| Welcome to Fire Emblem Fusion. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Morality | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 1 2008, 02:25 PM (936 Views) | |
| +Reaver | Jan 1 2008, 11:20 PM Post #16 |
|
Troll
|
Okay, and if Galileo didn't push his theory because of the morals and the individuals who dissected cadavers did the same, where would we be? If those morals weren't in place more people would openly do research and more people could've put more money into both and advance our technology. Loving and traditional can be synonymous. However, just because a family is traditional doesn't mean that it's loving. You're blaming the woes of the African American community on the destruction of family; however, I have provided a study which shows no side-effects to single parenting. You're not factoring in socio-economic factors when you say that the problem in the African American community is caused by a lack of traditional family. Could be, but that's generalizing about all single-parent families. Also, the fact the traditional family only has one income doesn't really support your argument about the economic woes of single-parenthood. Functional would be the only problem, but that's why I think it's a nuturing environment rather than a traditional family. The article doesn't say that. Exceptions? To what? :lol: Also, great, your friends had a nuturing environment in a traditional family structure, but that means nothing when the evidence clearly shows all that matters is the environment, not the style of family. Thugs can come from a traditional family; you're trying to set it into the ground that the traditional family is perfect and provides the environment when that isn't always the case. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
 |
 
|
| Sentenal | Jan 1 2008, 11:36 PM Post #17 |
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
You made the point that morals causes society to go backwards. I'm just not seeing it. Thats all my point is.
I think it would be safe to say that families with 2 able-adults providing and taking care of their family would be able to create a better growing environment than just one. To me, its just simple logic.
Somewhat true, but because there are two adults, its allows both of those two adults to work. In times of economic hardships, both parents can work. When both are working, they have the same problem single parent families have, in terms nuturing, but they would lack the economic problems a single parent family would have. And its not really generalizing. Its a fact that the parent single parent families basically have to do the duties of a two parent traditional family, trying to get the same result. Its only natural that problems in actually doing all those functions would arise.
 There, the articles says its going against conventional wisdom. Plus, it IS just one study. And it DOES say conventional wisdom says otherwise.
Like I said, there are exceptions to everything. Traditional families are NOT perfect. There is no perfect family structure. Single Parent families don't always screw up. But I think its safe to say traditional families have a better chance of raising good kids than single parent families. |
| |
|
|
|
| Crysta | Jan 2 2008, 12:04 AM Post #18 |
i ate your children
|
This is far too generalized on both ends. If you have two irresponsible parents who, say, hate each other but refuse to get a divorce for whatever reason, that's not a good living environment regardless of the people in it. Which, you know, is the important part. You could very well be better off with just one of them. If you have loving and responsible parents, then you're likely to grow up with less psychological baggage at the very least... but responsible parents are becoming something of a rarity. |
|
~ Crysta, Zombie Queen Play Imperian with me! - Character: Rheta Join Verdane!
| |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Jan 2 2008, 12:05 AM Post #19 |
|
Troll
|
It's very simple logic and doesn't consider variables, such as the parents involved, the job held by the parents, the neighborhood, the child's other influences, et cetera. Except you're assuming that a single parent family doesn't have a reliable job that can cover maybe 1-4 people. It's not like all single parents work behind the register at a fast food joint. I would say "may arise" rather than "would arise"; it seems odd to insinuate that one parent cannot work and support a child's development because it very much depends on the parent. Two parents can share duties of raising a child and this is the main boon to a traditional family, but this isn't necessary when one parent can do this and we shouldn't say the traditional family is the primary reason because it isn't. Context. Ferguson says this, but his study points to different, more important factors on the effects of children and their development. Conventional wisdom isn't going to overtake a study, especially a larger study with 1000 people. You never answered the question: "Exceptions? To what?" Two parents may be more capable than a single parent, and I agree with this portion, but I don't see why that warrants the "traditional family" as a moral in society because it clearly isn't a necessary piece when it breaks down to what is utilitarian and keeps a society running. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Yzarc | Jan 2 2008, 01:26 AM Post #20 |
Coxian
|
That's ridiculous. All you did was say "Even though the moralistic people went against the scientific people, they still came out on top!" It cost a lot of them their lives. You can't tell me that people who claim to have the best morals don't go against the wave of science. Just because all of the examples Reaver gave came out on top doesn't make his point any more valid. Those people had to overcome the church and the mainstream. Our morals should be pushing for more advancements, not pushing away from them. |
  
| |
|
|
|
| +Hollie | Jan 2 2008, 05:27 PM Post #21 |
Resident Brit
|
To my knowledge, the Church DID stop Galileo making his theory. I was under the impression he was given a "carry on saying this, and we kill you for heresy, or shut up and we'll leave you alone" ultimatium. It was only later that his theory was accepted. I may be confusing this with something else though. =x As another example of regression - or at least, a lack of progress - is the work of Galen, which was believed to be correct for about 1000 years after his death. Galen believed in one god, so when the Roman empire collapsed the church jumped on his work. They paraded it as being complete and perfect. No one tested Galen's ideas. Anyone who suggested he was wrong was quickly shot down. It was only much later that the incorrect aspects of Galen's work started to be identified and corrected. For all of that time in between, the Church's morals kept medical advancement from occuring. Galen is probably the best example I can think of to say that the morals of the church (which, in those times, were basically the morals for everyone) did cause a regression and/or hinder progress. |
Known as Haar on Brand of Flame. Bitch.  Formerly Margaret Thatcher, Aleksandr | |
|
|
|
| Askio | Jan 7 2008, 07:19 PM Post #22 |
Crit McGee on Speed
|
just to point this out, but you are correct. He eventually stopped saying his ideas, and was forcefully made to agree with the church. Its when a bunch of other people said it as well, and the church had begun to lose some of its influence. Other people back then, even people like de Vinci were persecuted for stating their ideas. Simply because they were more like idealists who say beyond what the church said everything was. In many ways it deals with morality, because it shows that peoples morals were out of whack, when they were supposed to be the moral and spiritual leaders of the people. They did so to keep their own power. Today is just a less obvious form in some cases, yet also more wide spread at the same time. |
 Fire Emblem Online Askio: 9-1-1 | |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Jan 7 2008, 07:22 PM Post #23 |
|
Troll
|
So essentially you agree that a society should not be defined by it's morals, correct? |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| +Ema Skye | Jan 8 2008, 02:44 AM Post #24 |
Snackoos = <3. It's science!
|
Anyone defending the Church when it comes to the advancements of science and prevention of disease and overpopulation would do well to read the writings of Salman Rushdie, namely his "Imagine There's no Heaven" which was part of a UN assembly of writings. He showed how religious zealots prevented sex education, allowed horrible things like female circumcison, promote terrorism in extremist areas, don't allow things like stem cell research, etc. |
 MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH 
| |
|
|
|
| dashdancedan | Nov 15 2008, 06:04 PM Post #25 |
 
|
Tagged for later reading and commenting. |
 
| |
|
|
|
| Simon | Nov 15 2008, 07:38 PM Post #26 |
The strongest among you may not wear a crown
|
That said, I believe that morality is objective, not subjective; morality is human nature, and every human is born into the same mindset. Events in their lives will mold their personal view of the world -- their own conscience -- but it's pretty clear that everyone has an inherited set of objective morals (in the DNA sense of the phrase "inherited"; we're all born with 'em). Simply put, if someone murders another person, it's "wrong." If morality is subjective, who can determine that? Yet we all know that murder is "wrong." Everyone on this planet is born with that belief (although, unfortunately, it doesn't stick with everyone). As for the issue of premarital sex, the action is only as immoral as its intent, here. If the two people are trying to have a child and just don't want to/can't get married, then it's OK. But if they're just having sex for the fun of it, and the hell with whatever happens to the other partner or the child to be, then that's immoral because the couple is definitely hurting the child (by comparison to the two parents living together and raising said child). |
Previously: Ron DeLite, Simon
| |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Nov 15 2008, 08:39 PM Post #27 |
|
Troll
|
If this is an archetypal human moral passed down through our humanity, why do things such as war and the death penalty exist? I don't think you're necessarily wrong, I merely feel that morals are not necessarily ingrained into our minds in utero. To me, it seems easy to logically justify the immorality of murder: perhaps this explains why so many other people have come to the same conclusion, as most people are logical and sometimes make illogical choices. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Soja | Nov 15 2008, 09:40 PM Post #28 |
Gentle Water, Crashing Waves
|
I think we have deviated far from the original questions. Morality is something that will always be necessary in society. We can declare laws, negatively reinforce them, and all, but they won't mean anything unless a reason is given. To have that reason, we have to have a standard. Standards vary from culture to culture, but the basic tenets are usually the same. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc. This is all to preserve order and maintain sanity. Observe: whenever there is a breakdown in order and people revert to their primal survival instincts and kill and steal in the name of number one, we see just what a lack of morality results in. People with loose morals also tend to make the biggest mistakes life offers. See teenage pregnancy, youth crime, etc. All this is not solely the fault of the upbringing, though. I still believe that a two-parent household working in cooperation with one another, sharing the responsibilities that life brings, is the best environment for child-rearing. However, individuals from single-parent households aren't necessarily worse off. What seems to be overlooked is that kids are individuals as well, and this is where the upbringing comes into play. Depending on how one was raised, on what moral teachings and examples he or she was influenced by, an individual may make good choices. Or they may make bad choices. There is no 100% accurate way to predict. My mom had every reason to be as abusive a parent as her parents were to her. But! She decided that she wasn't going to be like that because she hated that life. One could easily assume after hearing her story that she was going to grow up to be some kind of delinquent, but it would be completely wrong. This is not to say that the kind of upbringing that a parent gives a child doesn't matter, because it does. It just doesn't guarantee an outcome one way or the other. Morals are less about how a society conducts itself and more about how individuals conduct themselves. There is a decline in morality nowadays, without a doubt. I don't attribute it to any one factor, but a combination of variables. If people conducted themselves with a stronger moral fiber on a whole, there wouldn't be a need for law and punishment, now would there? But some people, many, won't respond to a standard unless there is a distinct backlash to them present, jail time for example. With greater freedom comes a greater responsibility for oneself and one's actions. I don't believe in pre-marital sex, or at least loose sexual practices. If you're in a committed relationship and use protection and understand that there are potential consequences even then, I don't see anything inherently wrong with that. When it comes to things like 'friends with benefits'? Well, you reap what you sow. |
Fusion Universe - FEF Fanfic Slayers Forth - Slayers Fanfic Smartest Member '06 & '07 & '08 & 'o9, Favored Debater '07 & '08 & '09, Most Popular '08, Manliest '08 & '09, Author of Nightmares, Scourge of the Luxon, Rules Lawyer, Nick's Former Hero, Crysta's Lover | |
|
|
|
| Masaki | Nov 15 2008, 11:51 PM Post #29 |
|
Reaver, you can't start a debate about Morals then focus only on the exceptions. There's a reason they're called "exceptions'. Morals are very integral towards society. As mentioned before, they are almost the original laws. However, as far as morals being subjective towards objective depends on the moral. We've already said Killing and Stealing are no-brainers. Premarital Sex? Gay Marriage? As of now, its up to the individual. We don't have laws that ban the full practice of the aforementioned acts |
 | |
|
|
|
| Conan O'Brien | Nov 16 2008, 03:07 AM Post #30 |
|
SKILLNADEN ÄR DRINKABILITY
|
Is morality in a decline? I think that's a resounding yes. Honestly, when over two-thirds of African-American children are being born out of wedlock and STDs reach an all time high and your divorce rate is 50% and kids shoot up their classmates and drugs are rampant, yeah, you can say your country has a pretty bad morality problem. I'm a Christian, of course, but it still strikes me how seemingly arbitrary commandments set forth 4000 years ago still show how right they are today. Even a lot of the dietary laws are now being proven to lengthen your life. It strikes us as common sense not to marry in your family, not to drink the blood of animals, and not to eat brains, but back then they had no reason other than "God said so." It's just today that science vindicates it. Even the idea of quarantining lepers was waaaay ahead of its time. I think, and Wikipedia backs me up here, that this is the first recorded incident of such behavior. Nothing prescribed by the Old Testament has been found to bad for society. Say what you will about Islamic countries and the atrocities there, but they don't have nearly as much problems as we do with breaking the law and moral decay. Why? Because they haven't budged on their moral code in over a thousand years. Try going to Iran and suggesting a liberal interpretation of the Sharia. I don't mean to suggest that the Islamic system is better, but at least they HAVE a system, other than make it up as you go, which seems to be the Western system. I think a good moderate example would be Turkey. Turkey is democratic, with freedom of religion and speech and all that jazz. Constitutionally, their state is separate from the church. But that doesn't stop them from enacting 9/10 of Islamic law. They realize that it's a tried and true method that 90% of the population can agree on. Whatever. Most of morals come from religious conviction, which I know is a hard sell. |
~~Wind Sword
Touching. Scientology
Smartest post ever made. | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate Forum · Next Topic » |
2:43 AM Nov 8
