• 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!

What Is Morality?

Old Trapper said:
In discussing the abortion issue I have received the usual excuses from the "Choice" people from "nice rant, but it is still a rant", to it is the womans body (even though the baby has its own DNA, will form its own features, etc), and why do you want to enslave the woman, or show preference to the baby. Of course this has nothing to do with the morality of the issue. So, just what is "morality"?

Morality is generally defined as that which tells us right from wrong. But what happens when we no longer follow a moral code? What happens when we lose sight of the value of life?

Well, for the right, which rightly condemns abortion, it leads to events such as this:

Volunteers Sentenced for Leaving Food and Water for Migrants in the Arizona Desert - Hit & Run : Reason.com

People who wish to take the time to try and save lives are convicted of minor crimes, and punished. In this situation the border guards when asked if they had seen dead people in the desert had to answer yes. Starving to death, or dying of thirst, is not an easy death, and why anyone would support convicting others of trying to save the lives is a sign of the lack of morals of sox=ciety as a whle.

The same is true for the left. Whether they want to admit it or not, and they have used numerous methods of "justifying" the taking of the life of the baby (from claiming it is liken unto a parasite to calling it a zygote, fetus, etc., anything but a human being in its growth process). At the same time they will oppose unjust wars (and rightly so) that takes the lives of thousands of military personnel, and millions of civilians).

However, the question remains. What is morality, and why have we as a society lost the meaning to the point that life is no longer precious, but a commodity to be traded upon?
Click to expand...

Speaking for yourself, right?
 
Atheist 2020 said:
Morality declaring what is right and wrong. You are going to find out, whoever has the political power controls what is right and what is wrong. Lets take Puerto Rico, with a Catholic population and the evangelical population deciding what is right and wrong on the mainland. After World War II, the educated population of Puerto Rico had the ability to leave and move to the mainland. This became a problem with the Jim Crow south, as Florida during the 1950's was in the Jim Crow south. If you were from Puerto Rico and your in Alabama in the 1950's -- do you go to the white bathroom or the bathroom for the blacks.

During the 1950's, to limit the population of Puerto Rico -- a sterilization program was started with the female population. Right after the birth of a child, the mother had the procedure for sterilization. Before the FDA approved the pill for women to choose to have a baby or not. The different types of the pills was field tested in Puerto Rico, some with negative results and the current pill of today was used there first. The reason for the sterilization, and the reason for the pill -- was the political power of the Jim Crow south.

Martin Luther King, talked about the evil of the Jim Crow south. But, he never went to Puerto Rico, or talked about the sterilization, or the use of the pill to control the population. The largest population of Catholics are in Puerto Rico, and at one time had the largest population of sterilized females in the world. All done, with the blessing of the evangelical population on the mainland. And what did John XXIII, Paul VI say about the sterilized population -- nothing.

What is right and what is wrong, is who controls the ballot box. And, with Martin Luther King, how to get the black population to be accepted and just treat Puerto Rico as the browns and other creeds without saying there true name.
Click to expand...

You are 100% correct. That's the reason I have remained a bible believing Christian, even with all the child molesting, hypocrites in organized religion, I remain a believer of the bible. I left the catholic church, tried protestant, J.W., even Mormon. I found all have veered from scripture in one way or another. So I continue to try to be a good Christian, falling short to be sure. What I do find comfort in, is the consistency. The sermon on the mount, letters from Paul, etc, it never changes, and I don't need a pope or any other "authority" on the bible. I can read.:peace
 
Most codified moral standards at this point are an intellectual exercise, rendering it subjective.

Their origins though are based on love, not ideological or contextual love (i.e. between mother and child), but the actual consciousness of love. From the consciousness of love, you wish to aid and to avoid harm. Love is reciprocal and considers the other; its maximum benefit is received simultaneously as it is given. There is an objectivity in this.

Deep down core consciousness of each human is based on love and it's why most people know right from wrong without having to be told. I would argue that humans are born as this love before they are taught to look away from it.
 
Old Trapper said:
In discussing the abortion issue I have received the usual excuses from the "Choice" people from "nice rant, but it is still a rant", to it is the womans body (even though the baby has its own DNA, will form its own features, etc), and why do you want to enslave the woman, or show preference to the baby. Of course this has nothing to do with the morality of the issue. So, just what is "morality"?

Morality is generally defined as that which tells us right from wrong. But what happens when we no longer follow a moral code? What happens when we lose sight of the value of life?

Well, for the right, which rightly condemns abortion, it leads to events such as this:

Volunteers Sentenced for Leaving Food and Water for Migrants in the Arizona Desert - Hit & Run : Reason.com

People who wish to take the time to try and save lives are convicted of minor crimes, and punished. In this situation the border guards when asked if they had seen dead people in the desert had to answer yes. Starving to death, or dying of thirst, is not an easy death, and why anyone would support convicting others of trying to save the lives is a sign of the lack of morals of sox=ciety as a whle.

The same is true for the left. Whether they want to admit it or not, and they have used numerous methods of "justifying" the taking of the life of the baby (from claiming it is liken unto a parasite to calling it a zygote, fetus, etc., anything but a human being in its growth process). At the same time they will oppose unjust wars (and rightly so) that takes the lives of thousands of military personnel, and millions of civilians).

However, the question remains. What is morality, and why have we as a society lost the meaning to the point that life is no longer precious, but a commodity to be traded upon?
Click to expand...
Wrong forum

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Wrong forum

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If you people are such sheep that you cannot oppose some childish rule in a forum such as this how the hell would you ever find the courage to stand up to the government?

Hell, 90% of you never served in the military, and it seems none of you find it outrageous that these women who were trying to save lives, and had the courage to do so, faced a jail sentence for doing so.

Certainly none of you have that kind of courage. Just a bunch of damn snowflakes offended because one posted an article in the wrong forum.
 
I can understand being opposed to abortion, especially if it's late. But I also think we should settle on a reasonable compromise and move on. The fixation on abortion, for or against, needs to end, because it distracts from many other problems.

As for morality in general -- we have laws that try to protect us against obvious immoral behaviors.

But there are no laws against most immoral behaviors that are subtle. And we are all guilty of cruelty at times, which I think should be considered immoral. You could literally destroy a person's life, and maybe drive them to suicide, by unkind gossip.

My point is just that morality is not simple and there is no way to force people to be kind and moral towards each other. I think the more self-righteous and judgmental a person is, the more likely they are to be immoral in subtle ways.

And the intense focus on abortion distracts extremists on either side. We should focus on our own acts of cruelty, whether subtle or obvious.
 
Superfly said:
Right. Look at women 150 years ago. They couldn't drink. They couldn't wear dresses that showed their ankles. They couldn't smoke. Homosexuality was unheard of. Mostly, they stayed home, barefoot and pregnant. Fast forward a few years to the roaring 20s, and the Flapper Girl phenomena. The difference in women from the reconstruction era to the roaring 20s is like comparing apples to Fenway Park, and it was only what, 40 years?
Click to expand...

And they could VOTE.
 
Superfly said:
Yesssss. :D :D And we are the most powerful voting bloc in the nation.
Click to expand...

Almost...you're the most powerful voting block in the nation because you're organized.
If the disabled ever decide to organize better than they are right now, they will become the most powerful voting block in the nation, and in the world.

That's because well over EIGHTY percent of every man, woman or child living today is going to BECOME disabled at some point in their life.
Yes, mostly toward the end of life but make no mistake, people who are approaching the rainbow bridge have the same rights.
Take away the folks who become disabled at the end stage of life and you still have a very large block of people who become disabled at an earlier time.
The rest of you good people reading this post right now are the TAB's, the "Temporarily Able Bodied".
Never forget that, but most importantly, never forget that the disabled will be ready to support and defend you when the time comes that you face a disability of any kind.
 
Morality is what some people try to impose on others. We are not a moral society and why we act like we are is beyond me? Your morality does not fit me as a for instance. Abortion is at the moment settled law. Argue with the lawmakers not the people using the law to their benefit. It's like trump the smart businessman using the tax code and bankruptcy laws to favor himself. Is it moral to get so drunk you kill someone else? Is fraud moral? How about tax evasion? Selling secrets to other countries? Who's morals? One size does not fit all.
 
Old Trapper said:
In discussing the abortion issue I have received the usual excuses from the "Choice" people from "nice rant, but it is still a rant", to it is the womans body (even though the baby has its own DNA, will form its own features, etc), and why do you want to enslave the woman, or show preference to the baby. Of course this has nothing to do with the morality of the issue. So, just what is "morality"?

Morality is generally defined as that which tells us right from wrong. But what happens when we no longer follow a moral code? What happens when we lose sight of the value of life?

Well, for the right, which rightly condemns abortion, it leads to events such as this:

Volunteers Sentenced for Leaving Food and Water for Migrants in the Arizona Desert - Hit & Run : Reason.com

People who wish to take the time to try and save lives are convicted of minor crimes, and punished. In this situation the border guards when asked if they had seen dead people in the desert had to answer yes. Starving to death, or dying of thirst, is not an easy death, and why anyone would support convicting others of trying to save the lives is a sign of the lack of morals of sox=ciety as a whle.

The same is true for the left. Whether they want to admit it or not, and they have used numerous methods of "justifying" the taking of the life of the baby (from claiming it is liken unto a parasite to calling it a zygote, fetus, etc., anything but a human being in its growth process). At the same time they will oppose unjust wars (and rightly so) that takes the lives of thousands of military personnel, and millions of civilians).

However, the question remains. What is morality, and why have we as a society lost the meaning to the point that life is no longer precious, but a commodity to be traded upon?
Click to expand...

LAMO hey look ANOTHER failed post discussing this topic

FACTS:
1.)Morals and morality are subjective. An individual or even group of individuals may have agreeing morals and find them objective for themselves but they still remains factual subjective in reality.
If aybody disagrees with this fact PLEASE by all means i directly challenge them to factually prove otherwise . . they cant

2.) as soon as you claim moral high ground in the abortion debate its a lie or ignorance . . pick one

3. abortion is not a right vs left issue claiming it is again exposes dishonesty or topical ignorance on the subject.

Well since this post failed too do you have anything factual or accurate you would like to discuss that you cant support with more than your feelings? some which are factually wrong? let us know, thanks!
 
Superfly said:
I think, for the most part, that morality is subjective. What I consider moral, others may not. I swear like a sailor. Some would consider that as having no morals, but to me, it's just how I am. :shrug: I don't feel immoral by doing so. Now leaving people to die in a desert? Taking away their water? They may as well have put a gun to their heads. But some don't feel that's immoral.

It's up to you, what's moral or immoral.

:peace
Click to expand...

100% correct. SOme people choose to ignore that fact though
 
Old Trapper said:
just what is "morality"?
Click to expand...
Uh.. Yeah, that's not exactly a new question. Philosophers have discussed that very topic for centuries.

Michael Sandel's book is probably a good place to start
Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?: Michael J. Sandel: 9780374532505: Amazon.com: Books

SEP is also decent, albeit a bit dense and wonky
The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


Morality is generally defined as that which tells us right from wrong. But what happens when we no longer follow a moral code? What happens when we lose sight of the value of life?
Click to expand...
Just because someone does not follow your specific moral code, that does not mean they do not follow any moral code.


People who wish to take the time to try and save lives are convicted of minor crimes... etc
Click to expand...
The relationship between ethics and the law is hideously complex, in no small part because there are certainly instances where a law is unjust (e.g. Jim Crow laws), and obviously such laws are also the loci of both political and moral disputes.


The same is true for the left. Whether they want to admit it or not, and they have used numerous methods of "justifying" the taking of the life of the baby (from claiming it is liken unto a parasite to calling it a zygote, fetus, etc., anything but a human being in its growth process). At the same time they will oppose unjust wars (and rightly so) that takes the lives of thousands of military personnel, and millions of civilians).
Click to expand...
Or, you're just talking past your opponents, and begging the question.

You are starting with the premise that "a fertilized egg is a human life." Your opponents do not share that belief, meaning they do not in any way, shape or form, believe they are ending a human life. It's not an excuse, it's an actual belief. You will never get anywhere in those discussions until you understand that.

Thus, abortion ultimately isn't actually a moral question. It's a metaphysical one, which uses moral language and partisan posturing in an attempt to discredit and/or ignore one's opponents.

