Core Values

[DBCooper]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
And I didn’t know the difference between sex and gender? Says the guy who tried further up the page to imply that “arrogance” is some kind of moral transgression.

Forgive me for not taking you very seriously sometimes. [/quote]

I tried no such thing and you know it.

I don’t think you understand my argument at all, and it’s not for lack of clarity. There is morality that exists. It is different for everyone. The idea of morality exists. It cannot exist without humans to quantify it, however, and therefore it is not absolute. Absolute implies that it ALWAYS exists and always WILL exist, regardless of human life. My argument is that morality will not exist when humans do not exist.

For morality to be a “law” that always exists no matter what, it must be applicable beyond humans, or else it requires humans to exist and cannot be absolute. Name one thing other than humans that morality exists for. Do animals have systems of morality? Do inert objects have morality?[/quote]

I don’t feel I have too much trouble with reading comprehension when I’m reading the words of somebody who knows how to write, so maybe you can explain to me how you are NOT implying arrogance can be somehow moral or immoral. That something is good or bad is not the same as its being moral or immoral.

[quote]DB Cooper wrote:
Your later post about arrogance essentially proves this point. Sometimes arrogance is good, sometimes it is not. It can be moral or immoral, but it depends on US as humans to be one or the other. It is not absolutely moral or immoral. [/quote]

*edited for clarity[/quote]

Good and bad is not moral or immoral? Uh, yes it fucking is. What is moral is good, what is immoral is bad in a nutshell. They’re synonyms. We define moral acts as good and immoral acts as bad. I didn’t say it was a moral transgression; I said it can be good or bad but I didn’t take a stance one way or the other. Maybe it is a moral transgression, maybe it isn’t.

[DBCooper]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Natural law, such as the laws of science, are about as absolute as it gets. The laws of gravity, for instance, always exist. Those laws existed long before humans discovered them. They aren’t a human construct. The existence of the solar system and the gravitational fields of the planets within it prove as much. The same cannot be said about morality.
[/quote]

So you say.

And yet, somehow, we all know, and all societies have always known, that bearing false witness, cheating, stealing, backstabbing, and robbing others of their rights are evils.

You can even say this about state institutionalized evils, such as slavery, or the genocide of the Tutsi “cockroaches” or the Jews. In every case, that group being disenfranchised or murdered was first systematically dehumanized, because we, as humans, KNOW, INHERENTLY, that to do things kinds of things to other humans is evil.

If anything, the onus is upon you, DB, to provide evidence that morality is a human construct. Because in every instance that I can possibly come up with, it is a LAW that has been discovered, not constructed.

If what you were saying were really true, then why do we see such across the board homogeneity of thought among every major society that has ever been? Why then do we not see different constructions? Ever.

All of the great stories, for as long as we have told stories, have featured a strong, courageous, brave, righteous, usually virtuous, stolid hero, and an opposite enemy for him to defeat. We unanimously root for the good guy and against the bad guy. Why do we not see some societies do the opposite, and celebrate the murderous, lying, backstabbing, conniving, turncoat? Ever.

Well, because these virtues are UNIVERSAL. That’s why.

And in case it’s not clear, universal is another word for absolute.

[/quote]

All of the great stories? We unanimously root for the good guy and against the bad guy? Two of the greatest, most popular movies of all time are Citizen Kane and The Godfather. Kane and Michael Corleone are both bad guys, through and through. Tony Montana is another bad guy. And yet, we essentially root for them to win. Michael Corleone and Tony Montana were murderous, lying, backstabbing, conniving, etc and we celebrate them all the time. The same could be said for perhaps the greatest villain in movie history, Darth Vader. What about the Bible? Isn’t Jesus essentially the hero in that book? Does everyone root for him? Do Muslims root for him? Do you root for Mohammed? What about stories that the Taliban and al Qaeda will tell about Osama bin Laden? He’ll be portrayed as the hero, I’m sure. But will people universally root for him? Of course not.

You know why we see across the board homogeneity? Because we all act primarily in our own self-interest when you boil everything down. Self-interest isn’t measured strictly in economic or physical terms either. It can be measured in emotional terms as well, and for many people, acting within the moral framework that society has created gives them emotional comfort, which is good for the self in many ways. We perform deeds that may not be good for us in other ways because we gain emotional health by doing so.

We all view certain dastardly deeds as such because to have them happen to us would be bad for us, so it becomes “immoral”. We see people toss aside these morals all the time when they think or know that doing so will not come back to bite them in the ass. It is immoral for people to steal because it would be bad for people to steal from us. It is bad to kill because to be killed is bad. The reason you consider these sorts of moralities “universal” is because it is never good for people to have such immoral acts done to them. Or almost never. I suppose an argument could be made for killing someone in chronic, severe pain, but that’s for another post.

You say that morality is a law that has simply been discovered by humans and not constructed. If that is the case, give me an example of something you consider immoral that is ALWAYS immoral and does not involve humans. If it is not a human construct then there must be moral and immoral behavior that does not depend on humans. Name one such example. If deceit is immoral, give me an example of something other than humans being deceitful and which would then be immoral.

[DBCooper]

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
DB,

Regarding equating humility with weakness and subserviance: I completely disagree. Humility is extremely useful. It’s an effective inoculation against overconfidence and complacency, both of which can get you killed both literally and figuratively. Humility allows you to see your where your weaknesses lie, own them and begin to work on them without needing to wrestle with your ego. It allows you to be realistic with yourself because were all flawed and fallible. If pride makes you blind to this, you will be less effective in your life. Nemisis follows hubris and all. That’s not a human construct, it’s a description of a natural process at work that would happen whether or not one believed it would. In fact, it usually DOES happen to people who don’t believe it does.

The harder you push your limits the more likely you are to be exposed to people who are more talented than you, to have failures, setbacks and other “humbling” experiences. If those experiences don’t teach you that you are not perfect, invincible or even that big a deal then you are just not that bright IMO. Some of the most capable, competent people you will ever meet will often be the most humble, especially if their area of competency involves significant physical risk where overestimating your capabilities can have disastrous consequences.

Humility has the added benefit of causing you to tend to under-promise and over-deliver which I find to be extremely useful both in professional and personal settings. The guy who thinks he’s awesome and talks a great game will always come up short more often because reality doesn’t care how great you think you are. This is true so often that in my experience the more a guy talks himself up, the less I actually expect him to accomplish and I am rarely disappointed.

I don’t think humility is an artificial construct thrust upon us by our theoretical “betters” so much as it is the logical and intelligent conclusion to any honest self-assessment.[/quote]

All you’ve done is explain why humility is a virtue when it is in our best interests. Sure, humility is a virtue when it is good for me. Again, master morality.[/quote]

Most commonly held virtues also happen good for us, IMO just as most vices are self-injurious. I find this to be unsurprising.

Integrity/Fortitude is good for us because it allows us and those around us to trust ourselves to see things through in the face of adversity and hold true to our values and beliefs.

Wisdom is good for us because it helps us to understand the world and our place in it. It also helps us do fewer dumb things.

Fairness is good for us because human beings are wired with an innate sense of justice and equity. Whether this is a result of the design of a Creator or just a random fluke of evolution is irrelevant. If we treat others unjustly, it will cause us problems.

Temperance is good for us because it prevents us from destroying ourselves with our own excesses. Again, whether some Higher Power wills it or not, it’s a good idea.

Self-sacrifice is good for us because we need others in our lives, both for practical and mental health reasons. Altruism provides a tremendous survival benefit for us as a species and pays us emotional and personal dividends.

So whether or not there is any absolute morality, it is generally to our benefit to behave as though there was, so who cares? Having a code allows us to make the right (or more advantageous in the long term if you prefer) when our impulses in the moment may run in another direction. A very similar code will be applicable to 99.99999% of people as similar consequences will flow from similar actions. It may not be absolute morality, but it’s close enough to make no practical difference.

[/quote]

I disagree with virtually everything you’ve put forth here. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to address any of this in detail since it’s my favorite day of the week (snatch-grip high pull day) and it’s time to hit the gym. I’ll go into detail about why I disagree later.[/quote]

Sorry for the delay in responding.

1. I don’t think it’s a coincidence at all that most commonly-held virtues are also good for us. I don’t know what vices has to do with any of this. Regardless, my point is only strengthened by your argument here. What is moral is what is good for us, perhaps not collectively, but on an individual basis. I make my own morality because I deem what is good for me to be moral.

