Viewing Single Post From: Morality

Viewing Single Post From: Morality
Conan O'Brien	Nov 21 2008, 02:57 PM
SKILLNADEN ÄR DRINKABILITY Posts: 2,781 Group: Veteran Member #16 Joined: June 8, 2005	Quote: This claim is inherently a fallacy in that you're presupposing your argument to be true. The purpose of that argument wasn't saying that moral objectivism is true. I was saying that by definition, moral mistakes of the past are invalid arguments against it. My ultimate conclusion was "Objective morality and changing moral standards are not contradictory." In order to prove that, you have to suppose they are both true, if only for the sake of thought experiment. Quote: That's probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Morals changed, our view of morality changed...It's all the same thing. Morality is a social institution, created and perpetuated by (wait for it) humanity! As society changes and evolves, so too do our views on morality. So does morality in itself. Morality is only what we view it as. So you're right, we do say all witch burnings, even those in the past, are immoral. But at the time, they were moral. In hindsight, they were extraordinarily immoral, but that is according to our view of morality. Now you're doing what you accused me of! Your argument is that changing morality and changing perceptions of morality aren't the same thing. To back it up, you say that morality is a social institution created by man. But to believe that, you have to take it for granted that my argument is false. It's begging the question. Quote: How does that make sense? Morality is specific to humanity. You can't call anything other than human moral or immoral, so morality cannot have existed prior to us. Math applies to more than humanity, but what justifies you in saying some animals are moral and some are immoral? Humans evolved from animals (and are animals) and so came after them. Where did morals come from if they were not created by humans or some more primitive animals? Well I obviously believe God's the source of morals, but I'll humor you by sticking with the secular. First, I don't remember saying animals can be moral. Morality has need of intelligence to express itself. If squirrels had our level of understanding, they'd probably have morals too. I'd say probably the same basic morals. Perhaps math isn't the best example. What I meant is that math was also around before humans, it just needed humans to put it to words. When you get down to it, if we were wiped out tomorrow, 2 and 2 would still equal 4, and killing an intelligent being would still be wrong. Quote: What a horribly ignorant thing to say. Politically incorrect, yes. Ignorant, far from. If moral objectivism is true, then yes, some cultures would have to be less moral. I'm not being ethnocentric, if anything our culture would probably be in the lower half. It's an uncomfortable idea. The alternative, however, is that all cultural morality is relative. Under this understanding, Nazi Germany, the Vatican, and modern-day United States are equally moral and immoral. It also robs us of the ability of criticize other cultures for even the worst atrocities. What's worse, saying that our culture today is no more or less moral than our culture before, you deny that moral progress is even possible. Ultimately, I'd say the uncomfortable position that cultures can be morally superior to others is far more comfortable than the concept that Nazis and priests are morally equal. Quote: Of course. Because there are always things that are good for ever society. It is advantageous for a society to have people who care for each other as a community. It is advantageous for any society to not have its people killing each other or otherwise hurting each other. Morals are what are advantageous for society, and nothing more. Your morals are no more correct than the morals of the Native Americans. They're different, but to say one is right and one is wrong is to have a complete lack of understanding of how society works and why morals are created. It was advantageous for southern whites to believe that slavery was moral, so slavery was moral to them. If morals weren't created, and don't change, then they would always have existed as they are now: "Perfect" Who says morals today are perfect? And it's plain wrong to say that if morals were set in stone, they'd be the same. People are flawed. We tell ourselves something is right when it isn't. It's clear much of your arguments revolve around the fact that morality is contrived. I just can't bring myself to believe that. I guess it's just a fundamental difference in thought. Quote: Okay? Then what do you propose is the cause of crime? There are only two things that make a person: Nature and Nurture. I would argue that nurture plays a much more significant role in personality, beliefs, values and norms than biology ever could. If society didn't matter when it comes to how a person turns out to be, we would all still be like the ancestral human. ? I don't recall saying society doesn't matter. I was just saying poverty wasn't. You can have a very pious, functioning society that's also dirt poor. Crime I would say is almost entirely dependent on nurture, namely early psychological development. Quote: What is then? How the person's parents raised them? Well, what do you think caused that person's parents to raise them the way they did? What I'm saying is that it's ridiculous to say people who are poor are somehow less morally righteous than the middle and upper class. What causes parents to raise a criminal? Probably NOT raising your child. Neglect, failing to discipline a kid. What causes that? Laziness, selfishness, apathy. Same things that make you walk out on your kid. I'm pretty sure no one ever said the poor were less moral, only that they committed more crime. Poverty creates the situation necessary for stealing, killing, and selling drugs. But it's the people themselves who do it. A wealthier person could be highly immoral, but in absence of need, he's not going to hit up a liquor store. Quote: I think the hypermasculinity of the African American male brings about the high murder rate. The societal strain for African Americans to fit their stereotype, one of unrestrained masculinity, brings about many of the violent crimes in the African American community. That's a good theory. But ultimately, it's people pulling the trigger even though they know it's wrong. Quote: "Decently High", but it doesn't mean morality is going straight downhill. Keep in mind drugs like this - namely cocaine - used to be legal. I don't think using drugs is inherently immoral. Breaking the law is. Cocaine rate during legalization could be 100%, I wouldn't care all that much. I looked it up BTW, and meth is actually the LEAST used drug. My bad. We have such a problem with it in Buffalo, I thought it was the same everywhere else. Quote: Wasn't our boy JC also a practicing Jew who followed most of the rules in the Torah? Quote: If you can make the same argument about God setting down rules to protect Judaism from pagan tribes with the intention of lifting such laws later with his boy JC, then you can't really deny that morality does indeed change. I'm going to group these into one response. There's a difference between laws and morals. God laid down the laws of Israel. Because it was the law, it became moral to follow them. The Commandments, for example, are clearly moral. No one was stoned for coveting thy neighbor's possessions. The law however, was arbitrary. If God decided that instead of 20 shekels, someone had to pay 25, that doesn't change the underlying moral of the law. Some of the Old Testament laws were designed with a definite purpose. Once that purpose was fulfilled, there's no point in not having people cook a kid in its mother's milk anymore. So while the laws may change, the morals behind them don't. In that regard, our boy JC(is that just what we're calling him from now on?) completely turned the law on its head, but he deeply reaffirmed what it means to live a moral life. Also, I don't know where you got the idea that he followed most of the laws of Judaism, the boy infuriated pretty much all the rabbis in Israel with his lawbreaking. But Jesus never said, "It was once immoral for someone to lie. Me and Dad did some brainstorming, and now it's okay by us!" More importantly, even if God had changed morality, how's that to say that we could? Quote: How isn't this changing morality? The Rules of Morality One Day include: "Slavery is moral." The next day, the rules are "Slavery is not moral." Even if we recognize something is immoral, it doesn't change the fact that once it was moral by societal standards. The rules of morality didn't say "Slavery is moral". Mankind said "Slavery is moral". Then mankind conformed with what was actually moral. The very fact that we now realize slavery was wrong shows there is a consensus about morality among people. You'll never hear someone saying, "You know, maybe slavery WAS good." That alone shows that we conceive of morality as separate from man's understanding at the time. This isn't a response to anyone, but let's bring the discussion back to the original topic. Can't it be agreed upon that thing like love and altruism are universally good, and that the United States has turned away largely from that towards greed and individuality?
	~~Wind Sword Quote: Please keep Christian bashing to a minimum. This is mainly the American South (and mainly Evangelical death cults), which is similar to Afghanistan under the Taliban. Touching. Scientology Quote: Clones are create and people can't bore a clone. Scientifically they are called born and not created. The only way to pre-determine their genes is if they are already out in the world usually in a pod that would resemble the sac in a mothers womb. Take Star Wars for example. Smartest post ever made.

Morality · Debate Forum