Comment Re:Now we know (Score 1) 131
How so?
A person can be sane and immoral, sane and moral, insane and immoral or insane and moral. "Orthogonal" is perhaps a little too strong, since it implies the absence of any relationship,
I've considered your statement. I can see where insanity and morality are orthogonal but I cannot see a situation where a sane person would do something immoral if they have a choice of other options, to do so would be not be sane. If a sane person is forced into a situation where they do something immoral, that is no longer a question of morality, it is a question of coercion. A sane person cares about consequences to others and an insane person does not.
but certainly all the combinations are possible.
I'm not being a dick here. I'm wondering if you have thought about this position enough to back it up with a rational argument. I have given you the first example of how to define morality as an objective reality. I can offer you a way to test your statement as a thought exercise.
If a generally moral person does a immoral thing are they a immoral person? If a generally immoral person does a moral thing are they a moral person? What is the differences between them?
I'm genuinely curious about your statements and perspective.