• 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.

The Bible is Completely Immoral[W:197]

And that changes over time/place/society thus morals are subjective
A few basic aspects of it wouldn't change, would they? For example, mutually beneficial social cooperation, vs aggression and alienation.
Just thinking off the top of my head here:
- Compromise
- Sharing of work
- Protection the young

"Moralities are sets of self-perpetuating and biologically-driven behaviors which encourage human cooperation. Biologists contend that all social animals, from ants to elephants, have modified their behaviors, by restraining immediate selfishness in order to improve their evolutionary fitness. Human morality, although sophisticated and complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon that evolved to restrict excessive individualism that could undermine a group's cohesion and thereby reducing the individuals' fitness."


It is this broad and general interpretation of morality, the will to social cooperation, that is the foundation of all (arguably subjective) higher-order morals.
 
Last edited:
A few basic aspects of it wouldn't change, would they? For example, mutually beneficial social cooperation, vs aggression and alienation.
Just thinking off the top of my head here:
- Compromise
- Sharing of work
- Protection the young

"Moralities are sets of self-perpetuating and biologically-driven behaviors which encourage human cooperation. Biologists contend that all social animals, from ants to elephants, have modified their behaviors, by restraining immediate selfishness in order to improve their evolutionary fitness. Human morality, although sophisticated and complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon that evolved to restrict excessive individualism that could undermine a group's cohesion and thereby reducing the individuals' fitness."


It is this broad and general interpretation of morality, the will to social cooperation, that is the foundation of all (arguably subjective) higher-order morals.

There would be similarities but not exactly the same, thus they remain subjective.
To be objective they cannot be different, they cannot change.
 
There would be similarities but not exactly the same, thus they remain subjective.
To be objective they cannot be different, they cannot change.
I give you facts and backed it up, and all I get back from you is 'No it isnt'.
 
I give you facts and backed it up, and all I get back from you is 'No it isnt'.

Yet, his point is correct. if the moral was objective, it would not change. You pointed to things that changed over time.

Compromise, sharing of work, and protection of the young aren't really 'morals'.. but rather problems that that to be solved by society to be able to survive as society. How compromise, sharing of work , and protection of the young is accomplished is what the morals are. Those are the issues the 'compromise, sharing of work and protection of the young' are intrinsic to the survival of a society, since those societies that do not address those issues does not survive as a society.
 
I give you facts and backed it up, and all I get back from you is 'No it isnt'.

Not at all if morals are objective then they would be EXACTLY the same, they arent so morals are subjective.
 
Yet, his point is correct. if the moral was objective, it would not change. You pointed to things that changed over time.

Compromise, sharing of work, and protection of the young aren't really 'morals'.. but rather problems that that to be solved by society to be able to survive as society. How compromise, sharing of work , and protection of the young is accomplished is what the morals are. Those are the issues the 'compromise, sharing of work and protection of the young' are intrinsic to the survival of a society, since those societies that do not address those issues does not survive as a society.

The links substantiate what I said, that the reason morality exists is due a need for social living. As shown in my links... sociologist point out that all social creatures man, animal, insect have the same basic social problems and it is these problems that are addressed by development of morals. My point is that at the most fundamental level they are common. Again given in links to help substantiate what I understand, I am not alone in this conclusion, it is supported by social theory.

Yes, the "How" is specific to a culture, but the "Why" is universal. So I agree that many of our modern moral ideas are subjective. That is what I said earlier, and you are skirting the issue by making it expansive once again.
 
The links substantiate what I said, that the reason morality exists is due a need for social living. As shown in my links... sociologist point out that all social creatures man, animal, insect have the same basic social problems and it is these problems that are addressed by development of morals. My point is that at the most fundamental level they are common. Again given in links to help substantiate what I understand, I am not alone in this conclusion, it is supported by social theory.

Yes, the "How" is specific to a culture, but the "Why" is universal. So I agree that many of our modern moral ideas are subjective. That is what I said earlier, and you are skirting the issue by making it expansive once again.

Those are the reasons it exists.. but those are not the morals itself.
 
Not at all if morals are objective then they would be EXACTLY the same, they arent so morals are subjective.
I am saying societies cannot exist without a few basic rules, and we should be able to examine those rules and find some that are common to all things that live socially.
 
I am saying societies cannot exist without a few basic rules, and we should be able to examine those rules and find some that are common to all things that live socially.

That will include bats, lions, baboons, chimps, elephants and other social animals too.
 
I am saying societies cannot exist without a few basic rules, and we should be able to examine those rules and find some that are common to all things that live socially.
Similar concepts do NOT make morals objective.
That is what I am saying.
 
Back
Top Bottom