• 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
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Donc said:
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.:thumbs:
Click to expand...

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.
 
roguenuke said:
Beliefs, religious beliefs are subjective. You cannot prove them, whether you think you can or not is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
What I take from this simple paragraph is that anything you believe is objective, and anything you don't believe is subjective.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
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.
Click to expand...

In other words your against running on ideas alone.That kinda goes against your "Libertarian"doesn't it?
 
Gathomas88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

At most, you'd could claim that a few pre-Christian pagan philosophers had vaguely similar ideas.

Again, however, they never really found teeth until the Christian Church came along and began enforcing them as being mandatory and objective aspects of social morality, rather than optional "philosophies" a person could either take or leave on their own initiative. There is also little denying that Western society, as a whole, was better off for it.

In any eventuality, the fact of the matter remains that concepts like "just war" and "human rights" originated in Christian cultures, and really no where else in any meaningful fashion. You can do with that knowledge what you will.

However, the correlation would seem to be strong enough to imply something more than mere coincidence, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Donc said:
In other words your against running on ideas alone.That kinda goes against your "Libertarian"doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Again, with the party media campaigning for the left 24/7 - the idea that citizens should be silenced just further the rule of the oligarchy.


I support civil liberties - which places me diametrically opposite the democrats, who are dedicated to ending all individual liberty.

These attacks on freedom of speech are just a small part of the overall war on civil rights the left is waging.
 
Gathomas88 said:
At most, you'd could claim that a few pre-Christian pagan philosophers had vaguely similar ideas.

Again, however, they never really found teeth until the Christian Church came along and began enforcing them as being mandatory and objective aspects of social morality, rather than optional "philosophies" a person could either take or leave on their own initiative. There is also little denying that Western society, as a whole, was better off for it.

In any eventuality, the fact of the matter remains that concepts like "just war" and "human rights" originated in Christian cultures, and really no where else in any meaningful fashion. You can do with the knowledge what you will.

However, the correlation would seem to be strong enough to imply something more than mere coincidence, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

The Christian church only gained teeth because of a very powerful person agreeing with their beliefs.

You are basically admitting that there was evolution outside of Christianity in rights, particularly that around freedom of religion since early Christianity was all about forcing people to believe as they did, to live by their rules.

There are plenty of aspects of Western society that could have been better off without Christian influence. None of us have any clue what would have happened to this world had Christianity not been forced on so many people. It is quite possible that people would have grown faster on their own, coming to realizations about treating their fellow humans better earlier, without Christians prohibiting some of this or condoning certain people being kept subservient, particularly giving some of those in power excuses to abuse that power under the guise of "divine right" or approval.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

To hell with my opinion then, I must think like you.

Thought experiments are not reality. Most are set up in a fashion to avoid endless debate over relentless distractions and goal post moving. If you dont like thought experiments then boom its gone dont get stuck on it. Move on. Thought experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I used the scenarios to convey a position, which I expanded on but you were too busy trying to bust the scenarios to bother debating any of those concepts. Look past the scenario to the big picture. The Homosapiens have historical objective evidence of knowing the basics of right and wrong as a species. We have a long history of disdaining certain activity and behaviour. On a individual level it is very subjective. In groups it is still subjective. In larger groups it is still subjective. As a whole though it is so subjective for our species that certain behaviour and actions are generally wrong. We are just animals and as such we behave as our species dictates in the grand scheme of categorical representational classification would have it. We can rationalize yes, we can choose to go against the grain, but that is individually subjective and doesnt change the anthropological view of our species (that which divides us from homo erectus etc and the difference between archaic homosapiens and modern homosapeins). We are a social species and like all social species there is a basic code the species adheres to (generally as a species). Behaviors and actions that threaten the species are frowned on and through evolutionary process kept at bay. If we start killing everyone that we see, and that were to become the norm then our species would not last very long. For humans the norm isnt to kill. How many people have you killed in your lifetime. How about the people that you know closely, how many people have they killed? If your answer is positive for either/or then you are a minority meaning that the majority of the people around you do not kill people for no reason or even for some reason. Then objectively humans think that killing is wrong.
 
roguenuke said:
The Christian church only gained teeth because of a very powerful person agreeing with their beliefs.

You are basically admitting that there was evolution outside of Christianity in rights, particularly that around freedom of religion since early Christianity was all about forcing people to believe as they did, to live by their rules.

There are plenty of aspects of Western society that could have been better off without Christian influence. None of us have any clue what would have happened to this world had Christianity not been forced on so many people. It is quite possible that people would have grown faster on their own, coming to realizations about treating their fellow humans better earlier, without Christians prohibiting some of this or condoning certain people being kept subservient, particularly giving some of those in power excuses to abuse that power under the guise of "divine right" or approval.
Click to expand...
:lol:

Look. All wishful thinking and anti-Christian mental gymnastics aside, the simple fact of the matter is that the changes in question here took place in Christianity societies, and only in Christian societies, or societies closely related to them.

The modern Western approach to morality is one, which at its core, owes its existence to the Abrahamic approach to objective social morality. That much is undeniable. I also don't think it's any coincidence that every attempt to go back to a more loosely regulated pre-Christian style of morality has resulted in the re-emergence of "socially acceptable" abuses and misbehaviors similar to those which existed in the pre-Christian world either.

Now, again, from a true nihilistic perspective, that is more or less irrelevant, as there's really no reason to consider the Abrahamic morality in question as necessarily being "correct" in the first place. However, trying to deny the role two thousand years of strictly enforced Abrahamic values have played in shaping your own - modern Western - culture, and the sense of "right and wrong" it has engendered is simply idiotic.

Even many secular philosophers and moralists have been forced to admit as much in recent years.
 
Last edited:
QUOTE Uncensored

Again, with the party media campaigning for the left 24/7 - the idea that citizens should be silenced just further the rule of the oligarchy.
Click to expand...

WELL!I also have disdain for this word "oligarchy" if we can agree on that we can also, perhaps, have a meeting of the minds.How would limiting contributions to,say $2000 dollars,be putting a crimp on the Koch brothers or Warren Buffets freedom of speech?:2wave:


I support civil liberties - which places me diametrically opposite the democrats, who are dedicated to ending all individual liberty
Click to expand...
.

What individual liberties have the Dems yanked off your table in the past?
 
Donc said:
WELL!I also have disdain for this word "oligarchy" if we can agree on that we can also, perhaps, have a meeting of the minds.How would limiting contributions to,say $2000 dollars,be putting a crimp on the Koch brothers or Warren Buffets freedom of speech?:2wave:


.

What individual liberties have the Dems yanked off your table in the past?
Click to expand...

I realize that the party holds out the Koch brothers as an icon for party drones to focus their hate on, but I have little concern over them. Their influence isn't in the same realm as the party run NY Times, ABNBCBS, CNN, primetime television.

Taking the little voice the people have through PAC's away ensures that the oligarchy rules uncontested.

Oh, and as for civil liberties the dims have attacked, how about the fire chief in Atlanta, perfect example of the intolerance of the party to the expression of any view other than that assigned by party bosses.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
I realize that the party holds out the Koch brothers as an icon for party drones to focus their hate on, but I have little concern over them. Their influence isn't in the same realm as the party run NY Times, ABNBCBS, CNN, primetime television.

Taking the little voice the people have through PAC's away ensures that the oligarchy rules uncontested.

Oh, and as for civil liberties the dims have attacked, how about the fire chief in Atlanta, perfect example of the intolerance of the party to the expression of any view other than that assigned by party bosses.
Click to expand...

So you’re dancing around the part of having a political party running on ideas instead of begging for political donations as soon as they are sworn in eh? Bytheway, didn’t they have hack available for a lean when you signed up at DP.
 
Right and wrong is relative if you take it Religiously, because of what religions believe. So if that's what moral is to some people then you cannot argue or really detest other people's morality. But however, the concept of right and wrong cannot exist without morality because it deals with ones conscience, now whether that persons conscience isn't agreeable is a question for another day
 
Gathomas88 said:
:lol:

Look. All wishful thinking and anti-Christian mental gymnastics aside, the simple fact of the matter is that the changes in question here took place in Christianity societies, and only in Christian societies, or societies closely related to them.

The modern Western approach to morality is one, which at its core, owes its existence to the Abrahamic approach to objective social morality. That much is undeniable. I also don't think it's any coincidence that every attempt to go back to a more loosely regulated pre-Christian style of morality has resulted in the re-emergence of "socially acceptable" abuses and misbehaviors similar to those which existed in the pre-Christian world either.

Now, again, from a true nihilistic perspective, that is more or less irrelevant, as there's really no reason to consider the Abrahamic morality in question as necessarily being "correct" in the first place. However, trying to deny the role two thousand years of strictly enforced Abrahamic values have played in shaping your own - modern Western - culture, and the sense of "right and wrong" it has engendered is simply idiotic.

Even many secular philosophers and moralists have been forced to admit as much in recent years.
Click to expand...

Your rant is completely deniable because it ignores other societies that had many of the same principles and it assumes that those principles that Christianity brought are all desirable morally and beneficial to people or that they were developed or supported by Christianity from its beginning.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
To hell with my opinion then, I must think like you.

Thought experiments are not reality. Most are set up in a fashion to avoid endless debate over relentless distractions and goal post moving. If you dont like thought experiments then boom its gone dont get stuck on it. Move on. Thought experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I used the scenarios to convey a position, which I expanded on but you were too busy trying to bust the scenarios to bother debating any of those concepts. Look past the scenario to the big picture. The Homosapiens have historical objective evidence of knowing the basics of right and wrong as a species. We have a long history of disdaining certain activity and behaviour. On a individual level it is very subjective. In groups it is still subjective. In larger groups it is still subjective. As a whole though it is so subjective for our species that certain behaviour and actions are generally wrong. We are just animals and as such we behave as our species dictates in the grand scheme of categorical representational classification would have it. We can rationalize yes, we can choose to go against the grain, but that is individually subjective and doesnt change the anthropological view of our species (that which divides us from homo erectus etc and the difference between archaic homosapiens and modern homosapeins). We are a social species and like all social species there is a basic code the species adheres to (generally as a species). Behaviors and actions that threaten the species are frowned on and through evolutionary process kept at bay. If we start killing everyone that we see, and that were to become the norm then our species would not last very long. For humans the norm isnt to kill. How many people have you killed in your lifetime. How about the people that you know closely, how many people have they killed? If your answer is positive for either/or then you are a minority meaning that the majority of the people around you do not kill people for no reason or even for some reason. Then objectively humans think that killing is wrong.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of people on this planet do not think all killing, even if humans, is wrong though, and what they consider justified or morally unjustified killing is dependent on their individual moral codes. No two people are likely to have the exact same moral codes.
 
Gathomas88 said:
:lol:

Look. All wishful thinking and anti-Christian mental gymnastics aside, the simple fact of the matter is that the changes in question here took place in Christianity societies, and only in Christian societies, or societies closely related to them.

The modern Western approach to morality is one, which at its core, owes its existence to the Abrahamic approach to objective social morality. That much is undeniable. I also don't think it's any coincidence that every attempt to go back to a more loosely regulated pre-Christian style of morality has resulted in the re-emergence of "socially acceptable" abuses and misbehaviors similar to those which existed in the pre-Christian world either.

Now, again, from a true nihilistic perspective, that is more or less irrelevant, as there's really no reason to consider the Abrahamic morality in question as necessarily being "correct" in the first place. However, trying to deny the role two thousand years of strictly enforced Abrahamic values have played in shaping your own - modern Western - culture, and the sense of "right and wrong" it has engendered is simply idiotic.

Even many secular philosophers and moralists have been forced to admit as much in recent years.
Click to expand...

Did you learn that in church? Christianity moral lol The bible is full of immoral acts by modern western standards. Seriously havent you ever read the bible?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Did you learn that in church? Christianity moral lol The bible is full of immoral acts by modern western standards. Seriously havent you ever read the bible?
Click to expand...

Have you read any Greek or Germanic pagan mythology lately? :lol:

Read the last several posts which you obviously skipped.

Whatever you want to say about the Old Testament (most of which was negated by Christ in the New Testament anyway), it generally is closer to what Modern Westerners tend to believe with regards to morality than what most of the rest of the world was up to at the time.

Ya know... Unless you want to defend practices like human sacrifice (widely seen among Northern European peoples, Phoenician peoples in the Mediterranean, and even among the Greeks, on occasion), infanticide (pretty much everyone besides the Egyptians and Jews), cannibalism (Northern Europe again), and casual pedophilia (Greece and Rome), of course. :roll:
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
The vast majority of people on this planet do not think all killing, even if humans, is wrong though, and what they consider justified or morally unjustified killing is dependent on their individual moral codes. No two people are likely to have the exact same moral codes.
Click to expand...

But I didnt say all killing. I suppose that I should have explained that but I thought you would not nit pick that point. And yes from a individual point of view you are correct. But if we analyze the entirety of homosapeins killing itself while justifiabley subjectectively is by in large taboo for the majority of humans. Any controlling group that practices actual genocide is viewed as being in the wrong. All nations have laws against murder. Every country in existence on Earth right that has a legit country has to a varying degree outlawed the act of murder. Obviously those laws are not applied equally and allow certain types of murder depending on many different beliefs worldwide. The underlying common is that all countries indeed outlaw it. And thats how its been historically.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Have you read any Greek or Germanic pagan mythology lately? :lol:

Read the last several posts which you obviously skipped.

Whatever you want to say about the Old Testament (most of which was negated by Christ in the New Testament anyway), it generally is closer to what Modern Westerners tend to believe with regards to morality than what most of the rest of the world was up to at the time.

Ya know... Unless you want to defend practices like human sacrifice (widely seen among Northern European peoples, Phoenician peoples in the Mediterranean, and even among the Greeks, on occasion), infanticide (pretty much everyone besides the Egyptians and Jews), cannibalism (Northern Europe again), and casual pedophilia (Greece and Rome), of course. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yea well of course you believe that.

CNS Spectrums: The Neurobiology of Moral Behavior: Review and Neuropsychiatric Implications

"Introduction

For years, scientists and philosophers have proposed a sixth human sense for morality. Recently, there is increasing evidence that there is, in fact, an intrinsic morality network. The presence of a moral sense is consistent with a focus of human evolution on mechanisms of individual behavior that maximize survival in social groups. Evolution has promoted social cooperation through emotions against harming others, a need for fairness and the enforcement of moral rules, empathy and “Theory of Mind” (ToM), as well as other behaviors that feed into the concept of morality. ToM is the ability to appreciate the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs of others.


If there is a “moral sense,” then there should be specific brain mechanisms for morality as well as brain disordered patients with impaired morality. Convergent evidence that this is the case comes from studies of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in normals, neurological investigations of sociopaths, and the examination of patients with focal brain lesions or with frontotemporal dementia (FTD). This neurobiological evidence points to an automatic, emotionally-mediated moral network that is centered in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC), particularly in the right hemisphere. Although this literature is still young, disparate, and heavily reliant on fMRI correlations, the convergence of evidence supports the presence of a neuromoral brain network. This report reviews this burgeoning literature and discusses the theoretical implications for brain-behavior relationships, and its clinical and legal implications. Although much of the presented evidence is still debated, a picture of moral neuroscience is beginning to emerge."

Mendez_figure1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom