1. Honesty
2. Loyalty
3. Chastity
4. Gratitude
5. Love/Compassion

It is perhaps particularly appropriate to the times to begin with truth and honesty. It's as old as Aesop's 'The Boy who Cried Wolf', but I would want to relate it to advertising and political spin. To the extent that we do not tell the truth reliably, we undermine meaning and communication, and become isolated from each other, in the end, facing the wolf alone. Everything of society, including your program, depends on truth. — unenlightened

Sounds like Jordan Peterson.

I also have disproportionally more lady non-ex friends than I do lady friend exs! — StreetlightX

Yes, so do some of the other men I've known who have many female friends. I certainly wouldn't have expected you to have been romantically involved with most of them.

working harder — Pattern-chaser

Also, what I meant by working harder, is working harder with the accumulation of wealth as the purpose. If you just work hard with another purpose, say, becoming the best at your craft, then you may not become as wealthy as you could if you worked hard with this as your purpose.

Really? You actually think that those who are rich and powerful gained this position by working harder than others do/did? — Pattern-chaser

Well certainly not all of them did gain their position that way, but it certainly requires a lot of work to keep it. And of course, some of them did gain it. Most billionaire out there, for example, are self-made.

I have disproportionately more lady friends than I do guy friends. — StreetlightX

And have you been romantically involved with some of them? :razz:

I don't know any man who has many female friends and has not been romantically involved with at least some of them. I think it's normal to have some female friends of the opposite sex. I take a look at my male cousins (they are all married), some close male friends - none of them have many female friends at all. There is certainly a tension there - for example, if you are in a relationship/marriage, it's a bit strange to spend time with female friends rather frequently, away from your girlfriend/wife - it creates distrust in the relationship. Now you can ignore this tension, or you can say that you will just withstand its effects, but you cannot say it doesn't exist.

As for why it arouses suspicion, it's because the people I have seen who seem to be around female friends frequently, they all tend to be or have been romantically involved with at least a some of them. My issue is not that their personality is different, but rather that I don't believe that there can be, with a few exceptions, relationships between men and women without a sexual element.

Another thing that makes Kavanaugh suspect for me is the number of female friends he has. It seems a bit strange for a man to have that many female friends, and not to have been romantically involved with at least a few of them.

the rich and powerful can do much as they like. — Pattern-chaser

I think we can both agree that "doing as much as you like" (or acting according to your whims) is immoral. Do you reckon the poor & weak have a monopoly on morality? You seem to just be more resentful of those who have worked harder than you have.

I listened earlier today to the testimonies. So far I lean around 60% to believing Brett, and 40% for Dr. Ford. If I were the President, I probably would replace Kavannaugh with someone else just to move things faster and avoid all this chaos and uncertainty.

I have no doubt that someone tried to rape Dr. Ford (she's not making that up), but I have doubts that Brett was the one. Psychologically, it is possible, especially in the case of traumatic events, not to remember who the perpetrator was.

Furthermore, there are some inconsistencies in Dr. Ford's testimony. First, she has asked for several corrections to the written material she had already submitted in the past. Second, she got the advice of her lawyers at all times. Third, she said at one point that there were 4 people in the house, her and 3 boys. Then she said there was also another girl. She seemed confused about the number of people. And fourth, she said they took her in a room, LOCKED THE DOOR, turned the music up loud, and then Brett jumped on top of her. When Mark Judge jumped on the bed, apparently Brett fell on the floor, and she ran away. How did she run away? If the door was locked, and they locked it on purpose, wouldn't Mark Judge who was watching, take the key in his pocket? Would he leave the key there, so that she could somehow escape? And even if he did leave the key there, how come she had the time to open the door, go to the bathroom, and lock herself in there until the two guys came in?

On the other side, if Brett really did do this, then obviously he would not want this to be known, even if he doesn't get to be a Supreme Court judge, because, presumably, his wife and kids don't know about it, and would obviously be very disappointed in him. Brett's testimony seemed more consistent though, and more based on evidence. Apart from the refusal to answer the questions about the FBI investigation, and him getting lost in his words at times, I didn't see something suspicious.

Alright I see, I looked at the images and video you put up and I agree that it is immoral and I was wrong. I will need to look at those Scripture passages in more detail to see what's going on in there, hopefully when I have more time. Thanks for pointing this out and sorry for thinking this could be moral.

So what? Cultures like individuals can be morally wrong. You need that explained to you? What exactly is wrong with you. — Baden

Why were they morally wrong - how did they become morally wrong in the first place? And how do we know that? Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between "X offends our sensibility and we would never do it", and "X is morally wrong and we would never do it".

For example. Take the Holocaust. We can say that the Holocaust not only offends our sensibility, but it is also morally wrong, and we would never do it. And I'm pretty sure that literarily any reasonable person, from the Ancient or from the modern world would concur that the Holocaust is immoral. So position in history doesn't really matter to coming to this conclusion.

morally sick individual such as you — Baden

Right, well, thanks, but I haven't insulted you nor misrepresented your position.

As Zizek says (somewhere) one mark of a civilized society is that certain things are considered without the need for debate as right and wrong. — Baden

Well, philosophy is about questioning all kinds of matters that would otherwise not be questioned. I am interested to know why such societies found such forms of punishment acceptable and moral, and we don't. My view is that the acceptable degree of violence as a form of punishment within a society varies historically- I'm not so quick as you to claim that it necessarily is morally wrong. You are obviously not interested - you just like to think that you are right.

Which is why I checked how you use it. And of course, no value judgment at all where it's defined as "savagely cruel". Please continue with the back pedaling. It's entertaining. — Benkei

Right, and next to that definition it says "unsophisticated, primitive". Their punishments were primitive, you would expect savages to behave that way. But primitive or savage isn't the same as immoral.

If you can't figure out and need it explained to you why putting a woman (or man) in a hole and throwing rocks at their head until you do so much physical damage that you kill them, and doing this simply because they committed adultery then you are too morally disgusting to be worth engaging. Why should anyone who is not a professional psychologist waste time on explaining to you why torturing someone to death in this way is wrong any more than we would waste time explaining to someone why raping someone as a punishment for their crimes would be wrong? There are certain things that no civilized individual would contemplate doing, and yes, there are reasons for that that any half-decent ethical theory can provide. But you're beyond all that. The best thing for you to do would be to crawl back into the hole from which you emerged and leave the moral debate on these boards for those with at least a reasonable degree of human empathy. — Baden

So the majority of people in Ancient Judea lacked a reasonable degree of human empathy? If that is so, probably the entire Ancient world lacked a reasonable degree of human empathy... if that is the case, how come we suddenly gained this empathy that they lacked?

I am not saying we should stone adulterers, I am just saying that I don't necessarily see such punishments as morally wrong, just disgusting to our modern sensibilities. So I want you to explain to me how we go from disgusting to our sensibilities, to immoral - I am asking the question because I see that there have been many people, in fact, entire cultures in the past, who didn't see it this way.

Well, I hope you realise that no dialogue is possible with your approach. You're giving no reasons at all why you think you're right - you don't even want to try. You take it as "intuitively obvious", but that's not helpful at all.

If you require it to be proved to you, then that's your moral failing. — Sapientia

Oh how quaint. I thought the same about you. If you require proof that stoning adulterers is moral, then that's your moral failing since you're too weak to do justice.

You said it was barbaric, which is a clear moral judgment. — Benkei

I just checked my dictionary and barbaric does not mean immoral.

I think it is. What more could there be? — Banno

And I think it's not. Who is right?

If they thought that stoning was acceptable, then obviously not. That's a very good test for sound moral judgement. — Sapientia

By whose standard? We can prove that the Earth is not flat by experiment, but we cannot prove that stoning adulterers is wrong by experiment.

We each must decide. And making that choice is exactly the question. — Banno

Why is your decision better than mine?

Should it occur today, it's immoral, yesterday moral. — Hanover

No, that's not what I said. Check below:

If you think there are a range of appropriate (or just) punishments, does that make you a moral relativist? — Agustino

I did, however, claim that stoning as punishment, or jail as punishment in the case of adultery are both just forms of punishment, and if society was structured such that these types of punishments were the norm and would not offend our sensibility, I would have no problem with it. — Agustino

I don't claim stoning would be immoral today. It wouldn't. It would just offend our sensibilities, but it would not be immoral. There is no moral relativism there at all. You and Benkei are both misreading what I've written.

You think adultery is absolutely wrong because God said so — Hanover

Yes, adultery is absolutely wrong, but not because God said so.

Should an ancient society exist alongside a modern one, the manly men ancients wouldn't scoff at the girly moderns, but would live in constant fear and dependence on them. The good old days weren't. — Hanover

Only due to technology, not because the ancient society wasn't more manly. They clearly were.

as anyone with sound moral judgement would acknowledge — Sapientia

So people 2000 years ago didn't have sound moral judgement? Only we have sound moral judgement, because our time is privileged over all other historical times. Don't you see how arrogant and ridiculous this is? Every historical era sees itself as the standard to compare everyone else to - I don't see any reason to prioritise today over yesterday - quite the contrary, we should do the very opposite, because very likely we have many blindspots that make us ignore the faults of the present (just like the Ancients ignored the faults of their present).

Christianity commands you to forgive. — frank

There is no commandment to forgive except when a brother or a sister repents. Then you shall forgive, but there is no commandment to forgive before that.

Relativism with regard to the appropriate punishment is still moral relativism. — Benkei

If you think there are a range of appropriate (or just) punishments, does that make you a moral relativist?

That something is legal does not mean it's moral. — Benkei

Sure, I agree.

stoning adulterers immoral — Benkei

There is nothing immoral about stoning adulterers if such is the law and everyone knows that the law is such.

We all adhere to some sort of moral creed, whether we acknowledge it. — Waya

Exactly.

And yours is an abomination. — Banno

And so is yours from my perspective. Where do we go from here?

You are not worth listening to on questions of morality. — Banno

I can say the same thing about you, where does that leave us?

You can't escape responsibility for your moral actions by being a moral coward. You decide to follow what you take to be god's commands, or not. — Banno

Sure, you can't. But that's not the question. The question is, who decides that God choosing to destroy all Creation is immoral? How do you reach that conclusion? If God is your rightful owner, and without Him, you would not even continue to exist, based on what can you claim that He lacks the RIGHT to choose when you live and when you die? Just because this doesn't appeal to your soft sensibilities?

ah, so you are a moral relativist, — Benkei

That's not being a moral relativist. I did not claim that X or Y is immoral at one time in history and not at another. I did, however, claim that stoning as punishment, or jail as punishment in the case of adultery are both just forms of punishment, and if society was structured such that these types of punishments were the norm and would not offend our sensibility, I would have no problem with it.

Imagine for a moment someone from the Ancient world coming into our modern world. They would quite honestly be horrified... they would ask what has become of humanity? Because they would interpret our way of living as effeminate, weak - they being used to cutting heads off, public beatings, etc. would have found our modern world a world for weak men and women, who cannot bear anything more.

Your reasoning is clearly erroneous. Even if, counterfactually, I grew up in an environment in which, as a result of cultural conditioning, I believed that stoning or slavery or genocide or torture or what-have-you was acceptable, it doesn't follow that it is acceptable, or that that is any good reason to doubt that it's not acceptable. (And as for why these things are not acceptable, I really shouldn't have to explain that to you). — Sapientia

Yes, and so too would Ancient Jew Sappy believe that, even if, counterfactually, he grew up in an environment in which, as a result of cultural conditioning, he believed that not stoning a vicious criminal was acceptable, it doesn't follow that it is acceptable, or that that is any good reason to doubt that it's acceptable. (and as for why these things are acceptable, he really shouldn't have to explain that to you)

That's beside the point, so I choose not to answer. — Sapientia

No, it's not besides the point. If your answer is "no", then it shows that there is nothing intrinsically immoral with having stoning as the punishment for adultery. It may seem immoral to us, because it is very distant from the way our society is currently structured. We don't have such punishments even for mass murder.

However, just because we're not used to something, and we have a very difficult time imagining it, doesn't mean that it is therefore immoral. I think the Ancient Jews would be horrified with our modern societies too.

So if you are honest with yourself you will come to this same conclusion.

That's sickening. — Sapientia

If you were born and lived in Ancient Judea, you reckon you would have found stoning as punishment for adultery to be unjust?

Not buying it. I've been on college campuses, and I have my own pair of eyes, certainly don't need no "stats".

You should be worried. That's very disconcerting. No one who permits stoning adulterers to death, whether your fictional "God" or anyone else, can rightly be called the very standard of morality. Where is your humanity, Agustino? — Sapientia

I have no problems with such laws. If they happen to be the laws of my society, then I will follow them. I wouldn't personally advocate for such laws because I'm not used to living in such a society (and I personally find it barbaric), but I can certainly imagine living back in the day and accepting such laws as part of the way the world is. My bet is that if you too lived in Ancient Judea, you too would have accepted stoning as the just punishment for adultery too. Most people did in those days. What makes you think that you would have been different?

If you think this was a good plan, then you are not a moral person. — Banno

Moral person by what standard? God is the very standard of morality... By your standard of morality I may not be a good person, but why should I be worried about that?

If two people are in a happy open-marriage, happier than they would be if they were single, how can that be considered harmful? — VagabondSpectre

Well this is precisely the problem. The moment you allow happiness to be interpreted as subjective, something defined by the subject, from that moment, anything goes. There is no God (objective standard) - thus anything goes.

If individual X thinks that murder makes them happy, then they are right. If they feel that murder makes them happy, then they are right. If individuals X and Y think that an open marriage makes them happy, then they are right. If they feel that an open marriage makes them happy, then they are right. Once we reach this point, then we cannot dispute the subjective assertion that is being made. Whatever a subject claims is the supreme truth - indeed, the subject's re-presenting WILL has been made the supreme determinant of good and evil. Their will re presents reality as it wants it to be.

how can that be considered harmful? — VagabondSpectre

I can consider it harmful because I disagree that happiness is something that can be subjectively determined. Rather, happiness is something objective, and has nothing to do with what a person thinks about it. A person can be, and often is self-deceived. Indeed, the person who is so self-deceived that he perceives himself as happy, when in truth he is not happy, is in a worse state than someone who is in conscious misery (check Kierkegaard on this point - conscious despair vs unconscious despair).

My way reduces crime without causing unnecessary additional suffering, and your way uses additional suffering as a matter of course. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, my way views suffering as essential to redemption. It is only when an individual accepts that they deserve to suffer, and willingly and gladly embrace that suffering, saying, with Nietzsche's overman, one more time, again and again, I deserve this, that they can start on the path to redemption.

You view evil as the result of ignorance, I view evil as the result of a corrupt will. Since evil is the result of a corrupt will, education is of no help. More education will not cure a corrupt will. We're back to the problem that Socrates and the Greeks tried to address - whether sin is the result of ignorance, or something else. You side with the Greeks - sin is ignorance, and gnosis, knowledge, is what is required to fix it. I side with the Christians - sin is the result NOT of ignorance, but of a corrupt will. As St. Paul writes:

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do. — Romans 7:15

So the problem isn't that people don't know what is good and what is evil. No, not at all. People have, metaphorically speaking, eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil - they know what is good and what is evil, but they choose the evil nevertheless. That is the moral problem in its essence.

Of course that, as one persists in evil, it is totally possible that one's will, will also corrupt one's intellect. Then we reach the maximum level of despair, which is unconscious despair, with a very slim possibility of redemption, since the sufferer identifies himself or herself as happy. Then the will has completely enslaved one's intellect, to the point that one cannot see clearly, and sees evil as good, and good as evil.

Going back to the point. Look at Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov. It is only when he admits his guilt, turns himself in to the police, and effectively demands to be punished that redemption is at all possible. Indeed, it is the suffering which redeems him. Without the suffering, and without acceptance of the suffering as just and necessary, no redemption is possible. So long as one tries to escape suffering, one has not overcome one's selfish will.

If the 100% intimacy is a good thing, then isn't 50% intimacy half as good? — VagabondSpectre

I think it's much more of a binary choice than a gradation.

It's un-Christian to judge — VagabondSpectre

Why do you reckon it's un-Christian to judge? What about:

Stop judging by outward appearances, and start judging justly. — John 7:24

When we're physically attracted to others, sometimes we actually become less aware of other things (such as the ramifications of crime). Inebriation is especially good at turning us ignorant... — VagabondSpectre

Several points. I think being physically attracted to others in some circumstances is a sign of immaturity. A person who is married for example, but finds that they are physically attracted to other women is frustrated - there is something wrong with them, as if they haven't grown up, and they're still a 15 year old who doesn't know any better.

In addition, it is true that drinking dims the intellect. But at the same time, if one knows that one is such that drinking may lead them to commit sin, then they should not drink. Preventing temptation is often more important and more relevant than resisting temptation, and it has to do with knowing yourself. It is a slippery slope, you should not play with the fire. If you know that other women attract you, for example, and you are married, then you ought to stay away from having alone time with other women, because it clearly is dangerous for you. This has to do with self-knowledge, but also requires humility. If you are proud, and think that you can withstand any temptation, then you will fail.

Answering the rest later.

How does free will excuse mass murder? — Banno

Because humanity used its free will in order to build a corrupt society, where abomination reigned in the social, moral, and religious spheres. The children born in that environment would have become corrupted, and the only way to save Creation was to restart it.

(a) an attempt to deny one side of your complex motivations leads to ruin (as illustrated by Dimitri's fate); — John Doe

I disagree with your interpretation of Dimitri. I view Dimitri as the "most successful" of the 3 brothers, the one who ultimately rights his wrongs and emerges on top, despite the fact that he ends up sentenced for a crime he did not commit. His and Gruschenka's love when they finally meet again is, arguably, one of the best moments of the book.

(c) Joy is found in embracing both sides in a well-ordered set of instincts rather than pitting them against each other (as illustrated by Alyosha's fate and Zosima's shortcomings). — John Doe

The problem with Alyosha is that he never put his hand in the fire so to speak. He was always a spectator, whatsoever was happening, was not happening to him. I think Alyosha is just the lofty side, without the animal side. Dimitri, on the other hand, ends up as the merger of the lofty and the animal side - or in other words, in Dimitri, the animal side is divinised, lifted up.

If a couple has an "open marriage" and allows each other to fornicate with third parties, are they doing irreparable harm to one another? — VagabondSpectre

Yes. I disagree that such a union can ever be considered a marriage, in any sense of the term. The harm comes from failing to achieve the intimacy that is possible in an exclusive relationship where each partner is 100% devoted to the other. To add more details to this, in failing to actualise a potential of the human being, they do irremediable harm to each other.

If criminals are just hedonists who respond only to pain and pleasure, then you're teaching them to not get caught, you aren't teaching them why it's morally wrong to do crime. — VagabondSpectre

By catching them, you are teaching them that they will be caught for their injustice, and will get punished for it. Why do you think that the act of getting caught doesn't also reinforce the belief that they will get caught for wrong-doing? For the masses of men, their beliefs are influenced by these social settings. So the criminal will probably change his beliefs as a result of understanding the power of Justice, and then rationalise it in some way.

This position is a perfect mirror of the Christian version of hell; bad people deserve to go to the bad place to suffer badly. — VagabondSpectre

Bingo.

They've committed a crime, and so in order to correct their behavior, you would administer punishment right? Instead, you could correct their behavior by teaching them about money and property and explaining why taking the property of others is wrong. — VagabondSpectre

No, I correct them by (1) teaching them, (2) telling them to return the chocolate, pay for it, and apologise. But if they repeat the offence, then they will get punished, because they should have known better.

Committing a crime out of ignorance is one thing, and committing a crime out of volition, in full knowledge that it is a crime is completely different. By the time people get married, they are sufficiently intelligent not to commit such a crime (such as adultery) out of ignorance.

Threats of suffering don't have to be our first moral recourse against transgression. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, they do have to be the first moral recourse against transgressions that are willed, despite knowing better. Where there is ignorance which leads to the transgression, then yes, threats of suffering are not necessary.

If I break a contract with an employer, they can potentially sue me if I've caused them damage by doing so, but it's unlikely that I would be sent to jail (example: working for competitors despite a non-competition clause could get me fired or sued, but not arrested, assuming I broke no laws). — VagabondSpectre

In any business dealing, it is suggested that if the law fails, then matters will be resolved some other way. For example, if you break your contract with your employer, they may use their influence to ensure you cannot secure employment with companies in the same industry.

Being an agreement, rather than a law, a marriage contract doesn't exist as a broad public safeguard like actual laws do, it mediates individual relationships. — VagabondSpectre

It does, any contract is legally binding.

What if you were secretly unhappy in your marriage (with no kids) and upon finding out that your wife cheated you are actually filled with happiness and joy, because now you know you can file for divorce and keep the house. Should she be sent to jail for adultery? — VagabondSpectre

The fact that you may end up profiting from a crime doesn't make it any less of a crime.

