Your choice to eat cereal with our without milk is a superficial (if pleasurable), non-moral choice that does not involve other people. When acting in the world in a way that can affect other people, however, you would be forced to never do anything that could affect them negatively. I don't see how this is logically possible. What if they want you to give them something freely that you don't want to give? What if they would feel hurt if you didn't?
Of course, you might say that you wouldn't be forced to do something positive; the restriction would only prevent you doing something negative. Non-action, i.e. neutrality, would thus be an option. However, this is inconsistent with what you say about the Maker below, where you hold him responsible for non-action in not stopping the magisters.
If a given god is doing more for us, why would whatever it is not be freely available in the first place?
Personally, I think that the slave-murdering magisters are guilty, but neither of us has all the information to make a proper judgement.
I hardly think it needs to be just one or the other who's guilty.
Anyway, I get the impression that neither of us is likely to change the other's views, but thank you very much for the discussion. Thanks to Ieldra as well. I must be away to get some other things done, so I've no idea when I might reply again.
My pleasure. And the discussion will keep.
Retour en haut
