Sign In

Morality--read the first post before posting or judging my posts

Author
Time

Yes there is already a thread on morals somewhere around here. It’s not mine, it’s not run the way I want to run mine, so I will start my own.

I’ve read far too many unintelligent arguments lately about morals. Some people are convinced they know right from wrong. How interesting!

I don’t have the time to argue like I used to, but I assure you that I can argue with everyone who posts here, even if I actually agree with you. I will be playing devil’s advocate in this thread.

Remember, you don’t really even know what you believe to be right or wrong until you’ve tried to argue for the opposing point of view to the best of your ability.

So…

What is right?

What is wrong?

Explain.

Author
Time

So we post something that we think is morally right/wrong, and argue it?

Author
Time

I thought this said “Mortality” at first.

Also: I’m right, everyone else is wrong if they disagree with me. Explanation is not necessary.

Keep Circulating the Tapes.

END OF LINE

(It hasn’t happened yet)

Author
Time

Yes. I’ve read several folks say, “Well, I think that’s stupid because it’s not moral.” I find the arguments against the religious folks to be most striking. How do those who do not believe in any Supreme Being know what is right or wrong? I’m not saying they are not moral. I’m pressing them to define their morality. But likewise, why do we religious folks not exactly follow what our own scriptures do say? Where do we derive our morality?

Author
Time

Tyrphanax said:

I thought this said “Mortality” at first.

Also: I’m right, everyone else is wrong if they disagree with me. Explanation is not necessary.

Lazy Tyrphanax, is Lazy

😉

Author
Time

Since we don’t necessarily have to argue our actual opinions, I’d love to see someone try and defend the Holocaust or something equally egregious.

Author
Time

It doesn’t have to be specific.

Why is murder wrong? When is killing right? Are animals entitled to equal rights as people in terms of killing? Are fetuses entitled to equal rights as born humans?

But most important, why?

There are a plethora of topics worth discussion, and this is merely an example

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Morality is subjective and personal, ethics are codified by institutions and are situational, legality is dependent on the state. If you don’t like what someone does ask yourself how does this hurt me. If it obstructs your life adversely seek legal action. If the laws don’t exist lobby your representatives. If it doesn’t hurt you just leave it alone. Keep to your ethics and morals and let other people live their lives as they see fit. If you do stick your nose in expect to get a response you won’t like. People have every right to fight for and defend their freedoms.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

It doesn’t have to be specific.

Why is murder wrong? When is killing right? Are animals entitled to equal rights as people in terms of killing? Are fetuses entitled to equal rights as born humans?

But most important, why?

Murder is a tricky one…killing someone in general with no provocation is the ultimate wrong doing because you’re excreting your will upon that person in the most potent manner. And not only are you ending a person but you are ending what that particular person could have become. But on the flip side I think murder is justified if it’s to save an innocent life or if the law is to inept to put the murderer away.

Author
Time

Bingowings said:

Morality is subjective and personal, ethics are codified by institutions and are situational, legality is dependent on the state.

I believe these are good and useful definitions.

If you don’t like what someone does ask yourself how does this hurt me. If it obstructs your life adversely seek legal action. If the laws don’t exist lobby your representatives. If it doesn’t hurt you just leave it alone. Keep to your ethics and morals and let other people live their lives as they see fit. If you do stick your nose in expect to get a response you won’t like. People have every right to fight for and defend their freedoms.

But this is where I argue, as I promised to do in the beginning. Just because something hurts you does not mean what they do is or should be illegal. Surgery hurts. Dental work hurts. Disciplinary action at work obstructs one’s life.

If it doesn’t hurt you but it hurts someone else, why should I not take action? Could not more Germans have taken action when the Jews of the Third Reich were having their rights removed further and further? It didn’t hurt those non-Jews, but perhaps they could have done something.

If someone else’s differing morals do not affect you directly, but you feel they adversely affect your society, are you not obliged to fight against their personal beliefs and moral code? They have the right to fight back, but fighting back implies you have the right to fight them in the first place.

Author
Time

As a member of society If something someone is doing has a negative impact on society in general, it does hurt me so I can go through the legal process or lobby for legal change by all the means legally available to me.
But if I can’t see how it can effect society in general or myself specifically what right have I to even comment beyond general enquiry? It’s interesting to learn new things about people so asking questions is the best way to avoid prejudice which I personally find morally and ethically indefensible.
I have no objection to Orson Scott Card’s religious beliefs (they aren’t and never will be mine but if he finds comfort and value in them they are his and I would defend his right to keep them) and I liked his books until they were tainted by his bizarre political comments and political lobbying (which he is in his right to do as he would argue that ‘promoting’ homosexuality is bad for society in general of which he is a member) but I as a member and a former customer have every right as the injured party to act against him in the same manner. To protect my freedoms, express my disappointment and disgust to allocate my limited money to exciting new non-bigotted authors.
Sorry to repeat this is one example of how I balance morals, ethics and the legal rights of protest and withholding of future payment but it’s a good example I think of how my mind makes those sorts of judgements. Dead artists can neither be quizzed or slandered so it’s very difficult to gauge what they thought back then or how they would react in a modern contest. Ghosts can’t change their mind, sadly. They can’t personally benefit from my pocket money either so despite the rumours about HP Lovecraft I have no problem buying his books (especially from a charity shop). Thrift is a moral and ethical practise I approve of.

