• 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!

morality

What is morality/

  • Total voters
    63
Cilogy said:
Well, that may be true with some things, but there have to be some universal bounds of reason right?
Click to expand...

"Bounds of reason" in this context is nothing more than "morality". In that context the answer would be "no".
 
Kal'Stang said:
Of course each person can have their own morals and yes they can both be right. They can also both be wrong. It just depends on their point of view. Its one of the reasons that I normally hate taking morality stances in discussions I participate it.
Click to expand...
So by that standard, in mpg's example, you're suggesting if a rapist says their act was moral then society should say "oh well, it's part of their morals, I guess it's okay then".

I'm no moral absolutist, but this is what I was trying to imply about bounds of reason. We can't say a rape victim is right and the rapist is right and then call it a day, this isn't CNN.
 
Cilogy said:
So by that standard, in mpg's example, you're suggesting if a rapist says their act was moral then society should say "oh well, it's part of their morals, I guess it's okay then".

I'm no moral absolutist, but this is what I was trying to imply about bounds of reason. We can't say a rape victim is right and the rapist is right and then call it a day, this isn't CNN.
Click to expand...

I never said that society as a whole should accept X persons Y morals. I was just stating that everyones morals are different from one person to the next and that from their point of view thier morals are right.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I never said that society as a whole should accept X persons Y morals. I was just stating that everyones morals are different from one person to the next and that from their point of view thier morals are right.
Click to expand...
I understand, though there's still a big difference between what an individual thinks is right and how that may or may not conflict with what the rest of society thinks is right.
 
penn1954 said:
The GOD in heaven that by faith I believe I will be with after my death !!
Click to expand...

So you've just admitted to being delusional. Anything else you want to share?
 
Cephus said:
Right after you back up your claim that there are. We'll wait.
Click to expand...

Where have I said in this thread that there is a God? Oh wait, I didn't. Since you made a positive assertion first you get to go first. But of course you'll just evade...again.
 
WCH said:
Well if we're not including abortionists/abortionees and people who think the 10 commandments are too restrictive, then fine.:cool:

Sounds like we'll have very little to discuss in the way of morality.
Click to expand...

There's a subforum for abortion debate.
 
Medusa said:
You must not murder.
Click to expand...

That's kill. Impossible? Of course, the Law is damnation and cannot save. Still, we should do our best; just like with every other commandment. This idea that it is 'murder' and not 'kill' comes from some kind of delusion that the goal is attainable. It's not attainable, it represents God in the premonition of His Son.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Of course each person can have their own morals and yes they can both be right. They can also both be wrong. It just depends on their point of view. Its one of the reasons that I normally hate taking morality stances in discussions I participate it.
Click to expand...
If morals are determined by the individual, how is it possible for them to be wrong?
 
mpg said:
If morals are determined by the individual, how is it possible for them to be wrong?
Click to expand...

In their eyes they are not wrong. Its as simple as that. It is society as a whole that determines what morals are right and wrong. Not individuals.
 
Kal'Stang said:
In their eyes they are not wrong. Its as simple as that. It is society as a whole that determines what morals are right and wrong. Not individuals.
Click to expand...
So if honor killings are considered moral within a particular society, then they ARE moral within that society?
 
mpg said:
So if honor killings are considered moral within a particular society, then they ARE moral within that society?
Click to expand...

With in that society, yes. Other societies may of course consider it immoral. A society is much like an individual in that way. Gives a slightly new perspective on the whole "sheeple" comment eh? lol
 
"Other".

It does exist, and it is both a "product of nature" and of "society". Our nature as human beings possessing volition, cognition and empathy both enables and necessitates development of moral systems. The objective core of morality is fairly uniform throughout millennia and around the world: The Golden Rule was known, in roughly the same form, to the ancient Chinese, Hindus, Jews and Greeks...

Society is required for morality to manifest itself, of course: after all, you cannot do anything moral or immoral if you are alone, on an uninhabited island.

But every given society, also introduces its restrictions, distortions and meta-moral taboos or imperatives - creating the illusion of morality being something transient, situational, based on authority or consensus. An illusion absolutely precious to those driven by lust for power and lacking in the moral department.

Sample: "Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice. We repudiate all morality which proceeds from ideas which are outside the class conception. In our opinion, morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of the class war. Everything is moral which is necessary for the annihilation of the old order and for uniting the proletariat. Our morality consists solely in close discipline and conscious warfare against the exploiters." V.I.Lenin.
 
Some morality is embodied in laws but others are not. It's illegal to park without putting money in the meter but it's not immoral. Many people see pre-marital sex as immoral but it's not illegal.
 
mpg said:
If morals are determined by the individual, how is it possible for them to be wrong?
Click to expand...

They become wrong when they deny other individuals their freedom to "determine".

"Do not do onto others what you wish not done onto yourself - that's the whole of Torah, the rest is commentaries", Rabbi Hillel said in the 1 century BC (repeating what many religious and non-religious thinkers said before him). Nobody wishes to be coerced, by definition. Coercion is the basic moral evil. Once our individual "determines" that, he has made the all-important first step.
 
Last edited:
mpg said:
Did you choose the second option? If so, do you believe that honor killings are moral in societies that declare them as moral?
Click to expand...
Honor killings if you were raised in that culture would be acceptable. The freedoms found in other cultures would seem strange to someone who was raised in a nation where honor killings were acceptable.
 
penn1954 said:
Haven't read any posts yet.

I think morality is from GOD since it is conscience that tells you what to do!
Click to expand...
If God's or deities were all the same would not the moral codes match from nation to nation?
 
mpg said:
Does it exist? If so, what is it?
Click to expand...

I'm pleased that my answer corresponded to yours, given you originated this thread.

Morality is concerned with right and wrong. Some people think right and wrong is determined by a government that establishes a rule about what is right and what is wrong. I disagree that right and wrong is that relative.

I think right and wrong are natural to us, truly inherent in our psyches. Evidence of this is rooted in laws that were drawn up thousands of years ago. Don't kill others (right to life), don't coerce others (right to liberty), don't steal (right to property). These are the most fundamental of rights.

We recognize youth are innocent and deserve to be nurtured and cared for. We recognize this naturally, as it is in our natures to understand this. We don't simply recognize these things because our government told us so. Conversely, we established governments to recognize these things because they occur to us naturally.

Morality is rooted in our very natures. Our morality needs no government to explain it to us or define it for us. In fact, we do not even need language for our rights to be evident to us. They are ingrained in us.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom