Plunging a knife in my chest (unless in self-defense) is probably a result of imagining that I am a threat to you and that you need to change my reality (kill me), to preserve your life. Hence the thought that preceded your action was immoral and led to evil. Only actions are truly evil.... the thought was only the seed planted, not the fruit.
Morality being an absolute has its roots in reason. If you are reasoning correctly (i.e. always striving for reality in your reasoning and life) you will be a moral person.

Perhaps you are too young or maybe live a sort of cloistered existence (good for you!) but if you live long enough you will run into evil people. They generally are gossips. To them (and most people in general) reality is simply what you can convince another person that it is (think Washington, D.C.). That doesn't change reality, but it does set in motion evil behavior from those who want to change reality. Since reality has nothing to do with what you think or feel about it you must change your thoughts or the thoughts and feelings of others in order to have enough "rule by consensus" to overtake another person's boundaries, hence "changing" reality and morality. That is the essence of evil.

To be a truly moral person you need to understand that your personal goals should be basically two-fold: 1) Loss prevention and 2) Personal growth. Evil people will follow this pattern: 1) Loss creation and 2) Depleting others.

The portrayal of Elsworth Toohey as the ultimate evil person was one of Ayn Rand's greatest achievements. He lived an evil and immoral life constantly attempting to change reality and ultimately met his match. I would refer you to his patterns.

Ayn's portrayal of the ultimate hero/moral person of Howard Roark was unparallelled. He lived a life of struggle and growth NEVER wavering in his commitment to reality and reason and in the end, won.

Delusions, dreams, altered consciousness, etc. are inner states. Reality concerns the things of this earth and of existence in the physical realm. They have a place in non-reality but not the creation of non-reality. Perhaps you can think of delusions, etc. as "watching a movie" about life ... but is only a two-dimensional replica of it.

As a final good will gesture to you, I sincerely hope that you never run into an evil person, but if you do, please remember that you can fight them off with just a bit of reality and reason. Keep your intellectual armor ready at all times.

Let me venture an opinion -- if the people you're referring to are liberals and just happen to be atheists, then the lack of logic is understandable. Liberals, being in essence adolescents with no desire to grow up, are illogical. Beings atheists, for them, does not come from any logical analysis. I think that if you were to talk to atheists who are not afflicted with permanent adolescence, you will find that capital punishment is a logical and a needed response to capital crimes.

Absolutely. The moral quandary of self-sacrifice must be addressed by any moral code in order to be thorough and consistent.

This man obviously held his dog in higher regard than himself. If one is a dog-lover, that may seem reasonable and laudable. To those who are not dog-lovers, however, that act seems foolish. Therefore, the real question is this: does there exist an absolute morality that covers situations like this? This is the answer to the original question.

I believe that there is a universal morality that exists whether or not we choose to follow it. The reason I believe this is partially due to my faith, but also due to the inexorable laws of nature. If one could really define morality arbitrarily, would not one be selecting the choice/repercussion pairings? If we have the ability to define morality, would we not get to select choice AND consequence? Since that remains beyond our capability as humankind (though there are definitely some ideologies who want to pretend otherwise), I conclude that morality exists independent of our justifications or desires to the contrary!

Until we can define and control the consequences for actions, it is pure illusion to believe that humans have any ability to control what I will call natural morality. We can pass laws to whatever effect we want. It really doesn't matter how well intentioned (or not) we are, we have no power to rebut these natural laws and their consequences.

I will use the example of sexual promiscuity. One of the results of unfettered sexual activity is the probability that one will contract one of the many sexually transmitted diseases. Despite society's permissiveness regarding sexual norms, traditional values most accurately reflected this reality: if you have sex with multiple partners, you take a high medical risk. On the other hand, if you remain chaste and monogamous, your probability of contracting one of these diseases drops to zero!

The natural laws of economics are the same way. No matter how much governmental officials want to believe in Keynesian economic theory, it runs contrary to natural economics and therefore always fails as a consequence. Taking money from the private sector so government can spend it has never and can not provide efficient or lasting private sector growth. High tax policies result in a retarded private sector economy. Those are laws of nature that can not be re-written - no matter how hard progressives want to believe otherwise.

"I certainly cannot speak for all of faith, but for Christians, particularly Catholics, the death penalty is deemed to be a sin."

Really? That's a new one to me. A sin for the convict or the executioner? And what is the biblical justification for such a claim? That a curious stand.

You can't defend something after it has been destroyed. You can only seek revenge in one form or another.

So I am only assuming because I don't know your position that you are both atheist and pro-capital punishment. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

You might be surprised, but I don't find these positions to be contradictory at all. You are also the rare one I have spoken to that holds both positions. Probably because people in the Gulch tend to be more pragmatic and logical rather than solely ideological. Kudos to you.

As I pointed out, the moral contradictions occur when one can not point out the need or moral justification for allowing someone deemed by society to be forever an enemy to such to continue to live off society. I can respect any position as well as it is reasonable - it is the irreconcilable contradictions that rub me wrong.

b-I am for it. I do not wrestle with the he afterlife issues. I do not fear the unknown. want to conquer it. Show my inconsistency?

I'll quibble slightly with you here. My point was to observe that one can not question the importance of values and retain self-determination. Thus it becomes an irrelevant question.

Ironic that you posted the example of computer code, as I agree with you and used exactly the same analogy elsewhere on this very thread!

Great minds must think alike. Or something :)

In the conversations I have had on the subject of capital punishment, atheists and liberals have been overwhelmingly against the practice, while Christians and conservatives are for it. Why?

For Christians, one can look at things a couple of different ways. In a capital offense, the person has already been convicted of murder - the intentional taking of another's life. Many just want to send that person on to God for judgement with the perhaps uncharitable view that that individual has lost their chance to repent.

I don't believe in anything quite so cynical. I believe that we are protecting society and setting forth the penalty for murder and that this is the primary reason: to deter others from considering such a course of action.

The other point to contemplate is that those who are given the death sentence are not really any different from those given a prison sentence of a life term. In neither case is rehabilitation judged to be a probability. For all the cry and hue about "cruel and unusual punishment", why not languishing away in prison?

For atheists and liberals, I always get a lot of dancing around the subject and non-answers, so I can only speculate that the real reason they disagree is that they fear the unknown and they transfer this fear onto themselves as a proxy for the convict. That fear prevents them from condemning someone to cease to exist.

The thing that would be ironic if it weren't so tragic is that these same people in general support the principle of abortion, which is no less the termination of life than capital punishment and upon a person who is far less worthy of the punishment. I can find no rationale for this contradiction unless it is not a rationale, but rather fear which in fact is making the decision.

your definition of determination pleae

Real case from the coast: A man and his beloved dog walked along the beach. A sneaker
wave came and took the dog. The man ran into the sea to save it. The dog made it; the man did
not.
He saved what he loved; that was his goal. That
he died was very unfortunate and he probably didn't even have the time to ponder the morality of the situation. I would have acted just like him.

So it is unclear to me, who is the thief? The government or, potentially, you if you had cheated on the taxes?

No, Hiraghm, he retrieved stolen goods from their appropriate owners. He was an agent for
justice.

I think that in a black and white example, lying and stealing are not only moral, but I would recommend them. The problem is in the gray areas, when a person starts to rationalize morality based on what is profitable for himself. Unfortunately, the gray areas could be 90% of the spectrum.

A thief does not act by the rules of civilized society and thus does not deserve to be treated
as if he did.
I did our taxes yesterday. Sickening ! - and I feel
guilty for not just writing "Go to Hell" and sending
that in. Ah, for the FEAR of retribution ! (If a hundred million people did it, then what - and is
it at all possible to organize such a thing ?)
Just dreaming.

For a horrible murder, can not capital punishment
be regarded as delayed (self) defense carried out
by our agent, the government ? After all, if the
murderer had failed in his intent and the potential
victim killed him, that would be self-defense (at
least back when the law made sense).