 |
| |
|
|
The diplomat
|
 |
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Boris... exactly... nice evasion, but the question needs to be answered.
quote:
So something is moral because lots of people do it! Wow, what incredible moral logical! I am speechless. |
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So you are saying that killing kids for cursing is moral? |
I am merely explaining what that verse was saying: that a child who wants their parents dead, deserves to die.
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And actually, YES, I am saying something is moral because lots of people do it. |
I know that it what you are saying. And, I am saying that your point is completely nonsensical. If people were to commit more murders, would we consider murder moral? if people committed so many murders that society decided to legalize it, would murder be moral? Well, it would become legal, but that would not make it moral. We can make an action legal, but not moral. That is why I am saying that your point makes no sense. If you were right, then if more people were thieves, then stealing would become moral. I hope you can see how absurd that it. Stealing would become legal, but mot moral. If we declared stealing legal, would it become moral? Don't you see how absurd your point is? You are saying that society were to legalize stealing, then that act alone suddenly makes stealing moral. That is absurd!
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The whole basis for morality is what people think is right and wrong. If a lot of people are doing something openly that means they think it is right. Therefore society treats that action as moral. Morals are more a democracy than you think. |
NO NO NO!!!! Morality is not based on what people think. That is what I am trying to say. Morality is inherently right or wrong. To go back to my example: if a society declared stealing or murder moral and everyone did it, that would not make those things moral. Stealing and murder are wrong no matter what people say, think or do.
Last edited by The diplomat on 11-07-2002 at 02:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnIII
|
|
But if there was a society with no concept of property, there would be no need for laws against stealing. Would this be immoral?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
In the day that the passage in question was written "cursing" meant exactly that - putting a magic spell ( a la Harry Potter et al. ) on someone. Find for me a child who has turned his parents into toads and I will suggest to you that you execute the young hellion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:20
|
|
diplomat, you are incorrect. There is no such thing as absolute morality. There is no 'true' right or wrong. It simply depends on the society in which one is a part of. If a society declared stealing and murder to be legal, and people supported it, then DAMN STRAIGHT it would be moral in that society.
Take a more real life example: The Death Penalty. In the United States, most people are for the the DP and it is legal. In Europe, most people are against the DP, and it is illegal. In the US, the DP is considered to be moral. In Europe it is considered immoral and barbaric. So, who is right? BOTH are! It simply depends on which society you are a part of and the moral code of that society.
All morals are relative. Absolute morality does not exist. The idea that having more people do something AND then it becomes moral is not absurd at all. It happens. To assert that there is one universal morality is absurdity.
Another example: Drug War. Right now it is illegal to sell and use drugs. Most people agree. Hence, it is immoral to use them. However, if the laws were changed and most people supported legalizing, say, pot. Then using pot would not be immoral. It would be something that is consistant with the society's morality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
|
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
diplomat, you are incorrect. There is no such thing as absolute morality. There is no 'true' right or wrong. It simply depends on the society in which one is a part of. If a society declared stealing and murder to be legal, and people supported it, then DAMN STRAIGHT it would be moral in that society.
Take a more real life example: The Death Penalty. In the United States, most people are for the the DP and it is legal. In Europe, most people are against the DP, and it is illegal. In the US, the DP is considered to be moral. In Europe it is considered immoral and barbaric. So, who is right? BOTH are! It simply depends on which society you are a part of and the moral code of that society.
All morals are relative. Absolute morality does not exist. The idea that having more people do something AND then it becomes moral is not absurd at all. It happens. To assert that there is one universal morality is absurdity.
Another example: Drug War. Right now it is illegal to sell and use drugs. Most people agree. Hence, it is immoral to use them. However, if the laws were changed and most people supported legalizing, say, pot. Then using pot would not be immoral. It would be something that is consistant with the society's morality. |
You are talking about perception. I agree with you that certain things will be perceived as moral or immoral depending on certain things. Of course, societies change their morality. People change their views on what is legal or illegal, what is moral or not.
