• 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!

morality

What is morality/

  • Total voters
    63
Henrin said:
What is obvious is that you haven't countered my argument that they are not upholding the moral position against theft.
Click to expand...
"The" moral position against theft? LOL! No, you're trying to make me defend your moral position and I have no interest in doing that.
 
MoSurveyor said:
"The" moral position against theft? LOL! No, you're trying to make me defend your moral position and I have no interest in doing that.
Click to expand...

No, I was trying to get you to admit something and you did. Thanks.
 
Bonzai said:
You asked, Henrin, and I answered....................
Click to expand...

I guess I didn't expect crushes on the crotch, but more like deities.
 
Henrin said:
I guess I didn't expect crushes on the crotch, but more like deities.
Click to expand...

I believe in going right to the source of a divinity's power.........................
 
Paschendale said:
And unless you're stupid or insane, you realize that if you do that to me, then someone will do it to you. So we collectively agree not to do these things, and we all benefit. Our own survival and prosperity drives us to protect one another and not abuse each other. Empathy is biological. Learned behaviors are biological. Morality is biological.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make morality some innate thing - it's a human construct and you've just shown it by invoking realization and reason. Reasoning is something that's learned, too, as anyone who's spent time looking through the various forums here can plainly see. Some small bit of reasoning is innate but it's very limited. Certainly philosophical concepts are beyond simple, animal reasoning.

Empathy to some extent is biological (as it is in other animals) but only as it pertains to your social group - which doesn't mean a nation of 350M people. Learned behaviors are just that, learned, not genetic. If morals were genetic then we wouldn't have to use reason to get there. Mostly, we're taught what to believe, which includes morals.
 
Last edited:
Bonzai said:
Yeah. He grows up from between where Salman Khan's thighs meet..........................
Click to expand...

Does anyone have any idea what that could possibly mean?


On second thought, nevermind. Sorry I asked. I'll suppose Salman Khan is a celebrity.
 
Last edited:
I like to think morality is one of those highly variable, existing greatly within the realm of the irrational, yet essential and ubiquitous concepts—like god.

Example: We find sadism immoral. Why, because of the identification of pain of the other with pain of the self. But once this is removed, the sadistic soul only has pleasure, so from their perspective they are in the right because the pain of the other is irrelevant, all there is his own personal ecstasy. And while still confined to that perspective... it's perfectly understandable, even reasonable. But in the interest of order, empathy, and the passions this cannot be condoned.

It's ever-changing. It exists in the individual and the collective. It is in no way axiom, or of metaphysical (as well as innate) origin. It is in fact very cardinal to the spirit and the human experience, ebbing and flowing as is due, and growing with us (as a society and individuals). A great font of incarnate beauty really, and although I shun puerile dichotomies in my own personal doctrine, I believe the resplendent monoliths of right and wrong to be more lovely (perhaps with more artistic license) than the great grey sea the intellect must heed so somberly.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
No, I was trying to get you to admit something and you did. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Admit, what? That I don't feel obligated to defend your moral position? I could have told you I wouldn't do that a dozen posts ago.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Admit, what? That I don't feel obligated to defend your moral position? I could have told you I wouldn't do that a dozen posts ago.
Click to expand...

Your original argument was one where the morality against theft had an exception to the rule for the poor man that needed to steal for his survival. Of course, that never made any sense to begin with.
 
Cyrylek said:
No, that's how you extinguish all the morality. "Society" is not real - it is an abstraction; individuals are real - they are actual living human beings. If a society punishes an individual who did no harm to any other individual but "harmed the society" (whatever it means), we can tell right away that this society is very, very sick.
Click to expand...

:shrug: Then explain moral objections to homosexuality.
 
ecofarm said:
Everyone. For example: no raping children. Do you have a problem with that? Do you think anyone does?
Click to expand...

katiegrrl0 said:
I do not have a problem with this at all but a pedophile may well disagree with you. So no there is not a universal moral consensuses. You can even look at murder or killing. There are those who can even justify this. So you cannot base Law on moral thoughts based on individuals.
Click to expand...

ecofarm said:
Under some circumstances, raping children is ok?

Morality is a social construct and not a matter of individual decision. It's no more debatable than reality.
Click to expand...

I have come to the end of my debate with you. If the only way you can prove your point is to misrepresent what someone said i feel sorry for you. You owe me an apology. You also know what you did. so I find it ignorant on your part.

1. You make a short statement and ask:
For example: no raping children. Do you have a problem with that?
Click to expand...
2. My response is straight forward and makes two points. I will make them in two colors:
I do not have a problem with this at all but a pedophile may well disagree with you.
Click to expand...
The first part of this statement states I have no problem with what you are saying so I stand in agreement. The second part of the phrase states that pedophiles may disagree with you. This is not a difficult phrase to understand.
3. In the third quote you ask the question:
Under some circumstances, raping children is ok?
Click to expand...
after using this quote of mine as if to say what my words reflect is that I support the raping of children.
Quote Originally Posted by katiegrrl0
I do not have a problem with this at all but a pedophile may well disagree with you.
Click to expand...
Misrepresenting someone is no way to debate or discuss. It is especially in poor taste when it involves the sensitive topic. I find your tactic deplorable and you despicable. Debate with you over. You should check and see if you have moral qualities before you try and debate them.
 
Henrin said:
Your original argument was one where the morality against theft had an exception to the rule for the poor man that needed to steal for his survival. Of course, that never made any sense to begin with.
Click to expand...
The absolute morality against theft is societal. To allow an exception for extreme cases is individual. And that's exactly what I said in my first post.


Can a man carry a loaded shotgun down the street? Yes. Is it moral for someone to take it away from him? No. But what if he points it at someone and puts his finger on the trigger - is it still moral to take it away from him? Probably!!! See what I mean?
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
The absolute morality against theft is societal. To allow an exception in extreme cases is individual.
Click to expand...

No, society does not view theft as always bad and in fact will allow for it in certain cases. An example of that is found in the Kobe Bryant's case against his mother. Apparently if you leave something at someones house for X amount of time you lose it and they gain ownership. Another example of course is taxes. Morally speaking however, it is your property no matter the amount of time that passes and no matter if its government or someone else taking your property. Morally speaking there is no exceptions to theft. Theft is theft.
 
Henrin said:
No, society does not view theft as always bad and in fact will allow for it in certain cases. An example of that is found in the Kobe Bryant's case against his mother. Apparently if you leave something at someones house for X amount of time you lose it and they gain ownership. Another example of course is taxes. Morally speaking however, it is your property no matter the amount of time that passes and no matter if its government or someone else taking your property. Morally speaking there is no exceptions to theft. Theft is theft.
Click to expand...
To you "theft is theft" but your morality doesn't dictate someone else's morality nor the morality of society. You continue to prove my point.


Obviously the cases you cited aren't theft.
 
Last edited:
katiegrrl0 said:
I have come to the end of my debate with you. If the only way you can prove your point is to misrepresent what someone said i feel sorry for you. You owe me an apology. You also know what you did. so I find it ignorant on your part.

1. You make a short statement and ask:
2. My response is straight forward and makes two points. I will make them in two colors:
The first part of this statement states I have no problem with what you are saying so I stand in agreement. The second part of the phrase states that pedophiles may disagree with you. This is not a difficult phrase to understand.
3. In the third quote you ask the question: after using this quote of mine as if to say what my words reflect is that I support the raping of children.
Misrepresenting someone is no way to debate or discuss. It is especially in poor taste when it involves the sensitive topic. I find your tactic deplorable and you despicable. Debate with you over. You should check and see if you have moral qualities before you try and debate them.
Click to expand...

You missed the point.

In the circumstance of someone being a pedo, is child rape ok? No. Thus, your argument about pedos disagreeing is nonsense.
 
ecofarm said:
You missed the point.

In the circumstance of someone being a pedo, is child rape ok? No. Thus, your argument about pedos disagreeing is nonsense.
Click to expand...

In the circumstance of one being a pedophile... no, though I would imagine it very possible depending of this individual's conception of morality, and the nature of his sexual inclinations. Child molester, also possibly no, as the individual may be under some delusions regarding the... consonance of his acts. Child rapist—certainly. All you're denoting is that you don't find it okay, as well as the majority of your peers. Most nothing is absolute friend; and all is righteous in madness.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
To you "theft is theft" but your morality doesn't dictate someone else's morality nor the morality of society. You continue to prove my point.
Click to expand...

All that I continue to prove is that your stance is neither logical or based on morality. You must abuse someone else for your stance to exist making it immoral.

Obviously the cases you cited aren't theft.
Click to expand...

Obviously they are. The only question that was ever open is if they are wrong. Since there is no logical basis to decree they are not wrong, they are in fact wrong.
 
mpg said:
Does it exist? If so, what is it?
Click to expand...

Personally,I really don't know what morals really are.All I know is that lots people try to force their "morality" on others.

What I do know is that I have a personal code of ethics that I strongly adhere to.Mostly stuff from Taoism,with some Buddhism and some neo-paganism. As long as I adhere to my code of ethics everything in my life goes quite nicely.I have the love of my wife and children,the respect of my peers,and success in my business ventures.It is when I stray from my code of ethics that I get into trouble.So I try very hard to adhere to my code of ethics.
 
Henrin said:
All that I continue to prove is that your stance is neither logical or based on morality. You must abuse someone else for your stance to exist making it immoral.
Click to expand...
Just like the example with the gunman above, situations you guys always ignore, when it comes to life and death (and even severe injury) there are exceptions. There's nothing illogical or immoral about it.


Henrin said:
Obviously they are. The only question that was ever open is if they are wrong. Since there is no logical basis to decree they are not wrong, they are in fact wrong.
Click to expand...
I'm sure in your mind someone can commit legal theft. Again, I disagree with you. To me that's like saying it's legal murder.
 
That's murder, not kill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill


ecofarm said:
That's kill. Impossible? Of course, the Law is damnation and cannot save. Still, we should do our best; just like with every other commandment. This idea that it is 'murder' and not 'kill' comes from some kind of delusion that the goal is attainable. It's not attainable, it represents God in the premonition of His Son.
Click to expand...

Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express
 
mpg said:
Society and how we're raised are both outside forces.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't word that very well. Our morality is shaped by outside forces, but it isn't determined by some inherent natural law or the will of god or anything like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom