Bull Ring Are morals absolute or relative

[ding]

- If that is both the case, that kind of destroys the central argument

Does that mean you are ready for me to ask the mods to judge our debate?

 

[forkup]

I also have a problem with something else you asserted. That good actions are preferred in nature.
Quite often nature favors the cruel. Nature, human or otherwise, favors one thing and one thing only..... survival. If survival requires cooperation, cooperation will be the mode of conduct. If it requires violence, violence will occur. It has nothing to do with morals. Morals is what people invented (not discovered as some natural law), to regulate the highly complex civilizations we prefer. And as a direct result of those complexities morality will change, and be as relative as can be.

Yes, that is true, but it isn't the rule. If it were the rule then we would never cling to the concept of right and wrong. We would never argue for fairness.

It seems you want to make a natural selection argument. Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage. The reason why the behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability are our standards is because these behaviors do lead to order and harmony in a society. Nature has literally selected these behaviors to be transferred to future generations because they are successful behaviors.

Again, people did not invent the behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability. They discovered that these behaviors naturally lead to harmony and order. In part because they discovered that the behaviors of hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures naturally lead to failure.

So again I will ask, which behaviors do you practice and why?

Are you aware of history? The Roman Empire for instance was both highly successful and they didn't get that way by means of love, kindness, forgiveness or any of the things you described. It got that way by the sword, was sustained on the back of slavery, polygamy was the norm, and for much of it is was ruled by emperors who were accountable to no one.
In fact I can think of not a single great society, which used the traits you described. Even in a single society those traits don't always lead to success for an individual. Someone who is willing to be selfish, not humble and thankless is often more successful than the people who act morally as we understand it. Be honest, what of the traits described above is applicable on the current President of the United States? I wish that goodness would be a way to greatness, evidence simply shows otherwise.
,

 

[forkup]

Post 5 was my direct argument. It does not entail, a large complicated argument. It's a simple statement on the heart of the matter. Is morality relative, or absolute?
It only entails, two things to be true. Is morality a concept invented by man and can I prove that it changes? I think I have done both. As such I'm ready to be judged on those facts.

 

[ding]

I also have a problem with something else you asserted. That good actions are preferred in nature.
Quite often nature favors the cruel. Nature, human or otherwise, favors one thing and one thing only..... survival. If survival requires cooperation, cooperation will be the mode of conduct. If it requires violence, violence will occur. It has nothing to do with morals. Morals is what people invented (not discovered as some natural law), to regulate the highly complex civilizations we prefer. And as a direct result of those complexities morality will change, and be as relative as can be.

Yes, that is true, but it isn't the rule. If it were the rule then we would never cling to the concept of right and wrong. We would never argue for fairness.

It seems you want to make a natural selection argument. Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage. The reason why the behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability are our standards is because these behaviors do lead to order and harmony in a society. Nature has literally selected these behaviors to be transferred to future generations because they are successful behaviors.

Again, people did not invent the behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability. They discovered that these behaviors naturally lead to harmony and order. In part because they discovered that the behaviors of hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures naturally lead to failure.

So again I will ask, which behaviors do you practice and why?

Are you aware of history? The Roman Empire for instance was both highly successful and they didn't get that way by means of love, kindness, forgiveness or any of the things you described. It got that way by the sword, was sustained on the back of slavery, polygamy was the norm, and for much of it is was ruled by emperors who were accountable to no one.
In fact I can think of not a single great society, which used the traits you described. Even in a single society those traits don't always lead to success for an individual. Someone who is willing to be selfish, not humble and thankless is often more successful than the people who act morally as we understand it. Be honest, what of the traits described above is applicable on the current President of the United States? I wish that goodness would be a way to greatness, evidence simply shows otherwise.
,

You consider him successful? I don’t see a lot of peace, harmony or order in his administration? Do you?

As for the Romans, their empire fell, right?

Which of the diametrically opposed set of behaviors I asked you about do you try to adhere to? And why? Your answer to those questions will go a long way in the debate?

 

[forkup]

I also have a problem with something else you asserted. That good actions are preferred in nature.
Quite often nature favors the cruel. Nature, human or otherwise, favors one thing and one thing only..... survival. If survival requires cooperation, cooperation will be the mode of conduct. If it requires violence, violence will occur. It has nothing to do with morals. Morals is what people invented (not discovered as some natural law), to regulate the highly complex civilizations we prefer. And as a direct result of those complexities morality will change, and be as relative as can be.

Yes, that is true, but it isn't the rule. If it were the rule then we would never cling to the concept of right and wrong. We would never argue for fairness.

It seems you want to make a natural selection argument. Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage. The reason why the behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability are our standards is because these behaviors do lead to order and harmony in a society. Nature has literally selected these behaviors to be transferred to future generations because they are successful behaviors.

Again, people did not invent the behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability. They discovered that these behaviors naturally lead to harmony and order. In part because they discovered that the behaviors of hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures naturally lead to failure.

So again I will ask, which behaviors do you practice and why?

Are you aware of history? The Roman Empire for instance was both highly successful and they didn't get that way by means of love, kindness, forgiveness or any of the things you described. It got that way by the sword, was sustained on the back of slavery, polygamy was the norm, and for much of it is was ruled by emperors who were accountable to no one.
In fact I can think of not a single great society, which used the traits you described. Even in a single society those traits don't always lead to success for an individual. Someone who is willing to be selfish, not humble and thankless is often more successful than the people who act morally as we understand it. Be honest, what of the traits described above is applicable on the current President of the United States? I wish that goodness would be a way to greatness, evidence simply shows otherwise.
,

You consider him successful? I don’t see a lot of peace, harmony or order in his administration? Do you?

As for the Romans, their empire fell, right?

Which of the diametrically opposed set of behaviors I asked you about do you try to adhere to? And why? Your answer to those questions will go a long way in the debate?

-He has gotten a position which they call "the most powerful man in the world". Seems pretty successful to me. I hate everything he stands for, but those are the facts.
-Every empire eventually falls. The Roman Empire was a success militarily, economically and scientifically it had a longevity of 507 years or 1500 years if you count the Byzantine Empire as Roman. What other benchmarks to measure the success of a society do you know?
- How does my view on morality bring you any closer to proving morals are absolute? At best it would make it possible for you to make an appeal to hypocrisy. In any case I'll play. I try to act morally (as I judge it). I try to be honest at all times, I try to do the right thing in my life. I'm pretty arrogant by nature, something I try to alleviate by reminding myself that I'm not as brilliant as I think I am. On the other hand my boss, is blatantly self serving. He is dishonest when he thinks he can get away with it, and doesn't mind taking the credit for other peoples work. Yet he is my boss.

Now I have to ask. Are you willing to let this debate be judged on what we have discussed so far? Or do you have more to assert?

 

[ding]

I also have a problem with something else you asserted. That good actions are preferred in nature.
Quite often nature favors the cruel. Nature, human or otherwise, favors one thing and one thing only..... survival. If survival requires cooperation, cooperation will be the mode of conduct. If it requires violence, violence will occur. It has nothing to do with morals. Morals is what people invented (not discovered as some natural law), to regulate the highly complex civilizations we prefer. And as a direct result of those complexities morality will change, and be as relative as can be.

Yes, that is true, but it isn't the rule. If it were the rule then we would never cling to the concept of right and wrong. We would never argue for fairness.

It seems you want to make a natural selection argument. Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage. The reason why the behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability are our standards is because these behaviors do lead to order and harmony in a society. Nature has literally selected these behaviors to be transferred to future generations because they are successful behaviors.

Again, people did not invent the behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability. They discovered that these behaviors naturally lead to harmony and order. In part because they discovered that the behaviors of hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures naturally lead to failure.

So again I will ask, which behaviors do you practice and why?

Are you aware of history? The Roman Empire for instance was both highly successful and they didn't get that way by means of love, kindness, forgiveness or any of the things you described. It got that way by the sword, was sustained on the back of slavery, polygamy was the norm, and for much of it is was ruled by emperors who were accountable to no one.
In fact I can think of not a single great society, which used the traits you described. Even in a single society those traits don't always lead to success for an individual. Someone who is willing to be selfish, not humble and thankless is often more successful than the people who act morally as we understand it. Be honest, what of the traits described above is applicable on the current President of the United States? I wish that goodness would be a way to greatness, evidence simply shows otherwise.
,

You consider him successful? I don’t see a lot of peace, harmony or order in his administration? Do you?

As for the Romans, their empire fell, right?

Which of the diametrically opposed set of behaviors I asked you about do you try to adhere to? And why? Your answer to those questions will go a long way in the debate?

-He has gotten a position which they call "the most powerful man in the world". Seems pretty successful to me. I hate everything he stands for, but those are the facts.
-Every empire eventually falls. The Roman Empire was a success militarily, economically and scientifically it had a longevity of 507 years or 1500 years if you count the Byzantine Empire as Roman. What other benchmarks to measure the success of a society do you know?
- How does my view on morality bring you any closer to proving morals are absolute? At best it would make it possible for you to make an appeal to hypocrisy. In any case I'll play. I try to act morally (as I judge it). I try to be honest at all times, I try to do the right thing in my life. I'm pretty arrogant by nature, something I try to alleviate by reminding myself that I'm not as brilliant as I think I am. On the other hand my boss, is blatantly self serving. He is dishonest when he thinks he can get away with it, and doesn't mind taking the credit for other peoples work. Yet he is my boss.

Now I have to ask. Are you willing to let this debate be judged on what we have discussed so far? Or do you have more to assert?

The Roman empire was the most powerful in the world at their time and they fell. But putting that aside I have already explained to you that the consequences for violating moral laws are not immediate and that they are probabilistic. You are literally arguing against the proven concept of normalization of deviance and virtues. Which is probably why you won't answer the question of which behaviors you practice and why. Because you know it proves my point.

What other benchmarks to measure the success of a society do I know? Only the simple ones that are solved through inspection that you keep dodging. Two loving people will always have a better relationship than two hateful people. To honest people will always have a better relationship than two dishonest people. Two thankful people will always have a better relationship than two thankless people. Two humble people will always have a better relationship than two arrogant people. Two selfless people will always have a better relationship than two selfish people. Two people who practice fidelity will always have a better relationship than two people who practice infidelity. Two people who are kind to each other will always have a better relationship than people who are cruel to each other. Two forgiving people will always have a better relationship than two people who hold grudges. Two responsible people will always have a better relationship than two irresponsible people. Two accountable people will always have a better relationship than two people who make excuses and blames others for their failures. Not some of the time. All of the time. These behaviors are independent of man. These behaviors exist in and of themselves. These behaviors are in effect standards of conduct. These behaviors were discovered in part from comparing them to the outcomes of practicing failed behaviors like hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures.

How does your view on the behaviors you practice bring you any closer to proving morals are absolute? Because actions show what people really believe. You behave a certain way because you KNOW those behaviors NATURALLY lead to success. You don't behave a certain way because you KNOW those behaviors NATURALLY lead to failure. If morals were relative than all behaviors would lead to equal results. But you KNOW that not all behaviors lead to equal results. So you KNOW that you can't behave any way you wish and get the same results.

At best it would make it possible for you to make an appeal to hypocrisy. In any case I'll play. I try to act morally (as I judge it). I try to be honest at all times, I try to do the right thing in my life. I'm pretty arrogant by nature, something I try to alleviate by reminding myself that I'm not as brilliant as I think I am. On the other hand my boss, is blatantly self serving. He is dishonest when he thinks he can get away with it, and doesn't mind taking the credit for other peoples work. Yet he is my boss.

You are literally proving my point. Yes, man does violate the moral laws of nature and when he does he rationalizes (hypocritically) that he didn't violate the moral laws of nature. The law of right and wrong is so strongly ingrained in us that we will not abandon it even when we violate it. The fact that man expects everyone else to agree with the concept of fairness tells us that he expects everyone to universally know and understand it.

As for your boss getting away with it. The theory of normalization of deviance says there will be consequences to it. You may not even be aware of the ones that have already happened. But putting that aside... kara dude, kara. It's real. I call it normalization of deviance and predictable surprises.

Now I have to ask. Are you willing to let this debate be judged on what we have discussed so far? Or do you have more to assert?

Given that every rebuttal I have made came from my original two assertions AND THE BASIS OF MY ASSERTIONS WHICH YOU NEVER QUESTIONED, yes.

All I have done since I made my argument is expound upon my original two assertions by providing examples.

 

[forkup]

I also have a problem with something else you asserted. That good actions are preferred in nature.
Quite often nature favors the cruel. Nature, human or otherwise, favors one thing and one thing only..... survival. If survival requires cooperation, cooperation will be the mode of conduct. If it requires violence, violence will occur. It has nothing to do with morals. Morals is what people invented (not discovered as some natural law), to regulate the highly complex civilizations we prefer. And as a direct result of those complexities morality will change, and be as relative as can be.

Yes, that is true, but it isn't the rule. If it were the rule then we would never cling to the concept of right and wrong. We would never argue for fairness.

It seems you want to make a natural selection argument. Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage. The reason why the behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability are our standards is because these behaviors do lead to order and harmony in a society. Nature has literally selected these behaviors to be transferred to future generations because they are successful behaviors.

Again, people did not invent the behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability. They discovered that these behaviors naturally lead to harmony and order. In part because they discovered that the behaviors of hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures naturally lead to failure.

So again I will ask, which behaviors do you practice and why?

Are you aware of history? The Roman Empire for instance was both highly successful and they didn't get that way by means of love, kindness, forgiveness or any of the things you described. It got that way by the sword, was sustained on the back of slavery, polygamy was the norm, and for much of it is was ruled by emperors who were accountable to no one.
In fact I can think of not a single great society, which used the traits you described. Even in a single society those traits don't always lead to success for an individual. Someone who is willing to be selfish, not humble and thankless is often more successful than the people who act morally as we understand it. Be honest, what of the traits described above is applicable on the current President of the United States? I wish that goodness would be a way to greatness, evidence simply shows otherwise.
,

You consider him successful? I don’t see a lot of peace, harmony or order in his administration? Do you?

As for the Romans, their empire fell, right?

Which of the diametrically opposed set of behaviors I asked you about do you try to adhere to? And why? Your answer to those questions will go a long way in the debate?

-He has gotten a position which they call "the most powerful man in the world". Seems pretty successful to me. I hate everything he stands for, but those are the facts.
-Every empire eventually falls. The Roman Empire was a success militarily, economically and scientifically it had a longevity of 507 years or 1500 years if you count the Byzantine Empire as Roman. What other benchmarks to measure the success of a society do you know?
- How does my view on morality bring you any closer to proving morals are absolute? At best it would make it possible for you to make an appeal to hypocrisy. In any case I'll play. I try to act morally (as I judge it). I try to be honest at all times, I try to do the right thing in my life. I'm pretty arrogant by nature, something I try to alleviate by reminding myself that I'm not as brilliant as I think I am. On the other hand my boss, is blatantly self serving. He is dishonest when he thinks he can get away with it, and doesn't mind taking the credit for other peoples work. Yet he is my boss.

Now I have to ask. Are you willing to let this debate be judged on what we have discussed so far? Or do you have more to assert?

The Roman empire was the most powerful in the world at their time and they fell. But putting that aside I have already explained to you that the consequences for violating moral laws are not immediate and that they are probabilistic. You are literally arguing against the proven concept of normalization of deviance and virtues. Which is probably why you won't answer the question of which behaviors you practice and why. Because you know it proves my point.

What other benchmarks to measure the success of a society do I know? Only the simple ones that are solved through inspection that you keep dodging. Two loving people will always have a better relationship than two hateful people. To honest people will always have a better relationship than two dishonest people. Two thankful people will always have a better relationship than two thankless people. Two humble people will always have a better relationship than two arrogant people. Two selfless people will always have a better relationship than two selfish people. Two people who practice fidelity will always have a better relationship than two people who practice infidelity. Two people who are kind to each other will always have a better relationship than people who are cruel to each other. Two forgiving people will always have a better relationship than two people who hold grudges. Two responsible people will always have a better relationship than two irresponsible people. Two accountable people will always have a better relationship than two people who make excuses and blames others for their failures. Not some of the time. All of the time. These behaviors are independent of man. These behaviors exist in and of themselves. These behaviors are in effect standards of conduct. These behaviors were discovered in part from comparing them to the outcomes of practicing failed behaviors like hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures.

How does your view on the behaviors you practice bring you any closer to proving morals are absolute? Because actions show what people really believe. You behave a certain way because you KNOW those behaviors NATURALLY lead to success. You don't behave a certain way because you KNOW those behaviors NATURALLY lead to failure. If morals were relative than all behaviors would lead to equal results. But you KNOW that not all behaviors lead to equal results. So you KNOW that you can't behave any way you wish and get the same results.

At best it would make it possible for you to make an appeal to hypocrisy. In any case I'll play. I try to act morally (as I judge it). I try to be honest at all times, I try to do the right thing in my life. I'm pretty arrogant by nature, something I try to alleviate by reminding myself that I'm not as brilliant as I think I am. On the other hand my boss, is blatantly self serving. He is dishonest when he thinks he can get away with it, and doesn't mind taking the credit for other peoples work. Yet he is my boss.

You are literally proving my point. Yes, man does violate the moral laws of nature and when he does he rationalizes (hypocritically) that he didn't violate the moral laws of nature. The law of right and wrong is so strongly ingrained in us that we will not abandon it even when we violate it. The fact that man expects everyone else to agree with the concept of fairness tells us that he expects everyone to universally know and understand it.

As for your boss getting away with it. The theory of normalization of deviance says there will be consequences to it. You may not even be aware of the ones that have already happened. But putting that aside... kara dude, kara. It's real. I call it normalization of deviance and predictable surprises.

Now I have to ask. Are you willing to let this debate be judged on what we have discussed so far? Or do you have more to assert?

Given that every rebuttal I have made came from my original two assertions AND THE BASIS OF MY ASSERTIONS WHICH YOU NEVER QUESTIONED, yes.

All I have done since I made my argument is expound upon my original two assertions by providing examples.

All you have done is give a circular reasoning. "Success is measured in how good something is", and "Something is successful because it's good". "If it's bad and successful, that doesn't disprove the assertion, it's simply because the badness hasn't occurred yet." As for examples, I haven't seen you give any example I agree with. As I pointed out, I try to act morally but I'm not naive enough to believe that someone acting immorally is by definition less successful. I have given you examples of that, both in terms of individuals and society as a whole.

 

[ding]

Yes, that is true, but it isn't the rule. If it were the rule then we would never cling to the concept of right and wrong. We would never argue for fairness.

It seems you want to make a natural selection argument. Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage. The reason why the behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability are our standards is because these behaviors do lead to order and harmony in a society. Nature has literally selected these behaviors to be transferred to future generations because they are successful behaviors.

Again, people did not invent the behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability. They discovered that these behaviors naturally lead to harmony and order. In part because they discovered that the behaviors of hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures naturally lead to failure.

So again I will ask, which behaviors do you practice and why?

Are you aware of history? The Roman Empire for instance was both highly successful and they didn't get that way by means of love, kindness, forgiveness or any of the things you described. It got that way by the sword, was sustained on the back of slavery, polygamy was the norm, and for much of it is was ruled by emperors who were accountable to no one.
In fact I can think of not a single great society, which used the traits you described. Even in a single society those traits don't always lead to success for an individual. Someone who is willing to be selfish, not humble and thankless is often more successful than the people who act morally as we understand it. Be honest, what of the traits described above is applicable on the current President of the United States? I wish that goodness would be a way to greatness, evidence simply shows otherwise.
,

You consider him successful? I don’t see a lot of peace, harmony or order in his administration? Do you?

As for the Romans, their empire fell, right?

Which of the diametrically opposed set of behaviors I asked you about do you try to adhere to? And why? Your answer to those questions will go a long way in the debate?

-He has gotten a position which they call "the most powerful man in the world". Seems pretty successful to me. I hate everything he stands for, but those are the facts.
-Every empire eventually falls. The Roman Empire was a success militarily, economically and scientifically it had a longevity of 507 years or 1500 years if you count the Byzantine Empire as Roman. What other benchmarks to measure the success of a society do you know?
- How does my view on morality bring you any closer to proving morals are absolute? At best it would make it possible for you to make an appeal to hypocrisy. In any case I'll play. I try to act morally (as I judge it). I try to be honest at all times, I try to do the right thing in my life. I'm pretty arrogant by nature, something I try to alleviate by reminding myself that I'm not as brilliant as I think I am. On the other hand my boss, is blatantly self serving. He is dishonest when he thinks he can get away with it, and doesn't mind taking the credit for other peoples work. Yet he is my boss.

Now I have to ask. Are you willing to let this debate be judged on what we have discussed so far? Or do you have more to assert?

The Roman empire was the most powerful in the world at their time and they fell. But putting that aside I have already explained to you that the consequences for violating moral laws are not immediate and that they are probabilistic. You are literally arguing against the proven concept of normalization of deviance and virtues. Which is probably why you won't answer the question of which behaviors you practice and why. Because you know it proves my point.

What other benchmarks to measure the success of a society do I know? Only the simple ones that are solved through inspection that you keep dodging. Two loving people will always have a better relationship than two hateful people. To honest people will always have a better relationship than two dishonest people. Two thankful people will always have a better relationship than two thankless people. Two humble people will always have a better relationship than two arrogant people. Two selfless people will always have a better relationship than two selfish people. Two people who practice fidelity will always have a better relationship than two people who practice infidelity. Two people who are kind to each other will always have a better relationship than people who are cruel to each other. Two forgiving people will always have a better relationship than two people who hold grudges. Two responsible people will always have a better relationship than two irresponsible people. Two accountable people will always have a better relationship than two people who make excuses and blames others for their failures. Not some of the time. All of the time. These behaviors are independent of man. These behaviors exist in and of themselves. These behaviors are in effect standards of conduct. These behaviors were discovered in part from comparing them to the outcomes of practicing failed behaviors like hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures.

How does your view on the behaviors you practice bring you any closer to proving morals are absolute? Because actions show what people really believe. You behave a certain way because you KNOW those behaviors NATURALLY lead to success. You don't behave a certain way because you KNOW those behaviors NATURALLY lead to failure. If morals were relative than all behaviors would lead to equal results. But you KNOW that not all behaviors lead to equal results. So you KNOW that you can't behave any way you wish and get the same results.

At best it would make it possible for you to make an appeal to hypocrisy. In any case I'll play. I try to act morally (as I judge it). I try to be honest at all times, I try to do the right thing in my life. I'm pretty arrogant by nature, something I try to alleviate by reminding myself that I'm not as brilliant as I think I am. On the other hand my boss, is blatantly self serving. He is dishonest when he thinks he can get away with it, and doesn't mind taking the credit for other peoples work. Yet he is my boss.

You are literally proving my point. Yes, man does violate the moral laws of nature and when he does he rationalizes (hypocritically) that he didn't violate the moral laws of nature. The law of right and wrong is so strongly ingrained in us that we will not abandon it even when we violate it. The fact that man expects everyone else to agree with the concept of fairness tells us that he expects everyone to universally know and understand it.

As for your boss getting away with it. The theory of normalization of deviance says there will be consequences to it. You may not even be aware of the ones that have already happened. But putting that aside... kara dude, kara. It's real. I call it normalization of deviance and predictable surprises.

Now I have to ask. Are you willing to let this debate be judged on what we have discussed so far? Or do you have more to assert?

Given that every rebuttal I have made came from my original two assertions AND THE BASIS OF MY ASSERTIONS WHICH YOU NEVER QUESTIONED, yes.

All I have done since I made my argument is expound upon my original two assertions by providing examples.

All you have done is give a circular reasoning. "Success is measured in how good something is", and "Something is successful because it's good". "If it's bad and successful, that doesn't disprove the assertion, it's simply because the badness hasn't occurred yet." As for examples, I haven't seen you give any example I agree with. As I pointed out, I try to act morally but I'm not naive enough to believe that someone acting immorally is by definition less successful. I have given you examples of that, both in terms of individuals and society as a whole.

Like I explained in post #18, it's a little more than that. Actually it is a lot more than that. I'm satisfied that my reasons were clarified adequately and that the reasons are not circular. We'll see though. I will invite the mods to judge and copy on you on the request for full transparency. That's a successful behavior too. Good luck. Maybe we can debate man made global warming next.

 

[forkup]

Are you aware of history? The Roman Empire for instance was both highly successful and they didn't get that way by means of love, kindness, forgiveness or any of the things you described. It got that way by the sword, was sustained on the back of slavery, polygamy was the norm, and for much of it is was ruled by emperors who were accountable to no one.
In fact I can think of not a single great society, which used the traits you described. Even in a single society those traits don't always lead to success for an individual. Someone who is willing to be selfish, not humble and thankless is often more successful than the people who act morally as we understand it. Be honest, what of the traits described above is applicable on the current President of the United States? I wish that goodness would be a way to greatness, evidence simply shows otherwise.
,

You consider him successful? I don’t see a lot of peace, harmony or order in his administration? Do you?

As for the Romans, their empire fell, right?

Which of the diametrically opposed set of behaviors I asked you about do you try to adhere to? And why? Your answer to those questions will go a long way in the debate?

-He has gotten a position which they call "the most powerful man in the world". Seems pretty successful to me. I hate everything he stands for, but those are the facts.
-Every empire eventually falls. The Roman Empire was a success militarily, economically and scientifically it had a longevity of 507 years or 1500 years if you count the Byzantine Empire as Roman. What other benchmarks to measure the success of a society do you know?
- How does my view on morality bring you any closer to proving morals are absolute? At best it would make it possible for you to make an appeal to hypocrisy. In any case I'll play. I try to act morally (as I judge it). I try to be honest at all times, I try to do the right thing in my life. I'm pretty arrogant by nature, something I try to alleviate by reminding myself that I'm not as brilliant as I think I am. On the other hand my boss, is blatantly self serving. He is dishonest when he thinks he can get away with it, and doesn't mind taking the credit for other peoples work. Yet he is my boss.

Now I have to ask. Are you willing to let this debate be judged on what we have discussed so far? Or do you have more to assert?

The Roman empire was the most powerful in the world at their time and they fell. But putting that aside I have already explained to you that the consequences for violating moral laws are not immediate and that they are probabilistic. You are literally arguing against the proven concept of normalization of deviance and virtues. Which is probably why you won't answer the question of which behaviors you practice and why. Because you know it proves my point.

What other benchmarks to measure the success of a society do I know? Only the simple ones that are solved through inspection that you keep dodging. Two loving people will always have a better relationship than two hateful people. To honest people will always have a better relationship than two dishonest people. Two thankful people will always have a better relationship than two thankless people. Two humble people will always have a better relationship than two arrogant people. Two selfless people will always have a better relationship than two selfish people. Two people who practice fidelity will always have a better relationship than two people who practice infidelity. Two people who are kind to each other will always have a better relationship than people who are cruel to each other. Two forgiving people will always have a better relationship than two people who hold grudges. Two responsible people will always have a better relationship than two irresponsible people. Two accountable people will always have a better relationship than two people who make excuses and blames others for their failures. Not some of the time. All of the time. These behaviors are independent of man. These behaviors exist in and of themselves. These behaviors are in effect standards of conduct. These behaviors were discovered in part from comparing them to the outcomes of practicing failed behaviors like hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures.

How does your view on the behaviors you practice bring you any closer to proving morals are absolute? Because actions show what people really believe. You behave a certain way because you KNOW those behaviors NATURALLY lead to success. You don't behave a certain way because you KNOW those behaviors NATURALLY lead to failure. If morals were relative than all behaviors would lead to equal results. But you KNOW that not all behaviors lead to equal results. So you KNOW that you can't behave any way you wish and get the same results.

At best it would make it possible for you to make an appeal to hypocrisy. In any case I'll play. I try to act morally (as I judge it). I try to be honest at all times, I try to do the right thing in my life. I'm pretty arrogant by nature, something I try to alleviate by reminding myself that I'm not as brilliant as I think I am. On the other hand my boss, is blatantly self serving. He is dishonest when he thinks he can get away with it, and doesn't mind taking the credit for other peoples work. Yet he is my boss.

You are literally proving my point. Yes, man does violate the moral laws of nature and when he does he rationalizes (hypocritically) that he didn't violate the moral laws of nature. The law of right and wrong is so strongly ingrained in us that we will not abandon it even when we violate it. The fact that man expects everyone else to agree with the concept of fairness tells us that he expects everyone to universally know and understand it.

As for your boss getting away with it. The theory of normalization of deviance says there will be consequences to it. You may not even be aware of the ones that have already happened. But putting that aside... kara dude, kara. It's real. I call it normalization of deviance and predictable surprises.

Now I have to ask. Are you willing to let this debate be judged on what we have discussed so far? Or do you have more to assert?

Given that every rebuttal I have made came from my original two assertions AND THE BASIS OF MY ASSERTIONS WHICH YOU NEVER QUESTIONED, yes.

All I have done since I made my argument is expound upon my original two assertions by providing examples.

All you have done is give a circular reasoning. "Success is measured in how good something is", and "Something is successful because it's good". "If it's bad and successful, that doesn't disprove the assertion, it's simply because the badness hasn't occurred yet." As for examples, I haven't seen you give any example I agree with. As I pointed out, I try to act morally but I'm not naive enough to believe that someone acting immorally is by definition less successful. I have given you examples of that, both in terms of individuals and society as a whole.

Like I explained in post #18, it's a little more than that. Actually it is a lot more than that. I'm satisfied that my reasons were clarified adequately and that the reasons are not circular. We'll see though. I will invite the mods to judge and copy on you on the request for full transparency. That's a successful behavior too. Good luck. Maybe we can debate man made global warming next.

Sure, it was fun. And useful. I've never really examined the nature of morality. That's probably one of the main reasons I like debating to begin with. It helps a person examine not just his own position but the reason for holding it to begin with. Anyways, good luck.