2. “Fairness is good for us because human beings are wired with an innate sense of justice and equity”
   I don’t know what to say about this one. I suppose you’re the neurological expert if you know how we’re “wired”. An innate sense of justice and equity? If we’re all wired with a sense of equity, then why do we spend so much time trying to avoid equitable circumstances? How often do we REALLY seek equity in our lives, especially if it means less for yourself so that others may have more? How often do we REALLY seek justice if it comes at our own expense? If we were wired this way, all of us, the world would not be what it is today. I think the fact that we have these massively detailed systems of law and government pretty much destroys any argument that we are wired with a sense of equity and justice. Either that or, despite our atavistic sense of those virtues, we ignore them on a regular basis.

3. I agree that we cannot live outside of society and that interaction with others is good for us. But you’re really starting to make my point for me with all these virtues you’re listing off. Of course self-sacrifice, temperance, fairness and so forth are virtues. You’ve said yourself now on several occasions that they are virtues and that they are good for us. THAT is what makes them virtuous, in my opinion. How often do we pursue these virtues at our own expense? If the fair thing to do is not good for me and so I do not act fairly, is this immoral? And if it IS immoral, doesn’t that mean that acting in one’s own self-interest rather than out of purely altruistic reasons is immoral as well? And if acting out of self-interest is immoral, and it can be agreed upon that disregarding self-interest is damaging to one’s life, does this “morality” eventually celebrate death and not life?

I think your logic necessarily leads to a celebration of death, or other less drastic results regarding our lives, rather than life. Without life, there is no morality. Morality did not exist on this planet before humans came along. Was it immoral for a dinosaur to prey on smaller, weaker dinosaurs in order to eat and survive?

Also, let’s dispense with the whole altruism-as-a-virtue thing. Altruism doesn’t exist, and it certainly doesn’t exist when we do “altruistic” things out of self-preservation. That isn’t what altruism is about.[/quote]

1. I don’t really see the practical value of the distinction you are trying to draw between “good” and “good for us”. Virtuous behaviour tends to benefit both ourselves, others and society as a whole. We, as individuals don’t have the power to determine that X is good for us and therefore “good” if it is in fact not. Enter the baby rape example. I reserve the right to deprive baby raper of his liberty to do what he deems “good” and am absolutely justified/right in doing so. What sane person could argue otherwise without turning it into some pointless intellectual exercise?

2. Nope, not a neurological expert. Just seems to me that people, without being taught, have an inherent desire to seek justice. In grade school when I would see a big kid picking on a little kid on the school yard it would piss me off even if I had no personal interest in the kid being picked on. As I got older it would piss me off enough that I would actually stick my nose in occasionally, even if it was contrary to my self interest. Much of our cultural mythology is based around this concept because it has inherent emotional resonance for us, not the other way around.

It seems to me that the fact “that we have these massively detailed systems of law and government” (however misguided they may be at times) would indicate that we, as a species, are very much concerned with equity, peace, justice, civil order etc otherwise, why would we bother going to all the effort to promote and preserve them? These systems are intended to protect the vast majority of us who would voluntarily live justly and peaceably with our neighbours from the few who would not. They exist as a (flawed) attempt to express our desire for equity and justice, not as an artificial imposition of those values from without.

Speaking for myself, I try to be fair and ethical in all my dealings, even if it’s not to my immediate advantage and sometimes very much to my detriment. Even if I “can” bill someone more for a job than it’s really worth I won’t do it and if someone really needs a break I’ll try to give it to them, just as others have given me breaks at times when I needed them. If I catch myself in a self-serving lie, I’ll go back and set the record straight, even if there’s nothing to gain but embarrassment. Not patting myself on the back at all, just a fact. Justice is good, regardless of whether it’s good for me in the moment or not. What I gain is the ability to sleep nights and look myself in face and like what I see, so maybe it is self serving in the end…

3. I fail to see how holding to your principles regardless of whether they seem convenient in the moment is a celebration of death. Similarly I fail to see how helping others when you stand to gain nothing in return or even to lose a little is a celebration of death. To live we must give. We must also tend to our own affairs, but as others have said, I find that I benefit in proportion to the benefit I’m able to provide for others, not at their expense. Any good, sustainable transaction is win-win.

