• 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!

legislating morality

which laws?


  • Total voters
    33
How do you dispute it?

And you didnt demonstrate anything....that's why you need to explain it.

Man is both a material and a spiritual creature by nature, however to keep this simple I'm not going to argue that fact, as it is unnecessary to prove my other points.

I did demonstrate it.
 
I didn't start with the assumption that the holocaust was wrong. What specific false assumption did I make?

Not everyone agrees on the shape of the Earth.

Assumption: The holocaust was intentional killings committed without sufficient cause.

Everyone with a brain agrees on the shape of the Earth....most people just dont use the exact measurements and geometric term.
 
Man is both a material and a spiritual creature by nature, however to keep this simple I'm not going to argue that fact, as it is unnecessary to prove my other points.

I did demonstrate it.

Nope. Consciousness is not the same as spiritualism, if that is where you are going with this.

And you did not demonstrate it....you made a claim....unsupported.
 
Assumption: The holocaust was intentional killings committed without sufficient cause.

Everyone with a brain agrees on the shape of the Earth....most people just dont use the exact measurements and geometric term.

That they were intentional is historical fact. Sufficient cause is an affirmative claim so the burden is on those who would argue that it wasn't objectively immoral to come up with one.

Have you heard of the Flat Earth Society?
 
Nope. Consciousness is not the same as spiritualism, if that is where you are going with this.

And you did not demonstrate it....you made a claim....unsupported.

I'm not going to argue about the soul, as it is unnecessary to prove my point.

I supported my claim with argument.
 
That they were intentional is historical fact. Sufficient cause is an affirmative claim so the burden is on those who would argue that it wasn't objectively immoral to come up with one.

A load of gobbledy gook that proves nothing except there was some shared consensual opinion on it. Not fact. Fact is, not everyone believed...***esp at the time** that there wasnt sufficient reason. Ask any anti-Semite.

Have you heard of the Flat Earth Society?

Since the shape and size of the Earth is measurable, it is fact. Provable. It doesnt matter what they believe if it can be proven.

..................
 
Morality may be subjective, but not some morals are more subjective than others. Certain concepts, like prohibitions against killing other people are shared by such an overwhelming majority that you can build a society around them even with the outliers. You can use root concepts as a foundation upon which you can create meta-rules that promote said concept in reality. Thus, you get things like laws against building a fireworks factory under an apartment, which is based on objective calculations that it would violate the core concept of not killing other people. Such a system is still not truly objective, but its certainly considerably more so than banning wearing a certain type of fabric of Thursdays because your deity said so.
I agree. There are degrees of subjectivity. Deciding how much subjectivity is too much, is a decision that requires extreme amounts of subjectivity.
 
I'm not going to argue about the soul, as it is unnecessary to prove my point.

I supported my claim with argument.

Good. What is your point again? Mine is that human nature is biological in nature, and that morals and rights are human constructs....not biological in origin.

And fortunately for you, I've forgotten what you didnt support with your argument because you deliberately avoided it. I'll let it go right now because I really dont care. I may go look for it later, for reference. But just you saying "I did!" doesnt not mean you actually did.
 
True, but there is a difference between legislating morality that maximizes freedom without causing harm to others and legislating morality that maximizes harm to others and minimizes freedom.

Generally when the morality comes from extremist sides of religion, we get the later. See Iran. Or Saudi Arabia.
There are extremes on both the left and the right.
 
..................

I as I said, it is historical fact that the German government intentionally killed people during the holocaust. The burden is on whoever is arguing for the holocaust not being objectively immoral to show sufficient cause, that's basic logic.

And the immorality of the holocaust is also provable.
 
Good. What is your point again? Mine is that human nature is biological in nature, and that morals and rights are human constructs....not biological in origin.

And fortunately for you, I've forgotten what you didnt support with your argument because you deliberately avoided it. I'll let it go right now because I really dont care. I may go look for it later, for reference. But just you saying "I did!" doesnt not mean you actually did.

Morals proceed from human nature, as demonstrated.

You quoted my argument in post #43.
 
I as I said, it is historical fact that the German government intentionally killed people during the holocaust. The burden is on whoever is arguing for the holocaust not being objectively immoral to show sufficient cause, that's basic logic.

And the immorality of the holocaust is also provable.


Prove it. You cannot. Cause was sufficient to that govt at that time. As was prevailing 'morals.'

Today most agree it was immoral, but not everyone agrees.

This is the entire point of the thread....morality is subjective.
 
Your failure to actually address my argument is noted.
Your argument was addressed.
It is wrong.
Telling you that you haven't established any such thing. Is addressing your argument.

And the following fully and succinctly addressed it.
"All there is are actions, and interpretations of those actions. Those interpretations are all subjective."



But since you don't seem to understand that lets address each statement to further show how wrong your statements are.



You're starting with the premise that morality is a matter of subjective opinion. This is circular reasoning.
No it isn't.
Morality is a matter of subjective opinion.
And the immorality of the Holocaust can be proved:
Only within a subjective framework.
Such as what you believe is good/bad/evil. Belief make it subjective.


1. A thing is good insofar as it is in accordance with its nature (thus a good car is one which works properly, or a good pencil is one which writes well).
What is good is subjective.


2. Free human acts are matters of morality.
No they are not. That is a condition that you have placed on them. Others don't.


3. Therefore an act which is against human nature is morally wrong.
You can not have an act that is against human nature.


4. It is against man's social nature to intentionally kill others without sufficient cause (since if it were, there would be a contradiction, as if such were right, then by doing this right thing a man would deprive others of their ability to do it to him, which would violate the fundamental equality of humans).
No it is not against man's nature, social or otherwise..
Man's nature is to kill that which he chooses for whatever sufficient reason he chooses.
An insult still is enough to kill for in places around the globe.


5. The holocaust was intentional killings committed without sufficient cause.
Wrong. They were intentional killings for cause. Which would be, being worthless Jews.
Others, in their subjective views, believed that to be wrong, and in there framework (which is subjective) it was objectively wrong. But onlyy within the subjective framework.
Outside of it, it is nothing more than an action.


Thus it is proved that the holocaust was immoral.
:lamo:doh:lamo
Thus nothing. You haven't proved any such thing.
And what you think you proved doesn't hold for the other side of the coin.
 
Last edited:
You know what I meant.

You're starting with the premise that morality is a matter of subjective opinion. This is circular reasoning. And the immorality of the Holocaust can be proved:

1. A thing is good insofar as it is in accordance with its nature (thus a good car is one which works properly, or a good pencil is one which writes well).

2. Free human acts are matters of morality.

3. Therefore an act which is against human nature is morally wrong.

4. It is against man's social nature to intentionally kill others without sufficient cause (since if it were, there would be a contradiction, as if such were right, then by doing this right thing a man would deprive others of their ability to do it to him, which would violate the fundamental equality of humans).

5. The holocaust was intentional killings committed without sufficient cause.

Thus it is proved that the holocaust was immoral.
I believe in objective morality, but I don't believe that humans are smart enough to say what is and isn't moral with 100% certainty. It's just like objective beauty. A woman might be more beautiful than another woman, but it's impossible to prove even when it's obvious. I believe that the holocaust was immoral and I believe that it's incredibly obvious, but it's impossible to prove.
 
Which laws are examples of people forcing their morals onto others?

If by morality laws you mean the ten commandants, then certainly the thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness are three this nation adheres to and I suspect that all regardless of religion or the absent of religion agree should be enforced. The rest are subjective to one's beliefs or non-beliefs. The three I first mention, sure enough the government should be involved in and should enforce them strictly. The rest, government should not be involved in at all. They are up to the individual involved.
 
Morals proceed from human nature, as demonstrated.

You quoted my argument in post #43.


LOL...and I have continually shown how everything in that claim, all the numbered items, were opinion, subjective. The fact that you keep saying you demonstrated anything wit that list as an answer is a waste of time, as it's the reference point I countered.

And how did you demonstrate that morals proceed from human nature? That is a very generic statement...please be more specific.
 
I as I said, it is historical fact that the German government intentionally killed people during the holocaust. The burden is on whoever is arguing for the holocaust not being objectively immoral to show sufficient cause, that's basic logic.

And the immorality of the holocaust is also provable.

Note I’m one that believes it absolutely did happen, and absolutely believe it was a horrible, unjust, evil thing.

But it’s definitely a subjective thing.

You keep saying “sufficient cause”

All “sufficient cause” means is essentially “enough to make it happen”.

The intentional killings perpetrated during the holocaust occurred due to the desire of that nation’s leader to kill large groups of people he felt were genetically inferior in a quick and efficient manner.

They had “sufficient cause” to happen.

Now if you want to move the goal posts to “sufficient just cause” or “sufficient moral cause” you can…but then you’re just proving it’s a subjective thing, as “justice” and “morality” are in and of themselves subjective things.

The holocaust happened because there was sufficient cause….the desire of Hitler for it to happen was more than sufficient enough to cause the holocaust to occur.
 
Your argument was addressed.
It is wrong.
Telling you that you haven't established any such thing. Is addressing your argument.

And the following fully and succinctly addressed it.
"All there is are actions, and interpretations of those actions. Those interpretations are all subjective."



But since you don't seem to understand that lets address each statement to further show how wrong your statements are.




No it isn't.
Morality is a matter of subjective opinion.
Only within a subjective framework.
Such as what you believe is good/bad/evil. Belief make it subjective.


What is good is subjective.


No they are not. That is a condition that you have placed on them. Others don't.


You can not have an act that is against human nature.


No it is not against man's nature, social or otherwise..
Man's nature is to kill that which he chooses for whatever sufficient reason he chooses.
An insult still is enough to kill for in places around the globe.


Wrong. They were intentional killings for cause. Which would be, being worthless Jews.
Others, in their subjective views, believed that to be wrong, and in there framework (which is subjective) it was objectively wrong. But onlyy within the subjective framework.
Outside of it, it is nothing more than an action.


:lamo:doh:lamo
Thus nothing. You haven't proved any such thing.
And what you think you proved doesn't hold for the other side of the coin.

1. Demonstrate this.

2. Demonstrate this.

3. Demonstrate this.

4. The burden is on the person killing to show sufficient reason.

5. Thank you for actually attempting an argument. As to your argument, that they were worthless Jews, I would counter that the burden of proof remains on you to show why Jews are of less value than other people.

I believe in objective morality, but I don't believe that humans are smart enough to say what is and isn't moral with 100% certainty. It's just like objective beauty. A woman might be more beautiful than another woman, but it's impossible to prove even when it's obvious. I believe that the holocaust was immoral and I believe that it's incredibly obvious, but it's impossible to prove.

How do you counter my argument?
 
Note I’m one that believes it absolutely did happen, and absolutely believe it was a horrible, unjust, evil thing.

But it’s definitely a subjective thing.

You keep saying “sufficient cause”

All “sufficient cause” means is essentially “enough to make it happen”.

The intentional killings perpetrated during the holocaust occurred due to the desire of that nation’s leader to kill large groups of people he felt were genetically inferior in a quick and efficient manner.

They had “sufficient cause” to happen.

Now if you want to move the goal posts to “sufficient just cause” or “sufficient moral cause” you can…but then you’re just proving it’s a subjective thing, as “justice” and “morality” are in and of themselves subjective things.

The holocaust happened because there was sufficient cause….the desire of Hitler for it to happen was more than sufficient enough to cause the holocaust to occur.

By "sufficient cause" I meant sufficient cause to justify it.

Justice and morality are not subjective, and the burden is on those arguing that it wasn't objectively immoral to show sufficient cause to justify it.
 
By "sufficient cause" I meant sufficient cause to justify it.

Justice and morality are not subjective, and the burden is on those arguing that it wasn't objectively immoral to show sufficient cause to justify it.

Justice is also subjective. That's why even when some laws are enforced and people are convicted, there is no actual justice.

The law says that 10 yrs in prison is 'justice' for some murders, however the family of the persons killed often do not feel that that is justice.

Some people would say that after accidentally running over someone in a crosswalk, and then the driver hits a telephone pole and dies...that that is justice. Some people would not.
 
1. Demonstrate this.

2. Demonstrate this.

3. Demonstrate this.

4. The burden is on the person killing to show sufficient reason.

5. Thank you for actually attempting an argument. As to your argument, that they were worthless Jews, I would counter that the burden of proof remains on you to show why Jews are of less value than other people.



How do you counter my argument?
Which one?
 
Which laws are examples of people forcing their morals onto others?

Banning prostitution for adults.

Outlawing recreational drugs for adults.

Obscenity laws.

Gun control.

Taxes.

Only a partial list
 
1. Demonstrate this.

2. Demonstrate this.

3. Demonstrate this.

4. The burden is on the person killing to show sufficient reason.

5. As to your argument, that they were worthless Jews, I would counter that the burden of proof remains on you to show why Jews are of less value than other people.
1. Demonstrate what?
2. Demonstrate what?
3. Demonstrate what?
4. And they did. The simple fact of being the hated Jew was enough.
5. Oy Vey! You just don't get it. It is not on me to show any such thing.
It is not my argument, it is what they believed about the Jew. Do you really not understand that?

This is what they though of the Jews.
Nazi Party Pamphlet
Those Damned Nazis (1932)

[...]

Why Do We Oppose the Jews?


We oppose the Jews because we are defending the freedom of the German people. The Jew is the cause and beneficiary of our slavery He has misused the social misery of the broad masses to deepen the dreadful split between the right and left of our people, to divide Germany into two halves thereby concealing the true reason for the loss of the Great War and falsifying the nature of the revolution.

The Jew has no interest in solving the German question. He cannot have such an interest. He depends on it remaining unsolved. If the German people formed a united community and won back its freedom, there would be no place any longer for the Jew. His hand is strongest when a people lives in domestic and international slavery, not when it is free, industrious, self-aware and determined. The Jew caused our problems, and lives from them.

That is why we oppose the Jew as nationalists and as socialists. He has ruined our race, corrupted our morals, hollowed out our customs and broken our strength. We owe it to him that we today are the Pariah of the world. He was the leper among as long as we were German. When we forgot our German nature, he triumphed over us and our future.

The Jew is the plastic demon of decomposition. Where he finds filth and decay, he surfaces and begins his butcher’s work among the nations. He hides behind a mask and presents himself as a friend to his victims, and before they know it he has broken their neck.

The Jew is uncreative. He produces nothing, he only haggles with products. With rags, clothing, pictures, jewels, grain, stocks, cures, peoples and states. He has somehow stolen everything he deals in. When he attacks a state he is a revolutionary. As soon as he holds power, he preaches peace and order so that he can devour his conquests in comfort.

What does anti-Semitism have to do with socialism? I would put the question this way: What does the Jew have to do with socialism? Socialism has to do with labor. When did one ever see him working instead of plundering, stealing and living from the sweat of others? As socialists we are opponents of the Jews because we see in the Hebrews the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods.

What does anti-Semitism have to do with nationalism? I would put the question this way: What does the Jew have to do with nationalism? Nationalism has to do with blood and race. The Jew is the enemy and destroyer of the purity of blood, the conscious destroyer of our race. As nationalists we oppose the Jews because we see the Hebrews as the eternal enemy of our national honor and of our national freedom.

But the Jew, after all, is also a human being. Certainly, none of us doubts that. We only doubt that he is a decent human being. He does not get along with us. He lives by other laws than we do. The fact that he is a human being is not sufficient reason for us to allow him to subject us in inhumane ways. He may be a human being — but what kind of a human being is he! If someone slaps your mother in the face, do you say: “Thank you! He is after all a human being!” That is not a human being, it is a monster. Yet how much worse has the Jew done to our mother Germany, and is still doing today!

There are also white Jews. True, there are scoundrels among us, even though they are Germans, who act in immoral ways against their own racial and blood comrades. But why do we call them white Jews? You use the term to describe something inferior and contemptible. Just as we do. Why do you ask us why we oppose the Jews when you without knowing it are one too?

Anti-Semitism is not Christian. That means that it is Christian to allow the Jews to go on as they are, stripping the skin from our bodies and mocking us. To be a Christian means to love one’s neighbor as oneself! My neighbor is my racial and blood brother. If I love him, I have to hate his enemies. He who thinks German must despise the Jews. The one requires the other.

Christ himself saw that love did not always work. When he found the moneychangers in the temple, he did not say: “Children, love one another!” He took up a whip and drove them out.

We oppose the Jews because we affirm the German people. The Jew is our greatest misfortune.

[...]



[...]

 
Back
Top Bottom