Author
Time

Lord Haseo said:

darth_ender said:

It doesn’t have to be specific.

Why is murder wrong? When is killing right? Are animals entitled to equal rights as people in terms of killing? Are fetuses entitled to equal rights as born humans?

But most important, why?

Murder is a tricky one…killing someone in general with no provocation is the ultimate wrong doing because you’re excreting your will upon that person in the most potent manner. And not only are you ending a person but you are ending what that particular person could have become. But on the flip side I think murder is justified if it’s to save an innocent life or if the law is to inept to put the murderer away.

Is it really wrong? We in the modern world talk as if it is a given, but might not humans be a stronger, better species if we allowed for more natural selection? Survival of the fittest would allow for superior genetics, and we might not be plagued with so many physical and mental illnesses. Humans could utilize their natural aggression to better the species as a whole.

Is ending what a person might have been really so bad? We do it all the time when women get abortions, yet it remains legal.

Are you advocating for vigilantism? Without the order imposed by society in the legal system, would not society collapse?

Yes, I contradict myself, but the point is, are you sure you are right?

Author
Time

Bingowings said:

As a member of society If something someone is doing has a negative impact on society in general, it does hurt me so I can go through the legal process or lobby for legal change by all the means legally available to me.

Societies change, and their definition of what harms and helps them changes as well. Aztecs felt human sacrifices were a benefit to their society.

But if I can’t see how it can effect society in general or myself specifically what right have I to even comment beyond general enquiry? It’s interesting to learn new things about people so asking questions is the best way to avoid prejudice which I personally find morally and ethically indefensible.

I actually can’t argue with this at all. I completely agree and see no need to play devil’s advocate here. 😃

I have no objection to Orson Scott Card’s religious beliefs (they aren’t and never will be mine but if he finds comfort and value in them they are his and I would defend his right to keep them) and I liked his books until they were tainted by his bizarre political comments and political lobbying (which he is in his right to do as he would argue that ‘promoting’ homosexuality is bad for society in general of which he is a member) but I as a member and a former customer have every right as the injured party to act against him in the same manner. To protect my freedoms, express my disappointment and disgust to allocate my limited money to exciting new non-bigotted authors.

Well put as well.

Sorry to repeat this is one example of how I balance morals, ethics and the legal rights of protest and withholding of future payment but it’s a good example I think of how my mind makes those sorts of judgements. Dead artists can neither be quizzed or slandered so it’s very difficult to gauge what they thought back then or how they would react in a modern contest. Ghosts can’t change their mind, sadly. They can’t personally benefit from my pocket money either so despite the rumours about HP Lovecraft I have no problem buying his books (especially from a charity shop). Thrift is a moral and ethical practise I approve of.

But here I can argue. You say elsewhere that Christians and Jews and Muslims need to repudiate parts of their texts. I disagree, based on your very statements here. The authors of the Bible lived in the context of their own culture. I do not for one instant believe God dictated the Bible word for word, but rather believe it was the inspiration of men living in their own time. God inspired what was truly a socially advanced society compared to those surrounding Israel, but by today’s standards looks primitive. Instead of judging the Bible and the religions based on it, I would judge today’s people on how they live the principles Christ laid down, which include loving our neighbors. I believe God intended for people to grow in tolerance of each other as their societies were prepared to do so.

So my argument is this: don’t judge past authors by today’s standards.

I hope this is the beginning of more fruitful discussion. I’ve never held any ill will towards you, but merely frustration with what I believe was a serious barrier in our communication.

Author
Time

If the Bible was held as an excitingly strange book of myth as we now see Homer or Sophocles I wouldn’t have a problem with picking up a copy and just enjoying it as a piece of literature past and all (in fact this is how I see most religious films and I get a lot enjoyment out of them generally).
But as a guide book on how to run a modern society (which it is often seen as) I am less generous with it or the devotees that use it in this way.
People are very protective of scripture of all kinds because a large sway of the religious communities that use them see them as the unalterable and true testament of God or the Gods. It has a weight for them of being even higher than a scientific treaties or a political manifesto and as such is used to restrict the freedoms of people who don’t and will never believe this to be true.
So it’s fair to contextualise the time in which it was written, what then benefits of the rituals once were and how it’s highly probably not literally true just to counter the toxic effect of people who do fall for the whole shabang. And I would include scriptures of all kinds there including the oldest Hindu Veda to the most modern alien exorcism pamphlet from Church of BadScienceFictonology.org.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

darth_ender said:

It doesn’t have to be specific.

Why is murder wrong? When is killing right? Are animals entitled to equal rights as people in terms of killing? Are fetuses entitled to equal rights as born humans?

But most important, why?

Murder is a tricky one…killing someone in general with no provocation is the ultimate wrong doing because you’re excreting your will upon that person in the most potent manner. And not only are you ending a person but you are ending what that particular person could have become. But on the flip side I think murder is justified if it’s to save an innocent life or if the law is to inept to put the murderer away.

Is it really wrong? We in the modern world talk as if it is a given, but might not humans be a stronger, better species if we allowed for more natural selection? Survival of the fittest would allow for superior genetics, and we might not be plagued with so many physical and mental illnesses. Humans could utilize their natural aggression to better the species as a whole.

That’s an even trickier way of looking at it but the question what would be this person/s deem as the best genetic template? It has to be something more substantial than Hitler’s view on the perfect group of humans in which anyone who doesn’t have blonde hair blue eyes is automatically inferior. Another question would be is gene manipulation a thing in this hypothetical instance?

Is ending what a person might have been really so bad? We do it all the time when women get abortions, yet it remains legal.

Well at least to me a fetus is not really a person yet. Also let’s not forget that some abortions are for women impregnated by their rapist so in that case I think it’s definitely justified to get an abortion.

Are you advocating for vigilantism? Without the order imposed by society in the legal system, would not society collapse?

Only when the Justice System fails. If anything I would prefer a stronger Legal System over having a bunch of would be Batmen and Dexters out there.

Yes, I contradict myself, but the point is, are you sure you are right?

In my mind I am right but I can definitely see how someone can think I’m full of shit.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

darth_ender said:

It doesn’t have to be specific.

Why is murder wrong? When is killing right? Are animals entitled to equal rights as people in terms of killing? Are fetuses entitled to equal rights as born humans?

But most important, why?

Murder is a tricky one…killing someone in general with no provocation is the ultimate wrong doing because you’re excreting your will upon that person in the most potent manner. And not only are you ending a person but you are ending what that particular person could have become. But on the flip side I think murder is justified if it’s to save an innocent life or if the law is to inept to put the murderer away.

Is it really wrong? We in the modern world talk as if it is a given, but might not humans be a stronger, better species if we allowed for more natural selection? Survival of the fittest would allow for superior genetics, and we might not be plagued with so many physical and mental illnesses. Humans could utilize their natural aggression to better the species as a whole.

“Superior genetics” is an arbitrary, human-made concept. Genetical diversity is the most important thing to ensure survival of a species. If we thin out our genepool to follow some ideal, we will become more vulnarable to a drastic change in our environment. Therefore, the survival of as many people as possible is desirable, whereas killing people is wrong.

Ceci n’est pas une signature.

Author
Time

Frank your Majesty said:

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

darth_ender said:

It doesn’t have to be specific.

Why is murder wrong? When is killing right? Are animals entitled to equal rights as people in terms of killing? Are fetuses entitled to equal rights as born humans?

But most important, why?

Murder is a tricky one…killing someone in general with no provocation is the ultimate wrong doing because you’re excreting your will upon that person in the most potent manner. And not only are you ending a person but you are ending what that particular person could have become. But on the flip side I think murder is justified if it’s to save an innocent life or if the law is to inept to put the murderer away.

Is it really wrong? We in the modern world talk as if it is a given, but might not humans be a stronger, better species if we allowed for more natural selection? Survival of the fittest would allow for superior genetics, and we might not be plagued with so many physical and mental illnesses. Humans could utilize their natural aggression to better the species as a whole.

“Superior genetics” is an arbitrary, human-made concept. Genetical diversity is the most important thing to ensure survival of a species. If we thin out our genepool to follow some ideal, we will become more vulnarable to a drastic change in our environment. Therefore, the survival of as many people as possible is desirable, whereas killing people is wrong.

And having “superior genetics” is a bit bigoted. No respect for people with “inferior genetics.”

Author
Time

I take issue with the abortion comparison, but no one is surprised by that.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

So…

What is right?

What is wrong?

Explain.

Who is cray-cray as a honey bee in a maple tree?

Darth_Ender.

That is all.

Author
Time

Who is as cray-cray as ImpScum or HansiG?

Darth Id.

That is all.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

I take issue with the a_____________ comparison, but no one is surprised by that.

I TAKE ISSUE WITH YOUR INSENSITIVE USE OF THE A-WORD!!! YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!! TAKE IT BACK NOW!!! A-WORD! A-WORD!!!
F&%$#(!#$(!($%&$(!(!!!

Author
Time

yhwx said:

Who is as cray-cray as ImpScum or HansiG?

Darth Id.

That is all.

You’re dead weight, WANX.

Author
Time

Darth Id said:

TV’s Frink said:

I take issue with the a_____________ comparison, but no one is surprised by that.

I TAKE ISSUE WITH YOUR INSENSITIVE USE OF THE A-WORD!!! YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!! TAKE IT BACK NOW!!! A-WORD! A-WORD!!!
F&%$#(!#$(!($%&$(!(!!!

Abortion is something that can be a touchy subject for some.

Author
Time

Darth Id said:

yhwx said:

Who is as cray-cray as ImpScum or HansiG?

Darth Id.

That is all.

You’re dead weight, WANX.

You’re dead weight, DICK.