Comparing humans to dinosaurs or bears or whatever is not analogous. We are possessed of the faculties of reason and choice. The animals are at the mercy of instinct and necessity so no morality can be attached to their actions. Whether morality can be applied to non-human creatures has no bearing on a discussion between humans about human conduct. We can find ways to prosper without preying on our fellow man, so it is immoral to do so. When we lie, cheat and harm others, we harm ourselves. It’s inescapable regardless of whether you believe in it. This may be a little kindergarten for an educated guy like you, but there it is.

Regarding altruism: the word itself is admittedly problematic. If someone does something that benefits another (i.e. volunteers with disadvantaged kids or seeks to return found property to it’s owner) with no expectation of reward beyond the intrinsic sense of happiness they gain from the act itself, that is close enough to being altruistic for the purpose of discussion IMO. Society as a whole benefits from acts of kindness and generosity that bring no direct reward to the doer of the deed. We each in turn benefit from living in a stronger, more harmonious society. This does not, however, reduce kindness to self-preservation.
[/quote]

I don’t think that virtuous behavior necessarily is good for society as a whole. Many aspects of socialism could be considered virtuous, especially if Christianity is the source of your virtue system. But socialism is not good for society. Neither is striving for equality within society. It is not good when doing nothing is rewarded and achievement is downgraded or essentially punished.

Not all of us pursue justice and equity. Not all of us wish to see it happen within society and many of us realize that pursuing it is pure folly. The reason some people pursue it even when it is not beneficial to our financial or physical well-being is because it is good for our emotional well-being. That is why pure altruism does not exist. Do you know of anyone who helps those in need even when it causes them mental, physical AND financial pain? Of course not. There is always emotional health gained from such deeds if nothing else, even if it means feeling secure about your place in heaven or whatever. So your pursuit of justice and equity for the downtrodden when you were in school was done because it was good for you.

We have systems of government due to many things. Some of those reasons have to do with our respect for justice and so on, but some of those reasons are much more practical as well. The fact is that there are lots and lots of people who are wired just like you and I (meaning they aren’t sociopaths and are capable of distinguishing between “right” and “wrong”) and who would still commit wholly unjust acts, based on your definition of justice.

We have laws and gov’t to protect us, not necessarily as some monument to Justice and Equity.

No morality can be attached to the actions of dinosaurs IF morality is a human construct. Gravity is not a human construct because it applies to EVERYTHING, not just humans. If morality is not a human construct and is absolute (and I am arguing that morality IS a human construct and NOT absolute) then it must be applicable to everything and not just humans. You have basically agreed with my premise by stating that dinosaurs and morality don’t mix. Of course they don’t.

[Cortes]

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

This does not mean there are not man made rules that people have adopted as morality when it fact it’s just man made rules. But the fact that some people make up stuff does not snuff out the fact the morality at it’s core is fixed, unalterable, eternal and concrete.[/quote]

This speaks to the core of the matter: The source of your morality- God.

Other people do not use God or some other concept of a higher external being as the axiom of their morality, therefore their morality is somewhat more plastic.

I know that neither you of Cortes are shy about expressing your beliefs, so why the dancing around the source of your morality?

[/quote]

Just as it is possible to show evidence of a Prime Mover without just saying “God did it,” it is possible to show evidence of an absolute morality without just saying, “God did it.”

I don’t think this is what you have in mind, Skyz, but to give you what you and DB are asking for is a lose-lose for us. Those on the other side of the argument would just turn it back around on us and say, “Well see now, there IS no God, therefore your entire argument is invalid.”

If I’m arguing with religious folk, I’ll bring the religious arguments. What’s the point of bringing them to people who see them as fairy tales? That’d be like your dad trying to bond with you and asking if everything is “groovy.”[/quote]

I think I understand what you’re saying. The thing is, when you boil it down to the essence or source of morality, belief in a higher power or lack there of is what determines which way someone goes with regard to absolute or relative morality.

When morality is based on social norms and those norms change, so goes the morality. Same with people who are a disciple of their own philosophy- They feel differently than before, so goes their morality. It is only when there is something greater than that person or society that is the axiom about which a morality or philosophy can be constructed that you can have an absolute morality.

IMHO…

[/quote]

Oh, I completely agree with you. I have never heard an argument on how one could congruously champion a determinist morality. It doesn’t make sense without a Creator.

However, even without knowing whence it came, there is STRONG evidence that a moral constant has run through human history from start to present. Again, we naturally root for the good guy, not the bad, and universally accept certain traits such as honesty and charity as virtuous, though a deterministic, Darwinist, survival of the strongest world favors the opposite.

[Cortes]

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Time, dude. I’m prioritizing right now. This thread is not at the top of the list.

You know me well enough to know I don’t shy from an argument. Come on.

And nice try with the “I won the gender thread,” line. [/quote]

I never said I “won” the gender thread. Is that how you look at discussions, as something to win? Since no one likes to lose I assume that means if you find yourself agreeing with me when you originally did not then you must have “lost”. Under those circumstances I can’t imagine it’s even possible for you to look at my argument from anything close to an objective standpoint, since doing so would risk “losing”.[/quote]

Sure DB. Then stop arguing with me, take your toys, and go home.

[DBCooper]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Time, dude. I’m prioritizing right now. This thread is not at the top of the list.

You know me well enough to know I don’t shy from an argument. Come on.

And nice try with the “I won the gender thread,” line. [/quote]

I never said I “won” the gender thread. Is that how you look at discussions, as something to win? Since no one likes to lose I assume that means if you find yourself agreeing with me when you originally did not then you must have “lost”. Under those circumstances I can’t imagine it’s even possible for you to look at my argument from anything close to an objective standpoint, since doing so would risk “losing”.[/quote]

Sure DB. Then stop arguing with me, take your toys, and go home. [/quote]

Jesus Christ. Is this where things have gone to now? I don’t view discussions as something to win. Never have. You can’t discuss anything under those circumstances. I thought we were having a nice discussion, too.

[Cortes]

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
And I didn’t know the difference between sex and gender? Says the guy who tried further up the page to imply that “arrogance” is some kind of moral transgression.

Forgive me for not taking you very seriously sometimes. [/quote]

I tried no such thing and you know it.

I don’t think you understand my argument at all, and it’s not for lack of clarity. There is morality that exists. It is different for everyone. The idea of morality exists. It cannot exist without humans to quantify it, however, and therefore it is not absolute. Absolute implies that it ALWAYS exists and always WILL exist, regardless of human life. My argument is that morality will not exist when humans do not exist.

For morality to be a “law” that always exists no matter what, it must be applicable beyond humans, or else it requires humans to exist and cannot be absolute. Name one thing other than humans that morality exists for. Do animals have systems of morality? Do inert objects have morality?[/quote]

I don’t feel I have too much trouble with reading comprehension when I’m reading the words of somebody who knows how to write, so maybe you can explain to me how you are NOT implying arrogance can be somehow moral or immoral. That something is good or bad is not the same as its being moral or immoral.

[quote]DB Cooper wrote:
Your later post about arrogance essentially proves this point. Sometimes arrogance is good, sometimes it is not. It can be moral or immoral, but it depends on US as humans to be one or the other. It is not absolutely moral or immoral. [/quote]

*edited for clarity[/quote]

Good and bad is not moral or immoral? Uh, yes it fucking is. What is moral is good, what is immoral is bad in a nutshell. They’re synonyms. We define moral acts as good and immoral acts as bad. I didn’t say it was a moral transgression; I said it can be good or bad but I didn’t take a stance one way or the other. Maybe it is a moral transgression, maybe it isn’t. [/quote]

Yes, “good” and “bad” are not the same as “moral” or “immoral.” You didn’t know this?

Pizza can be good or bad. So pizza is now moral or immoral?

I learn new stuff every day.

[Cortes]

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Natural law, such as the laws of science, are about as absolute as it gets. The laws of gravity, for instance, always exist. Those laws existed long before humans discovered them. They aren’t a human construct. The existence of the solar system and the gravitational fields of the planets within it prove as much. The same cannot be said about morality.
[/quote]

So you say.

And yet, somehow, we all know, and all societies have always known, that bearing false witness, cheating, stealing, backstabbing, and robbing others of their rights are evils.

You can even say this about state institutionalized evils, such as slavery, or the genocide of the Tutsi “cockroaches” or the Jews. In every case, that group being disenfranchised or murdered was first systematically dehumanized, because we, as humans, KNOW, INHERENTLY, that to do things kinds of things to other humans is evil.

If anything, the onus is upon you, DB, to provide evidence that morality is a human construct. Because in every instance that I can possibly come up with, it is a LAW that has been discovered, not constructed.

If what you were saying were really true, then why do we see such across the board homogeneity of thought among every major society that has ever been? Why then do we not see different constructions? Ever.

All of the great stories, for as long as we have told stories, have featured a strong, courageous, brave, righteous, usually virtuous, stolid hero, and an opposite enemy for him to defeat. We unanimously root for the good guy and against the bad guy. Why do we not see some societies do the opposite, and celebrate the murderous, lying, backstabbing, conniving, turncoat? Ever.

Well, because these virtues are UNIVERSAL. That’s why.

And in case it’s not clear, universal is another word for absolute.

[/quote]

All of the great stories? We unanimously root for the good guy and against the bad guy? Two of the greatest, most popular movies of all time are Citizen Kane and The Godfather. Kane and Michael Corleone are both bad guys, through and through. Tony Montana is another bad guy. And yet, we essentially root for them to win. Michael Corleone and Tony Montana were murderous, lying, backstabbing, conniving, etc and we celebrate them all the time. The same could be said for perhaps the greatest villain in movie history, Darth Vader. What about the Bible? Isn’t Jesus essentially the hero in that book? Does everyone root for him? Do Muslims root for him? Do you root for Mohammed? What about stories that the Taliban and al Qaeda will tell about Osama bin Laden? He’ll be portrayed as the hero, I’m sure. But will people universally root for him? Of course not.

You know why we see across the board homogeneity? Because we all act primarily in our own self-interest when you boil everything down. Self-interest isn’t measured strictly in economic or physical terms either. It can be measured in emotional terms as well, and for many people, acting within the moral framework that society has created gives them emotional comfort, which is good for the self in many ways. We perform deeds that may not be good for us in other ways because we gain emotional health by doing so.

We all view certain dastardly deeds as such because to have them happen to us would be bad for us, so it becomes “immoral”. We see people toss aside these morals all the time when they think or know that doing so will not come back to bite them in the ass. It is immoral for people to steal because it would be bad for people to steal from us. It is bad to kill because to be killed is bad. The reason you consider these sorts of moralities “universal” is because it is never good for people to have such immoral acts done to them. Or almost never. I suppose an argument could be made for killing someone in chronic, severe pain, but that’s for another post.

You say that morality is a law that has simply been discovered by humans and not constructed. If that is the case, give me an example of something you consider immoral that is ALWAYS immoral and does not involve humans. If it is not a human construct then there must be moral and immoral behavior that does not depend on humans. Name one such example. If deceit is immoral, give me an example of something other than humans being deceitful and which would then be immoral.

[/quote]

I’ve figured out your debate style, DB.

You take a single point, not the driving force of the argument, and then you give it the death of a thousand cuts and then throw in multiple side issues that are not quite red herrings until the point is completely lost in a wall of logorrhea. Add in a few choice misrepresentations of character and intent, and you have a debater with whom you will never achieve any sort of understanding, no matter how hard you try.

But let me try just once more.

Answer the question I originally posed that you STILL have yet to answer. If you don’t, I’m just going to move on and spend my time on something more rewarding, like cleaning my toenails.

Provide me with one instance in which the act of raping a baby can be considered a moral good. If morality is indeed relative, this should be a piece of cake mental problem for you.

[DBCooper]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Natural law, such as the laws of science, are about as absolute as it gets. The laws of gravity, for instance, always exist. Those laws existed long before humans discovered them. They aren’t a human construct. The existence of the solar system and the gravitational fields of the planets within it prove as much. The same cannot be said about morality.
[/quote]

So you say.

And yet, somehow, we all know, and all societies have always known, that bearing false witness, cheating, stealing, backstabbing, and robbing others of their rights are evils.

You can even say this about state institutionalized evils, such as slavery, or the genocide of the Tutsi “cockroaches” or the Jews. In every case, that group being disenfranchised or murdered was first systematically dehumanized, because we, as humans, KNOW, INHERENTLY, that to do things kinds of things to other humans is evil.

If anything, the onus is upon you, DB, to provide evidence that morality is a human construct. Because in every instance that I can possibly come up with, it is a LAW that has been discovered, not constructed.

If what you were saying were really true, then why do we see such across the board homogeneity of thought among every major society that has ever been? Why then do we not see different constructions? Ever.

All of the great stories, for as long as we have told stories, have featured a strong, courageous, brave, righteous, usually virtuous, stolid hero, and an opposite enemy for him to defeat. We unanimously root for the good guy and against the bad guy. Why do we not see some societies do the opposite, and celebrate the murderous, lying, backstabbing, conniving, turncoat? Ever.

Well, because these virtues are UNIVERSAL. That’s why.

And in case it’s not clear, universal is another word for absolute.

[/quote]

All of the great stories? We unanimously root for the good guy and against the bad guy? Two of the greatest, most popular movies of all time are Citizen Kane and The Godfather. Kane and Michael Corleone are both bad guys, through and through. Tony Montana is another bad guy. And yet, we essentially root for them to win. Michael Corleone and Tony Montana were murderous, lying, backstabbing, conniving, etc and we celebrate them all the time. The same could be said for perhaps the greatest villain in movie history, Darth Vader. What about the Bible? Isn’t Jesus essentially the hero in that book? Does everyone root for him? Do Muslims root for him? Do you root for Mohammed? What about stories that the Taliban and al Qaeda will tell about Osama bin Laden? He’ll be portrayed as the hero, I’m sure. But will people universally root for him? Of course not.

You know why we see across the board homogeneity? Because we all act primarily in our own self-interest when you boil everything down. Self-interest isn’t measured strictly in economic or physical terms either. It can be measured in emotional terms as well, and for many people, acting within the moral framework that society has created gives them emotional comfort, which is good for the self in many ways. We perform deeds that may not be good for us in other ways because we gain emotional health by doing so.

We all view certain dastardly deeds as such because to have them happen to us would be bad for us, so it becomes “immoral”. We see people toss aside these morals all the time when they think or know that doing so will not come back to bite them in the ass. It is immoral for people to steal because it would be bad for people to steal from us. It is bad to kill because to be killed is bad. The reason you consider these sorts of moralities “universal” is because it is never good for people to have such immoral acts done to them. Or almost never. I suppose an argument could be made for killing someone in chronic, severe pain, but that’s for another post.

You say that morality is a law that has simply been discovered by humans and not constructed. If that is the case, give me an example of something you consider immoral that is ALWAYS immoral and does not involve humans. If it is not a human construct then there must be moral and immoral behavior that does not depend on humans. Name one such example. If deceit is immoral, give me an example of something other than humans being deceitful and which would then be immoral.

[/quote]

I’ve figured out your debate style, DB.

You take a single point, not the driving force of the argument, and then you give it the death of a thousand cuts and then throw in multiple side issues that are not quite red herrings until the point is completely lost in a wall of logorrhea. Add in a few choice misrepresentations of character and intent, and you have a debater with whom you will never achieve any sort of understanding, no matter how hard you try.

But let me try just once more.

Answer the question I originally posed that you STILL have yet to answer. If you don’t, I’m just going to move on and spend my time on something more rewarding, like cleaning my toenails.

Provide me with one instance in which the act of raping a baby can be considered a moral good. If morality is indeed relative, this should be a piece of cake mental problem for you. [/quote]

I already told you. Since we make our own morality, it can be considered morally good in the eye of anyone who deems it as such.

If morality is absolute, then can you give me an example of a moral act that can happen without humans? If it is absolute, give me an example of morality that is not dependent on humans to give it form.

[DBCooper]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
And I didn’t know the difference between sex and gender? Says the guy who tried further up the page to imply that “arrogance” is some kind of moral transgression.

Forgive me for not taking you very seriously sometimes. [/quote]

I tried no such thing and you know it.

I don’t think you understand my argument at all, and it’s not for lack of clarity. There is morality that exists. It is different for everyone. The idea of morality exists. It cannot exist without humans to quantify it, however, and therefore it is not absolute. Absolute implies that it ALWAYS exists and always WILL exist, regardless of human life. My argument is that morality will not exist when humans do not exist.

For morality to be a “law” that always exists no matter what, it must be applicable beyond humans, or else it requires humans to exist and cannot be absolute. Name one thing other than humans that morality exists for. Do animals have systems of morality? Do inert objects have morality?[/quote]

I don’t feel I have too much trouble with reading comprehension when I’m reading the words of somebody who knows how to write, so maybe you can explain to me how you are NOT implying arrogance can be somehow moral or immoral. That something is good or bad is not the same as its being moral or immoral.

