6 ms·

If you can not argue from your own moral principles why your acts are good, or why another act is evil, you need to work on building your moral compass.

• irishsultan 7y ago
  If you are doing things that are not good according to your own moral principle you also need to work on building your moral compass. So I'm unsure why this is relevant.
  • DagAgren 7y ago
    Well, exactly, and you should hopefully not be doing that, so, what's the problem with taking an oath?
    • irishsultan 6y ago
      But why is an oath needed or useful? Someone who has a good moral compass doesn't need it, someone who hasn't isn't particularly likely to feel bound by it.
      • DagAgren 6y ago
        It is better to make these things explicit rather than implicit. Saying something out loud, formally, helps make things more tangible.
• eru 6y ago
  That's a useless bar. Most of the vilest people in history thought their own acts 'good'.
  • DagAgren 6y ago
    There's a difference between thinking you are good, and being able to argue the case.
    • eru 6y ago
      Yes. And the difference is a small minimum amount of intelligence. Anyone can argue anything. See eg lawyers for the classic example.