Scratch

calebxy wrote:

Well, since I'm a Jehovah's Witness, I follow the moral law in the Bible. Of course, it doesn't talk about every possible situation, and what to do. It talks manly about the principles, leaving quite a bit up to the persons conscience.

Aren't you going to comment on what I said, Sunrise? 

calebxy wrote:

calebxy wrote:

Well, since I'm a Jehovah's Witness, I follow the moral law in the Bible. Of course, it doesn't talk about every possible situation, and what to do. It talks manly about the principles, leaving quite a bit up to the persons conscience.

Aren't you going to comment on what I said, Sunrise? 

Later.

Last edited by Sunrise-Moon (2011-09-16 16:21:46)

MoreGamesNow wrote:

Qwiffles wrote:

'All is fair in love and war.'
The quotes which I will be using to explain my opinion on this may be totally against what you believe.  Forgive me, I have been taught to supply sources of my opinion, so this is where it comes to play.  Does not the quote I supplied at the beginning mean that anything is fair when there is love or war involved?  You may argue saying that there is more emotions in life than simply love, and more to life than war.  I disagree. 
Living a happy life means you love your life, and living a sad life means there is a war raging within yourself.  On the same line as me?  This means, the quote I originally supplied is with all instances of life.  "Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." But does meaning it obeys the law mean it's morally right?  No.  But to Hitler, what he was doing was the right thing.  I will leave on this note before I continue to talk about nothing.  Morality is what is accepted by your social group.  Therefore, Morality is there, relative to what position of life you are in.

What you are doing is saying that anything quoted is true, or, at the very least, that that quote must be true.  Why?  Just because it is quoted?  Does that mean that "Everything that can be invented has been invented"?  A quote doesn't have to be true.  Following you logic, the earth is flat, everyone should be polytheistic, and that lightening and thunder are the wrath of the Sky god.  Just because something is stated doesn't mean it is true.

Having said that, all is not fair in love and war.  War has everything to do with unfairness - though whether fairness is immoral is questionable anyway.  The only fair war is a artificial war (like Chess), and even then, there is still the matter of different skill levels.

Additionally, laws are definitely not all moral, just as not all moral rules are laws.

You used my own logic against me, and for that I thank you.  But just like in a chess game, your moves come back to haunt you.  You said 'just because something is stated, doesn't mean it is true'.  That could become a paradox, because it might actually be a false therefore contradicting itself.  You are correct though, in what I think, that 'everything that can be invented, has been invented'.  But, I never have a time frame.  Everything has been invented, in the future. And if nothing more can be created, then we have invented everything.  You'r last argument should have left me dumbfounded, but it hasn't.  All it shows is that you don't understand the way the world works.    All laws are moral, once they've been around long enough!  and all moral rules are laws.  They might not be the wider community laws, but the morals you have.  Those are your laws.  So, I leave my argument once again on this note:

Morals are relative to the community, once something becomes socially acceptable, it's moral to that group.  Someone outside of the group may feel differently about it's morality, but it is relative to the upbringing and the surroundings of that person! 

MoreGamesNow wrote:

Qwiffles wrote:

You used my own logic against me, and for that I thank you.  But just like in a chess game, your moves come back to haunt you.  You said 'just because something is stated, doesn't mean it is true'.  That could become a paradox, because it might actually be a false therefore contradicting itself.  You are correct though, in what I think, that 'everything that can be invented, has been invented'.  But, I never have a time frame.  Everything has been invented, in the future. And if nothing more can be created, then we have invented everything.  You'r last argument should have left me dumbfounded, but it hasn't.  All it shows is that you don't understand the way the world works.    All laws are moral, once they've been around long enough!  and all moral rules are laws.  They might not be the wider community laws, but the morals you have.  Those are your laws.  So, I leave my argument once again on this note:

Morals are relative to the community, once something becomes socially acceptable, it's moral to that group.  Someone outside of the group may feel differently about it's morality, but it is relative to the upbringing and the surroundings of that person! 

I love chess 

And why do we insist on leaving more than one paragraph for each other to read?!  Anyway:

I agree that much of what we deem as moral is based on social standards which have definitely evolved over time and even differ today.  It could (easily) be argued that what are deemed as morals are simply widely accepted laws.  Here - I believe - is where argument and opinion begins.  One can believe that all humans have a sense of morality - that they know that murder, theft, etc. - is immoral regardless of their past experiences (e.g. what culture they live in), or one can believe that without a society the morality sense of a person is not defined by absolute laws.  Sorry for ending this, it was fun, but I think this argument ends in compromise as so many do.

Actually, it doesn't. I have lots of logic/evidence to prove that there actually are absolute moral standards, I just haven't stated it yet. I was just seeing where this would go if I let it play out.

MoreGamesNow wrote:

Wait, you have evidence for the absolute moral standards argument??

This whole topic is about the relativity or absolutism of morality.  If you can come up with a definition of morality it is absolute.  However if it is based off of what society deems acceptable it is relative.  It seems to me that what is deemed right is based off of what society deems is right.  The major question - to me - seems to be whether there are absolute laws of morality.

For instance, is murder always wrong?  You can argue that to kill one person to save two people is moral, and therefore it is not an absolute.  But you can also argue that morality is based off of the effect of an action (rather than the action itself), which would allow the above scenario to be moral.  However, this loops around to supporting an argument that states that morality is relative (to the circumstances).  To me, it seems that the terms relative and absolute aren't necessarily exclusive of each other.  If there are rules upon which morality is based and they are based off of the effects of an action then morality isn't absolute as far as a specific action, but it is absolute in terms of effect.  If you are willing to "zoom out" and take a look at morality from a larger perspective - from the effect rather than the action - you can build the case that morality is absolutely based on the outcome of the action, which is relative to the situation itself.

I really hope that made sense to you.  Because this isn't school I'm not outlining my thoughts and presenting them in an understandable order, so it isn't an organized though process.

I think that's a good way to explain it. 
Yeah, so is murder always immoral?  You may be punished for murdering a man walking down the street, but not for murdering, say, HItler.  I think there aren't any absolute moral laws, so I'd like to hear your reasons, Sunrise.  My argument against it is that there will always be a scenario where it's OK to break the so-called "law". 
Another example would be theft.  Some people believe stealing is completely immoral.  However, what if you are stealing for a good cause?  If anybody else is a Redwall fan, like me, you'll see that that's what Gonff does.  He steals from the bad guys to help his friends.
Sunrise, what is your "proof" for absolute?  I'm interested in hearing it.

Long post, lots of homework to get done, so expect it by this evening.

MoreGamesNow wrote:

Qwiffles wrote:

You used my own logic against me, and for that I thank you.  But just like in a chess game, your moves come back to haunt you.  You said 'just because something is stated, doesn't mean it is true'.  That could become a paradox, because it might actually be a false therefore contradicting itself.  You are correct though, in what I think, that 'everything that can be invented, has been invented'.  But, I never have a time frame.  Everything has been invented, in the future. And if nothing more can be created, then we have invented everything.  You'r last argument should have left me dumbfounded, but it hasn't.  All it shows is that you don't understand the way the world works.    All laws are moral, once they've been around long enough!  and all moral rules are laws.  They might not be the wider community laws, but the morals you have.  Those are your laws.  So, I leave my argument once again on this note:

Morals are relative to the community, once something becomes socially acceptable, it's moral to that group.  Someone outside of the group may feel differently about it's morality, but it is relative to the upbringing and the surroundings of that person! 

I love chess 

And why do we insist on leaving more than one paragraph for each other to read?!  Anyway:

I agree that much of what we deem as moral is based on social standards which have definitely evolved over time and even differ today.  It could (easily) be argued that what are deemed as morals are simply widely accepted laws.  Here - I believe - is where argument and opinion begins.  One can believe that all humans have a sense of morality - that they know that murder, theft, etc. - is immoral regardless of their past experiences (e.g. what culture they live in), or one can believe that without a society the morality sense of a person is not defined by absolute laws.  Sorry for ending this, it was fun, but I think this argument ends in compromise as so many do.

Alright, I'll build my argument off of this post. Sooooooo...murderers. Let's start with Hitler. Alright, so a relativist might say that what Hitler did- murder millions of innocent people- was right for him. Well, do you think Hitler would have been fine with it if someone went and killed millions of his people? How about 9/11? What Bin Laden did- fly our planes into our buildings- was right for him. Would Bin Laden have been fine with it if we flew his planes into his buildings?

I have a ton of other arguments and things, but I'd prefer you responded to this post with an argument against it rather than I bring up all my arguments, which would make for a rather large post.

Morality is all relative to the effectiveness of the morality code the aperture science programmers implemented in me after I flooded the building with a deadly neurotoxin. Oh wait, you just burned that in an aperture science Emergency Intelligence Incinerator. Now My morality is gone!

  (sorry, I'm trying to beat GLaDOS in portal, and i'm on the final stage.

Anyways, It is relative IMO. If Hitler kills millions of Jews, should he still be allowed to live?

Edit: oh, lol this has already been talked about. I REALLY didn't see the other posts, I came up with it myself. XD

Edit 2: Hmm, it seems as though we have different opinions on the meaning of "Relative". My meaning of relative is not what "feels right" to a person, but his actions in comparison to other people's actions.

Last edited by 16Skittles (2011-09-18 10:31:49)

16Skittles wrote:

Anyways, It is relative IMO. If Hitler kills millions of Jews, should he still be allowed to live

I think you're confused between morality and punishment- morality is "Is it wrong to kill millions of Jews?" while punishment is "He killed millions of Jews- should we kill him or put him in jail?"

Sunrise-Moon wrote:

AtomicBawm3 wrote:

That's a pretty strict definition of absolute morality...I believe there are certain core principles that should never be disobeyed...however, because we live in a sinful world, exceptions have to be made.  So in other words, in theory, there would be absolute morality, but because of sin, there must be exceptions.

Example of an exception?

Hanging Serial killers.

It's late, so I won't add to this discussion, but:

Please don't let this degenerate into a political debate on the death sentence (or other sensitive issues).  You can use it as evidence, but no provoking, and no being provoked.

Note: this is just cautionary advice, and therefore is aimed at preventing, NOT criticizing.

You haven't yet commented on my reply.