If I'm a party clown, and you contract my services to perform at your future son's birthday event, and I break the contract, thereby causing your son and by extension you emotional suffering and distress and financial loss, should I be sent to jail? If not, why? — VagabondSpectre

Damage is reparable and not that extensive. You can pay back our dough.

Actually, this parable suggests that the punishment ought to be the crime. — VagabondSpectre

I disagree - you're reading it too literarily. The idea is that the punishment will be proportional to the gravity of the offence.

In the case of adultery, what can punitive incarceration solve which compensatory or punitive damages cannot? How is revoking someone's freedom an appropriate punishment for them having caused their spouse and/or children and/or friends and family and/or fans who really wanted Brad and Angelina (Brangelina) to make it, some emotional distress? — VagabondSpectre

Incarceration is a form of punitive damage that is awarded in this case. I find it extremely appropriate, not only is there significant emotional distress for the spouse, but the breaking of a contract combined with a lot of strain and TRAUMA on the children and the family. It is life-altering. It's also not something we want to spread in our society, and we need to discourage it.

It kind of does yes. We should not lock up a father who stole bread to feed his children for 6 months. It would be more rehabilitative, more restorative, and generally better in every way to instead compensate the store for the loss of bread, offer assistance to the father toward getting a job, give him food for his children, and then the tax-payers can pocket the many thousands of dollars saved on expensive prisons and imprisonment.

I mean, when the father gets out of prison, if he still needs to provide for his children, and stealing is the only way for him to do so, would he likely not steal again?

America already incarcerates more people for more reasons than any other nation on the planet, and its prisons are notoriously expensive and low quality places of suffering where recidivism is endless and rehabilitation non-existent. And you want to start locking up people for having affairs now too? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, I think when people break the law, and the law requires that they stay in jail for a time, then they need to execute their sentence. In cases such as the case presented above, the punishment will be lower, maybe the minimum sentence for theft, if this was the first occurrence. But I think there must be a punishment, otherwise we give off the idea that people will be let go of without any punishment whatsoever. Again, do you consider being poor as an adequate excuse for theft?

The god who tried to hide his errors by drowning everyone except the family of a blindly obedient old man? — Banno

How are they "His errors" if human beings have free will?

Who demanded obedience even to the point of sacrificing a son? Who permits tsetse fly, thelazia gulosa, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and the Holocaust? — Banno

Yeah, the problem of evil has been dealt with so many times already. You can head to the sources which deal with it.

I hope I'm called least in the kingdom of heaven. — Noble Dust

Well yes, so you are going against the words of Jesus.

He didn't claim the opposite of abolishment. — Noble Dust

What's the opposite? He said He came to fulfil the Law. Furthermore, that:

until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. — Matthew 5:17-20

un-Christian — Noble Dust

I find your interpretation completely un-Christian. Please show me some evidence or some reasons as to why Jesus would abolish the Law when he claimed the complete opposite?

If they had produced the man, and the two witnesses, he would have allowed them to stone both of them? — Noble Dust

Sure.

What was Jesus — Noble Dust

Have YOU read the Gospels?

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. — Matthew 5:17-20

http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-woman-caught-in-adultery.html

Well said, my friend. — frank

You are both thoroughly mistaken when you think that love does not include hatred, or that to love someone means to act as they want you to act.

Kierkegaard writes:

God doesn't hate, God is love. — Baden

That doesn't mean God doesn't hate. For example: Proverbs 6:16-19, Exodus 20:5, etc.

one should be 'ruthless' in business as if that has anything to do with justice. — Baden

It absolutely does. Justice demands that one is ruthless. If one isn't ruthless, one cannot be just. Ruthless not in a bad sense, but in a good sense - in the sense of applying the law, sticking to what is right, etc. So to be a moral human being, you must absolutely be ruthless.

fear is better than love — Baden

I didn't claim that.

You can't be a successful business man in a competitive capitalist economy and a Christian. Period. — Baden

I disagree... this is so wrong. Success in business takes many of the same qualities that are required to be a moral person. Discipline, being ruthless, being independent and not following the crowd, etc.

That is the worst deception, to think you love someone, while in truth you only love yourself.