Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 102,607
- 83,942
- 3,645
Well that is absolutely disgusting. God is a murderous,vain, vengeful, jealous entity.Immorality is that which goes against God. If God does it, it's moral.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well that is absolutely disgusting. God is a murderous,vain, vengeful, jealous entity.Immorality is that which goes against God. If God does it, it's moral.
And some people think the Earth is flat. Well I do not disagree with what you are saying, and it does go to show that morality is relative, we xan pragmatically consider it objective in some case.The shooter - and the shooter's community - may consider shooting some people in the face better than not shooting some people in the face.
Again, the standard is not subjective. Man’s perception of the standard is subjective.What standards that apply to everyone are not subjective? Exposure to radiation? That kind of thing?Nope. Humans are subjective. Morals are standards. Standards are not subjective. Standards exist for reasons. The reason make themselves known when the standards are violated and the consequences are suffered."Morals are effectively standards." Subjective.Nope. I already addressed this on page 1.Making their morality subjective. Thanks for clearing that up.
Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.
If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.
Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.
So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.
Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.
If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.
Nothing is universal. At different times and in different places by different societies everything from sacrificing babies to cannibalism has been considered both moral and ethical.Or is morality determined by cultures and individuals themselves?
I can't think of any country that was not founded on violence. I wonder if the Neanderthals were more ethical than we are?... Besides almost all of them? Remember, slavery was wildly successful.Has there ever been a successful culture or country that lived by the Golden Rule?Man is subjective and has free will. What can I say. But in the end consequences suffered reveal the standard and the reason the standard exists.
Christianity also brought the inquisition, witch hunts, anti-Semitism, and innumerable religious wars, usually against other Christians. All of which were deemed just by the Christians that carried them out.Nothing is universal. At different times and in different places by different societies everything from sacrificing babies to cannibalism has been considered both moral and ethical.Or is morality determined by cultures and individuals themselves?
The Christian revolution pretty much corrected all that, hence it's popularity as opposed to pagan butchery and juvenile superstition. Both Jews and Romans loathed human sacrifice, and in fact fought wars against those who practiced it as a matter of policy, so that crap wasn't as 'universal' as some hope it was.
Don't forget genocidal.Well that is absolutely disgusting. God is a murderous,vain, vengeful, jealous entity.Immorality is that which goes against God. If God does it, it's moral.
Christianity also brought the inquisition, witch hunts, anti-Semitism, and innumerable religious wars, usually against other Christians. All of which were deemed just by the Christians that carried them out.
I guess I have to say it again. Morals are community norms. Valid morals are those which assist the community to survive/prosper.All cultures are equal. Nothing is immoral because cultures and people decide for themselves what is moral.
I disagree. Morality is determined by God and, yes, his morality is universal.
God kills people whenever he wants so no his morals aren't universal if he's not held to them
Immorality is that which goes against God. If God does it, it's moral.
There aren’t multiple realities. There is only one reality. There are however multiple perceptions of reality.No. Man's perception of right and wrong is subjective. Subjectivity only exists because of bias. Bias only exists in humans.right and wrong are entirely subjective termsSure there is. Let me highlight the relevant parts.No such standard. Stop digging.Like I said before, we are good at seeing wrong done to us but not our wrongs we do to others. It doesn’t change the standard. The standard just is.
Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.
If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.
Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.
So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.
Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.
If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.
So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.
Since our perception is what defines our universe our perception is our reality
Because they have rationalized wrong as right.You can see man's expectation for universal standard in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.Don't be silly. There are standards for everything.Moral laws are not like physical laws. The consequences of violating physical laws is immediate. Not so for violating moral laws. Often times we get away with it but that doesn’t change the standard or the fact that eventually we will suffer predictable surprises for violating the standard.
There is no standard there never has been there never will be.
Morals are standards of behavior. Virtue is behavior showing high moral standards. The definition of standard is a level of quality or attainment.
Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.
There are no universal standards for behavior
There never have been
So why do some people and cultures believe killing for perceived disrespect is acceptable
if there was a universal code as you say this would never happen
Why limit it to cultures and societies? Why not use your own experiences in relationships instead.Has there ever been a successful culture or country that lived by the Golden Rule?Man is subjective and has free will. What can I say. But in the end consequences suffered reveal the standard and the reason the standard exists.
Confucius made this observation of the earlier Chinese dynasties. So research Confucius.Can you give an example of such a society? How about a society that did behave with virtue?Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos.
You are taking that off of writings by man and applying it to God?Well that is absolutely disgusting. God is a murderous,vain, vengeful, jealous entity.Immorality is that which goes against God. If God does it, it's moral.
Straw man arguments while easy to construct have little to do with reality. They are just nice ways to confirm one’s biases.Don't forget genocidal.Well that is absolutely disgusting. God is a murderous,vain, vengeful, jealous entity.Immorality is that which goes against God. If God does it, it's moral.
Or is morality determined by cultures and individuals themselves?
I just explained it to you in great detail. You are the one who has nothing.Stop digging, you have nothing.Sure there is. Let me highlight the relevant parts.No such standard. Stop digging.Like I said before, we are good at seeing wrong done to us but not our wrongs we do to others. It doesn’t change the standard. The standard just is.Do unto others isn’t a standard that is universally applied, it depends on the person.I know that’s what you are saying.
Standards aren’t subjective. Humans are subjective. Standards are incapable of bias. Standards just are.
Human perception of standards are subjective because humans are biased.
Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.
If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.
Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.
So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.
Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.
If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.