(In contrast, discussions of the death penalty and euthanasia are moral conflicts, as there is rarely any question that the individuals are conscious and competent adults.)


What is morality, and why have we as a society lost the meaning to the point that life is no longer precious, but a commodity to be traded upon?
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree that contemporary societies devalue life. In many ways, I'd say we are a much more moral (and moralistic) society than in the past.

There is significantly less violence than in earlier historical eras (see Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature for a summary). We no longer live in an era of constant warfare, as was the case in most of the world almost right up to 1945. Europeans have gone from slaughtering each other and their enemies, with a ferocity that shocked Muslims during the Crusades, to verbal sparring over electoral representation.

We value the lives of our children much higher today than in the past; people are routinely lashed (verbally only, of course) for perceived failures to take proper care of their children. We routinely expect that the state will intervene if children are abused by their parents. We have developed all sorts of means to extend life, and it is often taken for granted that every method and no expense should be spared to extend life (even if doing so degrades the quality of one's life). We routinely reject policies like euthanasia because of the risks of abuse.

We have rejected monarchy, and place a higher value on rule of law and democratic representation; even the most totalitarian regimes in the world still try to pass themselves off as having elections. The very concept of human rights is only about 300 years old, and we obviously have much more respect for human rights and civil rights than in the past.

While criminal justice systems are not perfect, and solitary is still in wide use and inhumane, it's still obviously superior to past systems in which the use of torture to force confessions and testimony were routine, and where punishments ranged from brutal (e.g. lashings) to horrific (draw and quartering).

Thus, I must reiterate that the world has not descended into Mad Max-ian Madness because a large percentage of people disagree with you about abortion.
 
Old Trapper said:
However, the question remains. What is morality, and why have we as a society lost the meaning to the point that life is no longer precious, but a commodity to be traded upon?
Click to expand...

I'm am pro-life. But I believe it's better to convince people to willingly choose to be pro-life than using government and the threat of imprisonment to coerce them.

The problem is coercion doesn't work. People have illegal abortions. Rich people send their children to other countries or states. And today there are abortion pills and drugs people can use.

Not everyone agrees with us about when life begins. That's the reality. We have to choose whether we want to persuade them to agree with us or force and threaten them. I choose persuasion.

And the big hypocrisy of conservatives is they claim they want small government yet they want government to coerce people. They don't want poor women having abortions but they don't want school sex education, condoms being distributed and they especially don't want to pay welfare for the children they want to force these women to have.
 
Old Trapper said:
In discussing the abortion issue I have received the usual excuses from the "Choice" people from "nice rant, but it is still a rant", to it is the womans body (even though the baby has its own DNA, will form its own features, etc), and why do you want to enslave the woman, or show preference to the baby. Of course this has nothing to do with the morality of the issue. So, just what is "morality"?

Morality is generally defined as that which tells us right from wrong. But what happens when we no longer follow a moral code? What happens when we lose sight of the value of life?

Well, for the right, which rightly condemns abortion, it leads to events such as this:

Volunteers Sentenced for Leaving Food and Water for Migrants in the Arizona Desert - Hit & Run : Reason.com

People who wish to take the time to try and save lives are convicted of minor crimes, and punished. In this situation the border guards when asked if they had seen dead people in the desert had to answer yes. Starving to death, or dying of thirst, is not an easy death, and why anyone would support convicting others of trying to save the lives is a sign of the lack of morals of sox=ciety as a whle.

The same is true for the left. Whether they want to admit it or not, and they have used numerous methods of "justifying" the taking of the life of the baby (from claiming it is liken unto a parasite to calling it a zygote, fetus, etc., anything but a human being in its growth process). At the same time they will oppose unjust wars (and rightly so) that takes the lives of thousands of military personnel, and millions of civilians).

However, the question remains. What is morality, and why have we as a society lost the meaning to the point that life is no longer precious, but a commodity to be traded upon?
Click to expand...

The government demonstrates daily that life is not precious. When I was in the US Army we were taught to understand that soldiers are expendable, so that the mission might be accomplished.

We rain down death and destruction from the sky, all over the globe. Barack killed dozens every week with his drones. On behalf of Greater Israel, our planes and drones destroyed people and infrastructure of much of Syria.

Who believes life is precious? By our actions, we don't. We demonstrate that humans are expendable.
 
Rexedgar said:
I think that ethics and morals blend together, difficult to separate the two, imo.
Click to expand...


As a noun it means a lesson or message. As an adjective the principles of right and wrong. I did sum it up.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Almost...you're the most powerful voting block in the nation because you're organized.
If the disabled ever decide to organize better than they are right now, they will become the most powerful voting block in the nation, and in the world.

That's because well over EIGHTY percent of every man, woman or child living today is going to BECOME disabled at some point in their life.
Yes, mostly toward the end of life but make no mistake, people who are approaching the rainbow bridge have the same rights.
Take away the folks who become disabled at the end stage of life and you still have a very large block of people who become disabled at an earlier time.
The rest of you good people reading this post right now are the TAB's, the "Temporarily Able Bodied".
Never forget that, but most importantly, never forget that the disabled will be ready to support and defend you when the time comes that you face a disability of any kind.
Click to expand...

Nice point, but remember - most young people don't even think about disabilities. They feel that they are invincible. It's not until they start crawling out of bed at 7am, and every bone in their body cracks, that they realize that they might just not live forever.
 
Thoreau72 said:
The government demonstrates daily that life is not precious. When I was in the US Army we were taught to understand that soldiers are expendable, so that the mission might be accomplished.

We rain down death and destruction from the sky, all over the globe. Barack killed dozens every week with his drones. On behalf of Greater Israel, our planes and drones destroyed people and infrastructure of much of Syria.

Who believes life is precious? By our actions, we don't. We demonstrate that humans are expendable.
Click to expand...

So, now it is the governments fault, not the lack of morality of the people.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
I'm am pro-life. But I believe it's better to convince people to willingly choose to be pro-life than using government and the threat of imprisonment to coerce them.

The problem is coercion doesn't work. People have illegal abortions. Rich people send their children to other countries or states. And today there are abortion pills and drugs people can use.

Not everyone agrees with us about when life begins. That's the reality. We have to choose whether we want to persuade them to agree with us or force and threaten them. I choose persuasion.
Click to expand...

And Roe v Wade did what?

Persuasion does not work when they have no morals, and no conscience.
 
Old Trapper said:
And Roe v Wade did what?

Persuasion does not work when they have no morals, and no conscience.
Click to expand...

Just because someone disagrees with you on one issue doesn't mean they have no morals or conscience. And coercing people sounds great until someone decides to coerce you because they've decided that you have no morals or conscience.

We want a society where people who have different beliefs can live together in harmony.
 
Last edited:
SonOfDaedalus said:
1.)I'm am pro-life. But I believe it's better to convince people to willingly choose to be pro-life than using government and the threat of imprisonment to coerce them.

The problem is coercion doesn't work. People have illegal abortions. Rich people send their children to other countries or states. And today there are abortion pills and drugs people can use.

2.) Not everyone agrees with us about when life begins. That's the reality. We have to choose whether we want to persuade them to agree with us or force and threaten them. I choose persuasion.
3.) And the big hypocrisy of conservatives is they claim they want small government yet they want government to coerce people. They don't want poor women having abortions but they don't want school sex education, condoms being distributed and they especially don't want to pay welfare for the children they want to force these women to have.
Click to expand...

1.) exactly. One thing ive never gotten about SOME extremists that want to use force and violate the legal rights of others. Thats the opposite of america.
2.) who is "us" in this sentences and why does it matter when life begins? for me and most i know that has zero impact to the discussion. It typically only comes up when people says it matters.
3.) this is defintiely a HUGE hypocrisy for SOME people, i wouldnt paint "conservatives" with that brush though because millions arent like that and millions are also pro choice.
 
Old Trapper said:
1.) And Roe v Wade did what?

2.) Persuasion does not work when they have no morals, and no conscience.
Click to expand...

1.) protected rights and freedoms, it wasnt force like the other poster is talking about at all
2.) there you go again with another failed post, factually prove there was no morals or conscience in RvW....
or better yet logically support that claim with somethign that cant be instantly turned around in the other direction. You cant :shrug:
it can just as easily be said you have no morals and conscience....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom