• 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.

What is your general view on morality

What is your view on morality?

  • mainly black and white

    Votes: 6 27.3%

  • a grey area

    Votes: 4 18.2%

  • is just relative

    Votes: 12 54.5%

  • not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    22
M

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
489
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Choice B is not the same as choice C. B means that very few things can be defined as always right or wrong while C means that there is no right or wrong.
 
B&W.

However, I say that from my relative position, as I couldn't possibly say anything other than that. Which isn't to say morality is relative, but rather that my opinion on morality comes from a relative perspective.
 
This is more complicated, since lefties will want to respond. Lefties have no concept of what is moral, since they do not use the benchmark moral compass that our country and Western Civilization were founded upon. For lefties, moral is the same thing as legal, which is also the same thing as correct. In the eyes of a lefty, if it is legal and they want to do it, then it must therefore be moral as well. Without the benchmark moral compass, lefties are limited to using laws to determine what is moral.
 
EvMetro said:
This is more complicated, since lefties will want to respond. Lefties have no concept of what is moral, since they do not use the benchmark moral compass that our country and Western Civilization were founded upon. For lefties, moral is the same thing as legal, which is also the same thing as correct. In the eyes of a lefty, if it is legal and they want to do it, then it must therefore be moral as well. Without the benchmark moral compass, lefties are limited to using laws to determine what is moral.
Click to expand...
Look like your rant was proven to be crap.
 
prometeus said:
Look like your rant was proven to be crap.
Click to expand...

Thank you for validating my post. I see absolutely zero signs that you were miraculously able to conceive what lefties can't conceive. Even your future replies after this post will not demonstrate that you were able to conceive what the difference. I am fascinated with how you came up with that post though. The explanation of the reasoning that you used to come up with that was really quite impressive. If I am not mistaken, that was an arbitrary dart thrown from the lefty collective. I'll bet Beavis and Butthead were hanging out near you in the collective, and they talked you into throwing that dart out the window to see if you could make it stick.
 
EvMetro said:
This is more complicated, since lefties will want to respond. Lefties have no concept of what is moral, since they do not use the benchmark moral compass that our country and Western Civilization were founded upon. For lefties, moral is the same thing as legal, which is also the same thing as correct. In the eyes of a lefty, if it is legal and they want to do it, then it must therefore be moral as well. Without the benchmark moral compass, lefties are limited to using laws to determine what is moral.
Click to expand...
You went nuclear with the partisan rhetoric on the third post in this thread which is contained in the Philosophical section.

You will reap as you sow. Grow up already.
 
Masterhawk said:
Choice B is not the same as choice C. B means that very few things can be defined as always right or wrong while C means that there is no right or wrong.
Click to expand...
I can believe that there is no objective morality while at the same time believing that there are situations where I can make an objectively moral decision based upon the data that I have. Morality is not about slavishly adhering to a code it is about making the best decision that you can based upon the best information you can obtain. This is why it is immoral to be ignorant of what is actually happening and falling back on simplistic models based upon what you think should happen.
 
Simple.

Your rights end when they infringe on others.
 
EvMetro said:
This is more complicated, since lefties will want to respond. Lefties have no concept of what is moral, since they do not use the benchmark moral compass that our country and Western Civilization were founded upon. For lefties, moral is the same thing as legal, which is also the same thing as correct. In the eyes of a lefty, if it is legal and they want to do it, then it must therefore be moral as well. Without the benchmark moral compass, lefties are limited to using laws to determine what is moral.
Click to expand...

So leftists believe gun ownership is moral because it's legal? That gay marriage was immoral until it was made legal?
 
I believe that morality is entirely subjective, but I reject the concept of moral relativity-- any two people, X and Y, will have diverging moral opinions, but the fact that people have diverging opinions does not in any way oblige us to respect those differences. I believe that it is the absolute moral obligation of every rational person to impose their moral order upon their environment, regardless of how horrific I find that order, as a matter of logical necessity; as a matter of personal preference, I believe that people should rely as much as possible on reasoned persuasion and as little as possible upon violence to accomplish this.

My personal moral philosophy is a kind of mutant utilitarianism, in which the value being maximized is not "happiness" but rather "liberty", and the moral value of object-individuals is not equal, but rather steeply hierarchical based upon the nature of their relationship to the subject and their personal utility in relation to the subject's other moral obligations.
 
I'm not convinced yet about this decaying morality thing people rant on about, but I certainly do see a lack of modesty.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I'm not convinced yet about this decaying morality thing people rant on about, but I certainly do see a lack of modesty.
Click to expand...

Watching the decline in caring about one another does not seal the deal for you then?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Watching the decline in caring about one another does not seal the deal for you then?
Click to expand...

Well, if the real world interacted like we do here on DP, then I would have serious concerns. ;) (I know...I know.....I can be pretty bad also)


I think people today are exposed to more BS because of the "five minutes of fame" syndrome, and access to instant media.

I believe that people do still care about each other, but it doesn't show up the front pages as often as the trash.
 
Morality is objective and universal like mathematics.

Einstein's theory of relativity also debunks the myth of 'moral relativism'. As it proves that regardless of the 'perspective' of a person measuring something (e.x the speed of a train), the measurement will always be the same (e.x while a train may "look" faster to an outside observer than a passenger, the speed if measured will be the same for both). So naturally this is the case of natural law and objective morality as well.

Therefore the myth of moral relativism has already been scientifically debunked; those who continue to promote it are just anti-science and anti-intellectual, right up their with 'young earth creationists' and 'flat earthers', and shouldn't even be honored with an argument.
 
Ovid said:
Einstein's theory of relativity also debunks the myth of 'moral relativism'. As it proves that regardless of the 'perspective' of a person measuring something (e.x the speed of a train), the measurement will always be the same (e.x while a train may "look" faster to an outside observer than a passenger, the speed if measured will be the same for both). So naturally this is the case of natural law and objective morality as well.
Click to expand...

Relative speed. A train, standing still, is moving at 1700km/h relative to someone not subject to the Earth's rotation. Your analogy doesn't work.
 
spud_meister said:
Relative speed. A train, standing still, is moving at 1700km/h relative to someone not subject to the Earth's rotation. Your analogy doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
 
Ovid said:
Denying moral objectivity is an exercise in futility. It's not really up for debate, just a logical fact.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Morals, like the speed of a train, vary with the frame of reference used by the observer.
 
spud_meister said:
Nonsense. Morals, like the speed of a train, vary with the frame of reference used by the observer.
Click to expand...
With some of course, having keener vision than others. Much as a blind man's view of the train's speed is of course further from the objective truth, than that of one with 20/20 vision.

Plus based on the sillyness of your previous argument, then you'd have to argue that since the earth "looks flat" to someone on the ground, versus one viewing it from space, that both perspectives are "equal" and should be taught in schools as "equally true".
 
Ovid said:
With some of course, having keener vision than others. Much as a blind man's view of the train's speed is of course further from the objective truth, than that of one with 20/20 vision.
Click to expand...

In terms of both morality and speed, there is no objective view. Speed needs a reference point to be meaningful, it always has to be relative to the movement of something else. Morality needs a reference point of history, culture and circumstance.

Plus based on the sillyness of your previous argument, then you'd have to argue that since the earth "looks flat" to someone on the ground, versus one viewing it from space, that both perspectives are "equal" and should be taught in schools as "equally true".
Click to expand...

You have the nerve to call my argument silly, and then spout this nonsense? :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom