In Apartheid Israel and in the occupied territories the murder (and kidnapping) of Palestinians of all ages is de facto legal.

You will always see me standing for equal rights, equal opportunity and equal protection under the law for ALL, including Palestinians, especially the completely disenfranchised Palestinians living under the Zionist Jewish Apartheid Occupation of Palestine.

No, I don't see how asserting freedom to kill, to torture, to kidnap, to destroy and so forth can be justified or declared acceptable in any sense, whether, by poorly contrived satire or by wholly specious juxtaposition of the words in any language, even if grammatically correct.

You've only been here at reddit a few days. Keep working at your reading comprehension and perhaps the comments others make here will begin to make sense to you more than your technique of merely asking questions does.

Nazi's gonna Nazi.

Good intentions paved the way to hell. A lot of people have no idea what their intentions are.

You will know it if you see it.

Most of the three major Latin American empires had a virtually no legal system of any kind- people where regularly murdered by the higher classes- soldiers and priests- with out punishment

They did not die out, they where exterminated by western invasion

Also, most people in the Roman Empire where slaves with no rights- there are tons of detailed accounts of citizens and land owners regularly raping men, women and children- that’s in addition to the already legal practices of gladiator murder and child prostitution

Morality is completely arbitrary and based solely on who is in power

Good intentions paved the way to hell

Probably the most over-rated (and wrong) saying ever. It should be:

Claimed good intentions pave the way to hell

Therein lies the problem though. A statement of claim is rarely agreed to by multiple parties. Some are adhered to or adopted by people who don't understand the origin.

Thus leading back to the alpha point. Good intentions paved the way...

But if hell exists (assumed in the saying), then it is fair to assume the existence of heaven too; and if there is heaven, there is an omniscient “God”.

So God would know the actual intention for every deed that is carried out; indeed you would be judged on your actual intentions (rather than claimed ones).

Thus leading back to the better saying: claimed good intentions...

As in, people who do evil things tend to claim good intentions (or even delude themselves into believing that’s why they’re acting). They may fool humans (and thus the problem you cite only exists in the terrestrial realm), but can’t fool God (by definition).

Quite the loaded interpretation. How does one know their intentions... Delusions scale across the board.

Thank you. I hate that phrase. Where does your corrected second phrase come from?

From my mind :) It is not extraordinary though, I just added 1 word to make it correct...

I don't think that saying is meant to be taken literally.

Does anyone know who wrote it originally and what the context was? I never took "hell" literally when hearing it. I always assumed it meant something like "hell on earth" or "hard times, not literal hell fire with the devil and all that. For example, someone steps into traffic to save a baby and gets run over. If that person lives, they might be paralyzed and now there life sucks, that could be called "Hell on Earth." If rather than just being paralyzed they die though, they actually go to heaven. Doesnt matter either way if the person claims their intent first and I don't think the saying works at all if you take it literally.

Indeed, hell most likely has no pavement either.

Still, evil deeds often rely on a pretense of good intentions. Actual good intentions rarely end-up causing harm.

Therefore, hell is paved with claimed good intentions, not with actual generosity.

Got an example, hypothetical or otherwise? Cause I'm interested to understand, but not quite following.

"But goodness alone is never enough. A hard, cold wisdom is required for goodness to accomplish good. Goodness without wisdom always accomplishes evil."

and so do bad intentions. which do you choose?

If you think that killing a child is always wrong then you haven't seen The Omen.

But Children of the Corn is real...

Probably the freakiest scene ever with the baby sitter (nonspoiler edition)

Moral relativism is a hermeneutic tragedy.

Moral relativism

Interestingly enough, if you really dig into the esotericism of a lot of religions, and study NDE's (Near Death Experiences) they say the Soul/Light/Heart has universal Morals such as Love, truth, equality, sharing, humanity, helping others, etc, but that the West became to Logic Heavy and Brain based, and is hence disconnected from the heart.

On the other hand, societies too Heart based, lacked the logical growth/ability that has kept them as 3rd world disconnected/backwards(in some aspects) societies.

I think there needs to be an important balance

We all have one thing in common, we're all human, and we're all related. Because of that a lot of our behaviors are similar. For example we protect the young.

But If 99 percent of us dislike ketchup, that doesn't make it objectively bad, it means it's objectively bad tasting to humans.

Why why would you be here trying to fight against conspiracies? If conspiracies are not wicked then why bother?

Knowing that morals are not objective doesn't stop ourselves from feeling what we feel. When we see an injustice we want to stop it. We can still think of an common good, or how to minimize suffering, despite our moralistic processes not being objective.

Yeah, it would be great if they were objective. But "normal" and objective are not the same.

Good and evil are arbitrary concepts conceived out of social self-interest and exist only within the confines of our subjective human experience. Whether or not an action benefits society is irrelevant to that point. In fact, it could be argued that since humanity is detrimental to nature, its destruction would be morally good. Remember that the natural state of the universe is chaos, and there no true choices, only the illusion of choice.

My contribution is perhaps a bit pedantic and irrelevant, but from a scientifical point of view, it could in fact be argued that the universe's natural state is that of maximum entropy, which would imply the opposite of chaos.

You should watch Mark Passio's presentation on Natural Law (or gods law, of universal law, whatever you want to call it). It has nothing to do with survival of the fittest. I think it may clear up what you are thinking.. :)