• 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!

Do you have a personal concept of right and wrong?

Do you believe in morality?


  • Total voters
    59
A few of our posters seem to think that those who have certain ideologies are moral nihilists. For example, they believe that liberals are moral nihilists and thus liberals believe that nothing is either moral or immoral.

The definition of moral is below for purposes of this poll:

moral: Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

So the question is, are you personally concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior in regards to your own actions and the goodness or badness of your own character?

Out of curiosity, if everyone gets to define right and wrong in their own terms then isn't the whole concept of a definition pretty much a waste of time?
 
Everything depends on how everything else is framed a wise man once said.


Try to see it this way:


-Is the shy, outwardly conservative chemical engineer who never got laid in HS or college who paid for 5-10 prostitutes up until marriage to his wife, is he a nihilist?

-Is the extroverted, outwardly liberal attorney who bedded 87 women until marriage to his wife, is he any more a nihilist than the above guy?




How many truly conservative people have you met who could really be called, throughout their whole life, "sexually or morally pure" if we knew their whole past? I doubt it's many at all.
 
If morality exists and it is subjective in nature then all moral determinations of what is right and wrong have no importance outside of the person that has made those determinations. Why should I care if you find my action to be morally repugnant and why should you care if I find your action to be morally repugnant? I see no reason for either of us to care what the other finds to be morally offensive if morality is nothing more than opinion. It is completely worthless in debate and completely worthless as any sort of way to determine anything

If morality is nothing but opinion then there is no such thing as anything being moral or immoral and thus the entirely concept is completely useless.

2 things.
1 As individuals your morals can tell you and often do to consider others.
2. Societal morals exist and are also subjective. Societal morals are those generally agreed upon by the majority of a society. So yes it is important within that society but may be different between societies.
These change depending on where/when you are talking about. If they change they are subjective.
This is why for example, stoning a woman for infedelity is/was moral in some societies but isnt in modern western society.
 
Out of curiosity, if everyone gets to define right and wrong in their own terms then isn't the whole concept of a definition pretty much a waste of time?

Where did I argue that everyone simply gets to pick and choose their concept of right and wrong as though it were a cafeteria?
 
Starting in the early 90's, but particularly growing under Clinton, the American democratic party underwent a deliberate transformation to shed all ethics and integrity. Essentially, "right" is defined as that which serves the party, "wrong" is that which harms or goes against the party.

I view the more partisan democrats as essentially without ethics, without a code to guide moral choices.
 
Based on what? You can't just say something. If you want to be taken seriously when making a blanket statement about an entire group of people, then you need to back it up. If its your contention that many if not most liberals are moral nihilists, then you need to define what you mean by a moral nihilist and provide some evidence to back up your contention.

My observation of the left is that ethics are situational at best. Is lying wrong? That depends, does the lie serve the party? If so lying is good. Is harming others wrong? That depends, does the harm inflicted serve the goals of the party? If so, harming others is good.

From what I can tell, the credo of the democratic party is that good and bad are only measures of that which serves the party.
 
I think many lefties are.

Many righties are too, they just run around pretending to be moral, but then never act in accordance to it. Morality is just a political talking point for many Republocrats.
 
I'm so sad...

7342dc3c4d9a5f0bd6ee6072d421376224f5f2c80949da3ae927a49ee4e17466.jpg
 
Lol @ people on the internet tying the vagaries of morality to a political spectrum.. That's like saying my brand of microwave is better than your brand of microwave. It's silly and childish.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ment-former-mistress-latest-spat-ex-wife.html

Mark Sanford reveals he’s called off engagement to Argentinian ‘soulmate’ mistress for whom he divorced wife in scandal that ruined his White House dreams
Sanford said in a Facebook post on Friday that he and mistress turned fiancee Maria Belen Chapur had ended their relationship
The announcement came a week and a half after Sanford's ex-wife suggested her former husband does illegal and prescription drugs
In the 2,346 Facebook post Sanford claims he has never done drugs and says the accusations made by former spouse are 'crazy'



You can always tell the idiots in a room by who labels peoples morality by their political affiliations. It's idiocy defined. Can you imagine if you were able to pull up all the sexual doings of the average "Conservative Grand Puba" on this board who tie morality to political conservatism? My god.. You can begin to imagine what I mean. People are hypocrites and delusional when it comes to notions of morality.

FtjvGEG.gif
 
Last edited:
My observation of the left is that ethics are situational at best. Is lying wrong? That depends, does the lie serve the party? If so lying is good. Is harming others wrong? That depends, does the harm inflicted serve the goals of the party? If so, harming others is good.

From what I can tell, the credo of the democratic party is that good and bad are only measures of that which serves the party.

My observation is that people that make statements like the one you did above are blindly partisan.
 
I would say I have a sense of morality... but it has changed over time as I have. For instance, when I returned from leave at work, I noticed that the garage I parked in still let me in even though I hadn't paid. I could have used that pass until they figured out that it should have been inactive (and who knows how long that would have been), but I called the garage and got my monthly payments set back up. Here's the question though: Would I have done that a few years ago when I was working for $10 an hour and getting no respect? I can't say for sure.

However, I would say that I failed a lot of tests of morality from the age of 17-22. I wasn't a great kid then.
 
does morality change with age? i think so.......

i know i look at things differently now, than say 25-30 years ago

i am much more harsh on some items....i would personally put a bullet in the brain of every pedophile in prison...save the government millions...and wouldnt shed one tear doing it

I have personally seen the damage one monster can cause

i am very tough when it comes to business......hard to work for, and my expectations for people are always higher than what they would set for themselves

But i am a softie for charity events that come around......i try to help as much as i can

Things where i may have seen the grey 10-15 years ago, are now very black or white to me

What is the old saying.....if i only knew then, what i know now

take it from me.....things do change.....including on how you view the world
 
People don't seem to understand what nihilism actually is. Just because I don't think there is a concept in the universe itself for morality does not mean that I don't think there is an ethical standard amongst the human species, and an ideal amongst its individual members. The fact that it is not some sort of "ultimate law" doesn't change anything about practical life, emotion, or empathy as we experience it.

This is definitely something I've noticed a lot. Those who get upset about objective or subjective morality are always trying to compare human actions against a non-human set of rules. We certainly have rules and a sense of right and wrong, but it comes from our humanity. Plenty of people have different ideas and plenty of people make wrong decisions, but that has nothing to do with our species having an innate sense of what we think is right and what we thing is wrong. I think that it's part of our biology and our evolution. Most of our ideas of right and wrong come from cooperation vs selfishness. We evolved as a cooperative species and we value community and order because of our evolution, not because of something external to ourselves.

As you say elsewhere, the universe doesn't care. The world doesn't care. Nothing outside of humanity cares about humanity's morality. But having a morality is part of being human.

How many truly conservative people have you met who could really be called, throughout their whole life, "sexually or morally pure" if we knew their whole past? I doubt it's many at all.

What does the quantity of sexual partners a person has have to do with morality?
 
Everyone has morality, I don't think there is a human being no matter how psychotic or how vile they might be have some sense of morality. However I do believe morality is completely subjective to the person based on their upbringing, life experiences, teachings, and social pressure. Humanity just creates special snowflakes like that.

pretty much this
all though i dont agree its "everyone I do agree its "vast majority", there are some psychopaths that are completely broken

and yes regardless, the fact remains morals are subjective
while they may be objective per the individual, they are still subjective in reality and that fact wont change
 
Galatians 5:19-21

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Short list

John 8.7
 
My observation is that people that make statements like the one you did above are blindly partisan.

I'm blindly partisan because I spoke (truthfully) against your party?


{My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man’s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.} - Ayn Rand
 
2 things.
1 As individuals your morals can tell you and often do to consider others.
2. Societal morals exist and are also subjective. Societal morals are those generally agreed upon by the majority of a society. So yes it is important within that society but may be different between societies.
These change depending on where/when you are talking about. If they change they are subjective.
This is why for example, stoning a woman for infedelity is/was moral in some societies but isnt in modern western society.

Yes, so basically there is a certain amount of agreement between people on what is moral an what is not, but if morals are truly subjective then it would follow that this is just a result of social pressures and if those social pressures were different in a given society then the agreement on that issue will likely be different. See, this just shows how useless the concept truly is. If right and wrong are just opinion then neither society is in the right and neither society is in the wrong and thus there is no such thing as humane treatment or inhumane treatment and therefore no such thing as a justified human right declaration by any society nor can there ever be. Every last law or rule that has ever been or ever will is forever tyranny. The only logical choice therefore is to never act on moral views.
 
Yes, so basically there is a certain amount of agreement between people on what is moral an what is not,
Yup
but if morals are truly subjective then it would follow that this is just a result of social pressures and if those social pressures were different in a given society then the agreement on that issue will likely be different.
Nope I would say it has more to do with societal conditioning and upbringing than pessures.
Pressures can make you act a certain way, morals are the way you would act without pressure.

See, this just shows how useless the concept truly is. If right and wrong are just opinion then neither society is in the right and neither society is in the wrong and thus there is no such thing as humane treatment or inhumane treatment
Yes there such a thing as humane and inhumane, though we are digressing as morals are not the same as humane and inhumane treatment.
Not really sure how you made the leap from no society being right or wrong (they are, each society sees this from their point of view) to humane and inhumane treatment.
Back to morals, they arent universal to humanity, they are dependant upon a society. If they were universal then we could say they were absolute, they arent and we dont.

and therefore no such thing as a justified human right declaration by any society nor can there ever be.
I dont follow if every society has their morals why can`t they declare their perceptions of human rights?

Every last law or rule that has ever been or ever will is forever tyranny.
Why?
The only logical choice therefore is to never act on moral views.
The previous 2 questions must be answered before even bothering with this one.
 
Isn't that question pretty much the title of this thread?

Not at all. The question is do you personally believe in a moral code. Not what that moral code is. On some issues such as sexual morality, it is fairly subjective. Others such as honesty, stealing, murder, are not subjective.
 
I'm blindly partisan because I spoke (truthfully) against your party?


{My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man’s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.} - Ayn Rand

And you fail to realize that even Ayn Rand would not have agreed with your blanket partisan assessment. She saw those she disagreed with as being wrong, not always immoral.
 
If morality is truly subjective then it doesn't exist in any meaningful way and you probably shouldn't use it for anything.

Why? Agreeing with everyone else that killing people is bad makes for a much better society. Morals are subjective, but they serve a very real purpose.
 
Back
Top Bottom