Hormones could always be blamed for a person’s choices. However, there is a time when a person must be held accountable for his/her actions. Though you are right, in essence, that people vary in how much they care, abortion is a much more profound issue than just whether or not someone gives a damn. Abortion is about life, not about caring for random people.
Morality is NOT fluid in nature. One cannot argue morality as “You think this, but I don’t think that”, rather, it is one of the few things that are black and white. In the end, those that say they don’t care about abortion or “feel as bad about abortion” are forgetting the issue at hand. It’s not another political controversy, but an issue that is concerned with life, and the preservation of life, the possibility of life. That is NOT fluid.
[quote]Raw Finn wrote:
People have different hormonal profiles. Some people give a damn more. It really just comes down to that I don’t feel as bad about abortion as you do. Yeah, one day I might face this situation and then care more. But as I said I believe people only wants the survival of themselves and those who they care about. For some those other people may consist of everyone. These feelings of caring are based on survival of the species. Hormonal levels vary → so feelings vary → so people’s actions and thoughts vary. Moral is fluid.[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Morality is NOT fluid in nature. One cannot argue morality as “You think this, but I don’t think that”, rather, it is one of the few things that are black and white.[/quote]
Morality is extremely fluid in nature. A quick look at what has historically been acceptable behavior will show you this.
Throughout history, things that were supported by society and government which we see now as immoral were equally immoral during its popularity. Morality does not depend on how a government or a society sees an action as moral or immoral. Even right now, things that are occurring in our world, advocated and supported by governmental entities, are not moral. They’re moral statuses don’t change because of governmental support. Supported by American government right now includes killing fetuses with heartbeats and potential for life, sending millions of people to their deaths in foreign countries, often unaware of what they’re fighting for, allowing convicted child molesters back into society, stripping and searching people with questionable incentives in the name of “security,” to name a few. The multitude of immoral incidents and procedures that have occurred in history does not mean morality has changed, but only awareness or compassion towards these injustices have altered. Sometimes these changes occur because of education, insight by others, and much-needed legislation being passed, but the morality itself is unchanging. Society’s ideals change- yes. Morality does NOT.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Morality is extremely fluid in nature. A quick look at what has historically been acceptable behavior will show you this.[/quote]
Altough this discussion has been done many times before too, it’s still an odd situation:
Absolutetists claim relative morality is a false conclusion, and one mired with immorality.
However, the absolute source of morality can’t be proven to exist.
This renders the basis for their absolute morality utterly moot and null and void.
Which leaves us with the only logical conclusion that morality evolved from societies. Through trial and error, ultimately the best set of rules remained and those sets of morals that weren’t conducive to the longevity of society were disgarded.
I can’t prove this ofcourse, i’m not an academic with the right research and data to back my claims up, but as long as believers struggle to prove the existence of their absolute moral yardstick I’m not worried.
Now, before all the tired and old arguments against relativism are brought up again, please be so kind as to provide conclusive proof of what you claim is the source of absolute morality exists because without it, you’re just pissing in the wind.
[quote]pat wrote:
Uh, I didn’t ask what people thought. I am guessing a rapist thinks his rape is a right dandy idea. I am asking is it right? Is it a morally correct thing to do?[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I know this better than you, that is for sure. Take a look at my AVI <---- I was in a motorcycle wreck and in a coma for six weeks! My brain was swollen and every Dr. that saw me told my family I was going to die!! My brain had ZERO function for the first ~4 weeks!! You are wrong to say the brain still has function. No brain function when I was 25, but I am alive today, even by your standards!
Prove the embryo does not have the cells that make up the brain. You have an impossible claim to defend. Not even Dr.'s can explain how or why the cells go to predetermined portions of the embryo, such as the brain, and develop in the new organs of the person.
[quote]supa power wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
The brain is no longer functional, in fact many times the body can NOT be supported by the brain. There is NO “consciousness of” any sort in many different levels of coma!
[quote]supa power wrote:
A brain injury does not = no brain. They still have consciousness of some sort.[/quote]
[/quote]
How do you know that?? The brain can still work when a person has a near death experience, despite all vital signs showing no signs of life. A brain injury still does not = no brain.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I’m sorry to hear that you were in an accident and hopefully all is well now.
Embryos in their first few weeks still do not have a brain. They have the CELLS which go on to form the brain, but still no brain and hence no consciousness. An embryo begins to have it’s first brain activity at week 6.
People are failing to grasp that consciousness is an activity of the brain. It is not some “spirit” that is separate from the brain.
Ok this thread is officially boring the shit out of me. I’m done.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Altough this discussion has been done many times before too, it’s still an odd situation:
Absolutetists claim relative morality is a false conclusion, and one mired with immorality.
However, the absolute source of morality can’t be proven to exist.
This renders the basis for their absolute morality utterly moot and null and void.
Which leaves us with the only logical conclusion that morality evolved from societies. Through trial and error, ultimately the best set of rules remained and those sets of morals that weren’t conducive to the longevity of society were disgarded.
I can’t prove this ofcourse, i’m not an academic with the right research and data to back my claims up, but as long as believers struggle to prove the existence of their absolute moral yardstick I’m not worried.
Now, before all the tired and old arguments against relativism are brought up again, please be so kind as to provide conclusive proof of what you claim is the source of absolute morality exists because without it, you’re just pissing in the wind.[/quote]
When you make a claim it would be nice if you would provide the information you claim with a source. Can you prove the other side, with data? I will wait patiently for your information.
This was a well put together post btw. However you do not want to look at the evidence in front of you in any kind of objective manner. Because of that, my effort would be wasted.
[edit]
[quote]ephrem wrote:
… I can’t prove this ofcourse, i’m not an academic with the right research and data to back my claims up, but as long as believers struggle to prove the existence of their absolute moral yardstick I’m not worried.
Now, before all the tired and old arguments against relativism are brought up again, please be so kind as to provide conclusive proof of what you claim is the source of absolute morality exists because without it, you’re just pissing in the wind.[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Morality is NOT fluid in nature. One cannot argue morality as “You think this, but I don’t think that”, rather, it is one of the few things that are black and white.[/quote]
Morality is extremely fluid in nature. A quick look at what has historically been acceptable behavior will show you this.[/quote]
Social acceptability is not morality. Feeding people to the lions may have been acceptable and fun if you’re a Roman, but it was never a moral thing to do. The recipient of the action is not benefiting in anyway. The act is done for purely selfish reasons with out regard for others, it’s an evil act. It doesn’t matter how many people think it’s fun.
Lesser rules, say like drug use. Today drug use is vilified and made to be a bad thing, but that has little to do with morality. That’s just societal dictates. The pendulum will swing the other way again one day and it will be fine.
Culture is not morality and vice versa.
[quote]pat wrote:
Uh, I didn’t ask what people thought. I am guessing a rapist thinks his rape is a right dandy idea. I am asking is it right? Is it a morally correct thing to do?[/quote]
As I said I believe moral is an individual thing.[/quote]
So clearly you cannot defend an indefensible act. ‘Rape’ is not an individual thing, there is a perpetrator and a victim. Hence there are too. Just because you think it’s ok to rape somebody or rape children, doesn’t mean it’s morally correct.
Uh, no. ‘Individual things’ are technically amoral.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Altough this discussion has been done many times before too, it’s still an odd situation:
Absolutetists claim relative morality is a false conclusion, and one mired with immorality.
[/quote]
By this definition, you are stating that even the most reprehensible acts can be defensible or even good under the ‘right’ circumstances. Can you think of a scenario where the holocaust is moral? Or child rape, can that ever be good?
You don’t necessarily know it’s source to to the thing to exist. By your statement, we don’t know the ‘source’ of math, but we know it exists…
I don’t struggle with it. You struggle to disprove it…
[quote]
Now, before all the tired and old arguments against relativism are brought up again, please be so kind as to provide conclusive proof of what you claim is the source of absolute morality exists because without it, you’re just pissing in the wind.[/quote]
So you just said you don’t have proof of your claim, yet you demand proof? Nu uh…prove morality ‘evolved’ as and society did.
You can’t make a claim, say you don’t have a proof, and then demand proof from somebody else…
Second, on my above examples. Holocaust, child rape, you have to be able to come up with a scenario where there is nothing wrong with those two things for you to prove that morality is relative or fluid. If it is, then a case can be made for these extremes to be a morally neutral or morally good thing, depending on society, culture. Good luck with that one.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Morality is NOT fluid in nature. One cannot argue morality as “You think this, but I don’t think that”, rather, it is one of the few things that are black and white.[/quote]
Morality is extremely fluid in nature. A quick look at what has historically been acceptable behavior will show you this.[/quote]
Social acceptability is not morality. Feeding people to the lions may have been acceptable and fun if you’re a Roman, but it was never a moral thing to do. The recipient of the action is not benefiting in anyway. The act is done for purely selfish reasons with out regard for others, it’s an evil act. It doesn’t matter how many people think it’s fun.
Lesser rules, say like drug use. Today drug use is vilified and made to be a bad thing, but that has little to do with morality. That’s just societal dictates. The pendulum will swing the other way again one day and it will be fine.
Culture is not morality and vice versa.[/quote]
Stoning unruly children was once “moral”. So was selling your daughter. Rape was once fine (as long as you paid the victims father). Morality is still yet to be properly defined, and until it is - it is at the mercy of society.
So of the activities you claim were once “moral,” which of those societies lasted the longest and which one society is currently around today? Please provide evidence to support your claim mak.
Not trying to bring religion into the thread, in fact we can let it die after I say this: Rape was a different act before the coming of Christ. Women were once considered property. Far from the case in modern times.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Stoning unruly children was once “moral”. So was selling your daughter. Rape was once fine (as long as you paid the victims father). Morality is still yet to be properly defined, and until it is - it is at the mercy of society.[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So of the activities you claim were once “moral,” which of those societies lasted the longest and which one society is currently around today? Please provide evidence to support your claim mak.
Not trying to bring religion into the thread, in fact we can let it die after I say this: Rape was a different act before the coming of Christ. Women were once considered property. Far from the case in modern times.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Stoning unruly children was once “moral”. So was selling your daughter. Rape was once fine (as long as you paid the victims father). Morality is still yet to be properly defined, and until it is - it is at the mercy of society.[/quote]
[/quote]
“Not trying to bring religion into the thread, in fact we can let it die after I get the last word”
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Morality is NOT fluid in nature. One cannot argue morality as “You think this, but I don’t think that”, rather, it is one of the few things that are black and white.[/quote]
Morality is extremely fluid in nature. A quick look at what has historically been acceptable behavior will show you this.[/quote]
Social acceptability is not morality. Feeding people to the lions may have been acceptable and fun if you’re a Roman, but it was never a moral thing to do. The recipient of the action is not benefiting in anyway. The act is done for purely selfish reasons with out regard for others, it’s an evil act. It doesn’t matter how many people think it’s fun.
Lesser rules, say like drug use. Today drug use is vilified and made to be a bad thing, but that has little to do with morality. That’s just societal dictates. The pendulum will swing the other way again one day and it will be fine.
Culture is not morality and vice versa.[/quote]
Stoning unruly children was once “moral”. So was selling your daughter. Rape was once fine (as long as you paid the victims father). Morality is still yet to be properly defined, and until it is - it is at the mercy of society.[/quote]
No. All those things were and are morally wrong. Why do you think such things stopped, because they were good? No, people recognized the wrong and corrected it. Any act that results in a victim is morally wrong. It doesn’t matter who likes it or accepts it.
That I believe morality is relative means that I decide for myself what is right and what is wrong. We’ve been over this before [like so many things] but think of it as a black to white greyscale with a thin slice of black, a huge swath of different shades of grey, and a thin slice of white.
Child rape and horrors like the holocaust are black, and driving off a cliff to save a bus full of babies is white. Much, however, is in between.
It’s numbers, isn’t it? Besides, you understand how evolution works, don’t you? Surely you can fathom how an ever increasing population that settles in areas fit for agriculture some 10.000 years ago developed codes of conduct in order to better live together?
I don’t have to disprove it. You claim morality has an absolute source and the only thing you have to do to prove to me that morality indeed does have an absolute source is to show me the existence of that source.
I can’t prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. I admitted this right away. You, on the other hand, shy away from admitting you can’t prove that your absolute source exists.
