Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
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.
That doesn't make any sense sorry. Modern Western society doesn't accept wanton killing, I'm not saying that's wrong, but you are trying to put forth a blanket argument saying it's wrong for everyone. Well that ITSELF is incorrect, as there are societies where murder is completely justified, just not in our society. So, to say there is an over-arching moral foundation for all of humanity is....incorrect.
Societies are free to determine what is acceptable and what isn't and these use these foundations to build their society, to varying degrees of success. What is good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander, this is the point.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
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.
Just because I quote someone doesn't mean every single thing in the post is directed at them. I don't need to man up, you need to stop crying. If you are a bigot that's your deal, I haven't made that determination. What I have decided however is that you possess a very narrow understanding of how human civilization has come to be and cannot grasp that humans are just highly evolved apes.
I have no problem calling anyone out on these boards and will do so as I see fit.
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.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
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).
The problem with that is that you wouldn't KNOW what was right and wrong unless you were taught, you can't seem to wrap your head around that idea. This all stems from your environment, sure if tomorrow all laws were erased, not everyone would start looting and raping and killing. You are a product of your society and this particular set of moral codes has been ingrained in you, you are already trained. It's a simple concept, you wouldn't know what is wrong unless you were taught. This is absolutely the case.
Many native american tribes had no concept of property until Europeans came along, so really you can't steal something that noone owns. So there's another example, "theft" as we would define it, was morally neutral to them, since there are no possessions.
So you are denying that different cultures have a different definition of right and wrong? This is very directly proves that there is no common definition of good and evil. Some African tribes practice genital mutilation, western society sees this as an immoral practice, but they sure don't. Who is to say ultimately what the real answer is? For their society this works and has worked probably for thousands of years.
If morality were very cut and dry and absolutist then all societies would possess the same moral code, this is obviously false.
Actually, Cyclo is right on as far as the topic of morality goes. If there is no absolute defining morality- if it is all subjective- there is no morality. It all becomes opinion. The idea that culture defines morality is circular: the majority of individuals making up the culture are the ones defining the culture and morality. If an individual within the culture has another idea about morality, is his idea wrong? No. How could it be? If you say his idea about morality is wrong (as it goes against the majority), you are saying that the majority , b/c they are the majority, have the right to force their morality on the individual, and have greater right to define morality even though they are just a bunch of individuals themselves. How is one individual less than 2 or more individuals? Somehow their opinions, b/c they make up the majority, are "right"? What it comes down to is force of power. The majority, or the most powerful individuals of the society, make up the rules b/c they are the most powerful. They make the law. Law is not morality. There is no morality unless it has an absolute base. So, if you want to talk about morality without an absolute, make sure you know that you are talking about the powerful squelching the less powerful, and nothing else.
Back on topic.. the General really should not have voiced his personal opinion unless he was ready to get a whole lot of flack. I see that he was not ready for the flack and so he backed down. That is pretty weak. I also think it really isn't appropriate for him to make statements like that as it undermines the stability of the institution. I also think Clinton's "don't ask don't tell" is an excellent idea as many heterosexuals are uncomfortable around homosexuals- that is life, get used to it- and this also undermines the stability and unity of the institution. It should also help to eliminate some harassment of homosexuals in the army.
I have a problem with anyone forcing their "morality" on me, be it a religious type or a liberal type (not that they are mutually exclusive). Issues of morality are never resolved through law or power. Bashing people over the head with your ideas of morality will not make a person more moral: at best it will just create "compliance" I believe this idea is best represented by the members here who continually insult the people who disagree with them. Nothing more than morality bullies.
That said, I think discussions of this nature can be fruitful if people can handle themselves maturely. However, it is doubtful that anyone will change anyone else's mind, but at least some sort of mutual understanding can be reached.
Facebook
Twitter