View Poll Results: Do you believe in morality?

Voters
145. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    56 38.62%
  • No

    89 61.38%
Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 191

Thread: Do you have a personal concept of right and wrong?

  1. #141
    Jokes Are a Cry For Help.
    CMPancake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,961
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Do you have a personal concept of right and wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncensored2008 View Post
    You have a difficult time with words;

    sy·co·phant noun \ˈsi-kə-fənt also ˈsī- & -ˌfant\
    : a person who praises powerful people in order to get their approval


    Here is a word you really should learn;

    malapropism
    [mal-uh-prop-iz-uh m]

    noun
    1.
    an act or habit of misusing words ridiculously, especially by the confusion of words that are similar in sound.
    Your lack of self-awareness is laughable my friend. Continue bashing whatever happens in the Democratic party while ignoring it when the GOP does the same exact thing.

  2. #142
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    Re: Do you have a personal concept of right and wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncensored2008 View Post
    I spoke of net worth in regard to some leftist hack flinging the standard demagoguery of "party of the rich" out. I was pointing out that this too is a lie - one of the standard issue lies the party programs the drones to spew.

    Again I stress that I am not saying that Republicans don't lie - just that it isn't the central plank of the GOP platform the way it is with the demagogue party.
    What i would like to see is a limit on campaign spending.That way its kinda hard to get the lies out and BOTH parties would have run on ideas.Novel isn't it.
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  3. #143
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Do you have a personal concept of right and wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    First off, any system based off of "feeling" is going to be rather prone to failure and fallibility from the get-go. After all, "feelings" are subjective. Objective standards are not.

    Quite frankly, I think you also overestimate the sway empathy actually has over human behavior in general. Outside of the (largely Christian derived) "moral" pressures and socio-cultural conditioning our current society tends to enforce, shockingly casual forms of cruelty actually tend to be the norm.

    Even in the highly advanced and "civilized" societies of the Greeks and Romans, for example, genocide, infanticide, chattel slavery, blood-sport, and even murder (if the offender was of the right social class) tended to largely overlooked in favor of their supposedly "utilitarian" benefits.

    Secondly, while absolutist moral codes might not necessarily prevent rationalization outright, they certainly do play a role in enforcing a certain conformity of thought and belief which make the work in question significantly harder. An absolutist who behaves in a manner contrary to their beliefs often has to basically psychologically torture themselves to do so (i.e. 'Catholic Guilt').

    A relativist, by way of contrast, makes up the rules as they go along, and ultimately has no one to answer to but themselves. They can often justify anything them damn well please, without feeling any pang of conscience over it whatsoever, as such.

    Again, given the general fallibility of human reason and empathy, that's really not a "good" thing. It basically represents a conflict of interests between ego and id, which id tends to win more often than not.
    Beliefs are just as subjective. Human fallibility is just as likely to happen in writing religious texts or passing on very human stories, such as those found in religious texts. Killing is allowed in pretty much every society that has had Christianity as the ruling force just as pretty much any other type of ruling party. Many of those Christians in the past with power were corrupt and supported corruption or things that were wrong, including lying, stealing, killing, and so many other things. Many atrocities have been done in the name of Christianity despite having a "morality" set based on how they believed God wanted it set. Plus, the many different denominations of Christianity show how that moral compass differs so greatly even among Christians. Many of those who have lynched people in the past were devout Christians who simply justified their actions as not immoral. Slavery was easily justified as fine by God (which is actually supported within the Bible). Children have been viewed differently from now to even just 100 or so years ago (a girl was basically a "woman", no longer a child, when she started her period, around 12 or 13, younger for some, a boy could be a man at 12/13, particularly if he was the oldest male of the household).

    And Romans and Greeks didn't exactly have nothing to base their morality off of. They had religious beliefs as well.

    Despite popular Christian belief, Christians didn't invent morality or come up with these morals that work best for society. They existed in many places already. It is just that when some people or groups gain power they tend to ignore that moral code that helps to keep us better in favor of this new power, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #144
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Do you have a personal concept of right and wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Beliefs are just as subjective.
    To the contrary, beliefs, especially those which have been codified, are "objective" by their very nature. What's "subjective" is any given individual's opinion of those beliefs, and the degree of credence they lend to them.

    Either way regardless, this doesn't change the nature of my original point. Beliefs which find a foundation in something tangible, and which are instilled in a person as being unequivocally true, are a bit harder to psychologically wiggle one's way away from than beliefs which are, for all intents and purposes, purely arbitrary standards a person invents for themselves.

    Killing is allowed in pretty much every society that has had Christianity as the ruling force just as pretty much any other type of ruling party.
    Killing is not always wrong.

    Many of those Christians in the past with power were corrupt and supported corruption or things that were wrong, including lying, stealing, killing, and so many other things. Many atrocities have been done in the name of Christianity despite having a "morality" set based on how they believed God wanted it set. Plus, the many different denominations of Christianity show how that moral compass differs so greatly even among Christians. Many of those who have lynched people in the past were devout Christians who simply justified their actions as not immoral. Slavery was easily justified as fine by God (which is actually supported within the Bible). Children have been viewed differently from now to even just 100 or so years ago (a girl was basically a "woman", no longer a child, when she started her period, around 12 or 13, younger for some, a boy could be a man at 12/13, particularly if he was the oldest male of the household).

    And Romans and Greeks didn't exactly have nothing to base their morality off of. They had religious beliefs as well.

    Despite popular Christian belief, Christians didn't invent morality or come up with these morals that work best for society. They existed in many places already. It is just that when some people or groups gain power they tend to ignore that moral code that helps to keep us better in favor of this new power, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    I don't believe I ever claimed that Christianity was any kind of "cure" for human wrong-doing in the first place. Corruption exists everywhere, and always will so long as human beings possess free will.

    Objectively speaking, however, the fact that Christian influence DID do away with quite a few practices which modern society would find to be absolutely appalling - from "Sutti" in India, to mass human sacrifice in the Americas, to blood sport and slavery in Europe, to infanticide pretty much everywhere - is undeniable. It is also undeniable that the two most high profile political ideologies in recent history to try and completely distance themselves from that cultural heritage - Nazism and Red Communism - resulted in abject horror, and body counts the likes of which the world had never before seen.

    Now, granted, from a nihilistic standpoint, it could be easily argued that all of that is irrelevant, as the only reason we think of those things as being "wrong" in the first place is explicitly because we happen to be living in a society and culture which have been heavily influenced by Christian values. However, that kind of goes back to my original point.

    Would you really want to go back to any of those things I mentioned? Like it or not, you owe more of your worldview and morality to the "status quo" Christianity was responsible for bringing about than you might want to admit.

  5. #145
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,041

    Re: Do you have a personal concept of right and wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    What if someone released a deadly disease within that McDonalds that had no cure and the people were all trying to get out due to panicking? Do you allow them to exit or kill them all rather than risking spreading the deadly disease? It may seem straight forward and we should always try to save people whenever possible but not everyone acts rationally in such situations and they could prove to become a major risk to a much larger population. Maybe someone believes that the McDs is full of vampires and they have to stop them before they kill off or enslave humanity. To them killing those people (vampires) inside that McDonalds is not morally wrong since it would save a lot more people by doing so.
    And what if godzilla was human sized and brought all his buddies in for some big macs? I know that I didnt lay out a detailed scenario for who was inside McDonalds and that left open the door for a bunch of what ifs, but really its just a regular fast food joint with regular people in it, not some crazy scenario drummed up.

    EIther way though even if there were bunches of crazies eating at McDonalds, if you went in and killed them all just because, you felt like it, it isnt common place to do such a thing. Most people that have wide differences in beliefs would not go around on a killing spree. You can philosophize on why people dont go on killing spree's and not the obvious things like punishment etc, but many people are in situations everyday where they could away with something like that, yet they do not. ANd the fact that humans are still on Earth seems to indicate that humans know the basics of right and wrong.

  6. #146
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Do you have a personal concept of right and wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    To the contrary, beliefs, especially those which have been codified, are "objective" by their very nature. What's "subjective" is any given individual's opinion of those beliefs, and the degree of credence they lend to them.

    Either way regardless, this doesn't change the nature of my original point. Beliefs which find a foundation in something tangible, and which are instilled in a person as being unequivocally true, are a bit harder to psychologically wiggle one's way away from than beliefs which are, for all intents and purposes, purely arbitrary standards a person invents for themselves.



    Killing is not always wrong.



    I don't believe I ever claimed that Christianity was any kind of "cure" for human wrong-doing in the first place. Corruption exists everywhere, and always will so long as human beings possess free will.

    Objectively speaking, however, the fact that Christian influence DID do away with quite a few practices which modern society would find to be absolutely appalling - from "Sutti" in India, to mass human sacrifice in the Americas, to blood sport and slavery in Europe, to infanticide pretty much everywhere - is undeniable. It is also undeniable that the two most high profile political ideologies in recent history to try and completely distance themselves from that cultural heritage - Nazism and Red Communism - resulted in abject horror, and body counts the likes of which the world had never before seen.

    Now, granted, from a nihilistic standpoint, it could be easily argued that all of that is irrelevant, as the only reason we think of those things as being "wrong" in the first place is explicitly because we happen to be living in a society and culture which have been heavily influenced by Christian values. However, that kind of goes back to my original point.

    Would you really want to go back to any of those things I mentioned? Like it or not, you owe more of your worldview and morality to the "status quo" Christianity was responsible for bringing about than you might want to admit.
    Beliefs by their definition are subjective. They wouldn't be beliefs if you could prove them, had objective evidence for them.

    You seem to believe that it is only because of Christianity that people didn't do those "bad" things. That simply isn't true. People knew those things hurt others and most likely didn't believe those things were right yet still continued to convince themselves they were okay for selfish purposes until Christianity gave them a better "prize" than whatever selfish thing allowed them to believe that sacrifices and other things were okay.

    You act as if things like infanticide or blood sport were widespread. They weren't. And Christianity did not end slavery. Not all Native Americans believed in "mass human sacrifice". Very few did. You seem to believe that without Christianity, most people would still be doing those things today, which simply isn't logical. There are many cultures and religions that didn't believe in doing those things you mentioned prior to Christianity becoming popular. Some didn't even believe in slaves, whereas Christianity, especially early Christianity, had no moral conflict with slavery. For almost 1800 years, Christians accepted slavery as a part of life with really little moral implications past how slaves were treated.

    It isn't likely that we would still have those "bad" things that you mention even if Christianity didn't exist. Humans grow with time as a group. We learn to become more cooperative and less selfish as we age. It doesn't require religion to do, but religious beliefs, of pretty much any kind, help because they give people a structure of rules that they can live by. But this goes for most religious beliefs. Do you honestly think that more Buddhists believed that slavery, especially owning slaves for their lives, was morally okay or even right than Christians in the past? Do you think that only Christians valued infants enough not to kill them or valued human life enough not to kill it? Heck it could easily be said that Jesus himself was a human sacrifice approved of by Christianity. There are Christians in many places, including some here in the US, that feel that killing certain human beings would please God or at the very least would not be morally wrong. Is that really that different than human sacrifice?

    Look at Russia. They are embracing Christianity more fundamentally and at the same time oppressing many more people in the name of those religious beliefs.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #147
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Do you have a personal concept of right and wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    And what if godzilla was human sized and brought all his buddies in for some big macs? I know that I didnt lay out a detailed scenario for who was inside McDonalds and that left open the door for a bunch of what ifs, but really its just a regular fast food joint with regular people in it, not some crazy scenario drummed up.

    EIther way though even if there were bunches of crazies eating at McDonalds, if you went in and killed them all just because, you felt like it, it isnt common place to do such a thing. Most people that have wide differences in beliefs would not go around on a killing spree. You can philosophize on why people dont go on killing spree's and not the obvious things like punishment etc, but many people are in situations everyday where they could away with something like that, yet they do not. ANd the fact that humans are still on Earth seems to indicate that humans know the basics of right and wrong.
    No, it was a scenario that you were trying to use to say how wrong killing was. But without the reasons for the killing, then it is impossible to determine if it would be wrong or not for the vast majority of people. And not every one of those people would agree on whether all the various reasons for those killings were morally justified or not. This is important. Some people would say that it would be morally justified, okay to kill a McDonalds full of people to avoid spreading a plague. Others would say that it was morally the right thing to do and not doing it would be morally wrong. Others would say that it was morally unjustified even given the circumstances. It is likely that fewer people would say that killing a McDs because a person' believed they were all vampires or soon to be vampires would be morally right but it would still be at a different moral level than a person who simply thought it would be fun or did so in the name of their religious beliefs. But that guy/gal doing so in the name of their religious or ideological beliefs and likely those who share those beliefs are going to almost certainly believe that their actions were morally justified due to their fight. Perspective is important when it comes to morality.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #148
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Do you have a personal concept of right and wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Beliefs by their definition are subjective
    Again, no. They are not.

    "The sky is blue" is not a subjective statement. It is objective.

    The only thing which is subjective is any given individual's perception of that statement.

    You seem to believe that it is only because of Christianity that people didn't do those "bad" things. People knew those things hurt others and most likely didn't believe those things were right yet still continued to convince themselves they were okay for selfish purposes until Christianity gave them a better "prize" than whatever selfish thing allowed them to believe that sacrifices and other things were okay.
    "Christianity didn't stop these things."

    Followed immediately afterwards by...

    "Christianity stopped these things because it offered a better alternative."

    You realize that is a self-contradictory position, right?

    You act as if things like infanticide or blood sport were widespread
    Infanticide was incredibly wide spread in the Roman empire, and the pagan world in general. As a matter of fact, it was probably rather similar to abortion today, if not worse.

    That's actually where the practice of "presenting" a child to its father immediately after birth originates. It was the father's responsibility to inspect the child, and make sure that it was up to the standards of his household. If he were to deem it to be insufficient or unwanted, it was his right to kill the child.

    This was usually done by leaving it to die in the wilds, which was viewed as being "okay" because the parents could always fall back on the excuse that they did not kill the child with their own hands, or that someone else might happen along and raise the child instead (The reasoning sound familiar at all?).

    The practice was not made into a Capital offense until after Constantine made Christianity the Empire's official religion in the 4th Century.

    Now, granted, this might not have stopped the exposure of infants wholesale in the Middle Ages (people are still assholes, after all). However, Christianity did, at the very least, care enough to widely preach against the practice, as well as to establish the first orphanages for abandoned children.

    Those attitudes also stuck around until social circumstances improved enough that the practice could be ended outright (only to be replaced by the 'out of sight, out of mind' evil of abortion a few decades later, unfortunately ). Countries who wanted to gain favor with the West during the Colonial and post-Colonial period largely did so by following suit, and adopting Western style legal codes which banned these and other practices.

    Likewise, Roman bloodsport was, in many cases, a mandatory and expected part of public life, and subsidized from the highest echelons of Imperial power as such. They were prolific enough to drive several species of Mediterranean mega-fauna to extinction, in point of fact.

    Like infanticide, the games were only officially banned in the 4th Century, when Christianity became the religion of the Empire.

    Christianity did not end slavery
    Christianity ending the holding slaves in Europe as a common practice, for the simple reason that it was generally forbidden to "own" another Christian.

    Slavery did not really make a return until the Colonial Era. Frankly, even there, it actually started not as slavery, but as a (failed) attempt to basically introduce the Feudal system to the New World. It only reached the point of becoming full-on institutionalized chattel slavery afterwards, in a period of history which coincides with the weakening of religious power, and the dawn of the "Enlightenment."

    Not all Native Americans believed in "mass human sacrifice"
    Thousands (and possibly tens of thousands) were sacrificed on an annual basis in S. and C. America. In N. America, there is evidence to suggest that the practice was at least as wide spread as it was among the pagan Germanic and Celtic tribes of Europe.

    Humans grow with time as a group. We learn to become more cooperative and less selfish as we age.
    You're aware that a lot of people still do these things even today, right? They tend to be most common in culturally non-Christian (or, at the very least, non-Abrahamic) regions.

    Hunter-gatherers, for example, have practiced infanticide since time immemorial, and some still practice slavery. Infanticide tends to still be common in rural China and India as well. A number of African peoples also still practice human sacrifice, some of them in countries which might otherwise appear to be rather outwardly "civilized."

    For that matter, who says that evil is incapable of being "cooperative" anyway?

    Again, I think you under-estimate the influence Judeo-Christian moral values have actually had in shaping your view of the world.
    Last edited by Gathomas88; 01-16-15 at 11:49 AM.

  9. #149
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Do you have a personal concept of right and wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    Again, no. They are not.

    "The sky is blue" is not a subjective statement. It is objective.

    The only thing which is subjective is any given individual's perception of that statement.



    "Christianity didn't stop these things."

    Followed immediately afterwards by...

    "Christianity stopped these things because it offered a better alternative."

    You realize that is a self-contradictory position, right?



    Infanticide was incredibly wide spread in the Roman empire, and the pagan world in general. As a matter of fact, it was probably rather similar to abortion today, if not worse.

    That's actually where the practice of "presenting" a child to its father immediately after birth originates. It was the father's responsibility to inspect the child, and make sure that it was up to the standards of his household. If he were to deem it to be insufficient or unwanted, it was his right to kill the child.

    This was usually done by leaving it to die in the wilds, which was viewed as being "okay" because the parents could always fall back on the excuse that they did not kill the child with their own hands, or that someone else might happen along and raise the child instead (The reasoning sound familiar at all?).

    The practice was not made into a Capital offense until after Constantine made Christianity the Empire's official religion in the 4th Century.

    Now, granted, this might not have stopped the exposure of infants wholesale in the Middle Ages (people are still assholes, after all). However, Christianity did, at the very least, care enough to widely preach against the practice, as well as to establish the first orphanages for abandoned children.

    Those attitudes also stuck around until social circumstances improved enough that the practice could be ended outright (only to be replaced by the 'out of sight, out of mind' evil of abortion a few decades later, unfortunately ). Countries who wanted to gain favor with the West during the Colonial and post-Colonial period largely did so by following suit, and adopting Western style legal codes which banned these and other practices.

    Likewise, Roman bloodsport was, in many cases, a mandatory and expected part of public life, and subsidized from the highest echelons of Imperial power as such. They were prolific enough to drive several species of Mediterranean mega-fauna to extinction, in point of fact.

    Like infanticide, the games were only officially banned in the 4th Century, when Christianity became the religion of the Empire.



    Christianity ending the holding slaves in Europe as a common practice, for the simple reason that it was generally forbidden to "own" another Christian.

    Slavery did not really make a return until the Colonial Era. Frankly, even there, it actually started not as slavery, but as a (failed) attempt to basically introduce the Feudal system to the New World. It only reached the point of becoming full-on institutionalized chattel slavery afterwards, in a period of history which coincides with the weakening of religious power, and the dawn of the "Enlightenment."



    Thousands (and possibly tens of thousands) were sacrificed on an annual basis in S. and C. America. In N. America, there is evidence to suggest that the practice was at least as wide spread as it was among the pagan Germanic and Celtic tribes of Europe.



    You're aware that a lot of people still do these things even today, right? They tend to be most common in culturally non-Christian (or, at the very least, non-Abrahamic) regions.

    Hunter-gatherers, for example, have practiced infanticide since time immemorial, and some still practice slavery. Infanticide tends to still be common in rural China and India as well. A number of African peoples also still practice human sacrifice, some of them in countries which might otherwise appear to be rather outwardly "civilized."

    For that matter, who says that evil is incapable of being "cooperative" anyway?

    Again, I think you under-estimate the influence Judeo-Christian moral values have actually had in shaping your view of the world.
    Have to answer in a different post due to the length.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  10. #150
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,408

    Re: Do you have a personal concept of right and wrong?

    Q: Do you have a personal concept of right and wrong?

    A: Yes. Yes, I do.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •