Zone1 One Truth: Should Society Maintain a Moral Compass?

[Meriweather]

Opinions swirl through society. There are many opinions, but one truth. Moral relativity (what is right for thee is not right for me) abounds. Those who uphold one truth over opinions are labeled judgmental, discriminatory, bigoted, merciless.

Society can either choose moral relativity or one truth. As far back as Biblical times, societies failed during times of moral relativity and struggled to return to the Rule of Law–or one truth.

What say you? With the “Equality Act”, Congress is pushing American society into moral relativity and even into government regulation/insistence of this moral relativity into churches and faith communities. Is moral relativity the answer, or should we be seeking a society that maintains its moral compass of one truth?

 

[shockedcanadian]

Yes, we should maintain a moral compass. For most of the world It should be driven primarily based on the changes the West and the world invoked after WWII.

In America, it must be guided by your Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

[alang1216]

Society can either choose moral relativity or one truth. As far back as Biblical times, societies failed during times of moral relativity and struggled to return to the Rule of Law–or one truth.

Can you offer a successful example of a society that operated by the Rule of Law–or one truth?

 

[1srelluc]

Maybe more of a; "Man, I'd not do that shit if I were you" mentality.

 

[Meriweather]

Can you offer a successful example of a society that operated by the Rule of Law–or one truth?

As a society who is spread across the continents, I would point to Judaism. America was founded on the principal of a nation of laws, but we see that slowly slipping away.

 

[Chuz Life]

Opinions swirl through society. There are many opinions, but one truth. Moral relativity (what is right for thee is not right for me) abounds. Those who uphold one truth over opinions are labeled judgmental, discriminatory, bigoted, merciless.

Society can either choose moral relativity or one truth. As far back as Biblical times, societies failed during times of moral relativity and struggled to return to the Rule of Law–or one truth.

What say you? With the “Equality Act”, Congress is pushing American society into moral relativity and even into government regulation/insistence of this moral relativity into churches and faith communities. Is moral relativity the answer, or should we be seeking a society that maintains its moral compass of one truth?

Help a non moralist (I call myself a realist and my personal philosophy is realism). . . when you say, "one truth," what is that?

What does "one truth" mean, and how would it be defined?

 

[alang1216]

As a society who is spread across the continents, I would point to Judaism. America was founded on the principal of a nation of laws, but we see that slowly slipping away.

Interesting choice. There is quite a number of differences between Jews, some are deeply religious, some are agnostics or atheists and are only culturally Jewish. I doubt they all share a single truth.

 

[PeterPilot]

Opinions swirl through society. There are many opinions, but one truth. Moral relativity (what is right for thee is not right for me) abounds. Those who uphold one truth over opinions are labeled judgmental, discriminatory, bigoted, merciless.

Society can either choose moral relativity or one truth. As far back as Biblical times, societies failed during times of moral relativity and struggled to return to the Rule of Law–or one truth.

What say you? With the “Equality Act”, Congress is pushing American society into moral relativity and even into government regulation/insistence of this moral relativity into churches and faith communities. Is moral relativity the answer, or should we be seeking a society that maintains its moral compass of one truth?

Don't look to any government for moral guidance. Government is mostly immoral, especially when it's controlled by Zionists.

 

[Meriweather]

Help a non moralist (I call myself a realist and my personal philosophy is realism). . . when you say, "one truth," what is that?

What does "one truth" mean, and how would it be defined?

Start with a moral issue.
Look at opinions being given.
Do any of these opinions represent truth, or are they simply feelings or opinions?

The transgender issue is recent--an issue where many have opinions. What is the truth? Take the example of someone who was born with xy chromosomes. Truth: Biologically, the is a male. However, since he feels or has the opinion he wants to be female or considered female, should he be allowed in women's restrooms, women's sports, or if in prison have taxpayers pay for hormones/surgeries? Some might say yes. Others might say, the truth is that this person is male. He needs psychiatric assistance to face the truth of who/what he is.

My question is, Should society adopt moral relativity and allow everyone to base his/her decision on how they feel--and should those people push Congress to pass an "Equality Act" that, under law, will force everyone else in society to go along with those individual personal feelings/opinions/delusions?

 

[Meriweather]

Interesting choice. There is quite a number of differences between Jews, some are deeply religious, some are agnostics or atheists and are only culturally Jewish. I doubt they all share a single truth.

Can you point to a moral issue where there is a disagreement between Jews? We can then sort between opinions/feelings and truth.

 

[alang1216]

Can you point to a moral issue where there is a disagreement between Jews? We can then sort between opinions/feelings and truth.

I would say that dropping bombs on your neighbor is one.

 

[Meriweather]

Don't look to any government for moral guidance. Government is mostly immoral, especially when it's controlled by Zionists.

I agree. A democratic government is a fine example of people who want wealth and power and will promise the electorate the easy way so that they may step into power and wealth. Free this, free that, no bail, kill yourself (euthanasia), kill the innocent (abortion)--each individual decides for him/herself what should be legal for them. In other words, vote for the one you want to have power and wealth as long as s/he leaves you alone to do whatever it is you want. If you are a king/dictator already, do whatever is necessary to soothe the populace. Who cares if they want to kill/mutilate themselves and/or their children.

 

[Meriweather]

I would say that dropping bombs on your neighbor is one.

So no one should make bombs, right? What other reason is there to make bombs if not to drop on the neighbor. And, there is no excuse to drop a bomb on your neighbor even if you know that neighbor is making bombs to drop on you or your neighbors, correct?

 

[alang1216]

So no one should make bombs, right? What other reason is there to make bombs if not to drop on the neighbor. And, there is no excuse to drop a bomb on your neighbor even if you know that neighbor is making bombs to drop on you or your neighbors, correct?

So if you make a bomb you have no choice but to use it? It is not the bomb but the use of that bomb that is an issue for moral debate. Even in Israel there is much disagreement on the use (how, when, where) of their bombs.

 

[Chuz Life]

Start with a moral issue.
Look at opinions being given.
Do any of these opinions represent truth, or are they simply feelings or opinions?

The transgender issue is recent--an issue where many have opinions. What is the truth? Take the example of someone who was born with xy chromosomes. Truth: Biologically, the is a male. However, since he feels or has the opinion he wants to be female or considered female, should he be allowed in women's restrooms, women's sports, or if in prison have taxpayers pay for hormones/surgeries? Some might say yes. Others might say, the truth is that this person is male. He needs psychiatric assistance to face the truth of who/what he is.

My question is, Should society adopt moral relativity and allow everyone to base his/her decision on how they feel--and should those people push Congress to pass an "Equality Act" that, under law, will force everyone else in society to go along with those individual personal feelings/opinions/delusions?

Thanks for the example.

What a mess.

As a realist, a male is a male. . . even if and after they think they can change themself into a female. It's just a biological fact.

No morality required.

 

[ding]

Opinions swirl through society. There are many opinions, but one truth. Moral relativity (what is right for thee is not right for me) abounds. Those who uphold one truth over opinions are labeled judgmental, discriminatory, bigoted, merciless.

Society can either choose moral relativity or one truth. As far back as Biblical times, societies failed during times of moral relativity and struggled to return to the Rule of Law–or one truth.

What say you? With the “Equality Act”, Congress is pushing American society into moral relativity and even into government regulation/insistence of this moral relativity into churches and faith communities. Is moral relativity the answer, or should we be seeking a society that maintains its moral compass of one truth?

Moral relativists argue other people's morals are relative. They don't argue THEIR morals are relative. They expect you to know and accept THEIR morals as absolute. They are a joke.

 

[ding]

So if you make a bomb you have no choice but to use it? It is not the bomb but the use of that bomb that is an issue for moral debate. Even in Israel there is much disagreement on the use (how, when, where) of their bombs.

So what if people choose to be immoral? Is there anything wrong with believing in Darwinian principles? Isn't it natural for a people to promote their race at the expense of another? You don't believe nature is moral do you? Isn't it natural for intraspecies to go extinct? Is that immoral?

 

[alang1216]

So what if people choose to be immoral?

No one chooses to be immoral anymore than anyone chooses to be heretical.

Is there anything wrong with believing in Darwinian principles?

There is no believing involved, they just are. Do you have to believe in gravity?

Isn't it natural for a people to promote their race at the expense of another? You don't believe nature is moral do you? Isn't it natural for intraspecies to go extinct? Is that immoral?

Morality has nothing to do with any of those things.

 

[ding]

No one chooses to be immoral anymore than anyone chooses to be heretical.

That's because some believe morals are a human construct. So of course they don't believe in moral or immoral choices. They believe - like you do - that morals are made up. That there is no real such thing as good or evil. That all that exists is survival, pleasure and pain. Are you suggesting there's something more? You can't have it both ways. I'm getting sick and tired of people who try to have it both ways. You can't believe that morals are relative and expect anyone to accept your morals are the moralistic beliefs that should be followed as if they were absolute. Double standard much?

There is no believing involved, they just are. Do you have to believe in gravity?

Absolutely I believe in gravity. That's why I don't jump off of buildings. Because I know that gravity will make me fall. So I disagree that there is no belief involved. Maybe you are confused about why I believe in gravity. It's the same reason I believe in God. Personal experiences. I have personally experienced the effects of gravity, so I know gravity is real. I have personally experienced the effects of God, so I know God is real. I didn't need Newton to tell me what would happen if I jumped off of a building. I knew what would happen. I only needed Newton to tell me how much force my body would experience when it splattered onto the surface.

Morality has nothing to do with any of those things.

Isn't that the point I was making? That you are making moral arguments you shouldn't be making. It seems to me that moral relativity much more closely matches nature. It's not immoral to survive even when that survival is at the expense of something else. How is that not relative?

 

[toobfreak]

One Truth: Should Society Maintain a Moral Compass?​

ONE CAN ARGUE that without morality, there can be no society.

And just look: as our morality crumbles around us, so goes our society.