270 réponses à ce sujet

[Orthodox Infidel]

Zine2, I usually like your threads, but this one is bad. You're doing something incredibly naughty here that nobody has quite called you out on yet.

Zine2 wrote...

Standard Zine2 thread. Harsh, but you'll learn something.

Defenders of the ending often use this argument.

You cannot judge the Reaper's actions, because they are operating from a different perspective. We are but ants to them. Hence, you should put aside any revulsion at being forced to work for a mass-murderer like the Catalyst and happily take part in his next "Solution".

This is what is called "moral relativism". Murder might be immoral in our society, but it's perfectly acceptable for the Reapers, because their "perspective" is different. So we should "understand" that the Reapers are operating from a different "perspective" and follow them like obedient sheep.

Aside from sounding polemic, you're argument is OK until this point. Here's where everything starts falling apart:

The problem is this: The Reapers aren't just operating on a different set of morals. They are so factually retarded that they can be considered clinically insane; or they are lying. Either way, they are not worthy of support or sympathy.

Facts are facts. An apple is an apple. It is NOT an orange. That is a fact, no matter your perspective. The truth depends on physical realities, not on imaginary relationships you constructed in your imagination.

SNIP

Factual analysis always trumps moral relativism. Reality always trumps the voices in your head. Until people who like the ending open their eyes and stop covering their ears and realize how wrong the Reaper's argument is - on a factual level; not just a "moral" one - then they're never going to understand why 92% of the people polled hated the ending.

You're intending to slay relativism, but you're going several steps further and are stating here that empirical facts ("physical realities") override moral facts. This makes no sense. There are no "physical realities" that can override a moral fact in the manner you suggest, regardless of whether these moral facts are relative or subjective or objective.

Also, by claiming that we should ignore morality completely, then you're contradicting yourself and your earlier statements where you claim that what the Reapers are doing is morally reprehensible.

[Madmoe77]

RaptorV1982 wrote...

Unless if they are not merely preserving species, but of sentient life irregardless of its shape or form. If they are our salvation through destruction, they may not be referring to a singular species--but life in general. Regardless, its all speculation at this point.

Agreed.

[Zine2]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...
No there are other ways to back out of the question besides that.  Unfortunately, they would all eventually lead to a larger debate on what the nature of morality itself is. I think Zine2 would lose that argument, based upon his opening post, because he's proceeding from a significant contradiction that I'm going to detail in my next post.

No, I refuse to answer the question because it is an inherently loaded question; when the original assertion is that moral relativism is irrelevant. To answer the question would be to shoot my own position down, which is that you do not have to resort to a moral argument to show that the Reapers are lying or clinically insane.

In short, I refuse to address it because whether or not eating a chicken is morally right does not matter. It only matters because some people here are desperately grasping at straws. It's an attempt at misdirection and nothing more.

And the reason why they misdirect is simple: They CANNOT contest how I obliterated the moral relativism argument - which is to show that the Reaper's stated goals (We are your salvation through your destruction) is factually impossible regardless of your moral perspective. It is simply claiming that an apple is an orange.

The only counter-arguments that would disprove this is to show that when the Reapers nuked Diana Aller's colony, they were in fact not just vaporizing people, but also uploading their consciousness into some kind of Reaper shell.

Except of course we all know that kind of evidence does not exist (which is why you have all of these lies about how the Reapers actually "upload" people - when no such thing is ever shown or mentioned) - whereas plenty of evidence shows that Reapers simply kill people and obliterate cultures.

That is the simple truth. There is no "salvation" in "We are your salvation through destruction". It is either a lie, or the construct of a deranged mind.

[Orthodox Infidel]

humes spork wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Anyway, as I have said, I am not making a moral argument. I am making a factual argument.

No you're not, you're making a pedantic argument stemming from how Reapers justify and/or codify their actions. That the Reapers' actions are morally condemnable is a hidden premise of your judgment of their actions.

QFT.

[Zine2]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...
You're intending to slay relativism, but you're going several steps further and are stating here that empirical facts ("physical realities") override moral facts. This makes no sense. There are no "physical realities" that can override a moral fact in the manner you suggest, regardless of whether these moral facts are relative or subjective or objective.

Also, by claiming that we should ignore morality completely, then you're contradicting yourself and your earlier statements where you claim that what the Reapers are doing is morally reprehensible.