But would a society be doing the right thing if they legalized theft, or murder? You are supposing that whatever a country or society decides is right or wrong, is automatically the right decision. Would a country be right if they legalized murder? Of course not, because murder is wrong. People could decide otherwise, and in that country murder would be consider moral. That is what you are saying: that in that country murder would be moral because they say so. But are they correct? NO! Murder is wrong.
Humans arbitrarily change our morality but that does not mean that we are right!
Why do we use a fixed set of calculus rules. or a fixed set of grammar rules? You have to have an absolute set of rules because otherwise math would be impossible, and if grammar had no set of rules, then it would be impossible to communicate with one another.
Why are the laws of physics and nature constant? if the laws of nature changed, life would be impossible.
So why is it impossible for morality to also be absolute? Morality governs social interaction. if the laws that govern physical interaction are constant, and the laws of mathematics and linguistics are constant, then would the laws that govern society be any different?
Just because we have morals laws that are relative, does not mean that we are right! it is logical to assume that if the laws of nature are fixed, that perhaps, there are laws of morality that are also fixed, and we need to find them.
Civilization has moved toward a more absolute moral law already, as we have understood basic truths about social interaction. For example, we understand that all humans regardless of their genes deserve respect and dignity. This truth is the foundation for many other laws. Right there we have approached a basic moral truth. So, we are already moving toward better understanding basic moral truths that are absolute.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
But would a society be doing the right thing if they legalized theft, or murder? |
It may be moral to them, sure.
quote:
Would a country be right if they legalized murder? Of course not, because murder is wrong. |
To most societies, perhaps. But there are those that would disagree with you on what murder is. The term has taken a bad name, but what it actually is is under debate.
quote:
Why do we use a fixed set of calculus rules. or a fixed set of grammar rules? You have to have an absolute set of rules because otherwise math would be impossible, and if grammar had no set of rules, then it would be impossible to communicate with one another.
Why are the laws of physics and nature constant? if the laws of nature changed, life would be impossible.
So why is it impossible for morality to also be absolute? Morality governs social interaction. if the laws that govern physical interaction are constant, and the laws of mathematics and linguistics are constant, then would the laws that govern society be any different? |
You can't be serious. There is NO common ground between mathamatical & scientific rules and social rules. This is seen by math and science having clear cut proven rules, but morality having no clear cut rules. You can't argue if 2+2=4 (except in interesting philosophical debates), but you can argue whether or not abortion is right or wrong.
quote:
Humans arbitrarily change our morality but that does not mean that we are right! |
If we cannot decide who is right, then no one can. And don't dare bring God into this. 
quote:
Just because we have morals laws that are relative, does not mean that we are right! it is logical to assume that if the laws of nature are fixed, that perhaps, there are laws of morality that are also fixed, and we need to find them. |
Bullshit. Laws of morality have nothing in common with laws of nature. Laws of nature are products of fact, the manifestations of atomic particles around us. Laws of morality are products of minds and metaphysical thought. Nature exists physically, morality does not. They do not compare.
quote:
Civilization has moved toward a more absolute moral law already, as we have understood basic truths about social interaction. For example, we understand that all humans regardless of their genes deserve respect and dignity. This truth is the foundation for many other laws. Right there we have approached a basic moral truth. So, we are already moving toward better understanding basic moral truths that are absolute. |
No, what has happened is that one society's morality, in the age of globalization, is conquering other societies' morality. This is because the morality of every human deserving respect and dignity, which is a truely western idea (don't decieve yourself that ever other culture had this ideal), is the morality of the most powerful states. If China was the Superpower, I think you'd be singing a different tune.
The one final morality is simply one morality conquering the rest, in a morality war. However, all moralities CANNOT be conquered totally. Morals exist in humans' minds, and as long as people can think freely, humanity will come up with different ideas of morality.
In summation, morality IS perception, and nothing more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
|
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:20
|
|
Imran: So even though you don't like what that person did who almost whipped that poor boy to death, his morality is just as valid as yours, right? What he did is just fine, right? It is ok to whip an 11 year old boy hald to death for misbehaving? If you trully believe that morals are relative, then you think that "pastor" was moral in almost whipping that boy to death?
I guess you feel that there was nothing wrong in that Pakistani tribal council that sentenced a young woman to be gang raped because she broke a dating rule.
I guess it ok that certain Arabic countries practice female circumcision.
I guess you would tolerate slavery.
After all, just because it is not your moral code, does not make it wrong, right?
Moral relativism is repugnant because it does not stand up against evils. It does not uphold good. it would allow great crimes, great suffering, and great atrocities like the Holocaust even, under some guise that we do not have any right to judge others!
Without a set of morals, you end up having no morals at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:20
|
|
I don't like any of those things. My morality doesn't like it. That doesn't mean my morality is the best one out there. I think all your examples are morally wrong, but that is only my view. Certain people might say, well female circumcision is ok, because well, we practice male circumcision, so why should females be any different, etc.
quote:
Moral relativism is repugnant because it does not stand up against evils. |
quote:
Without a set of morals, you end up having no morals at all. |
The truth is usually repugnant or hard to take. Get used to it. Morals exist in the metaphysical sphere, which means they are subject to perception. No one can REALLY say their morals are right, if you look at it objectively. All they can do is say their morals are better for the situation at hand and thus push them. Of course that doesn't mean the guy next to you doesn't have some better morals than you.
But it doesn't change the fact that all morals are relative. HELL, look at Winston's thread on morals for evidence on that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
devilmunchkin
|
|
first circle of the inferno
Jul 2001
time: 05:20
|
|
oh great..this is what i have to look forward to when i re-enter the baptist capital of the world..Waco......arg!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zevico
|
|
Melbourne
Apr 2002
time: 15:20
|
|
Question for Lincoln: doesn't Paul declare the Old Testament redundant, so quoting it is a bit silly for Christians?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zevico
Question for Lincoln: doesn't Paul declare the Old Testament redundant, so quoting it is a bit silly for Christians? |
The old testament law was fulfilled by Jesus. His death represented a death to the old laws. Paul said that the old testament was to be used in a spiritual sense. For example the old testament refers to not "muzzling the ox that treads the corn." That means that people who work in mission work (for example) can reap some of the benefis of the work such as a free meal or whatever. The ox example had nothing to do with animals. The animal sacrifices were a type of the sacrifice that Jesus made that ended that practice once and for all. The marriage rights and other practices relating to conquered nations etc. are types of the relationsip between the church (or a false church called a 'whore') and Christ (or a false Christ).
The lessons in Proverbs have a great depth of spiritual meaning. The 'young man' who goes into a 'strange woman' for example is a type of a believer turning to another gospel and committing spiritual 'adultry'. This is born out in the book of James and elsewhere. The entire old testament is not a literal set of laws but rather a spiritual picture of the judgment of God and the mercy of God. Also it is clearly stated that some of the laws 'were not good'. The jews acted then as instruments of God's judgment on occassion. Christians are forbidden to act in that capacity now. The inquisition, Christian wars etc. were completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
The resurrection of Jesus brought forth and manifested the grace of God. Christians are supposed to be examples of that grace and mercy-- not of the judgment. The judgment comes by the hand of God himself in Revelation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Capital punishment is an option of the civil government not the church. Even the Catholic church during the inquisition understood that. They tortured people but when it came time to kill them they turned them over to the civil authorities (which they had inderect or even direct control over anyway).
The eye for an eye thing was specifically addressed by Jesus. He said to love your neighbor not put out his eye.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Technically, it is not possible for any society to legalize murder. |
Well good point  . But, when I meant murder can somehow be moral, I was thinking of a hypothetical. Pretend that someone is friends with a person that wants to smuggle a nuclear weapon into Washington D.C. (you are in Ohio, lets say). He has the weapon and a truck with which to do it. He is dead set on doing it. As he gets into the truck to drive off, you, fearing for the safety of millions shoot and kill him. This isn't in self-defense because you wouldn't be hurt by the blast.
Legally its wrong. Morally, many people would assert, it is right.
Same thing with Hiroshima, it was murder, but morally justified because an invasion would cost many more lives.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-07-2002 00:06
|