Zone1 One Truth: Should Society Maintain a Moral Compass?

[alang1216]

I don't believe it is. We know instinctively when we are treated unfairly. We aren't idiots. Fairness, like logic is universal and independent of man. But the beauty of fairness is that no one will admit to not wanting to be fair or not having been fair. No one wants to be seen as unfair. It's universal.

Don't buy it. Fairness is just the view from one side.

 

[alang1216]

I think you are looking at that wrong. The highest standard, the more difficult standard to meet, would be killing. So by that standard wouldn't most of us be considered immoral?

I think you are looking at that wrong. Many soldiers are killers, only a few of them are murderers. Killing is easy.

 

[ding]

As much as most other humans.

So you admit to being immoral some of the time. Did you choose it intentionally and with full knowledge? Did you publicly own it? Or did you try to rationalize it?

 

[ding]

Don't buy it. Fairness is just the view from one side.

Spoken like someone who is being unfair to others. Until someone is unfair to you that is and then you'll be screaming about it. But I don't care if you buy it. You literally are practicing it in almost every moral argument you make. Fairness is universal, despite you not buying it.

 

[alang1216]

So you admit to being immoral some of the time. Did you choose it intentionally and with full knowledge? Did you publicly own it? Or did you try to rationalize it?

I never choose to be immoral.

 

[alang1216]

Spoken like someone who is being unfair to others. Until someone is unfair to you that is and then you'll be screaming about it. But I don't care if you buy it. You literally are practicing it in almost every moral argument you make. Fairness is universal, despite you not buying it.

Still unconvinced. How about an example?

 

[ding]

I never choose to be immoral.

Why is that?

 

[ding]

Still unconvinced. How about an example?

You never choose to be immoral.

 

[ding]

I think you are looking at that wrong. Many soldiers are killers, only a few of them are murderers. Killing is easy.

Did the hamburger you ate this week kill itself for you?

 

[ding]

Killing is easy.

Yes, it is. To live is to consume.

 

[Zincwarrior]

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.

I am back on this. Which societies failed because of morale relativity?

 

[ding]

I am back on this. Which societies failed because of morale relativity?

I guess that depends upon how you define failure. But how about the militant atheist regimes of the 20th century?

 

[Hafar1014]

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 relativity is no morality at all. Morals need context. There is no one truth. The problem with this law is it assumes gender can be changed or chosen which is impossible. You cant pass a law that makes mental illness normal.

 

[Hafar1014]

I am back on this. Which societies failed because of morale relativity?

Rome

 

[Hafar1014]

I guess that depends upon how you define failure. But how about the militant atheist regimes of the 20th century?

The bill is flawed since it makes gender dysphoria normal when its mental illness

 

[Hafar1014]

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?

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.

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?

Your confusing context with reltivity. <oral relativity is simply the double standard

 

[Hafar1014]

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

USSR Red China North Korea

 

[Hafar1014]

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

 

[Zincwarrior]

Rome

No. Rome fell because of generals infighting and the Huns.

Next?

 

[alang1216]

USSR Red China North Korea

I asked for a successful example of a society that operated by the Rule of Law–or one truth. Which of these do you consider successful? Do any of them respect the Rule of Law? Do any have one truth?