There's a difference between slaying moral relativism for all time, and slaying this for this one particular case.

In the "eating chickens" argument, our premise is that there is no ruling morality guiding our actions. This is why moral relativism is okay in this case. Animal rights folks might say chickens are entitled to life. Most people might just shrug and eat them.

But in the case of the Reapers, they made a very specific argument: We are your salvation through destruction. This was repeated numerous times.

Therefore, we have a very specific basis upon which to judge the Reaper's actions. We can judge whether or not they adhere to this maxim based on the facts. Moral relativism in this case is totally trumped by facts; because moral relativism does not matter at all when it comes to judging whether or not the Reapers do "save" by "killing".

====

And indeed, my general point is that facts should always trump moral relativism in any debate. If someone makes an argument that "You should not eat chickens because they have human DNA!", then that argument should be shot down as it has no factual basis. 

[Madmoe77]

We are currently experiencing the principle of double effect lol.


*further Rawlisian versus utilitarian in a luke warm way.

Modifié par Madmoe77, 16 avril 2012 - 07:03 .

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Anyway, as I have said, I am not making a moral argument. I am making a factual argument.

No you're not, you're making a pedantic argument stemming from how Reapers justify and/or codify their actions. That the Reapers' actions are morally condemnable is a hidden premise of your judgment of their actions.

Stop lying and read the OP. You cannot refute the argument that moral relativism is irrelevant in this case. That's why you play around with your chickens.

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

No, I refuse to answer the question because it is an inherently loaded question; when the original assertion is that moral relativism is irrelevant. To answer the question would be to shoot my own position down, which is that you do not have to resort to a moral argument to show that the Reapers are lying or clinically insane.

...and if the action itself were not considered morally condemnable or evil, then why must the Reapers be lying or clinically insane? You said it yourself,

1) They are lying - they know it's an apple but insist on calling it an orange.

2) They are clinically insane - they literally cannot tell the difference between an apple and an orange because their cognitive skills are worse than a five year old. It doesn't matter if you have infinite processing power or ten thousand years worth of data. If you cannot tell an apple from an orange, you are suffering from a proveable mental disorder, and therefore your opinions has as much merit as a madman in a padded cell, or a senile old man. Being older does not automatically make you wiser or deeper. 

That engenders the question of, why lie? If their actions are morally permissible, there is no cause to lie or justify it. And for them to be considered insane as you put it, they must first be unable to make a distinction for themselves the difference between a morally permissible and an impermissible action. That's the case for legal, and social, insanity -- being unable to tell the difference between morally permissible and impermissible actions. By comparing a Reaper to the legally insane, you're making that very distinction yourself. Otherwise, they just happen to become confused, like the synesthetics, dyslexics, people who failed or never took in the first place introductory informal logic, and the like society lets roam free on a daily basis. Unless, of course, you want to make the argument we should lock those individuals away as well...

Either way, you've very cunningly inserted the hidden premise that killing humans is wrong. And, in doing so gleefully miss the point the relativist argument upholds that Reapers do not consider killing organics such. Then you're wrapping it up with this notion of objective truth and fact and all the philosophical mystique and awe you hope to inspire, when the reality is you're polishing a turd and everybody here knows it.

You're actively being called on the fact you've inserted a hidden premise and all you can do is repeat yourself and deflect without actually answering the allegation. If you want to talk about apples and oranges, the moral relativist position here is the apple and your own argument is the orange thanks to that hidden premise. What was it you said about falsely comparing apples to oranges again...

Modifié par humes spork, 16 avril 2012 - 07:03 .

[TheLastAwakening]

That chicken thing is stupid. Does anyone consider a chicken their equal? Killing a chicken is not morally equivalent to killing a human because a chicken does not have the same moral capacity as a human. A chicken does not question if its eating habits are right for example if it were to eat a worm. No it simply eats the worm without considering right or wrong. In this sense chickens cannot have the moral equivalence of humans.

On the other hand the human moral authority thing is debatable, I'm not touching that.


Edit: Note, I did not say that give us the right to slaughter them...

Modifié par TheLastAwakening, 16 avril 2012 - 07:00 .

[Sisterofshane]

Zine2 wrote...

Actually, I was writing up a parody thread. Because the pathetic attempts of the moral relativists to claim that I am making a moral argument inspired a bout of humor.

