Moral Relativism

[Unkotare]

Unkotare, You obviously don't understand the concept in question.

You obviously don't understand words

I understand them very well. You are the one apparently having trouble.

 

[sealybobo]

Someone who does not believe in "a higher power" can be ETHICAL, but they cannot claim to be MORAL.

Ethics are guidelines based on facts and logic: morals are guidelines based on Natural Law (which, admittedly, is not universally clear).

The problem with being "ethical" is that it can lead to evil behavior or positions, the most obvious of which are abortion and euthanasia.

Another danger of "ethical" principles is that they can lead to rationalization of evil, when it is convenient. 'I need his money more than the insurance company/government/bank does..."

"What she doesn't know won't hurt her..."

Moral Relativity is what happens when an atheist claims to be acting "morally." It is nonsense. While there are good faith differences in what constitutes "right" and "wrong," those concepts do not wander from place to place based on changing times. For example, if homosexual sodomy was morally unacceptable 50 years ago, the fact that homosexuals are "celebrated" now doesn't make their sexual behavior "moral." And any "religion" claiming otherwise is no better than the Church of Hugh Hefner.

And just because men 50 years ago didn't like homosexuality doesn't make it wrong. If there is no God of the bible or Koran and ignorant men long ago said something doesn't make it fact, know what I mean?

My mom has Alzheimer's. I'm all for euthenasia in fact it's legal in some states. Do you think America is immoral? We also have abortions. So you live in an immoral country?

Life is not so precious a woman who doesn't want a baby can't abort. In fact her life is too precious and short to let you nuts ruin it or tell it it has to be a mommy cause the rubber broke. Phuck u.

 

[sealybobo]

While there are good faith differences in what constitutes "right" and "wrong," those concepts do not wander from place to place based on changing times. For example, if homosexual sodomy was morally unacceptable 50 years ago, the fact that homosexuals are "celebrated" now doesn't make their sexual behavior "moral."

Why not? Why was homosexuality immoral, and do those reasons still hold true? It's my contention that when life-spans were short and infant mortality was high it was right to discourage open homosexuality, and reinforce heterosexual relationships as much as possible in order to increase procreation (as homosexuals would be pressured into heterosexual relationships) and preserve the species. But that's not necessary now. There are no currently practical reasons to discourage homosexual behavior.

We are over populated. And we have so many unwanted kids gays even get to adopt.

Maybe more gays is mother nature telling us to slow down on the multiplying. That made sense 2000 years ago not now.

 

[G.T.]

Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.

I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.

Id like to point out that "because if not, morals are relative" doesnt advance the bar in the discussion of is there or is there not a (religious) god figure.

 

[sealybobo]

Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.

I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.

Id like to point out that "because if not, morals are relative" doesnt advance the bar in the discussion of is there or is there not a (religious) god figure.

My family comes from Sparta Greece. If we had a deformed baby we tossed it in the pit of death. Today we have late term abortion.

 

[Unkotare]

Someone who does not believe in "a higher power" can be ETHICAL, but they cannot claim to be MORAL.

Ethics are guidelines based on facts and logic: morals are guidelines based on Natural Law (which, admittedly, is not universally clear).

The problem with being "ethical" is that it can lead to evil behavior or positions, the most obvious of which are abortion and euthanasia.

Another danger of "ethical" principles is that they can lead to rationalization of evil, when it is convenient. 'I need his money more than the insurance company/government/bank does..."

"What she doesn't know won't hurt her..."

Moral Relativity is what happens when an atheist claims to be acting "morally." It is nonsense. While there are good faith differences in what constitutes "right" and "wrong," those concepts do not wander from place to place based on changing times. For example, if homosexual sodomy was morally unacceptable 50 years ago, the fact that homosexuals are "celebrated" now doesn't make their sexual behavior "moral." And any "religion" claiming otherwise is no better than the Church of Hugh Hefner.

Life is not so precious .......

Speak for yourself, trash.

 

[Unkotare]

While there are good faith differences in what constitutes "right" and "wrong," those concepts do not wander from place to place based on changing times. For example, if homosexual sodomy was morally unacceptable 50 years ago, the fact that homosexuals are "celebrated" now doesn't make their sexual behavior "moral."

Why not? Why was homosexuality immoral, and do those reasons still hold true? It's my contention that when life-spans were short and infant mortality was high it was right to discourage open homosexuality, and reinforce heterosexual relationships as much as possible in order to increase procreation (as homosexuals would be pressured into heterosexual relationships) and preserve the species. But that's not necessary now. There are no currently practical reasons to discourage homosexual behavior.

We are over populated. ...

No, we are not.

 

[chao$]

There are no morals in nature. Rules are made to stop us from doing the things we enjoy. There is way too much gray out there to decide right from wrong.

Might makes right.

 

[chao$]

chirp chirp

Wow! I said there are no morals and that might makes right and all I hear is crickets.

 

[mamooth]

Imagine it's occupied Europe, 1943, and you do know where some Jews are hiding. The SS knocks on your door and asks you "Do you know where any Jews are hiding?".

You now have two choices.

You can proudly state "Lying is always wrong, so I'll tell you where those Jews are hiding!"

Or, you can be a dirty moral relativist and lie to the SS.

Everyone chooses the latter. I hope.

The point is that everyone is a moral relativist. It's just a matter of who is willing to be honest about that.

 

[chao$]

Imagine it's occupied Europe, 1943, and you do know where some Jews are hiding. The SS knocks on your door and asks you "Do you know where any Jews are hiding?".

You now have two choices.

You can proudly state "Lying is always wrong, so I'll tell you where those Jews are hiding!"

Or, you can be a dirty moral relativist and lie to the SS.

Everyone chooses the latter. I hope.

The point is that everyone is a moral relativist. It's just a matter of who is willing to be honest about that.

Even today a high percentage of Europeans despise the Jewish people. Some claim it's because jews have an illusory moral superiority, while others insist that jews have no morals at all and point to the settlements and the outdoor prison called the Gaza Strip. The Samson Option has a complete lack of morals. It shows that jews are very tribal with a primal instinct for survival – like the rest of the human species.

Ropey is my favorite jew because he is proud of his lack of morals.

 

[Unkotare]

Another one who doesn't understand the terms in use...

 

[chao$]

Another one who doesn't understand the terms in use...

Yeah, you're the only one here that understands philosophy. That's not a productive way to show the term you agree with as valid.

 

[Michelle420]

Imagine it's occupied Europe, 1943, and you do know where some Jews are hiding. The SS knocks on your door and asks you "Do you know where any Jews are hiding?".

You now have two choices.

You can proudly state "Lying is always wrong, so I'll tell you where those Jews are hiding!"

Or, you can be a dirty moral relativist and lie to the SS.

Everyone chooses the latter. I hope.

The point is that everyone is a moral relativist. It's just a matter of who is willing to be honest about that.

Even today a high percentage of Europeans despise the Jewish people. Some claim it's because jews have an illusory moral superiority, while others insist that jews have no morals at all and point to the settlements and the outdoor prison called the Gaza Strip. The Samson Option has a complete lack of morals. It shows that jews are very tribal with a primal instinct for survival – like the rest of the human species.

Ropey is my favorite jew because he is proud of his lack of morals.

Where did you meet Ropey? He's been missing in action a long time.

 

[September]

Morality is subjective...​

 

[Unkotare]

 

[chao$]

Where did you meet Ropey? He's been missing in action a long time.

I met Ropey on possibly the most heterogeneous site on the net. He has a great sense of humor and proved that we are all pretty much the same no matter our culture or status.

 

[Michelle420]

Where did you meet Ropey? He's been missing in action a long time.

I met Ropey on possibly the most heterogeneous site on the net. He has a great sense of humor and proved that we are all pretty much the same no matter our culture or status.

I thought he was in Israel and working on family things. Tell him Hello.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.

I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.

Does it?

*****SMILE*****

 

[JFish123]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk