems with 3 - When empathy and compassion make me act out of concordance with the "completely logical" approach to morality, why do you consider this a good thing?

According to your system of morals, they are making me act immorally.

The descriptive words you use - "softened" and "tempered" - have no meaning until you bring in principles from Traditional Morality.

Until you establish another axiom which tells us that we should act compassionately, compassion is an immoral act, because it goes against your code.

To avoid being hit by that person, I should avoid hitting that person.

Yup. It might be in my best interest to kick your ass. But if I did so, I'd be punished to a greater extent by the law.

So wrong. If I say, "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you," does that make eating ice cream moral or immoral? According to your last statement, that makes it immoral, because I don't have an axiom that covers eating ice cream.

If the statement "I should avoid hitting that person" is not logical on its own, then the clause "To avoid being hit by that person" is the portion of the sentence that you believe makes it "logical."

This "logical" clause could then be applied to any statement. For example, you could say, "To avoid being hit by that person, I should kill that person."

Yup. It might be in my best interest to kick your ass. But if I did so, I'd be punished to a greater extent by the law.

All you have really been doing here is stating reasons why an immoral person might happen to act morally in a particular instance.

Do you not see that this is not a moral reason for refraining from that kind of action?

A moral person would refrain from harming another individual EVEN WHEN he knows he would not be punished.

Your code based on "logic" says that we don't harm others when we know we will be attacked. Let's say I accidentally ran into someone. I know they are going to hit me for it.

Therefore, a "logical" thing to do might be to knock him out, so I don't get hurt.

Compassion would directly violate your code of ethics, in this instance, because it goes against my logic.

Therefore, unless the moral "act compassionately" was set up, compassion would be immoral, in many cases.

Blooming eck, you're little tirades against each other are getting REALLY boring.

Now it seems to me that desires which encourage us to work better as a community and to help those around us allow for a better overall society. Those societies containing people with these desires of compassion and tolerance are far more likely to survive that those where no one cares about anyone but themselves.

Ah, but it is logical on its own.

We could probably come up with hundreds of reasons why I should avoid hitting someone.

The one this moral code focusses on is because hitting someone will result in reciprocity.

Reciprocity does not mean it will necessarily come from that person. Like I said earlier:

I could kill you to prevent you from hurling further personal attacks against me on this forum. But then I would be arrested and sentenced to death.

My compassion comes into this in that I don't want to kill you. I have no desire to cause the death of another human being. I would be traumatized if I did so.

You can't call someone immoral til you define what morality is.

Similarly, you can't call an action moral or immoral til you define what morality is.

Which brings us back to my original point, the one with which you took issue earlier --- empathy and compassion.

Empathy and compassion take someone above the level of obeying the moral code to avoid reciprocity, to obeying the moral code because they don't want to hurt people.

A problem right there. You don't know he is going to hit you. Thus, you'd have to face the issue of justifying your preemptive strike.

Sure, I could escalate the accident and knock him out, or kill him. But then I have to deal with reciprocity in the form of the law.

A person with no empathy or compassion would still have a reason to obey this code of ethics, in order to avoid reciprocity

Name one.

Let's say I accidentally ran into someone. I know they are going to hit me for it. Therefore, a "logical" thing to do might be to knock him out, so I don't get hurt. Compassion would directly violate your code of ethics, in this instance, because it goes against my logic.

What you're saying, pretty much, is that we should cultivate our moral/positive desires. But you have to define what those are.