Zone1 One Truth: Should Society Maintain a Moral Compass?

[alang1216]

Apparently it's really hard to get everyone to follow "do unto your neighbor as you would have your neighbor do unto you." Maybe that's why we have to write a gazillion laws but don't you believe that that would be a good example of one truth that if everyone followed would solve our problems overnight?

Why can't we all just get along? We don't, it is called reality. Check the polling data.

 

[alang1216]

Absolutely. What gave you the impression I believed otherwise?

You seemed to question my right to be here.

Do you see me here criticizing people for believing in ghosts? Because if you had, you would have probably seen that I had done an objective assessment beforehand and not be commenting on something I knew nothing about.

Commendable but not an answer to my question.

 

[ding]

Of course it was moral or the US and Israel to attack Iran because their culture said it was. Just as it was moral for Iran to attack the US and Israel because their culture said it was. What part of 'relative' don't you understand?

I'm not disputing that moral relativity exists and is practiced by some. I'm disputing the validity of moral relativity. You seem to be defending it. I see moral relativity as a way to justify a wrong as a right. I'm perfectly fine with people choosing to be immoral as long as they own it. For instance when we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan that wan't moral. That was evil. If you want to say it was the lessor of two evils, I'm OK with that. Just don't call it good.

 

[ding]

What exactly was my moral argument? That there was no absolute morality?

In this thread, I don't know. None that I am aware of. At least not yet. Buyt don't sit there and try to tell me you've never made them. Because we both know you have. And when you have, you based your argument on logic and not popular opinion.

 

[alang1216]

I'm not disputing that moral relativity exists and is practiced by some. I'm disputing the validity of moral relativity. You seem to be defending it. I see moral relativity as a way to justify a wrong as a right. I'm perfectly fine with people choosing to be immoral as long as they own it. For instance when we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan that wan't moral. That was evil. If you want to say it was the lessor of two evils, I'm OK with that. Just don't call it good.

We live in a world that has always been guided by moral relativity. That is the reality. If you don't like reality take it up with your God.

 

[ding]

Unfortunately for you, reality contradicts your wish for an absolute moral code to justify your belief in God. Check the polling data if you don't believe me.

How so? Because if you are arguing my beliefs are based upon popular opinion, you are barking up the wrong tree. My beliefs are based upon reason and experience. The same as my belief about gravity. Reason and experience.

 

[ding]

Why can't we all just get along? We don't, it is called reality. Check the polling data.

You don't need to check the polling data to know the root cause is bias or subjectivity. The only way to see reality is to die to self and have no preference for an outcome. Think sixth stage of Kohlberg's morality progression or Jesus Christ.

 

[ding]

We live in a world that has always been guided by moral relativity. That is the reality.

We live in a world where we prefer good over evil and when we violate it, we ratinalize we didn't. It's literally captured in the account of Genesis. In other words, accountability is in short supply. If everyone became accountable overnight, the world would change overnight.

If you don't like reality take it up with your God.

It's funny that you say that but that was a common theme in the OT. You just couldn't see it as a 12 year old.

 

[Meriweather]

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

Yes, they do choose to be immoral. They form an opinion/feeling that what they are about to do is not immoral. An opinion/feeling about what is or is not immoral is not a truth, merely an opinion/feeling.

 

[ding]

You should have stopped there. The rest was a mess.

What part of mporals are not defined by popular opinion do you not understand? I'm sure you believe slavery or rape was moral at some time in history but it wasn't. Now do you understand?

 

[ding]

You seemed to question my right to be here.

How so? Which post?

Commendable but not an answer to my question.

My point was that I had no need to "look" into ghosts. If I had I would have looked into it in more depth than you have looked into God.

 

[ding]

We live in a world that has always been guided by moral relativity. That is the reality. If you don't like reality take it up with your God.

When you say morals are relative you might as well be saying morals are subjective. True morals or what is objectively correct isn't subjective. By your logic forced abortions can be moral. By my logic they cannot. By your logic forced euthanasia can be moral. By my logic it cannot. By your logic rape and slavery can be moral. By my logic they cannot. By your logic gassing Jews can be moral. By my logic they cannot.

 

[ding]

No one chooses to be immoral...

Some people do.

 

[Dekster]

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?

IDK. Ask those who were burned at the stake for witchcraft how well one-truth government worked out for them.

 

[Cougarbear]

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.

Tel-Aviv is probably 90% atheist and just culturally nationalist Jews. They will eventually turn toward Jehovah (Jesus) when America no longer can defend them and the Lord will part the Mt. of Olives and stand in the midst showing his wounds in his hands and feet that he received in the house of his friends. Zacharia chapters 12 - 14.

 

[alang1216]

Yes, they do choose to be immoral. They form an opinion/feeling that what they are about to do is not immoral. An opinion/feeling about what is or is not immoral is not a truth, merely an opinion/feeling.

You presume there is a "truth". I bet Hitler honestly believed he did what he did, the Holocaust, to save his country from the pollution of the Jews. What could be more moral?

 

[alang1216]

What part of mporals are not defined by popular opinion do you not understand? I'm sure you believe slavery or rape was moral at some time in history but it wasn't. Now do you understand?

I don't understand why you stick to your fantasy instead of accepting reality. Is it because you believe a moral god would not create an amoral world?

 

[SaxonJackson]

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?

If the entire world followed two, simple guidelines, we'd have world peace and harmony:

1) The Ten Commandments.
2) The Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

Matthew 7:12, which states, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

 

[alang1216]

My point was that I had no need to "look" into ghosts. If I had I would have looked into it in more depth than you have looked into God.

So you set arbitrarily the boundaries of your supernatural beliefs where you wished them to be. Sounds right.

 

[alang1216]

When you say morals are relative you might as well be saying morals are subjective. True morals or what is objectively correct isn't subjective. By your logic forced abortions can be moral. By my logic they cannot. By your logic forced euthanasia can be moral. By my logic it cannot. By your logic rape and slavery can be moral. By my logic they cannot. By your logic gassing Jews can be moral. By my logic they cannot.

So what world do you live in? Certainly not this one.