• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

"ALL moral standards and values are man-made"

tosca1 said:
Is it yours?
Why do you wonder about my question? My question is perfectly legitimate due to the way you described the cake.


Bad as in "spoiled" or what?


Or, "bad" as in, it tastes awful?
How does baking skills relate with morals? :lamo


Unless, you mean "bad," as in deliberately laced with poison!

"Bad" cake is an....odd way to describe a cake. :lol:
Click to expand...
I repeat the question; is English your first language?

A 'bad' cake normally refers to a cake which tastes bad. The fact that this does not relate to morals was entirely my point - that 'bad' does not always mean 'immoral'.
 
Since when did bad mean deliberately laced with poison? In relation to cakes the word bad refers to a personal judgement. All carrot cakes taste bad to me. I am not partial to them.
 
zyzygy said:
Since when did bad mean deliberately laced with poison? In relation to cakes the word bad refers to a personal judgement. All carrot cakes taste bad to me. I am not partial to them.
Click to expand...
In fairness, that would also be a bad cake :p
 
Tosca is slavery moral?
To go even further what is objectively moral or immoral?
If objective morals exist you should be able to cite them.
 
tosca1 said:
Anyway, I'm talking about objective morality.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as objective morals, only our ability to objectively decide if actions are moral once we have decided what our values are. Remember morality is the framework in which we judge actions to be good and bad, it is not good and bad in itself. To analogize for you. The word measurement is not a measurement, it is a word that describes how we quantify distance. We subjectively decide what a particular distance is and from there we can say that something is objectively that distance. Morality is not what is moral, it is a system for determining what is and is not moral. Once we, or god, subjectively decide what is moral based on what we claim to value, we can say objectively what is and is not moral.

The flaw in the concept of objective morality is totally incoherent. All of morality is applied to subjects, what does it mean to have a moral independent of subjects? It's like trying to claim that a foot is an objective measurement.

Is killing babies is wrong in a universe without babies? Stop and think, does that even make any sense? You can claim that god proclaims morality to be objective, but god is a subject and therefore morals are subjective to the subject, which in this case you claim is god. If you believe in god, then by definition, morals are subject to the wishes of your god. God, with all of the powers you give him, can't change the definition of subjective any more than he can make a squared circle. Unless you believe that morals exist without god and he is simple the messenger, but that would create a whole new set of problems for your belief in god.
 
tosca1 said:
Just because one can't feel empathy does not necessarily mean that he doesn't have the concept of right and wrong.

Anyway, you're wrong (again!)..... about sociopaths!



Sociopaths know the intellectual difference between right and wrong. They understand society’s expectations.
They understand what moral behavior is supposed to look like. They even understand that actions have consequences.

The problem is, they do not care.

https://www.psychopathfree.com/cont...ow-Sociopaths-Think-Why-It-is-Good-to-Ask-Why
Click to expand...

Correct, sociopaths don't feel empathy.
 
tosca1 said:
Just because one can't feel empathy does not necessarily mean that he doesn't have the concept of right and wrong.

Anyway, you're wrong (again!)..... about sociopaths!



Sociopaths know the intellectual difference between right and wrong. They understand society’s expectations.
They understand what moral behavior is supposed to look like. They even understand that actions have consequences.

The problem is, they do not care.

https://www.psychopathfree.com/cont...ow-Sociopaths-Think-Why-It-is-Good-to-Ask-Why
Click to expand...

Correct, as I wrote, sociopaths don't feel empathy. Many sociopaths learn to behave in public and live relatively normal lives, many of them thrive as business leaders.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
Do you actually know what the "no true Scotsman fallcy" is?

By the logic you're using here, the freaking Democratic Party could be considered to be a "Christian" movement.



Nonsense. Nazism was always a primarily secular, nationalist movement. In the interests of the identity politics which formed its ideological core, it may have paid (duplicitous and insincere) lip service to Christian values early on, but it was never "inspired by the Bible," nor did it ever claim to be.

The charade was also dropped almost immediately after the party was able to consolidate its hold on power.

At best, Hitler himself was a rather cynical and self-serving agnostic. At worst, much of the Nazi hierarchy was made up of lunatic occultists and neo-pagans, who wanted to gradually replace Christianity's influence with a state governed revival of old Norse and Germanic religious traditions which downplayed the value of mercy and peaceful living, while playing up notions of civic duty and martial prowess.
Click to expand...

There are no public statements by any Nazi officials repudiating Christianity. The private beliefs or statements of the officials did not change the fact that Nazism was sold and accepted by the people of Germany as a Christian based worldview.
 
iangb said:
I repeat the question; is English your first language?

A 'bad' cake normally refers to a cake which tastes bad. The fact that this does not relate to morals was entirely my point - that 'bad' does not always mean 'immoral'.
Click to expand...

We're talking about morals!
 
csbrown28 said:
Is killing babies is wrong in a universe without babies? Stop and think, does that even make any sense?
Click to expand...

Yes please, do stop and think. Does that even make any sense?

Who on earth will even think of babies - let alone killing them - if it's a world that has no babies at all?

I mean, do they even have an inkling what babies are? Golly. :lol:



CSbrown, is it bad to kill bloggerpistlies?
 
Hard Truth said:
Correct, as I wrote, sociopaths don't feel empathy. Many sociopaths learn to behave in public and live relatively normal lives, many of them thrive as business leaders.
Click to expand...

If they can behave in public and live relatively normal lives (and many of them as you say, thrive as business leaders), then that's certainly evidence that they do have a concept of right and wrong - thus they know how to behave "normally."
 
tosca1 said:
If they can behave in public and live relatively normal lives (and many of them as you say, thrive as business leaders), then that's certainly evidence that they do have a concept of right and wrong - thus they know how to behave "normally."
Click to expand...

No its not, not at all. It is only evidence that they don't want to be punished for doing something that will get them in trouble or ostracized by society. People don't have to believe themselves that something is morally wrong to recognize how other people feel about that thing, how others, especially a good majority, believe something is wrong.
 
tosca1 said:
If they can behave in public and live relatively normal lives (and many of them as you say, thrive as business leaders), then that's certainly evidence that they do have a concept of right and wrong - thus they know how to behave "normally."
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, being a normal business person, especially with a corporation, means you can do evil acts with few, if any, consequences.
 
tosca1 said:
Yes please, do stop and think. Does that even make any sense?

Who on earth will even think of babies - let alone killing them - if it's a world that has no babies at all?

I mean, do they even have an inkling what babies are? Golly. :lol:

CSbrown, is it bad to kill bloggerpistlies?
Click to expand...

You know what's worse than being ridiculed for a nonsensical position? When you ridicule in return and ridicule yourself.

Apparently you don't even know what it is you are arguing for, do you?

Here let me help....

You are arguing for objective morality. Morality independent of subjects. So like 1+1=2 is as true in this universe as any other, you are arguing that gods morals are true anywhere, any place any time independant of subjects. You've just argued against your own position. Nice to see that you don't agree with objective morality. So I guess were done here?
 
tosca1 said:
You'd rather I go discussing with you..... ignorantly? How can you bear with that? :lol:


Whom are you kidding? :mrgreen:


:lamo

I read you, loud and clear: YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN IT!

Methinks.....you don't know what you've been spouting about!
Click to expand...
A truly idiotic thing to say considering it was already explained.



tosca1 said:
You're the one who keeps complaining I'm not addressing the point - yet....here you are.....
Click to expand...
Keeps?
Further displaying dishonesty. Figures.



tosca1 said:
I already admitted I'm a dummy
Click to expand...
Yes. I am aware you lamented of your inabilities.


tosca1 said:
(and okay, it must've been my fault for having missed it.... if it was indeed explained, as you claimed).
So, if you want to continue with your premise, why don't you explain it to me as I'd requested? Or cite where it's been explained?
What's the big deal? Why do you evade?
Click to expand...
Still is on you to find what you failed to read. Not on me to provide it again

I have already told you I am not going to provide it for you again, so why are you avoiding rereading what was already provided?
All you have to do (as you were were also already told) was to follow the quotes backwards. Such a simp;e thing to keep abreast of what was said and you apparently can't/won't do it.

As it isn't on me to provided for you again what you previously missed, are you too lazy to figure it out on your own?


The only issue here is your failure to pay attention or a deliberate avoidance of an argument you can not refute.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
We're talking about morals!
Click to expand...
*sigh*

Try to keep up.

The argument that 'bad cake =/= immoral cake' was brought up by me to illustrate that not all uses of the word 'bad' mean 'immoral'. I raised this point in response to your own post (205) in which you said:

If there is no concept of good and bad - how do you distinguish and understand a "good" justification and a "good" reasoning?

If there is no concept of good and bad, how will you know what a "good" or "bad" argument is, and what constitute it?​

In this post you were assuming that in all cases, 'bad = immoral'. But since this isn't the case, ('good reasoning' is not synonymous with 'moral reasoning' since you can have non-morality-based reasons), your argument was a non-starter.
 
Hard Truth said:
Unfortunately, being a normal business person, especially with a corporation, means you can do evil acts with few, if any, consequences.
Click to expand...

Do you see though that, to be able to behave like any normal people, would mean that the sociopath has a concept of right and wrong!
 
iangb said:
*sigh*

Try to keep up.

The argument that 'bad cake =/= immoral cake' was brought up by me to illustrate that not all uses of the word 'bad' mean 'immoral'. I raised this point in response to your own post (205) in which you said:

If there is no concept of good and bad - how do you distinguish and understand a "good" justification and a "good" reasoning?

If there is no concept of good and bad, how will you know what a "good" or "bad" argument is, and what constitute it?​

In this post you were assuming that in all cases, 'bad = immoral'. But since this isn't the case, ('good reasoning' is not synonymous with 'moral reasoning' since you can have non-morality-based reasons), your argument was a non-starter.
Click to expand...
:roll:

Baking skills aren't morals. Unless - like so many words - you've changed its definition. :lol:
 
Excon said:
A truly idiotic thing to say considering it was already explained.



Keeps?
Further displaying dishonesty. Figures.



Yes. I am aware you lamented of your inabilities.


Still is on you to find what you failed to read. Not on me to provide it again

I have already told you I am not going to provide it for you again, so why are you avoiding rereading what was already provided?
All you have to do (as you were were also already told) was to follow the quotes backwards. Such a simp;e thing to keep abreast of what was said and you apparently can't/won't do it.

As it isn't on me to provided for you again what you previously missed, are you too lazy to figure it out on your own?


The only issue here is your failure to pay attention or a deliberate avoidance of an argument you can not refute.
Click to expand...


Omigosh! After all that indignant rant,

bottomline: You can't explain it.
I'm betting you don't even know what you've been talking about - so when you're asked to explain, you're so full of excuses! :lol:


Bye-bye.
 
Tosca is slavery moral?
Is it moral to kill?
Can you provide a list of objective morals?
 
tosca1 said:
Do you see though that, to be able to behave like any normal people, would mean that the sociopath has a concept of right and wrong!
Click to expand...

Wrong. The sociopath merely needs to mimic "normal" behaviour patterns sufficient to pass. Colored ink is a flag for a failed argument.
 
csbrown28 said:
Is killing babies is wrong in a universe without babies? Stop and think, does that even make any sense? You can claim that god proclaims morality to be objective, but god is a subject and therefore morals are subjective to the subject, which in this case you claim is god. If you believe in god, then by definition, morals are subject to the wishes of your god. God, with all of the powers you give him, can't change the definition of subjective any more than he can make a squared circle. Unless you believe that morals exist without god and he is simple the messenger, but that would create a whole new set of problems for your belief in god.
Click to expand...


Let's be clear if we're on the same page: In the context being discussed - as opposed to objective, how do you define "subjective?"
 
Manc Skipper said:
Wrong. The sociopath merely needs to mimic "normal" behaviour patterns sufficient to pass. Colored ink is a flag for a failed argument.
Click to expand...

Dead wrong!

You can't pull off mimicking normal people for long without having any concept of right and wrong.

Furthermore, the article I gave explained that they do have a concept of right and wrong - the problem is that, they don't care about it!
 
tosca1 said:
Omigosh! After all that indignant rant,

bottomline: You can't explain it.
I'm betting you don't even know what you've been talking about - so when you're asked to explain, you're so full of excuses! :lol:


Bye-bye.
Click to expand...
Another lame reply. Figures.

It was already explained. Your failure to pay attention or your avoidance is not a valid reason to explain it again.

The only issue here is your failure to pay attention (which you can remedy by following the quotes back and read again what you missed) or is a deliberate avoidance of an argument you can not refute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom