• 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
Cyrylek said:
The individual is 100% relevant, since it is individuals who interact with each other, morally or immorally.
Click to expand...

Without an interaction, there is no morality.
 
mpg said:
I wouldn't say that they are few and far between, especially if you're talking about people not doing things that are perfectly legal, because it goes against their personal morals. There are also examples of people breaking the law.
Click to expand...

But Law in the end rules the day. The US goes by the constitution and not a moral code. Morals onlt extend to the individual and not the majority of the people.
 
ecofarm said:
Without an interaction, there is no morality.
Click to expand...

By definition. But the interactions are happening between individuals. Interactions on the level of collectives - between corporations, churches or governments, for example, do not create a new moral content: it is still individuals within corresponding power structures who act morally or immorally.
 
ecofarm said:
Yes; thus, no further nonsense. Thanks and I bid thee a good day.
Click to expand...

Cheers,

- and an appeal to all "pollsters": provide some bloody definitions of the terms we are being asked to vote on.
 
The Bible wasn't written in English, there buddy. "Murder" IS the intention of the word.

Thank you for playing.

ecofarm said:
Ooooh, let's play "which Bible has the proper word?" !



EXODUS 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.


Just accept that no one, except Christ, can satisfy the Law. Pretending the Law can save you is foolish.
Click to expand...

Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express
 
molten_dragon said:
In my opinion there is no objective morality.
Click to expand...
Many people feel that way, but the existence of subjective morality doesn't offer any insight as to whether or not objective morality exists.
 
mpg said:
Many people feel that way, but the existence of subjective morality doesn't offer any insight as to whether or not objective morality exists.
Click to expand...
Can you present any kind of evidence where something is and always has been morally wrong throughout all of human history? My bet is, you can't. Somewhere at some time whatever it might be you think is universal was against the "natural order of things" for some culture.
 
had to vote other because its different for everybody

the fact is morals are subjective

for me it may be MY god, society,nature
for you it might be, YOUR god, nature
for someone else it might be Family, Nature , Society
and then all those things are different to everyone
etc etc etc

they are made up based on where you choose or were taught to recognize them from
 
MoSurveyor said:
Can you present any kind of evidence where something is and always has been morally wrong throughout all of human history? My bet is, you can't. Somewhere at some time whatever it might be you think is universal was against the "natural order of things" for some culture.
Click to expand...
Some things boil down to core values. What I feel in my heart doesn't require evidence. I feel in my heart that objective morality exists. If your morals apply to others, they aren't just your morals.
 
Cyrylek said:
No, I don't. I am saying that "fairness" is subjective, and cannot be a cornerstone of morality. Let's stick with the axiomatic value of life and of freedom of choice.
Click to expand...

Of course fairness is subjective but no more than the concept of law, morality or freedom of choice. Fairness implies equitable treatment dictated by reason, conscience, and free from self-interest, or preference in judgment. Almost all of society is based on the concept of fair treatment enforced by the legal system.
 
"Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.

Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?

Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.

Susan: So we can believe the big ones?

Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.

Susan: They're not the same at all.

Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged."

That about sums it up.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Can you present any kind of evidence where something is and always has been morally wrong throughout all of human history?.
Click to expand...

Do we agree that humans - objectively, universally and distinctively - are sentient, and possess volition and the ability to make choices?

Do we agree that whatever particulars one or the other moral system may embrace, making choices is central to the very notion of morality - and to the very fabric of human experience?

Do we agree that an individual (a grown, mentally competent adult, at any rate) who is denied his freedom of choice is being wronged, whatever his choices are, if they do no harm to other individuals?

If you answer yes to all three - there you go. Coercion is and always had been morally wrong, ever since the dawn of human sapience.
 
Cyrylek said:
Do we agree that humans - objectively, universally and distinctively - are sentient, and possess volition and the ability to make choices
Click to expand...

No.

Do we agree that whatever particulars one or the other moral system may embrace, making choices is central to the very notion of morality - and to the very fabric of human experience?
Click to expand...

I suppose.

Do we agree that an individual (a grown, mentally competent adult, at any rate) who is denied his freedom of choice is being wronged, whatever his choices are, if they do no harm to other individuals?
Click to expand...

No.

If you answer yes to all three - there you go. Coercion is and always had been morally wrong, ever since the dawn of human sapience.
Click to expand...

Just because it was doesn't mean it is and vice versa.
 
grip said:
Of course fairness is subjective but no more than the concept of law, morality or freedom of choice..
Click to expand...

Freedom of choice is not subjective at all. It is an observable reality of human condition, along with such features as memory, instinctual urges or ability for abstract thinking. Morality centered on freedom of choice is not subjective either.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
No.



I suppose.
Click to expand...

You don't believe that humans have the ability to make choices, but agree that making choices is central to the human experience?

Fascinating.
 
Cyrylek said:
You don't believe that humans have the ability to make choices, but agree that making choices is central to the human experience?

Fascinating.
Click to expand...

They don't objectively have the ability to make choices. It's also not distinctive. Other animals make choices, too.
 
I don't agree that society sets morality. Would americans in the 20's and 30's have thought they were damned if they drank? Did Galileo think he was damned for disagreeing that the earth was the center of the universe?

Nations attempt to set acceptable ideology through legislation.
 
Cyrylek said:
Freedom of choice is not subjective at all. It is an observable reality of human condition, along with such features as memory, instinctual urges or ability for abstract thinking. Morality centered on freedom of choice is not subjective either.
Click to expand...

Freedom of choice according to whom? If the state or law says you can't choose to have whatever you want, then your freedom is based on subjective limitations. Your definitions aren't holding water.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
They don't objectively have the ability to make choices.
Click to expand...

Sure they do.

You could make other choices than writing this sentence. Write something else, write nothing, add an exclamation sigh at the end, etc, etc...

You were not driven by any automatic response program or animal instinct, and your action was way too specific and meaningful to be randomly generated.

You have made a choice, and have demonstrated (in a millionth time) that your ability to make choices does demonstrably, objectively exist. It will not stop existing if you choose to deny this fact.
 
Cyrylek said:
Sure they do.

You could make other choices than writing this sentence. Write something else, write nothing, add an exclamation sigh at the end, etc, etc...

You were not driven by any automatic response program or animal instinct, and your action was way too specific and meaningful to be randomly generated.

You have made a choice, and have demonstrated (in a millionth time) that your ability to make choices does demonstrably, objectively exist. It will not stop existing if you choose to deny this fact.
Click to expand...

Me being able to ≠ all humans have the ability. Although, subjectivity does work the other way. What about those people in a coma? Those with alien hand or anarchic hand syndrome? They don't have choices.

Also, how do you know it was not animal instinct? There are evolutionary advantages to arguing to establish dominance.
 
grip said:
Freedom of choice according to whom? If the state or law says you can't choose to have whatever you want, then your freedom is based on subjective limitations. Your definitions aren't holding water.
Click to expand...

Not to "whom", to "what" - to the nature of the phenomenon.

If the law is not immoral, the limitations will be dictated but that very nature: you cannot have whatever you want, only whatever you want that does not deny freedom of choice to other people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom