Moral Relativism

[PK1]

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.

If morality is objective, then how would one know that?

Some find homosexuality immoral; others do not. Which is the moral position and how do you know it is? How do others disagree with your objectively moral position? Are they sociopaths? Are they all morally handicapped? Or, does everyone try to be moral and follow what they perceive to be moral and it doesn't all work out the same because morality is subjective?

---
Good luck in getting a lucid response to all your Q's.
.

 

[dblack]

If we can agree on an objective definition and purpose for morality, it should, in theory at least, be possible to objectively judge whether a given rule is moral or not.

 

[ogibillm]

if morality is objective are we more or less moral than say 60 years ago?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

No! That would be the arguments you've used to deny others the same rights for other marriage arrangements even though they meet the criteria you use to justify SSM (Same Sex Marriage).

As I stated... You are a hypocritical bigot.

Your critical thinking skills come right out of the Progressive Handbook of how to parrot a talking point against a far right conservative.

It doesn't teach you how to deal with a independent with a conservative lean, such as myself, who does know how to think critically and make you look like the hypocritical bigot you truly are.

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
Apparently, you don't read very carefully & jump to conclusions.
I think independently, so if my thoughts reflect a liberal or conservative group, then i honor them.

I don't deny anyone rights if their behavior does not victimize others.
Please be specific where you believe i am a "hypocritical bigot".

I noticed you have not provided your definition of "morality". How come?

.

I'll apologize for the not noting on that post who you were replying to since I'm a little tired. However...

You deny close relatives the right to marry while continuing to not speak out against other people with known genetic defects who are allowed to marry.

I have no reason to provide a definition of my morality since you've already proven that you're nothing but a hypocrite who uses his Progressive Handbook to do his critical thinking.

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
What don't you understand about my morality reflecting anti-victimization?

In the case of marriage and children, i don't think an innocent baby should start its life deformed, whether born from genetically-related parents or from a parent with a genetic defect.
If both, then the baby has double chance of being deformed.
HOWEVER, if the adults/culture take rational precautions in their reproductive activities (genetic analysis or embryo testing) and abort any "mistake" (deformed fetus/embryo) or take FULL responsibility in raising that mutant, then my tolerant morality says "OK".
Why would you disagree?
Why are you afraid of providing your definition or views on morality?

.

So now you're saying that people who have genetic abnormalities should not be allowed to reproduce... I'm sure the Navajo Nation will appreciate your views. Shall we round them all up and sterilize them to fit with your aggressive stance on child protection since half the Navajo's have diabetes and the other half most likely are carriers of the genetic inheritable diabetes defect? Can we prosecute you for Hate Crimes afterwards since now you've decided that a whole minority group is pretty much not worthy of reproducing? How about black people with Sickle Cell? Is Lactose Intolerance on your list of genetic defects? That last one should pretty much wipe out the Asian population of the world.

If you must know... I'm a Constitutional conservative and so far you've been failing the test.

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
Again you misread what i wrote, and then you salt it with extremism.
I clearly stated that if the adults take FULL responsibility in preparing for and raising their offspring, then i'm OK with that. Otherwise, i'm not OK with innocent kids being victimized by irresponsible adults/parents.

Again you fail to provide your definition of morality.
As a "Constitutional conservative", you must be for SSM. What else does that mean re: morality examples?
.

I've misread nothing. If you're going to apply your demands of taking FULL responsibility to one group then it applies to all, including those you find genetically suitable who have children with genetic defects. So now we can do away with all those illegal social programs, like Planned Parenthood, that the government funds right? After all those people are supposed to take FULL responsibility for preparing and raising their offspring right? Then they shouldn't require any governmental assistance since they are supposed to take FULL responsibility correct?

If you're going to provide the definition of what it means to be a Constitutional conservative and what I must believe, then you might as well provide the definition of morality too. After all your objective reality must demand such since you believe that your definition is the only one that holds truth. However I don't think you'll get to far in making me believe you're right since you keep contradicting and digging a deeper hole for yourself every time you post.

On the other hand since the original argument for SSM was 'they're mature willing companions and should be allowed the same rights to marry as heterosexuals' then the only natural conclusion I can draw as a Constitutionals conservative is that those same rights apply to all mature willing companions and any type of marriage arrangement they choose to form so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[PK1]

---
Apparently, you don't read very carefully & jump to conclusions.
I think independently, so if my thoughts reflect a liberal or conservative group, then i honor them.

I don't deny anyone rights if their behavior does not victimize others.
Please be specific where you believe i am a "hypocritical bigot".

I noticed you have not provided your definition of "morality". How come?

.

I'll apologize for the not noting on that post who you were replying to since I'm a little tired. However...

You deny close relatives the right to marry while continuing to not speak out against other people with known genetic defects who are allowed to marry.

I have no reason to provide a definition of my morality since you've already proven that you're nothing but a hypocrite who uses his Progressive Handbook to do his critical thinking.

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
What don't you understand about my morality reflecting anti-victimization?

In the case of marriage and children, i don't think an innocent baby should start its life deformed, whether born from genetically-related parents or from a parent with a genetic defect.
If both, then the baby has double chance of being deformed.
HOWEVER, if the adults/culture take rational precautions in their reproductive activities (genetic analysis or embryo testing) and abort any "mistake" (deformed fetus/embryo) or take FULL responsibility in raising that mutant, then my tolerant morality says "OK".
Why would you disagree?
Why are you afraid of providing your definition or views on morality?

.

So now you're saying that people who have genetic abnormalities should not be allowed to reproduce... I'm sure the Navajo Nation will appreciate your views. Shall we round them all up and sterilize them to fit with your aggressive stance on child protection since half the Navajo's have diabetes and the other half most likely are carriers of the genetic inheritable diabetes defect? Can we prosecute you for Hate Crimes afterwards since now you've decided that a whole minority group is pretty much not worthy of reproducing? How about black people with Sickle Cell? Is Lactose Intolerance on your list of genetic defects? That last one should pretty much wipe out the Asian population of the world.

If you must know... I'm a Constitutional conservative and so far you've been failing the test.

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
Again you misread what i wrote, and then you salt it with extremism.
I clearly stated that if the adults take FULL responsibility in preparing for and raising their offspring, then i'm OK with that. Otherwise, i'm not OK with innocent kids being victimized by irresponsible adults/parents.

Again you fail to provide your definition of morality.
As a "Constitutional conservative", you must be for SSM. What else does that mean re: morality examples?
.

I've misread nothing. If you're going to apply your demands of taking FULL responsibility to one group then it applies to all, including those you find genetically suitable who have children with genetic defects. So now we can do away with all those illegal social programs, like Planned Parenthood, that the government funds right? After all those people are supposed to take FULL responsibility for preparing and raising their offspring right? Then they shouldn't require any governmental assistance since they are supposed to take FULL responsibility correct?

If you're going to provide the definition of what it means to be a Constitutional conservative and what I must believe, then you might as well provide the definition of morality too. After all your objective reality must demand such since you believe that your definition is the only one that holds truth. However I don't think you'll get to far in making me believe you're right since you keep contradicting and digging a deeper hole for yourself every time you post.

On the other hand since the original argument for SSM was 'they're mature willing companions and should be allowed the same rights to marry as heterosexuals' then the only natural conclusion I can draw as a Constitutionals conservative is that those same rights apply to all mature willing companions and any type of marriage arrangement they choose to form so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
So, you can't define what you think "morality" is?
Or, are you saying that "constitutional conservative" = "morality"?
.

 

[Igrok_]

so, you approve that for some cultures there is "good" to commit mass murders, don't you? Do you accept if some people will start killing your neighbours only because it is their free choice according to their culture?

---
Why don't you understand my morality position of "Live and Let Live"?
Killing others without rational justification is not moral in my book.
Please read my previous posts carefully. Religion, a cultural artifact, is not rational.
.

So, your religion is mind like for other atheists. Look on Northern Corea and Soviet Russia – it was made in the honor of the mind. Tens million were killed because they did not match the rules made up by someone's mind.

Is it not logical to kill people if this could lead to common prosperity? You are killing one and 100 are happy. Very rational, I think.

---
I agree, it could be rational to kill another human; never said otherwise.

I'm more of an AGNOSTIC than atheist; don't believe in ghosts.
I take the scientific approach to knowledge-based beliefs, supported by philosophy of science concepts.

Your references to Soviet Russia & North Korea don't apply to me.
What are your morality rules?
.

i am orthodox christian

don't believe in ghosts too.

---
Русская Православная Церковь?
I attended this orthodox church in my youth, before discovering critical thinking methods, and then i rejected dogma.
Don't Christians believe in the "Holy Ghost", including orthodox adherents?
.

Neither Christians nor Orthodox Christians believe in "Holy Ghost". They believe in God.
Is rejecting dogma is not a dogma as well? You have to stay in certain paradigm in all cases.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I'll apologize for the not noting on that post who you were replying to since I'm a little tired. However...

You deny close relatives the right to marry while continuing to not speak out against other people with known genetic defects who are allowed to marry.

I have no reason to provide a definition of my morality since you've already proven that you're nothing but a hypocrite who uses his Progressive Handbook to do his critical thinking.

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
What don't you understand about my morality reflecting anti-victimization?

In the case of marriage and children, i don't think an innocent baby should start its life deformed, whether born from genetically-related parents or from a parent with a genetic defect.
If both, then the baby has double chance of being deformed.
HOWEVER, if the adults/culture take rational precautions in their reproductive activities (genetic analysis or embryo testing) and abort any "mistake" (deformed fetus/embryo) or take FULL responsibility in raising that mutant, then my tolerant morality says "OK".
Why would you disagree?
Why are you afraid of providing your definition or views on morality?

.

So now you're saying that people who have genetic abnormalities should not be allowed to reproduce... I'm sure the Navajo Nation will appreciate your views. Shall we round them all up and sterilize them to fit with your aggressive stance on child protection since half the Navajo's have diabetes and the other half most likely are carriers of the genetic inheritable diabetes defect? Can we prosecute you for Hate Crimes afterwards since now you've decided that a whole minority group is pretty much not worthy of reproducing? How about black people with Sickle Cell? Is Lactose Intolerance on your list of genetic defects? That last one should pretty much wipe out the Asian population of the world.

If you must know... I'm a Constitutional conservative and so far you've been failing the test.

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
Again you misread what i wrote, and then you salt it with extremism.
I clearly stated that if the adults take FULL responsibility in preparing for and raising their offspring, then i'm OK with that. Otherwise, i'm not OK with innocent kids being victimized by irresponsible adults/parents.

Again you fail to provide your definition of morality.
As a "Constitutional conservative", you must be for SSM. What else does that mean re: morality examples?
.

I've misread nothing. If you're going to apply your demands of taking FULL responsibility to one group then it applies to all, including those you find genetically suitable who have children with genetic defects. So now we can do away with all those illegal social programs, like Planned Parenthood, that the government funds right? After all those people are supposed to take FULL responsibility for preparing and raising their offspring right? Then they shouldn't require any governmental assistance since they are supposed to take FULL responsibility correct?

If you're going to provide the definition of what it means to be a Constitutional conservative and what I must believe, then you might as well provide the definition of morality too. After all your objective reality must demand such since you believe that your definition is the only one that holds truth. However I don't think you'll get to far in making me believe you're right since you keep contradicting and digging a deeper hole for yourself every time you post.

On the other hand since the original argument for SSM was 'they're mature willing companions and should be allowed the same rights to marry as heterosexuals' then the only natural conclusion I can draw as a Constitutionals conservative is that those same rights apply to all mature willing companions and any type of marriage arrangement they choose to form so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
So, you can't define what you think "morality" is?
Or, are you saying that "constitutional conservative" = "morality"?
.

I'm saying that everyone has their own definition of what is moral and that those morals change given the circumstances.

Are you going to answer my questions about your FULL responsibility issue now or has your objective reality taken a irreparable hit?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[PK1]

---
Why don't you understand my morality position of "Live and Let Live"?
Killing others without rational justification is not moral in my book.
Please read my previous posts carefully. Religion, a cultural artifact, is not rational.
.

So, your religion is mind like for other atheists. Look on Northern Corea and Soviet Russia – it was made in the honor of the mind. Tens million were killed because they did not match the rules made up by someone's mind.

Is it not logical to kill people if this could lead to common prosperity? You are killing one and 100 are happy. Very rational, I think.

---
I agree, it could be rational to kill another human; never said otherwise.

I'm more of an AGNOSTIC than atheist; don't believe in ghosts.
I take the scientific approach to knowledge-based beliefs, supported by philosophy of science concepts.

Your references to Soviet Russia & North Korea don't apply to me.
What are your morality rules?
.

i am orthodox christian

don't believe in ghosts too.

---
Русская Православная Церковь?
I attended this orthodox church in my youth, before discovering critical thinking methods, and then i rejected dogma.
Don't Christians believe in the "Holy Ghost", including orthodox adherents?
.

Neither Christians nor Orthodox Christians believe in "Holy Ghost". They believe in God.
Is rejecting dogma is not a dogma as well? You have to stay in certain paradigm in all cases.

---
Mainstream Christians believe in God's "Trinity", including "Holy Ghost" (aka "Holy Spirit").

Apparently, you don't understand science, which questions/tests its hypotheses and theories, and adapts to evidence.
Not so with religious dogma.
.

 

[PK1]

---
What don't you understand about my morality reflecting anti-victimization?

In the case of marriage and children, i don't think an innocent baby should start its life deformed, whether born from genetically-related parents or from a parent with a genetic defect.
If both, then the baby has double chance of being deformed.
HOWEVER, if the adults/culture take rational precautions in their reproductive activities (genetic analysis or embryo testing) and abort any "mistake" (deformed fetus/embryo) or take FULL responsibility in raising that mutant, then my tolerant morality says "OK".
Why would you disagree?
Why are you afraid of providing your definition or views on morality?

.

So now you're saying that people who have genetic abnormalities should not be allowed to reproduce... I'm sure the Navajo Nation will appreciate your views. Shall we round them all up and sterilize them to fit with your aggressive stance on child protection since half the Navajo's have diabetes and the other half most likely are carriers of the genetic inheritable diabetes defect? Can we prosecute you for Hate Crimes afterwards since now you've decided that a whole minority group is pretty much not worthy of reproducing? How about black people with Sickle Cell? Is Lactose Intolerance on your list of genetic defects? That last one should pretty much wipe out the Asian population of the world.

If you must know... I'm a Constitutional conservative and so far you've been failing the test.

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
Again you misread what i wrote, and then you salt it with extremism.
I clearly stated that if the adults take FULL responsibility in preparing for and raising their offspring, then i'm OK with that. Otherwise, i'm not OK with innocent kids being victimized by irresponsible adults/parents.

Again you fail to provide your definition of morality.
As a "Constitutional conservative", you must be for SSM. What else does that mean re: morality examples?
.

I've misread nothing. If you're going to apply your demands of taking FULL responsibility to one group then it applies to all, including those you find genetically suitable who have children with genetic defects. So now we can do away with all those illegal social programs, like Planned Parenthood, that the government funds right? After all those people are supposed to take FULL responsibility for preparing and raising their offspring right? Then they shouldn't require any governmental assistance since they are supposed to take FULL responsibility correct?

If you're going to provide the definition of what it means to be a Constitutional conservative and what I must believe, then you might as well provide the definition of morality too. After all your objective reality must demand such since you believe that your definition is the only one that holds truth. However I don't think you'll get to far in making me believe you're right since you keep contradicting and digging a deeper hole for yourself every time you post.

On the other hand since the original argument for SSM was 'they're mature willing companions and should be allowed the same rights to marry as heterosexuals' then the only natural conclusion I can draw as a Constitutionals conservative is that those same rights apply to all mature willing companions and any type of marriage arrangement they choose to form so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
So, you can't define what you think "morality" is?
Or, are you saying that "constitutional conservative" = "morality"?
.

I'm saying that everyone has their own definition of what is moral and that those morals change given the circumstances.

Are you going to answer my questions about your FULL responsibility issue now or has your objective reality taken a irreparable hit?

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
I'm glad to see that you are a moral relativist after all. Yes, of course "morals change given the circumstances".


In your case of marriage with children, if a couple or group decides to have kids, they should take FULL responsibility in raising them after they're born (preferably w/out major defects). It's only fair to the innocent kids.
HOWEVER, adults with a greater likelihood of having a defective baby "ought" to take precautions or not procreate.
Likewise, adults who cannot provide for a child due to their impoverished economic circumstances or unhealthy-lifestyle (extremely fat or druggie/alcoholic) should not procreate. Not fair to offspring.

That's where PLANNING for PARENTHOOD is important ... if an adult is MORAL in developed countries (often not feasible in poor cultures).
Planned Parenthood's mission is vital for young/poor women without other health care availability, and society benefits as a whole with healthier children.
.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So now you're saying that people who have genetic abnormalities should not be allowed to reproduce... I'm sure the Navajo Nation will appreciate your views. Shall we round them all up and sterilize them to fit with your aggressive stance on child protection since half the Navajo's have diabetes and the other half most likely are carriers of the genetic inheritable diabetes defect? Can we prosecute you for Hate Crimes afterwards since now you've decided that a whole minority group is pretty much not worthy of reproducing? How about black people with Sickle Cell? Is Lactose Intolerance on your list of genetic defects? That last one should pretty much wipe out the Asian population of the world.

If you must know... I'm a Constitutional conservative and so far you've been failing the test.

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
Again you misread what i wrote, and then you salt it with extremism.
I clearly stated that if the adults take FULL responsibility in preparing for and raising their offspring, then i'm OK with that. Otherwise, i'm not OK with innocent kids being victimized by irresponsible adults/parents.

Again you fail to provide your definition of morality.
As a "Constitutional conservative", you must be for SSM. What else does that mean re: morality examples?
.

I've misread nothing. If you're going to apply your demands of taking FULL responsibility to one group then it applies to all, including those you find genetically suitable who have children with genetic defects. So now we can do away with all those illegal social programs, like Planned Parenthood, that the government funds right? After all those people are supposed to take FULL responsibility for preparing and raising their offspring right? Then they shouldn't require any governmental assistance since they are supposed to take FULL responsibility correct?

If you're going to provide the definition of what it means to be a Constitutional conservative and what I must believe, then you might as well provide the definition of morality too. After all your objective reality must demand such since you believe that your definition is the only one that holds truth. However I don't think you'll get to far in making me believe you're right since you keep contradicting and digging a deeper hole for yourself every time you post.

On the other hand since the original argument for SSM was 'they're mature willing companions and should be allowed the same rights to marry as heterosexuals' then the only natural conclusion I can draw as a Constitutionals conservative is that those same rights apply to all mature willing companions and any type of marriage arrangement they choose to form so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
So, you can't define what you think "morality" is?
Or, are you saying that "constitutional conservative" = "morality"?
.

I'm saying that everyone has their own definition of what is moral and that those morals change given the circumstances.

Are you going to answer my questions about your FULL responsibility issue now or has your objective reality taken a irreparable hit?

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
I'm glad to see that you are a moral relativist after all. Yes, of course "morals change given the circumstances".


In your case of marriage with children, if a couple or group decides to have kids, they should take FULL responsibility in raising them after they're born (preferably w/out major defects). It's only fair to the innocent kids.
HOWEVER, adults with a greater likelihood of having a defective baby "ought" to take precautions or not procreate.
Likewise, adults who cannot provide for a child due to their impoverished economic circumstances or unhealthy-lifestyle (extremely fat or druggie/alcoholic) should not procreate. Not fair to offspring.

That's where PLANNING for PARENTHOOD is important ... if an adult is MORAL in developed countries (often not feasible in poor cultures).
Planned Parenthood's mission is vital for young/poor women without other health care availability, and society benefits as a whole with healthier children.
.

If the parents are supposed to take FULL responsibility as you state then there's no need for Planned Parenthood and other government entitlements. If they're poor and have children are they taking FULL responsibility? I think not. So who are you to judge other people who love each other who make a choice to live together and procreate? The argument used for granting SSM was that they're mature willing companions yet you will not allow all mature willing companions the same rights thereby violating the 14th Amendment. You say those with a higher chance of genetic birth defects should not procreate but won't carry through and demand that those who are carriers of known inheritable genetic defects not be allowed to marry and reproduce. Your hypocrisy in that matter is glaringly obvious. Now you've made another hypocritical statement about how people should take FULL responsibility for their ability to procreate yet think government services should be provided for those who in your own words are not fully responsible.

Sounds to me like you need to make some choices:

1. Either get out of other peoples bedrooms because it's none of your business or the governments as to who's marrying who so long as all involved are mature willing companions or go back to where the government only allows nuclear heterosexual marriages.

2. Demand everyone who is not genetically suitable not be allowed to marry and have the government enforce it or leave everyone else who forms a loving bound and wishes to reproduce alone.

3. Have the government get out of everyones family affairs with their Planned Parenthood and other entitlements once they start procreating because they are supposed to take FULL responsibility or have the government provide for everyone who forms loving relationships and reproduces.

You're three for three so far and battin' a thousand in the area of hypocrisy.

Shall we go for four for four?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Unkotare]

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.

If morality is objective, then how would one know that?

Some find homosexuality immoral; others do not. Which is the moral position and how do you know it is? How do others disagree with your objectively moral position? Are they sociopaths? Are they all morally handicapped? Or, does everyone try to be moral and follow what they perceive to be moral and it doesn't all work out the same because morality is subjective?

---
Good luck in getting a lucid response to all your Q's.
.

This is why you sit at the kiddie table.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

---
I'm glad to see that you are a moral relativist after all. Yes, of course "morals change given the circumstances".



.

Oh yes!!!!! My moral relativism works just fine and so does my critical thinking skills... but then that's because I actually use my cerebral cortex instead of letting the Progressive Handbook do my critical thinking for me.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Igrok_]

So, your religion is mind like for other atheists. Look on Northern Corea and Soviet Russia – it was made in the honor of the mind. Tens million were killed because they did not match the rules made up by someone's mind.

Is it not logical to kill people if this could lead to common prosperity? You are killing one and 100 are happy. Very rational, I think.

---
I agree, it could be rational to kill another human; never said otherwise.

I'm more of an AGNOSTIC than atheist; don't believe in ghosts.
I take the scientific approach to knowledge-based beliefs, supported by philosophy of science concepts.

Your references to Soviet Russia & North Korea don't apply to me.
What are your morality rules?
.

i am orthodox christian

don't believe in ghosts too.

---
Русская Православная Церковь?
I attended this orthodox church in my youth, before discovering critical thinking methods, and then i rejected dogma.
Don't Christians believe in the "Holy Ghost", including orthodox adherents?
.

Neither Christians nor Orthodox Christians believe in "Holy Ghost". They believe in God.
Is rejecting dogma is not a dogma as well? You have to stay in certain paradigm in all cases.

---
Mainstream Christians believe in God's "Trinity", including "Holy Ghost" (aka "Holy Spirit").

Apparently, you don't understand science, which questions/tests its hypotheses and theories, and adapts to evidence.
Not so with religious dogma.
.

Don't understand science? I am studying applied math in one of the top russian universities. So, i understand the structure of science, but do not need to prove you anything. If you think that believers don't understand anything - so be it.

 

[PK1]

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.

If morality is objective, then how would one know that?

Some find homosexuality immoral; others do not. Which is the moral position and how do you know it is? How do others disagree with your objectively moral position? Are they sociopaths? Are they all morally handicapped? Or, does everyone try to be moral and follow what they perceive to be moral and it doesn't all work out the same because morality is subjective?

---
Good luck in getting a lucid response to all your Q's.
.

This is why you sit at the kiddie table.

---
Another example of your kiddie-focused "intellect". LOL.
.

 

[PK1]

---
I agree, it could be rational to kill another human; never said otherwise.

I'm more of an AGNOSTIC than atheist; don't believe in ghosts.
I take the scientific approach to knowledge-based beliefs, supported by philosophy of science concepts.

Your references to Soviet Russia & North Korea don't apply to me.
What are your morality rules?
.

i am orthodox christian

don't believe in ghosts too.

---
Русская Православная Церковь?
I attended this orthodox church in my youth, before discovering critical thinking methods, and then i rejected dogma.
Don't Christians believe in the "Holy Ghost", including orthodox adherents?
.

Neither Christians nor Orthodox Christians believe in "Holy Ghost". They believe in God.
Is rejecting dogma is not a dogma as well? You have to stay in certain paradigm in all cases.

---
Mainstream Christians believe in God's "Trinity", including "Holy Ghost" (aka "Holy Spirit").

Apparently, you don't understand science, which questions/tests its hypotheses and theories, and adapts to evidence.
Not so with religious dogma.
.

Don't understand science? I am studying applied math in one of the top russian universities. So, i understand the structure of science, but do not need to prove you anything. If you think that believers don't understand anything - so be it.

---
Nice to hear about your "applied" focus in math, and if that helps you "prove" any of your religious fantasies, please let me know!
.

 

[PK1]

---
Again you misread what i wrote, and then you salt it with extremism.
I clearly stated that if the adults take FULL responsibility in preparing for and raising their offspring, then i'm OK with that. Otherwise, i'm not OK with innocent kids being victimized by irresponsible adults/parents.

Again you fail to provide your definition of morality.
As a "Constitutional conservative", you must be for SSM. What else does that mean re: morality examples?
.

I've misread nothing. If you're going to apply your demands of taking FULL responsibility to one group then it applies to all, including those you find genetically suitable who have children with genetic defects. So now we can do away with all those illegal social programs, like Planned Parenthood, that the government funds right? After all those people are supposed to take FULL responsibility for preparing and raising their offspring right? Then they shouldn't require any governmental assistance since they are supposed to take FULL responsibility correct?

If you're going to provide the definition of what it means to be a Constitutional conservative and what I must believe, then you might as well provide the definition of morality too. After all your objective reality must demand such since you believe that your definition is the only one that holds truth. However I don't think you'll get to far in making me believe you're right since you keep contradicting and digging a deeper hole for yourself every time you post.

On the other hand since the original argument for SSM was 'they're mature willing companions and should be allowed the same rights to marry as heterosexuals' then the only natural conclusion I can draw as a Constitutionals conservative is that those same rights apply to all mature willing companions and any type of marriage arrangement they choose to form so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
So, you can't define what you think "morality" is?
Or, are you saying that "constitutional conservative" = "morality"?
.

I'm saying that everyone has their own definition of what is moral and that those morals change given the circumstances.

Are you going to answer my questions about your FULL responsibility issue now or has your objective reality taken a irreparable hit?

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
I'm glad to see that you are a moral relativist after all. Yes, of course "morals change given the circumstances".


In your case of marriage with children, if a couple or group decides to have kids, they should take FULL responsibility in raising them after they're born (preferably w/out major defects). It's only fair to the innocent kids.
HOWEVER, adults with a greater likelihood of having a defective baby "ought" to take precautions or not procreate.
Likewise, adults who cannot provide for a child due to their impoverished economic circumstances or unhealthy-lifestyle (extremely fat or druggie/alcoholic) should not procreate. Not fair to offspring.

That's where PLANNING for PARENTHOOD is important ... if an adult is MORAL in developed countries (often not feasible in poor cultures).
Planned Parenthood's mission is vital for young/poor women without other health care availability, and society benefits as a whole with healthier children.
.

If the parents are supposed to take FULL responsibility as you state then there's no need for Planned Parenthood and other government entitlements. If they're poor and have children are they taking FULL responsibility? I think not. So who are you to judge other people who love each other who make a choice to live together and procreate? The argument used for granting SSM was that they're mature willing companions yet you will not allow all mature willing companions the same rights thereby violating the 14th Amendment. You say those with a higher chance of genetic birth defects should not procreate but won't carry through and demand that those who are carriers of known inheritable genetic defects not be allowed to marry and reproduce. Your hypocrisy in that matter is glaringly obvious. Now you've made another hypocritical statement about how people should take FULL responsibility for their ability to procreate yet think government services should be provided for those who in your own words are not fully responsible.

Sounds to me like you need to make some choices:

1. Either get out of other peoples bedrooms because it's none of your business or the governments as to who's marrying who so long as all involved are mature willing companions or go back to where the government only allows nuclear heterosexual marriages.

2. Demand everyone who is not genetically suitable not be allowed to marry and have the government enforce it or leave everyone else who forms a loving bound and wishes to reproduce alone.

3. Have the government get out of everyones family affairs with their Planned Parenthood and other entitlements once they start procreating because they are supposed to take FULL responsibility or have the government provide for everyone who forms loving relationships and reproduces.

You're three for three so far and battin' a thousand in the area of hypocrisy.

Shall we go for four for four?

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
Apparently, you don't know what hypocrisy is, and take your "critical thinking" black/white simpleton mantras from your groupthink's conservative handbook.

Morality is about rational judgments. You don't have any? If you do, who are you to judge others? (your criticism)

Moral behaviors, as one/group may judge, is often not related to a culture's laws. The more extreme examples should be, however, such as "do not kill, unless it's self-defense". Laws against end-of-life personal decisions are unethical.

Regarding your 3 scenarios, my focus was/is on the welfare of innocent offspring, not only on the adults who make uneducated or irresponsible decisions. To help protect innocent children & society overall, assisting these young/naive adults or teens in PLANNING for PARENTHOOD is a wise investment.
Now, about your 3 "choices" ...

1) Obviously, as i repeatedly said, my socially-responsible Libertarian morality advocates FULL freedom for adults UNLESS they victimize others (e.g., children). If they are poor, uneducated, irresponsible, then i believe gov's assistance is a good investment for society as a whole.

2) Legally, gov should leave loving couples alone with their reproductive plans (legal perspective), but morally, in my opinion, couples not genetically suitable (probability-wise) should take precautions to NOT victimize their offspring, and Planned Parenthood is an excellent resource for poor/uneducated women.

3) Obviously, Planned Parenthood is a valuable resource for ALL citizens to help them take FULL responsibility with future child care. There's no "or" here. Black/White thinking in this case reflects financial/religious selfishness, an icon of conservative ideology.
.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

If morality is objective, then how would one know that?

Some find homosexuality immoral; others do not. Which is the moral position and how do you know it is? How do others disagree with your objectively moral position? Are they sociopaths? Are they all morally handicapped? Or, does everyone try to be moral and follow what they perceive to be moral and it doesn't all work out the same because morality is subjective?

---
Good luck in getting a lucid response to all your Q's.
.

This is why you sit at the kiddie table.

---
Another example of your kiddie-focused "intellect". LOL.
.

Try not to make too much noise down there.

 

[PK1]

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.

If morality is objective, then how would one know that?

Some find homosexuality immoral; others do not. Which is the moral position and how do you know it is? How do others disagree with your objectively moral position? Are they sociopaths? Are they all morally handicapped? Or, does everyone try to be moral and follow what they perceive to be moral and it doesn't all work out the same because morality is subjective?

---
Good luck in getting a lucid response to all your Q's.
.

This is why you sit at the kiddie table.

---
Another example of your kiddie-focused "intellect". LOL.
.

Try not to make too much noise down there.

---
LOLROF! Another example of your emotional stupidity as substitution for intellectual contributions.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

---Apparently, you don't know what hypocrisy is, and take your "critical thinking" black/white simpleton mantras from your groupthink's conservative handbook.

I'm well aware of what hypocrisy is and my critical thinking isn't from any groupthink tank like your progressive liberal responses. It's pure Eagle which is obvious from your inability to cope with the current argument.

Of course bigots like yourself want to deny your own bigotry because they think they're morally superior.

Oh wait! Isn't that what progressives like yourself accuse the Christians and other religions of? I do believe it is!

Morality is about rational judgments. You don't have any? If you do, who are you to judge others? (your criticism)

I see... So now I have no morals because I want you to get out of everyone else's bedrooms.

I do believe that makes you four for four on the hypocrite list.

Moral behaviors,

as one/group may judge, is often not related to a culture's laws. The more extreme examples should be, however, such as "do not kill, unless it's self-defense". Laws against end-of-life personal decisions are unethical.

Why should I accept your definition of morality?

Regarding your 3 scenarios, my focus was/is on the welfare of innocent offspring, not only on the adults who make uneducated or irresponsible decisions. To help protect innocent children & society overall, assisting these young/naive adults or teens in PLANNING for PARENTHOOD is a wise investment.
Now, about your 3 "choices" ...

The welfare of the offspring was covered when you became a hypocrite for not demanding that know carriers of genetic defects not be allowed to marry and reproduce.

1) Obviously, as i repeatedly said, my socially-responsible Libertarian morality advocates FULL freedom for adults UNLESS they victimize others (e.g., children).

Then demand that the government not allow carriers of known genetic defects to marry and reproduce or quit being a bigot and get out of everyone else's bedroom.

If they are poor, uneducated, irresponsible, then i believe gov's assistance is a good investment for society as a whole.

I thought you posted that people who reproduce were supposed to be prepared and take full responsibility for their children... Yep! You sure did back in post #134.

2) Legally, gov should leave loving couples alone with their reproductive plans (legal perspective), but morally, in my opinion, couples not genetically suitable (probability-wise) should take precautions to NOT victimize their offspring, and Planned Parenthood is an excellent resource for poor/uneducated women.

If they're supposed to be prepared and take FULL responsibility like you stated in post #134 then they don't need government assistance. So all you're proving here is that you're a hypocritical bigot.

3) Obviously, Planned Parenthood is a valuable resource for ALL citizens to help them take FULL responsibility with future child care. There's no "or" here. Black/White thinking in this case reflects financial/religious selfishness, an icon of conservative ideology.
.

Then get out of other people's bedrooms and quit violating the 14th Amendment or accept the fact that you are a hypocritical bigot who thinks he has to mind what other people do in their bedrooms because of that bigotry.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Igrok_]

i am orthodox christian

don't believe in ghosts too.

---
Русская Православная Церковь?
I attended this orthodox church in my youth, before discovering critical thinking methods, and then i rejected dogma.
Don't Christians believe in the "Holy Ghost", including orthodox adherents?
.

Neither Christians nor Orthodox Christians believe in "Holy Ghost". They believe in God.
Is rejecting dogma is not a dogma as well? You have to stay in certain paradigm in all cases.

---
Mainstream Christians believe in God's "Trinity", including "Holy Ghost" (aka "Holy Spirit").

Apparently, you don't understand science, which questions/tests its hypotheses and theories, and adapts to evidence.
Not so with religious dogma.
.

Don't understand science? I am studying applied math in one of the top russian universities. So, i understand the structure of science, but do not need to prove you anything. If you think that believers don't understand anything - so be it.

---
Nice to hear about your "applied" focus in math, and if that helps you "prove" any of your religious fantasies, please let me know!
.

sure!