• 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.

"ALL moral standards and values are man-made"

tosca1 said:
The title question and the OP explains it simply. You're not getting it, or you refuse to get it.....what more can I say?

Bye-bye Orphan.
Click to expand...

Or we simply do not believe you. Prove source morality in your terms, and realize you are not in the Religious Discussion section where you get to run and hide from criticism.
 
tosca1 said:
Well, that's not exactly an answer, is it? We're trying to find out if it's true that moral values are man-made! Okay, explain it then...

WHY IS IT "IMMORAL?"
Click to expand...

It was an answer to the question you wanted. Taking someone's life without due cause is a bad action. All humans are human, as such there is a fundamental base we all share and this sources natural rights. One has the right to life. There needs to be some external force applied before one may justly infringe upon the rights of another.
 
Excon said:
There is no universal morality so you can not prove it.


In and of itself it is nothing but an action.
For an interpretation of that action you need a framework in which to base your opinion of it.
In our world that framework is man made.
Click to expand...


Well, that framework has to be based on something.
 
tosca1 said:
Well, that framework has to be based on something.
Click to expand...
Did you not see what I said?
Oh wait a minute, you are still playing catch-up.
Hurry up, I'll wait.
 
tosca1 said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

Then yes, what you did is "bad" or "wrong".

Absent any appeal to morality we simply can't condone that sort of behavior from a member of society because if we did we would then have to condone it from any member of society at any time and that would leave any and all of us in constant peril.

Anyway, what is "good" reason? That's another question.
Click to expand...

I agree it's another question.

The answer, I'd think, is something that we would have to agree upon as a society.

We could create a broad general standard such as "killing other people is wrong", and then allow exceptions to that standard based upon the details related to a particular case.

We could create general standards for some of the exceptions, such as, "if someone is threatening or actively trying to kill you it is acceptable to instead kill him or her in self defense".

In less general cases, those for which we haven't created a standard in advance, we could agree that the best determination would be best made by a select representational cross-section of society chosen at random to hear all of the details and facts related to a particular act before casting judgement on the propriety or acceptability of the actions.

We have to accept the fact that not everything is always "black" or always "white".

There are shades of gray in between.

Religious folks call that kind of thinking "moral relativism" and generally frown upon it.

But if we say that killing someone is always "bad" that leave us no room for claims of self defense, or defense of a minor, or anything else.

Self defense and capital punishment are moral relativism.
 
tosca1 said:
That's what Hard Truth had claimed in another section.

I'm saying, God is the basis for all morals - it's the standard from which moral values are based.


I'd like to try to prove this. So I'd like for you to please answer this.


If I shoot a pedestrian in the face with a shotgun.......is that good or bad?
Click to expand...

Are you Dick Cheney in RL?
 
I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
 
I'll play. And yes, I'm an atheist.

Yes, I believe shooting someone in the face who is walking down the street minding their own business is wrong.
 
Ikari said:
It was an answer to the question you wanted. Taking someone's life without due cause is a bad action. All humans are human, as such there is a fundamental base we all share and this sources natural rights. One has the right to life. There needs to be some external force applied before one may justly infringe upon the rights of another.
Click to expand...

Why is it "BAD?"


What "natural" rights? What "right to live?"
 
tosca1 said:
Why is it "BAD?"


What "natural" rights? What "right to live?"
Click to expand...

Because it unnecessarily infringes upon the rights of others. Natural rights are rights help by humans innately, of which includes the right to life.
 
Let's wait until Tosca actually shoots a stranger in the face.
 
tosca1 said:
Why is it "BAD?"


What "natural" rights? What "right to live?"
Click to expand...
Three people have already told you.
1. OrphanSlug told you it was based on "our culture". Which is society.

2. I told you it was based on a framework of belief. That framework can either be a personal belief or an in-general societal belief.

3. Soot told you it was based on society.

Now what do you not understand about the answers you were already given?
 
soot said:
Then yes, what you did is "bad" or "wrong".

Absent any appeal to morality we simply can't condone that sort of behavior from a member of society because if we did we would then have to condone it from any member of society at any time and that would leave any and all of us in constant peril.
Click to expand...

No....you're basing that on the kind of society we now have. You'll have to disregard that we have laws in place right now.

Besides, that doesn't really explain why that action is bad.

Your reason implies that it's society who determines what's bad and wrong through government. If you can get enough people to vote a certain way, then you can change morals to be whatever you want.....so that cannot really determine what's right and wrong.

Or, if morality is determined by what's the most beneficial to the most number of people, then we shouldn't help the sick or the weak - since letting them die out is the most beneficial to the most numbers of people. By killing them, we could also be doing them a favor. Homosexuals would also have to belong to that group since they don't benefit the species in the way of reproduction.





The answer, I'd think, is something that we would have to agree upon as a society.
Click to expand...

So, it is flexible. It can change. What's "bad" today maybe "good" tomorrow.

That doesn't really determine what's bad and wrong.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
Your reason implies that it's society who determines what's bad and wrong through government. If you can get enough people to vote a certain way, then you can change morals to be whatever you want.....so that cannot really determine what's right and wrong.
Click to expand...

Changing the laws does not mean changing the morals. They are two different things.
Slavery was considered immoral by many long before it was made illegal.
 
Arcana XV said:
Then you should be locked up in a mental institution. Nobody shoots someone in the face for no reason whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I just told you. Maybe I didn't like the way he looked at me. That's a reason.
 
Quag said:
Changing the laws does not mean changing the morals. They are two different things.
Slavery was considered immoral by many long before it was made illegal.
Click to expand...


Look up the definition of morals then you'll see what it has to do with laws.
 
Excon said:
Three people have already told you.
1. OrphanSlug told you it was based on "our culture". Which is society.

2. I told you it was based on a framework of belief. That framework can either be a personal belief or an in-general societal belief.

3. Soot told you it was based on society.

Now what do you not understand about the answers you were already given?
Click to expand...



See my response to Soot.
 
tosca1 said:
That's what Hard Truth had claimed in another section.

I'm saying, God is the basis for all morals - it's the standard from which moral values are based.


I'd like to try to prove this. So I'd like for you to please answer this.


If I shoot a pedestrian in the face with a shotgun.......is that good or bad?
Click to expand...

Exodus 21:20-21

"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.…"

The real question is, do you find this moral?
 
Quag said:
Changing the laws does not mean changing the morals. They are two different things.
Slavery was considered immoral by many long before it was made illegal.
Click to expand...

People in certain periods (like in Biblical times) have voluntarily indentured themselves to pay debts, or have voluntarily become slaves that
they may be cared for by their masters.
 
tosca1 said:
See my response to Soot.
Click to expand...
It doesn't apply.

Soot is speaking from inside a "framework". You know that.
Absent said "framework, you shooting someone in the face is just an action and is neither good, bad/evil, right/wrong.

There is no universal morality. It is all based on beliefs which are man made.
 
tosca1 said:
Look up the definition of morals then you'll see what it has to do with laws.
Click to expand...

Read what I posted and realize that laws do not make something moral or immoral.
You made an increadibly weak strawman argument.
Sorry you lost this debate before it began because morals have always changed over time and according to you the word of God hasnt.
Ergo morals do not come from God.
 
tosca1 said:
People in certain periods (like in Biblical times) have voluntarily indentured themselves to pay debts, or have voluntarily become slaves that
they may be cared for by their masters.
Click to expand...

Far far far many more were forced into it against their will or merely born into it.
Your point however has nothing to do with what I said.
Being legal doesnt make something moral and being illegal doesnt make it immoral.
 
tosca1 said:
What "natural" rights?
Click to expand...

In antiquity it was believed that there was a "natural law" which imposed obligations upon the individual (such as being a good and contributing member of society, defending the homeland, and such).

The concept of natural (or inalienable, or self-evident, or human) rights (as opposed to obligations) arose during the Enlightenment as a means of challenging the concept of the Divine Right of Kings, which essentially held that kings were bound by no earthly authority and could, consequently, do whatever they wanted and treat people (their subjects) however they wanted.

Natural rights, the most fundamental human rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or property, depending upon which point in the developing conversation on natural rights you happen to jump in on), it was proposed, were God-given to people as a natural consequence of being people, as opposed to being something that could be given or taken away by other people.

As such these rights couldn't be usurped by a monarch/sovereign who, while not bound by any earthly law, was subject to the laws of God.

When we (here in America but later in Europe and then all over the world) began to transition away from monarchies we maintained the concept of God-given natural rights.

Basically natural rights are rights because we, the people, say they are.

The concept of natural rights is a convention, nothing more, nothing less.

Why do we have a "right to live"?

Because collectively we say that we have a right to live.

Though the concept originally depended upon an appeal to God (because it developed at a time in human history when everything was almost universally believed to be dependent upon God) these rights are acknowledged universally today in placed both where the authority of God is held sacrosanct and in secular societies such as our own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom