quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
I have known some of these people. They tend to be amoral...

quote:

None of us do (I hope), but some amoral characters may be like that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: URForgiven

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes


Maybe this is the tyranny of the majority. So be it. We are stuck with that in a democracy. I am glad that many of the fundamental issues are ensconced in the Constitution, where they are hard to change (since it takes much more than a simple majority to do so).

"...endowed by our Creator"

These "certain inalienable rights" are not manmade nor do they originate in man.

Our God given rights form our foundation of which our laws are the guarantor. We are a nation of laws, and we are so because we are a nation founded upon an absolute morality that originates in, and proceeds from God.

Peace

Again, I deny that absolute "god given" rights exist.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume they do exist. That means that people in North Korea have the right to free speech and people in the UK have the right to bear arms. Of course, if they actually exercize these rights, they can get locked up.

I would much rather have my rights written down and guaranteed by the manmade laws of the land, than to have impotent metaphysical God-given rights.
I find it hard to imagine that God was interested enough to give us the right to not have troops quartered in our homes, or the right to not have excessive bail imposed. All of these things are manmade laws made by lawmakers. Certainly these lawmakers were and are influenced by their religious and moral sentiments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

quote:

None of us do (I hope), but some amoral characters may be like that.

From your perspective, can they really be considered amoral? Would heteromoral (which isn't a real word, but as I use it, it means: having a vastly different morality than the average American) be better?

quote:

Perhaps heteromoral is a fine word for that circumstance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

quote:

Perhaps heteromoral is a fine word for that circumstance.

So if all that is in play here is a different set of morals, can we really pass judgment on anyone? We don't lock people up because they prefer vanilla over chocolate ice cream, so why should we lock them up because they prefer murder over non-murder?

quote:

Just because there is no one absolute morality does not mean that morality itself is a useless concept. Just because I can't 'prove' that murder is wrong, does not mean that I can't believe that murder is wrong, and vote according to my conscience to make murder illegal.

quote:

I deny that an absolute standard of morality exists. Yes, I know you think you have one. But I know that if I ask Bob, Jakob, Mustafa, Mohandas and Tetsuji, they will all give me absolute moralities that differ in some points. They can't all be right.

quote:

On a charitable day, I'll allow that an absolute morality could exist, but there is no way that humans could ever know it. Yes, I know you think you already know what it is, but again I know that other people also think they know what it is, and you all disagree.

quote:

Thus, I believe that every person has their own subjective morality. So "what we should use as a moral standard?" Your own conscience, supported by whatever religious, ethical or philosophical beliefs pertain to a particular issue.

quote:

Certainly, all of our subjective moralities have a great deal of overlap, and a lot of this commonality is enshrined in our laws and constitution. As a pragmatic matter, this is great. Nearly every society has rules against murder, theft, etc.

quote:

Some people may think it's moral to run over pedestrians or feed broken glass to dogs, but they are in a tiny minority, and society locks them up and ignores their minority opinion.

quote:

But other issues are not as clear cut. There is no unambiguous majority opinion. If we have no access to absolute morality, we still have to decide these issues. What will be allowed. This is the matter of law. In our democracy, this is ultimately decided by popular vote. Laws and even the Constitution can be changed. People cast their votes according to the dictates of their own subjective moralities.

quote:

Is alcohol immoral? I don't think the question has any objective answer. But I know that when the 18th Amendment was passed, it was illegal in the US. And when the 21st Amendment was passed, it was legal in the US. These changes reflected the changing subjective moralities of the people.

quote:

Maybe this is the tyranny of the majority. So be it. We are stuck with that in a democracy. I am glad that many of the fundamental issues are ensconced in the Constitution, where they are hard to change (since it takes much more than a simple majority to do so).

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

quote:

Just because there is no one absolute morality does not mean that morality itself is a useless concept. Just because I can't 'prove' that murder is wrong, does not mean that I can't believe that murder is wrong, and vote according to my conscience to make murder illegal.

So you do not believe that discrimating against someone because they believe differently than you is wrong?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
This is quite a different point; it may be because of human limitations we aren’t able to fully ascertain all that is true about the nature of morality (much as we can’t ascertain all that is true about the universe) but this is no more proof against the reality of morality or the importance of a standard for it than ignorance about the universe would be against its existence or that true things can be known about it.

quote:

‘Subjective morality’ is an oxymoron because morality is always about the agreed upon standards of human beings in interaction with each other;

quote:

So morality is by its very nature always about some objective standard agreed upon by two or more people

quote:

A basic knowledge of history reveals the our Constitution and Bill of Rights are very much the product of claims about certain immutable standards governing human nature and morality; take away those standards, and not only is there no basis for the derived laws

quote:

Why would you be glad what you claim are subjective and arbitrary standards which have no more objective basis for existence than the laws of the Third Reich are ensconced in the Constitution? Again, you are speaking the language of absolute morality while trying to deny it’s existence.

quote:

If someone believes murder is acceptable, I think it is acceptable to 'discriminate' against them by locking them up if they act on their belief and murder someone.

If someone believes vanilla is better than chocolate, I think it is acceptable to 'discriminate' against them by saying, "Are you nuts? Chocolate is way better."

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

quote:

If someone believes murder is acceptable, I think it is acceptable to 'discriminate' against them by locking them up if they act on their belief and murder someone.

If someone believes vanilla is better than chocolate, I think it is acceptable to 'discriminate' against them by saying, "Are you nuts? Chocolate is way better."

Why the double standard? Both are choices. Why are some choices punished less severely?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I deny that an absolute standard of morality exists. Yes, I know you think you have one. But I know that if I ask Bob, Jakob, Mustafa, Mohandas and Tetsuji, they will all give me absolute moralities that differ in some points. They can't all be right.

This is a morass of logical inconsistencies. First you are making an absolute statement (morals don’t really exist) about something you claim has no absolute attributes. Secondly you are using the fact that there are different claims about morality as evidence that morals don’t really exist. Obviously if one is trying to solve a math calculation there could be an infinite number of wrong answers, and that fact that would say nothing about whether or not a correct answer exists.

quote:

quote:

On a charitable day, I'll allow that an absolute morality could exist, but there is no way that humans could ever know it. Yes, I know you think you already know what it is, but again I know that other people also think they know what it is, and you all disagree.

This is quite a different point; it may be because of human limitations we aren’t able to fully ascertain all that is true about the nature of morality (much as we can’t ascertain all that is true about the universe) but this is no more proof against the reality of morality or the importance of a standard for it than ignorance about the universe would be against its existence or that true things can be known about it.

quote:

Thus, I believe that every person has their own subjective morality. So "what we should use as a moral standard?" Your own conscience, supported by whatever religious, ethical or philosophical beliefs pertain to a particular issue.

‘Subjective morality’ is an oxymoron because morality is always about the agreed upon standards of human beings in interaction with each other; by oneself one has no need for kindness, love, no one to hate, no one to show compassion to, etc.

So morality is by its very nature always about some objective standard agreed upon by two or more people, whether or not those standards are based on reality. By necessity a ‘subjective’ standard of morality is not morality at all, but merely a human desire.

quote:

quote:

Certainly, all of our subjective moralities have a great deal of overlap, and a lot of this commonality is enshrined in our laws and constitution. As a pragmatic matter, this is great. Nearly every society has rules against murder, theft, etc.

And on what basis do we do so? I think a little more logic would tell you that the basis of even these commonly held moral standards derive from objective realities concerning human nature.

quote:

quote:

Some people may think it's moral to run over pedestrians or feed broken glass to dogs, but they are in a tiny minority, and society locks them up and ignores their minority opinion.

Well, again, you are making a statement without considering the why; why do humans uniquely derive external rules to govern their behavior? I think the answer to that would be that we are an organism that is capable understanding and acquiring transcendental realities.

quote:

But other issues are not as clear cut. There is no unambiguous majority opinion. If we have no access to absolute morality, we still have to decide these issues. What will be allowed. This is the matter of law. In our democracy, this is ultimately decided by popular vote. Laws and even the Constitution can be changed. People cast their votes according to the dictates of their own subjective moralities.

Actually, this isn’t completely true; laws, particularly those governing our rights, don’t just pop into existence as the result of popular vote. A basic knowledge of history reveals the our Constitution and Bill of Rights are very much the product of claims about certain immutable standards governing human nature and morality; take away those standards, and not only is there no basis for the derived laws, but there is no basis for a ‘popular vote’ at all! So even this claim fails the ‘no objective morality’ argument.

quote:

Shouldn't an answer of "Yes, that's moral" or "No, that is Absolutely immoral" be the correct answer. For that matter, why does this forum even exist? Why doesn't everyone just refer to this supposed Absolute Moral Standard to decide questions of morality?

quote:

ORIGINAL: zamdad

quote:

Shouldn't an answer of "Yes, that's moral" or "No, that is Absolutely immoral" be the correct answer. For that matter, why does this forum even exist? Why doesn't everyone just refer to this supposed Absolute Moral Standard to decide questions of morality?

Because, as you ahve illustrated, people come to their own conclusions/opinions. Lets take theft. Most of us would agree that theft is morally wrong. Yet, the thief will try and justify his taking of something by saying that the economy is bad and he can't afford to feed his family. Many others will jump in and add to his excuses as their sympathy strings are played.

Look at the MOnica Lewinski affair. Many people would still agree that adultery is wrong. But, because it was a "private matter" between the Clinton's, it was "none of our business. The man lied to his wife and then to the nation and most would agree that lying is also absolutely wrong in terms of morality. Yet, we not only overlooked it, we excused it, rationalized it and even came out saying that oral sex is not sex.

So, I can see how you've come to the conclusion that there are no moral absolutes. Yet, you're absolutely wrong. Now, how can that be?

quote:

ORIGINAL: zamdad
Because, as you ahve illustrated, people come to their own conclusions/opinions. Lets take theft. Most of us would agree that theft is morally wrong. Yet, the thief will try and justify his taking of something by saying that the economy is bad and he can't afford to feed his family. Many others will jump in and add to his excuses as their sympathy strings are played.

quote:

So, I can see how you've come to the conclusion that there are no moral absolutes. Yet, you're absolutely wrong. Now, how can that be?

quote:

essentialsaltes
You agree our argument has merit. But you state we're absolutely wrong. Yet you have no counter-argument of your own to offer. How can that be? I would humbly suggest that maybe your position is incorrect. Perhaps it is a matter of faith in the absence of logical argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zamdad
Following your logic, what will you stand on?

quote:

ORIGINAL: zamdad

Veritas. The bikini argument is a poor example for argument and is the topic of another thread in it's entirety.

quote:

For me, the buck stops with me.

quote:

Veritas
Why do you feel it is a poor example? If you had an answer, would that make it a better example?

quote:

ORIGINAL: zamdad

quote:

For me, the buck stops with me.

And when your buck collides with the collective bucks of others?

quote:

ORIGINAL: zamdad

quote:

For me, the buck stops with me.

And when your buck collides with the collective bucks of others?

quote:

Veritas
Why do you feel it is a poor example? If you had an answer, would that make it a better example?

As i said, Veritas, there is already a thread on the bikini issue. Also, it is one of those arguments that has been redefined by the culture with each proceeding generation. I did use the example of theft. But, you seemed to want to return to bikini's. Since I know you are homosexual, we could turn the argument to homosexuality. Yet, there is a one stop thread for that.

In staying on track with the OP, there are some things such as murder, theft, destruction of property, etc., that, no matter how much the culture changes, will still be considered absolutely wrong.