Originally posted by: ayabe
That doesn't hold water, you can't judge the Romans by the standards of today. I'm sure the Romans would find certain parts of our societal practices to be immoral.
What is moral or immoral depends entirely on the paradigm of the times you live in, there is no higher absolute moral code. Using your murder example, this is instinctual. Most mammals on this planet don't wantonly kill other members of their species, that's a survival instinct. So come up with a better example to prove your point.
What's wrong with that example? My personal moral structure allows wanton killing. If there is no absolute moral code, then how can you tell me that I'm wrong? Simple answer - you can't. You want another example? My personal moral structure allows me to take whatever I want from whomever I please whenever I please. Therefore, you have no personal property rights in my moral code. However, my moral code also indicates that I do have personal property rights, so you cannot take my things from me. Notice a pattern? That's because it's the exact form of the relativist fallacy.
I was speaking generally not at you particularly. There are plenty of others in this thread who have already made their thoughts known.
You quoted me directly and put words in my mouth. There was nothing general at all about what you said. If you're going to call me a bigot, at least have the stones to man up to it.
Yeah, and humans are trained the same way, there are sanctions for negative behavior. That's as clear as day, there is no other higher moral code. It's exactly the same. Human beings can and will be incredibly cruel if the threat of sanctions for negative behavior are not an issue. This is the foundation of society throughout our development. These foundations are ingrained in childhood. If you raise a child in the woods and never punish him for negative behavior he will have a different value set and will not know what the rules are.
You think people cannot know right from wrong because you think there is no such thing as true right and wrong. I've already demonstrated how this position is founded on fallacy. Thus, given that right and wrong do exist, it is only our perception of them that is relative. I don't think it correct to say that we only do things because of the threat of punishment. I know that there are things that I do not do that I could get away with that I would consider wrong, whether it be smoking pot (something that is illegal) or skipping a day of work (not illegal, but still probably wrong).
This has been proven time and time again over the course of history, different tribes coming into contact with different sets of values which leads to an alternative version of morality and both look negatively upon each other.
Maybe you could give some examples then, if it happens all the time. In my study of history, the basis for codes of laws (which I will assume codify a peoples' collective system of morals, perhaps tempered by politics and corruption) are extraordinarily similar. This is obvious from a simple comparison of
Hammurabi's Code with our own laws. The only notable exception seems to be slavery, which may indicate that there is nothing absolutely wrong about slavery, though I haven't thought about this enough to really say anything definitive.
for the full of morals OP. :roll:
Facebook
Twitter