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 16 of 20 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 191

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

  1. #151
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,045

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    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.
    FFS there is no damn plague no perceived threat (no vampires or any other fictional BS) just normal people eating french fries....

    Or if my scenario isnt to your liking I offer you a new one: Your best friend who has done nothing wrong towards you or anyone in existence or not, Your friend is a very good person to you and everyone in your perspective. There isnt any reason to kill your friend, logical or otherwise. There are no religious reasons or any other reason to kill this person. All of those reasons that you listed do not exist. We are in a unique perspective of just two people that have none of that stuff that you are going on about. You have a gun on the table. Why would you not kill your best friend? Is it because you love your friend? You do have a emotional bond with that person indeed. But what if you were in the same room but the person was not a friend, in fact you knew for a fact that they killed your best friend. Some people will kill that person because of the same love that kept you from killing your best friend. Or at least they like to believe that they would. And indeed it is easier for some people to kill other people than some. WHy is it easier for some people to kill other people? Like you said perspective? Or is there something more to the story? Something biological?

    Homicide isnt ok just because that was your perspective. If a killer lacks the capacity to have empathy that is a biological/mental problem not merely a different perspective. Historically we can see that the majority of mankind knows what is right and what is wrong. Sure there are details that are far off, but the societies that had the perspective that killing is fine for everyone in any situation are far and few inbetween, a minority, flukes. Even today killers are the minority. The majority of humans alive today would not walk into just any room and kill everyone inside. For whatever perspective rational. A minority (of humans) would though.

  2. #152
    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?

    Beliefs, religious beliefs are subjective. You cannot prove them, whether you think you can or not is irrelevant.

    Christianity was not the only belief system that had morality different than those that accepted infanticide or genocide or blood sports. Heck, in a way, we accept blood sports as fine as long as the people agree to do it willingly. And Christians have participated in genocides and some even today still try to push for certain genocides, such as killing off homosexuals or those of a different religious belief or who have no religious beliefs. In fact, until the beliefs that led to this country, Christians had very little problem with pagans or those of other religious beliefs being seen as subhumans or not worthy of life. Justified by, "we're spreading our beliefs", "we're protecting others from these beliefs".

    You mention Rome yet fail to admit that Egypt didn't practice infanticide at all. They existed prior to Christianity. And they strongly opposed infanticide. In fact, several pre-Christian cultures were against infanticide.

    Christianity didn't abolish anything if the only reason it wasn't as commonly practiced was because they felt the need to convert everyone to Christianity then couldn't own them unless they could justify certain people not being "human" and therefore not truly Christian (as was done by many).

    There are Christians in this world that still condone those things we have been discussing. Many Christians have no issue with killing of some form or another, depending on how it can be justified.
    "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.

  3. #153
    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
    FFS there is no damn plague no perceived threat (no vampires or any other fictional BS) just normal people eating french fries....

    Or if my scenario isnt to your liking I offer you a new one: Your best friend who has done nothing wrong towards you or anyone in existence or not, Your friend is a very good person to you and everyone in your perspective. There isnt any reason to kill your friend, logical or otherwise. There are no religious reasons or any other reason to kill this person. All of those reasons that you listed do not exist. We are in a unique perspective of just two people that have none of that stuff that you are going on about. You have a gun on the table. Why would you not kill your best friend? Is it because you love your friend? You do have a emotional bond with that person indeed. But what if you were in the same room but the person was not a friend, in fact you knew for a fact that they killed your best friend. Some people will kill that person because of the same love that kept you from killing your best friend. Or at least they like to believe that they would. And indeed it is easier for some people to kill other people than some. WHy is it easier for some people to kill other people? Like you said perspective? Or is there something more to the story? Something biological?

    Homicide isnt ok just because that was your perspective. If a killer lacks the capacity to have empathy that is a biological/mental problem not merely a different perspective. Historically we can see that the majority of mankind knows what is right and what is wrong. Sure there are details that are far off, but the societies that had the perspective that killing is fine for everyone in any situation are far and few inbetween, a minority, flukes. Even today killers are the minority. The majority of humans alive today would not walk into just any room and kill everyone inside. For whatever perspective rational. A minority (of humans) would though.
    You aren't making any sense. It would depend on the person as to whether they felt it was morally justified to kill that person. Are you stuck in the room with little to eat? Is it a matter of kill that person or don't leave the room? It all depends on the circumstances of the situation, no matter if you want to try to make it out like there is no reasoning behind something. Morals are still based on individual viewpoints. Still subjective.
    "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. #154
    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, religious beliefs are subjective. You cannot prove them, whether you think you can or not is irrelevant.

    Christianity was not the only belief system that had morality different than those that accepted infanticide or genocide or blood sports. Heck, in a way, we accept blood sports as fine as long as the people agree to do it willingly. And Christians have participated in genocides and some even today still try to push for certain genocides, such as killing off homosexuals or those of a different religious belief or who have no religious beliefs. In fact, until the beliefs that led to this country, Christians had very little problem with pagans or those of other religious beliefs being seen as subhumans or not worthy of life. Justified by, "we're spreading our beliefs", "we're protecting others from these beliefs".

    You mention Rome yet fail to admit that Egypt didn't practice infanticide at all. They existed prior to Christianity. And they strongly opposed infanticide. In fact, several pre-Christian cultures were against infanticide.

    Christianity didn't abolish anything if the only reason it wasn't as commonly practiced was because they felt the need to convert everyone to Christianity then couldn't own them unless they could justify certain people not being "human" and therefore not truly Christian (as was done by many).

    There are Christians in this world that still condone those things we have been discussing. Many Christians have no issue with killing of some form or another, depending on how it can be justified.
    Again, no. Beliefs are objective. Whether one regards a certain set of beliefs as being "true" or not is what is ultimately subjective.

    In any eventuality, however, the Egyptians - and Jews - were the exception, not the rule. They were widely regarded as such.

    Frankly, even then, it is hardly deniable that the opposition to infanticide they both displayed was due to absolutist moral prohibitions, rather than the more "laissez-faire" approaches adopted by other societies of the same era, and many others today.

    While Christian moral belief certainly doesn't make a person immune to wrong-doing, there can little doubt that it holds its members to a far higher moral standard than the vast majority of systems which proceeded it. There can also be little doubt that this fact has had a positive impact on Western culture as a whole.

    For example, while Christians might not be fully "innocent" where matters of genocide or atrocity are concerned, the system can be observed to be one of the few of its era (and even today, really) which actively preached that such actions were objectively wrong, and should be avoided as such. At least one later Roman/Byzantine Emperor, to use merely one example, was publicly denounced and snubbed by the Church for his genocidal actions in suppressing a revolt, only to be allowed back into the fold once he had made an open show of repentance for the "sin." Likewise, even European atrocities in the Americas did not go unnoticed by the Christian moral guardians of their era, nor did they always go unpunished (though, unfortunately, sheer distance, and lack of real political power prevented more meaningful prohibition).

    It is from those moral attitudes and prohibitions that the modern Western understanding of "moral" conduct, and even the concept of "human rights" itself, derives. You cannot deny that.

    What the average Westerner today considers to represent "civilized" society is intrinsically tied to the, rather absolutist, Judeo-Christian foundations of their culture whether they like it or not.
    Last edited by Gathomas88; 01-16-15 at 01:14 PM.

  5. #155
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,045

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    You aren't making any sense. It would depend on the person as to whether they felt it was morally justified to kill that person. Are you stuck in the room with little to eat? Is it a matter of kill that person or don't leave the room? It all depends on the circumstances of the situation, no matter if you want to try to make it out like there is no reasoning behind something. Morals are still based on individual viewpoints. Still subjective.
    Have fun with moving those goal posts farther and farther. Its like you cannot accept a thought experiment that has boundaries. I tried to make those boundaries clear and concise but I guess that made no sense to you so you just move them goal posts to make your argument valid.

  6. #156
    Educator Uncensored2008's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    06-02-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    655

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Donc View Post
    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.
    What I would like to see, is freedom of speech.

    The idea that PAC's can be silenced with the party run media and unions campaign without restraint is the worst situation I can think of.

  7. #157
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Beliefs, religious beliefs are subjective. You cannot prove them, whether you think you can or not is irrelevant.
    What I take from this simple paragraph is that anything you believe is objective, and anything you don't believe is subjective.
    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.

  8. #158
    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
    Have fun with moving those goal posts farther and farther. Its like you cannot accept a thought experiment that has boundaries. I tried to make those boundaries clear and concise but I guess that made no sense to you so you just move them goal posts to make your argument valid.
    Because you fail to recognize that you are not trying to present a openminded thought experiment, but rather trying to get people to think like you do.

    You failed to establish any boundaries because they cannot really exist the way you wish them to when it comes to morality of actions especially when you don't provide any reasoning for the scenarios you are putting forth, despite the fact that reasoning is generally considered very important to the moral judgement of acts to most people.
    "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.

  9. #159
    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
    What I would like to see, is freedom of speech.

    The idea that PAC's can be silenced with the party run media and unions campaign without restraint is the worst situation I can think of.
    In other words your against running on ideas alone.That kinda goes against your "Libertarian"doesn'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

  10. #160
    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. Beliefs are objective. Whether one regards a certain set of beliefs as being "true" or not is what is ultimately subjective.

    In any eventuality, however, the Egyptians - and Jews - were the exception, not the rule. They were widely regarded as such.

    Frankly, even then, it is hardly deniable that the opposition to infanticide they both displayed was due to absolutist moral prohibitions, rather than the more "laissez-faire" approaches adopted by other societies of the same era, and many others today.

    While Christian moral belief certainly doesn't make a person immune to wrong-doing, there can little doubt that it holds its members to a far higher moral standard than the vast majority of systems which proceeded it. There can also be little doubt that this fact has had a positive impact on Western culture as a whole.

    For example, while Christians might not be fully "innocent" where matters of genocide or atrocity are concerned, the system can be observed to be one of the few of its era (and even today, really) which actively preached that such actions were objectively wrong, and should be avoided as such. At least one later Roman/Byzantine Emperor, to use merely one example, was publicly denounced and snubbed by the Church for his genocidal actions in suppressing a revolt, only to be allowed back into the fold once he had made an open show of repentance for the "sin." Likewise, even European atrocities in the Americas did not go unnoticed by the Christian moral guardians of their era, nor did they always go unpunished (though, unfortunately, sheer distance, and lack of real political power prevented more meaningful prohibition).

    It is from those moral attitudes and prohibitions that the modern Western understanding of "moral" conduct, and even the concept of "human rights" itself, derives. You cannot deny that.

    What the average Westerner today considers to represent "civilized" society is intrinsically tied to the, rather absolutist, Judeo-Christian foundations of their culture whether they like it or not.
    Except not all Christians preached that such actions were wrong, or that certain things were wrong.

    Also, the beliefs are subjective. There is really no objectivity to saying "I believe that God exists". You cannot prove that God does or does not exist, so that makes such a statement subjective, making the belief itself subjective. It may be a fact that the person saying this might be actually believe that God exists, but that doesn't mean that you could even prove that the person truly believes that, let alone that the belief itself is true.

    And Christianity didn't start many of the moral viewpoints it adapted, only gathered them up from other cultures, adding to them as it grew.

    I can absolutely deny that Christianity came up with the concept of human rights. Some people, some of which were Christian, came up with what we see as important human rights, but that is not because of their Christianity. It simply evolved out of the prevailing path that people were following.
    "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.

Page 16 of 20 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... 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
  •