• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Christians vs. Satanists in handig out religious materials on public school [W:320]

Re: Christians vs. Satanists in handig out religious materials on public school groun

I am being consistent. morality must be objective otherwise it is at the whims or wishes of other people. accepted objective tit for tat is a poor argument.
I am not the one saying that morality is left up to the person and that whatever they think is right is moral.

that is what hitler and stalin used to do the horrific things that they did.

it is at the whims and wishes of other peapole

believing in objective good and evil doesn't make you objectively good either
 
Re: Christians vs. Satanists in handig out religious materials on public school groun

I am being consistent. morality must be objective otherwise it is at the whims or wishes of other people. accepted objective tit for tat is a poor argument.
I am not the one saying that morality is left up to the person and that whatever they think is right is moral.

that is what hitler and stalin used to do the horrific things that they did.

You keep on saying that.. yet, what you are failing to do is actually support that.
 
Re: Christians vs. Satanists in handig out religious materials on public school groun

You keep on saying that.. yet, what you are failing to do is actually support that.

nope I did support it with the definition of the word and it's meaning. you ignoring the meaning doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
have a nice day.
 
Re: Christians vs. Satanists in handig out religious materials on public school groun

nope I did support it with the definition of the word and it's meaning. you ignoring the meaning doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
have a nice day.

You have a strong misunderstanding of supporting a claim. Giving a definition is not showing that it actually EXISTS. You are half way there. You have defined what you mean when you say 'objective moral', You have not shown that an objective moral exists.
 
Re: Christians vs. Satanists in handig out religious materials on public school groun

You have a strong misunderstanding of supporting a claim. Giving a definition is not showing that it actually EXISTS. You are half way there. You have defined what you mean when you say 'objective moral', You have not shown that an objective moral exists.

I supported my claim by posting the definition of the word.

moral relativism says there is no such thing as right or wrong. right and wrong is determined by the person and no one else is to judge. right and wrong is entirely subjective to the person doing the act.

Hilter, Stalin, pol pot all moral relativists. They all honestly believed they were doing the right thing. Moral relativism says that because they were believed that they were justified then it isn't for anyone else to condem their actions.

the opposite side of the coin is objective morality. Objective morality is that there are inherent absolutes of right and wrong that is universally accepted in order for a civilization to exist. we can easily find that almost all societies had laws against murder and theft for example.

without objective morality there is no morality as morality is defined by the whims and wishes of those that would abuse other people.
that is how we determine right and wrong. we all realize that there are some things that are just morally wrong.

actually you wouldn't have a definition if it didn't exist. Moral relativism is a philosophy an amorale philosophy but one none the less.
 
Re: Christians vs. Satanists in handig out religious materials on public school groun

I supported my claim by posting the definition of the word.

moral relativism says there is no such thing as right or wrong. right and wrong is determined by the person and no one else is to judge. right and wrong is entirely subjective to the person doing the act.

Hilter, Stalin, pol pot all moral relativists. They all honestly believed they were doing the right thing. Moral relativism says that because they were believed that they were justified then it isn't for anyone else to condem their actions.

the opposite side of the coin is objective morality. Objective morality is that there are inherent absolutes of right and wrong that is universally accepted in order for a civilization to exist. we can easily find that almost all societies had laws against murder and theft for example.

without objective morality there is no morality as morality is defined by the whims and wishes of those that would abuse other people.
that is how we determine right and wrong. we all realize that there are some things that are just morally wrong.

actually you wouldn't have a definition if it didn't exist. Moral relativism is a philosophy an amorale philosophy but one none the less.

Shrug. Like I said. you don't understand what 'supporting the claim is'. You are only half way there, and that is providing the definition of what you mean. Yes, stalin and Hitler were 'moral relativism'.. however, you have not supported the claim that is actually 'objective morals'.. that is 'morals that are true no matter what people think.
 
Re: Christians vs. Satanists in handig out religious materials on public school groun

I supported my claim by posting the definition of the word.

moral relativism says there is no such thing as right or wrong. right and wrong is determined by the person and no one else is to judge. right and wrong is entirely subjective to the person doing the act.

Hilter, Stalin, pol pot all moral relativists. They all honestly believed they were doing the right thing. Moral relativism says that because they were believed that they were justified then it isn't for anyone else to condem their actions.

the opposite side of the coin is objective morality. Objective morality is that there are inherent absolutes of right and wrong that is universally accepted in order for a civilization to exist. we can easily find that almost all societies had laws against murder and theft for example.

without objective morality there is no morality as morality is defined by the whims and wishes of those that would abuse other people.
that is how we determine right and wrong. we all realize that there are some things that are just morally wrong.

actually you wouldn't have a definition if it didn't exist. Moral relativism is a philosophy an amorale philosophy but one none the less.

um where is the evidence that these dictator chaps believed in relative morality and not that thy were objectively right?

and molarity is made up by peoples whims and wishes but that's not limited to people who want to abuse other people
 
Re: Christians vs. Satanists in handig out religious materials on public school groun

t?

and molarity is made up by peoples whims and wishes but that's not limited to people who want to abuse other people

I totally disagree. Molarity is made of teeth.
 
Back
Top Bottom