This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
On Morality (maybe just an interesting story)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
kattib
First the story
Today in my world history class we were studying the Enlightenment and John Locke and we had an activity that we had to think of what a society would be like if you took some people (who didnt know a past government) and put them on an island. As I was thinking I got into the thought of what morals there would be and thought to myself, "There really wouldnt be true morals, seeing as morality is subjective"
I went through the activity and decided just to say a generic answer but after class my and the teacher got into a discussion about morality. He seemed to believe that moral absolutes existed and that no matter what there would be some sort of reference point. I argued otherwise, that morals, good and evil are all subjective. He brought up the example of killing a human being, how it would never be a good thing. I gave him the example that the aztecs would kill one person each day and that was a great thing to do. We continued talking and the more we discussed the more convinced I was that there couldnt possibly be any absolute morals. In fact I was entertained when he said that these were "very dangerous thoughts
So what do you think, about morality and how it is either subjective or absolute
PS I know HSR will come because of the nature of the topic, along with many of his regular debators, all I ask is that the topic not become a religious debate, dont bring the bible in here because there are multiple religious texts which people say are "divinely inspired" and are contradictory to each other when it comes to good/bad
edit: fine bring in religious texts, just dont say they are 100% fact or anything, even the parts of my religion are riddled with fallacies and things that are completely wrong (fact wise)
Post by
Queggy
dont bring the bible in here because there are multiple religious texts which people say are "divinely inspired" and are contradictory to each other when it comes to good/bad
How can we discuss this topic without the Bible if the Bible is what helps define morals for us?
Post by
kattib
alright fine, just dont say its 100% fact then, its not, even the parts that are part of my religion
btw queggy you got here fast....you need a theme song...
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
btw queggy you got here fast....you need a theme song...
"On the prowl . . ."
_________________
Oh, and the burden of proof lies just as much with you. ("The Aztecs did it" is not a valid argument.)
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Interesting. I agree that there are no moral absolutes, really - you can't say killing someone is always bad - what if killing a terribly evil person is the only way to save the lives of thousands?
But I think there are moral guides. There isn't complete moral chaos, or complete moral absolution, but the fact that you're ABLE to say that there aren't moral absolutes means there are moral guides. It means there are certain ways to interpret morality. There are still moral guides - ideas of what the right thing is to do (the path that hurts the last people), even if absolutes don't exist.
At least, that's my opinion.
The argument is against moral
objectivism
, not moral
absolutism
.
Edit: I took a second look at the OP, and it looks like he's actually mixing up both concepts into one.
Which one are you complaining about?
Post by
Queggy
I believe there are absolute morals.
Just because many people do one thing doesn't make it right. You supplied the example of the Aztecs killing people each day, but just because it was considered "the right thing to do" in that culture at that time doesn't mean that it is. Racism and slavery used to be very prevalent and common, but that didn't make it moral or right.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
To add to what Queggy said.
Is killing someone really a good thing when it saves others? Yes, it might be the lesser of two evils, but that doesn't automatically make it good. You are still taking a life.
Again, to reiterate, you haven't offered any evidence beyond a couple assumptions, so what makes your position true?
Post by
Adamsm
Didn't this come up during the 'Lord of the Flies' conversation?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Didn't this come up during the 'Lord of the Flies' conversation?
I remember an amusing discussion on fat kids in that thread.
Post by
Adamsm
Didn't this come up during the 'Lord of the Flies' conversation?
I remember an amusing discussion on fat kids in that thread.
Heh that there was.
Post by
Monday
I myself believe that morality is based on
A. Your religion
B. You personal values
C. The way people generally feel when doing something. I know if I do something wrong it feels like a wrenching sensation inside of me. Perhaps this comes form being a very religious/moral person, but from what I've gathered it feels like that to everybody.
So morality, with a group of people, generally comes to a few basic parts. Looking at past civilizations that had no contact with each other: Rape was not allowed, Murder was not allowed, Stealing was not allowed, adultery was not allowed, and burglary was not allowed. So all these things are considered immoral by the general populace of the world.
(Yes I know it was a long rambling post with lots of disconnected things, but still...)
Post by
Orranis
To add to what Queggy said.
Is killing someone really a good thing when it saves others? Yes, it might be the lesser of two evils, but that doesn't automatically make it good. You are still taking a life.
Again, to reiterate, you haven't offered any evidence beyond a couple assumptions, so what makes your position true?
Meh, the problem with this is, why do we automatically assume taking a life is a bad thing in the first place? I haven't really seen any evidence on why it is automatically considered horrible. Not that I agree with killing people, just on that subject.
I believe morals are totally subjective, and outside of living beings imaginations do not exist at all.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Freedom is good. Freedom of self is the most intrinsic type of freedom. Therefore anything that denies that freedom would be bad. Therefore killing is bad.
Also, I want every relativist to think long and hard about what it means to say that there is no good and evil.
Post by
Orranis
Freedom is good. Freedom of self is the most intrinsic type of freedom. Therefore anything that denies that freedom would be bad. Therefore killing is bad
Why is freedom automatically good?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Why is freedom automatically good?
That's a self-evident fact.
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
religious
/moral
Don't try to imply that religion is tied to morality, because it really isn't. There's plenty of people who are very religious who are very bad (deontologically and in terms of kantian ethics).
Post by
Orranis
Why is freedom automatically good?
That's a self-evident fact.
For you maybe. I'm not arguing that it isn't generally good, just trying to say that everything is prey to circumstance, and there is no absolute morals from what I've seen. Let's say there was a democracy, and 80% voted that the other 20% should be kicked out of the land. Now lets say it's a dictatorship, but the dictator thinks that would be wrong, and doesn't let them. If he allowed them freedom, then they would do something that is unethical.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
For you maybe. I'm not arguing that it isn't generally good, just trying to say that everything is prey to circumstance, and there is no absolute morals from what I've seen. Let's say there was a democracy, and 80% voted that the other 20% should be kicked out of the land. Now lets say it's a dictatorship, but the dictator thinks that would be wrong, and doesn't let them. If he allowed them freedom, then they would do something that is unethical.
None of that has anything to do with morality.
Then there are societies who thought killing other was fun and right thing to do. Viking's for example loved fighting and killing other beings, usually the folk who were the best killers were kept in high value because of their merit.
Yet another example that begs the question. You're assuming that what they liked to do was in fact morally licit.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.