Anyway, as I have said, I am not making a moral argument. I am making a factual argument.

The Reapers say that what they are doing is "Salvation through destruction"

Salvation and destruction are two different things. Apples and oranges.

And this is before ANY morality comes into view.

So the people arguing that it's a case of moral relativism are ignoring the actual stated reasons of the Reapers.

So again, let's put up the OP:

*snip*

Anyone who claims I made a moral argument is lying. Anyone who insists that we should talk about it as a moral argument is being off-topic. I am talking about the FACTUAL inaccuracies of the Reaper's actual stated goals.

Never said that you were making a moral argument.  What we are saying is that you are trying to remove the morality from the Reapers argument, in order to make them seem illogical.  The problem is that their morality (and any relativism thereof) is central to their actions in the first place.

Like I said before, they are not killing for the sake of killing.  The Reapers are not just going around killing EVERYTHING, and then try to make up for the fact by "storing" us in Reaper shells.  Someone put it succintly up above (forgot who and too late to go looking up posts) it is more like having a limb go gangrene - rather than allow the limb to fester for the sake of the "limb", it is amputated.  Keeping the limb, no matter how useful and wonderful it may have been before the gangrene, would have led to the death of the limb's owner.  In these cases, the Doctors make a MORAL decision in that they "sacrifice" the limb in order to save the life.  Oftentimes the now limb-less person will protest the loss of the limb.  They may believe that they could have saved it.  The Doctors, however, are the one's that went to medical school, and knew that the limb had to go, even though you might deny the fact that it kept you alive for the rest of your life.

Now, go up to that paragraph, replace "Doctors" with "reapers", gangrene with "technological singularity" and "limb's owner" with "organic life - past, present, and future".  The "limb" would be he current cycle of species who have achieved what the Reapers consider the "end" point.

[Orthodox Infidel]

Zine2 wrote...

There's a difference between slaying moral relativism for all time, and slaying this for this one particular case.

STOP. You can't do that, it's called "special pleading" and is always logically fallacious. Either moral relativism is wrong or it isn't, you can't pick and chose when it is to suit your needs.

In the "eating chickens" argument, our premise is that there is no ruling morality guiding our actions. This is why moral relativism is okay in this case. Animal rights folks might say chickens are entitled to life. Most people might just shrug and eat them.

"Our" premise? Huh? That was humes spork's premise, but I'd claim that is begging the question. 

But in the case of the Reapers, they made a very specific argument: We are your salvation through destruction. This was repeated numerous times.

Therefore, we have a very specific basis upon which to judge the Reaper's actions. We can judge whether or not they adhere to this maxim based on the facts. Moral relativism in this case is totally trumped by facts; because moral relativism does not matter at all when it comes to judging whether or not the Reapers do "save" by "killing".

Implict is that "killing" is problematic to you. Why? 

And indeed, my general point is that facts should always trump moral relativism in any debate. If someone makes an argument that "You should not eat chickens because they have human DNA!", then that argument should be shot down as it has no factual basis. 

Ok, so you subscribe to moral nihilism then? There are no moral facts at all? Then you're contradicting your entire previous thread on how the ending is racist and offensive, where you assert rather passionately that "genocide is genocide" and that genocide is wrong.

[humes spork]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

"Our" premise? Huh? That was humes spork's premise, but I'd claim that is begging the question.

That wasn't even my premise. I just asked him about the moral permissibility of the act of killing alone, regardless of justification.

[xsdob]

So, trying to push your moral absolutism on everyone else is okay than?

Well, I can sum up this thread in about 3 words.

I dont care.

Modifié par xsdob, 16 avril 2012 - 07:05 .

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...

...and if the action itself were not considered morally condemnable or evil, then why must the Reapers be lying or clinically insane? You said it yourself,

"Lying" is to not tell the truth.

"Clinically insane", as I have defined, is the inability to recognize reality. That an apple is an apple and not an orange.

Neither of these are moral assessments. Did I ever say "lying is evil"? Did I ever say "Being crazy makes you evil"?

Again: All you have done in this thread is to lie and play with chickens.

That engenders the question of, why lie? If their actions are morally permissible, there is no cause to lie or justify it. And for them to be considered insane as you put it, they must first be unable to make a distinction for themselves the difference between a morally permissible and an impermissible action.

We have already seen - as fact - that the Reapers can in fact be militarily expedient. Nuke a colony instead of spending the time to capture it.

Lying to a population you are about to exterminate is a way to help ease the extermination effort. Heck, we know they use Indoctrinated agents to spread lies and deceit among the people they are conquering.

And again, this is a purely factual assessment. I did not say "lying" is evil. I am pointing out that lying can in fact be used as a tool to facilitate extermination.

Either way, you've very cunningly inserted the hidden premise that killing humans is wrong.

No, you have attempted to shift the debate in this direction, because you want to sink the thread under (False) moral relativism again.

I have not said questioned whether or not killing humans is right under any particular "perspective". I have merely shown that 
 

And, in doing so gleefully miss the point the relativist argument upholds that Reapers do not consider killing organics such. Then you're wrapping it up with this notion of objective truth and fact and all the philosophical mystique and awe you hope to inspire, when the reality is you're polishing a turd and everybody here knows it.

And there you go with your lying. Again. And again. And again. Will you finally admit when you killed your wife? Will you ever answer my loaded question?

"Reapers do not consider killing organics as such", because their STATED goal is again, this:

"We are your SALVATION through destruction".

When you say "Salvation" when you in fact mean "Killing", you are lying. An apple is not an orange.

If the Reapers are so retarded that they cannot tell an apple from an orange, then they are clinically insane. "We are killing you to kill you" is what they actually do, but telling themselves "It's not killing! It's salvation!" only makes them clinically insane.

These are the only two possibe conclusions. There is no middle ground.

[Orthodox Infidel]

humes spork wrote...

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

"Our" premise? Huh? That was humes spork's premise, but I'd claim that is begging the question.

That wasn't even my premise. I just asked him about the moral permissibility of the act of killing alone, regardless of justification.

Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to assign a premise to you that you didn't use.

[sladevii]

Madmoe77 wrote...

sladevii wrote...

This Zine2 guy is ridiculous... As Sisterofshane mentioned, hunters thinning a population to prevent overpopulation which would result in collapse of the entire ecosystem, is a perfect example of "salvation through destruction"...

But the hunter is preserving even the species he is thinning. Reapers are wiping out species out of physical existence out of a twisted sense of self ordainment. If they thinned those past species-where are they 50,000 years later? 

First off, I was simply responding to this point in the OP's argument:

Zine2 wrote...
Facts are facts. An apple is an apple. It is NOT an orange. That is a fact, no matter your perspective. The truth depends on physical realities, not on imaginary relationships you constructed in your imagination. 

So when the Reapers equate "killing" with "saving" ("We are your salvation through destruction"), what they are saying is simply factually wrong. They are saying an "Apple" is an "Orange". 

The statement in and of itself is not factually wrong.  Secondly, to answer your question, there are two possibilities:
a) the Reapers believe they are saving organic life, by wiping the more advanced forms of organic life under the assumption that those more advanced forms would eventually bring about the death of all organic life.
the Reapers believe they capture the essence/soul/consciousness of the beings they process, and therefore they are saving that essence by processing beings before the presumed self-inflicted death of all organic life.

[humes spork]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

Implict is that "killing" is problematic to you. Why?

Good luck getting him to answer that, best case scenario is he calls you a liar and attempting to derail the thread.

[Zine2]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...
STOP. You can't do that, it's called "special pleading" and is always logically fallacious. Either moral relativism is wrong or it isn't, you can't pick and chose when it is to suit your needs.

Sorry, but you're mistaking a personal moral stand wih pointing out factual flaws in logic. I refuse to stop because you cannot comprehend this concept.

"I stand for something" is different from "That is factually wrong". This is an argument about the latter. Hume is playing games and trying to make it about the former.

Now, if you want my moral stand on this, sure I'll happily say I think all sentient life is worthy and anyone not with the program is a monster. But that ain't relevant in this context - because we're analyzing what the Reapers say they are doing, vs what they are actually doing.

"Our" premise? Huh? That was humes spork's premise, but I'd claim that is begging the question.

I am speaking of it as our collective premise because we are all analyzing it; I am not saying it's ours because we all put it forward.

Implict is that "killing" is problematic to you. Why? 

Because it is the opposite of what they say they wish to achieve. Again: If you claim to be doing "A", but in fact do "B", you are either lying or your are deranged.

Apples are apples. Apples are not oranges.

Ok, so you subscribe to moral nihilism then? There are no moral facts at all? Then you're contradicting your entire previous thread on how the ending is racist and offensive, where you assert rather passionately that "genocide is genocide" and that genocide is wrong.

Again, it's very silly of you to think I am making any particular moral stand in this thread. I, as a person, have moral stands. I do not subscribe to moral nihilism.

But my own personal morals is not relevant to proving that the Reapers say "A", but in fact do "B". I am therefore demonstrating that moral relativism is irrelevant when it comes to judging the soundness of Reaper's actions.

Moreover, far from discarding morality, I am showing that morality must ultimately stem from actual facts. You cannot claim that we should not eat chickens because they have human DNA. That's not factual. Morals must ultimately be based on real facts.

When given two conflicting moralities, go with the one that is actually supported by fact. Reaper morality is that "Killing is actually saving". An alternate morality can simply say that "killing is simply killing". The former is not factual; it's retard-speak. The latter is therefore the correct moral argument as it is supported by reality.

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

Implict is that "killing" is problematic to you. Why?

Good luck getting him to answer that, best case scenario is he calls you a liar and attempting to derail the thread.

That's rich coming from the person who introduced the completely unrelated argument on chickens and who has still completely and utterly failed to man up to the fact that I never made a moral argument.

Lying and being clinically insane have no "morality" attached to them. You are telling the truth, or you are lying. You are either sane and can tell an apple from an orange, or you are a retard who believes that an apple is an orange.

You never addressed this; because again you're just a liar.

Modifié par Zine2, 16 avril 2012 - 07:19 .

[Zine2]

sladevii wrote...
The statement in and of itself is not factually wrong.  Secondly, to answer your question, there are two possibilities:
a) the Reapers believe they are saving organic life, by wiping the more advanced forms of organic life under the assumption that those more advanced forms would eventually bring about the death of all organic life.
the Reapers believe they capture the essence/soul/consciousness of the beings they process, and therefore they are saving that essence by processing beings before the presumed self-inflicted death of all organic life.

Again, the issue is that "belief" does not matter; that is why I am removing morality from the equation in this particular thread.

Killing is killing. Apples are apples. They are not oranges.

When you claim that apples are in fact oranges, you are either lying, or you are deluding yourself and are therefore clinically insane. This is exactly what you claim the Reapers are doing in case a) and .

[Rynocerous]

Zine2 wrote...

There is no other room for other "interpretations". This is the harsh reality of the ending. You can close your eyes, cover your ears, and go LALALALA, but that's the truth of it. The Reapers are lying or clinically insane.

So when they say they are "beyond our understanding", we shouldn't look at them with awe or wonder. They just can't admit that they're so monumentally stupid or dishonest that their arguments have absolutely no merit.

I'm afraid I disagree. (Although the elan of your argument is a refreshing change from the angst-ridden mess that usually passes for postings on this forum).

The concept of completely alien moralities isn't the point in fact that should be considered. The point in fact that should be considered is the very definition of what the Reapers mean with their word "you" and "salvation".

As individual moral beings, we equate moral or immoral acts almost entirely as events done by one individual or a group of individuals to other individuals. We rarely speak of nations or ethnic groups being treated immorally. We instead define certain acts as "good" or "bad" and operate from the condition that anyone doing a bad act is a bad person regardless of intention blah blah blah.

But Reapers are not like us in any way , shape or form. They are either communal repositories of an entire species which , during it's creation, has all ASPECTS of inviduality destroyed in it's creation, or they are machines utlizing bio-goop to enhance their intellect, in which case given our understanding of cooperative synthetic intellects like the Geth and Reaper technology, each Reaper is it's own gestalt.

Either way, implying that the Reapers are lying or insane whey they claim they are saving "us" is to look at it from our point of view. If the Reapers are an entire species given intellect , then as long as their process results in an intellect that represents that species outlook as a whole, they have been saved. The fact that billions of people died in order to produce this is as irrelevant as the fact that billions of cells died during the process of bringing Shepard back to life. It's a matter of scale. If , on the other hand, the Reapers are collective/gestalt AI intellects using sentient organics for some sort of neural processing or whatever it is they get from gooping people, then I expec their meaning is "we are saving you to incorperate your species into ourselves, which is better than being huskified in terms of having some form of utility". It's an alien way of thinking because it invalidates individuals.

Clearly, Reapers have no difficulty understanding the concepts of inviduals, their very clear attempts to destroy or co-opt Shepard proves that.  But then again, Reapers are on the other side of the technological singularity, and they've been doing this for millions of years.

Given the Lovecraftian theme of the Reapers, are there worse things out there in the dark spaces? Do the Reapers harvest and "preserve" sentient life to stop something worse from happening and this is the best way they can translate it to us? Unknown.

But to suggest that the giant machines are crazy simply because our frames of reference are out of context seems to dismiss a lot of the horror that can be derived from the very ugly question, what if the Reapers are right?

[lillitheris]

Zine2 wrote...

The problem is this: The Reapers aren't just operating on a different set of morals. They are so factually retarded that they can be considered clinically insane; or they are lying. Either way, they are not worthy of support or sympathy.

Facts are facts. An apple is an apple. It is NOT an orange. That is a fact, no matter your perspective. The truth depends on physical realities, not on imaginary relationships you constructed in your imagination.

So when the Reapers equate "killing" with "saving" ("We are your salvation through destruction"), what they are saying is simply factually wrong.

It's not factually wrong. You're arguing the wrong thing.

The problem is that even given their premises, their solution is vastly suboptimal.

[Meltemph]

Zine2 wrote...

sladevii wrote...
The statement in and of itself is not factually wrong.  Secondly, to answer your question, there are two possibilities:
a) the Reapers believe they are saving organic life, by wiping the more advanced forms of organic life under the assumption that those more advanced forms would eventually bring about the death of all organic life.
the Reapers believe they capture the essence/soul/consciousness of the beings they process, and therefore they are saving that essence by processing beings before the presumed self-inflicted death of all organic life.

Again, the issue is that "belief" does not matter; that is why I am removing morality from the equation in this particular thread.

Killing is killing. Apples are apples. They are not oranges.

When you claim that apples are in fact oranges, you are either lying, or you are deluding yourself and are therefore clinically insane. This is exactly what you claim the Reapers are doing in case a) and .

You could make a case they are killing purely out of self defense.  Which then would remove the need to care about killing, sicne it would be a us vs them scenario, which is entirely understandable why they are killing.  

That said, you are taking issues with the wrong thing.  The problem isnt the reapers, the problem is the writers who gave the reapers a insane idea to begin with.  Saying that there ALWAYS will be a created taht will try and destroy the creators, and in so doing also destroy all organic life is an insane idea to hold onto as fact. Trying to shrink evolution down to something like this is just asinine.

Dont blame the reapers, blame the writers for giving them, quite possibly, the dumbest Scifi excuse to wipeout all life.

[RaptorV1982]

Alright, lets just sum this up pretty easily. Reapers are Reapers--Apples (so it turns out) are apples too! (who would've thunk?) and Oranges turn out not to be Apples (Until we genetically alter an apple tree to produce orange tasting apples, then give the new orapples to a blind peoples...) .... Because of this 'fact'; Reapers are either big fibbers, or really silly.

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

These are the only two possibe conclusions. There is no middle ground.

You're the one bluntly arguing the Reapers are non compos mentis, and comparing them to people who must be separated from society for the sake of safety. That has a dramatically higher burden of proof than simply having a clinical disorder such as synesthesia, dyslexia, autism, schizotypal, all of which impact a person's ability to understand and perceive the world around them and interact with it in a normative way.

Generally, in order to commit someone they must be a danger to themselves or others. Which means they are likely to accidentally or not harm another or themselves. Of course, you're not merely suggesting by your choice of words they're merely a danger by accident but rather by purpose as would be a sadistic, anti-social, narcissistic, and/or negativistic individual. That is to say, they either cannot tell the difference between an act that is morally permissible and one that is impermissible (or, just for the sake of disclosure, can and simply don't care) and as a result commit morally impermissible actions. And, to suggest they lie about it indicates they're aware their actions are morally impermissible and as a result seek justification; otherwise, there would be no need for justification.

And all of that boils down to the fact you're still hiding the premise that killing is wrong. Because if killing wasn't wrong, why would you need to lie about it? Why would someone need be "committed" for it, being unable to recognize it for what it is, and that being wrong?

Which also means you must answer to the question when it's put to you of why that is. Which I'm doing. Right now. Have fun.