U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-07-2008, 01:09 PM
 
Location: ATL suburb
1,366 posts, read 3,603,242 times
Reputation: 1542

Advertisements

Yes, morals are an opinion and are completely subjective. Even some of the examples people have given here, others wouldn't consider immoral at all.

Thou shall not kill. Well, if someone had a gun to my head and I had an opportunity to take it away from him and use it myself, you better belive I'd use it and have no qualms about it.

Incest. Well, if we're talking about 2 consenting adults, I don't see the problem. I wouldn't do it myself, but to each his own.

There are no absolutes on morals. While the majority of people may consider certain things completely immoral, there will always be at least a small subset of people who don't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-07-2008, 01:40 PM
 
878 posts, read 1,845,775 times
Reputation: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by anadyr21 View Post
There are no absolutes on morals. While the majority of people may consider certain things completely immoral, there will always be at least a small subset of people who don't.
You are falling into the trap that if there are no moral absolutes, then there is no basis for complaining about someone else's morality.

I take the position that someone who professes the morality of immoral acts is wrong.

The idea of absolute morality allows us to characterise certain acts - murder, rape, theft to use previous examples - as objectively wrong. It is our concepts of morality which form the basis for our laws - taking from another for your benefit is objectively wrong, and therefore will not be tolerated by society.

The idea of moral relativism makes it impossible to make these types of objective statements. It leads to societal decisions and situations that would be unthinkable under a system of absolute morality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 01:50 PM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,783 posts, read 3,020,179 times
Reputation: 1335
I don't think that anyone was saying that you could run a society without a set of arbitrary moral absolutes. I don't even think that anyone was arguing against the merits of using a set of limited perspective beliefs. Many here simply were pointing out that no matter how necessary or useful such "absolutes" are, that they are simply a collective agreement to believe in something that will not apply to every individual.

A true set of moral absolutes would require that every human have the exact same set of beliefs, which given our freedom to think independently is impossible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 02:09 PM
 
28,906 posts, read 45,194,930 times
Reputation: 45811
Quote:
Originally Posted by zman0 View Post
Well, in the interest of playing devils advocate, I disagree with your moral perspective of "do not harm others."

If I measure morality based on an evolutionary perspective, then murder is acceptable because it eliminates genetic competition, theft provides additional resources for ensuring my children reach breeding age, and rape provides more opportunity to breed.
Only if you take a very narrow view of morality, defining it as a mechanism that delivers benefits to the individual. In that context, if one person steals one loaf of bread from a WalMart, then it's no big deal. If 10,000,000 people choose to loot grocery stores over the course of a weekend, then you have wholesale civil disorder, a collapse of the distribution channel, and eventual famine.

Murder to eliminate genetic competition pretty much ensures that the male humans do not survive more than a year past puberty, leading to the extinction of the species. And, of course the mass rape of women actually leads to a dysfunctional reproductive process.

And as far as the juvenile argument that the human species is parasitic, well you can say that about any lifeform.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 02:12 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,237 posts, read 72,392,137 times
Reputation: 47449
friend, to get the respect you want on this deep of a post, I think you need to work on your spelling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 02:15 PM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,783 posts, read 3,020,179 times
Reputation: 1335
That is the point! That you believe another belief is "juvenile" does not make it immoral to advocate the extinction of even your own species. There are no absolutes, just agreements among groups to arbitrarily believe in something or other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,636,941 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by zman0 View Post
So self-destructive behavior can never be moral?
You're misreading me if you're thinking that I'd agree with this claim: "Whatever is 'normal' (evolutionarily, biologically, whatever) is what's moral". What you quoted is just descriptive about why commonly found moral views would be common. It's not prescriptive about what's "really moral" or anything like that. I'm about as hardcore a subjectivist on ethics as they come.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 05:04 PM
 
1,651 posts, read 2,702,738 times
Reputation: 283
Morals bled into my business. Any morals I had were replaced with shutting down those people who affected me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 09:46 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,261,063 times
Reputation: 10915
Quote:
Originally Posted by leangk View Post
there are a tonne of different beliefs, religions and philosophies that have set out morals. philosophies have a number of "schools", which have numerous beliefs like egoism, hedonism, legal justitifcation (if its legal its moral!( i also cant remember the real name of this).

i seemed to struggle myself with the belief that only a higher being can logically make rules, because if not it becomes the opinion of people. such as muslims believing what they do to woemn completely normal. then again certian rules need to be interpreted in religion to apply to modern scenarios.. what do you guys think?
yes. Take killing. Is it EVER morally justifiable? If so, you're a relativist, if not, you're an absolutist.

I don't believe in right and wrong, per se, just "right" or "wrong" for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2008, 07:12 PM
 
Location: in my house
1,385 posts, read 2,679,640 times
Reputation: 556
Very subjective.....life isn't always so black and white.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top