[quote]DB Cooper wrote:
Your later post about arrogance essentially proves this point. Sometimes arrogance is good, sometimes it is not. It can be moral or immoral, but it depends on US as humans to be one or the other. It is not absolutely moral or immoral. [/quote]

*edited for clarity[/quote]

Good and bad is not moral or immoral? Uh, yes it fucking is. What is moral is good, what is immoral is bad in a nutshell. They’re synonyms. We define moral acts as good and immoral acts as bad. I didn’t say it was a moral transgression; I said it can be good or bad but I didn’t take a stance one way or the other. Maybe it is a moral transgression, maybe it isn’t. [/quote]

Yes, “good” and “bad” are not the same as “moral” or “immoral.” You didn’t know this?

Pizza can be good or bad. So pizza is now moral or immoral?

I learn new stuff every day. [/quote]

Your lack of logic is amazing. Not everything that is good is also moral. All that is moral must also be good. Not everything that has wheels and an engine and so forth is a car, but all cars have wheels and engines and so forth. My point is that we all determine for ourselves what is good or what is moral. It is not absolute. It depends on us to exist.

I drive that point home over and over and over because that is the basic gist of what I said that you originally took issue with. You keep asking me about this bullshit hypothetical and yet you’ve provided nothing in return regarding mine. You keep making this argument against me by basically proving me right. I’m driving home the point and beating it to death because you seem to completely miss what it is.

My point is and always has been that morality is A) a human construct, meaning that humans create morality and it can only exist when humans exist as a result, therefore not being absolute, and B) we make our own morality as a result, hence why I questioned who you were to tell me what is and is not moral.

I don’t think that raping a baby is moral. That doesn’t mean shit to my argument. You gave me a case of something we both agree is immoral by using a human scenario, when my entire argument is predicated on the assertion that morality must be able to exist without humans to be absolute.

You want to know when raping a baby is not immoral? I’ll tell you when. When there is no such thing as a baby in the first place, when there is no such thing as rape to begin with. Can morality exist prior to human existence? If it is absolute, then it must. I defy you to provide me with an example that disproves my argument. I think after the multiple responses I’ve provided to your hypothetical, even if they aren’t satisfactory in your mind, I at least deserve an attempt on your part to disprove my argument.

[Cortes]

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Natural law, such as the laws of science, are about as absolute as it gets. The laws of gravity, for instance, always exist. Those laws existed long before humans discovered them. They aren’t a human construct. The existence of the solar system and the gravitational fields of the planets within it prove as much. The same cannot be said about morality.
[/quote]

So you say.

And yet, somehow, we all know, and all societies have always known, that bearing false witness, cheating, stealing, backstabbing, and robbing others of their rights are evils.

You can even say this about state institutionalized evils, such as slavery, or the genocide of the Tutsi “cockroaches” or the Jews. In every case, that group being disenfranchised or murdered was first systematically dehumanized, because we, as humans, KNOW, INHERENTLY, that to do things kinds of things to other humans is evil.

If anything, the onus is upon you, DB, to provide evidence that morality is a human construct. Because in every instance that I can possibly come up with, it is a LAW that has been discovered, not constructed.

If what you were saying were really true, then why do we see such across the board homogeneity of thought among every major society that has ever been? Why then do we not see different constructions? Ever.

All of the great stories, for as long as we have told stories, have featured a strong, courageous, brave, righteous, usually virtuous, stolid hero, and an opposite enemy for him to defeat. We unanimously root for the good guy and against the bad guy. Why do we not see some societies do the opposite, and celebrate the murderous, lying, backstabbing, conniving, turncoat? Ever.

Well, because these virtues are UNIVERSAL. That’s why.

And in case it’s not clear, universal is another word for absolute.

[/quote]

All of the great stories? We unanimously root for the good guy and against the bad guy? Two of the greatest, most popular movies of all time are Citizen Kane and The Godfather. Kane and Michael Corleone are both bad guys, through and through. Tony Montana is another bad guy. And yet, we essentially root for them to win. Michael Corleone and Tony Montana were murderous, lying, backstabbing, conniving, etc and we celebrate them all the time. The same could be said for perhaps the greatest villain in movie history, Darth Vader. What about the Bible? Isn’t Jesus essentially the hero in that book? Does everyone root for him? Do Muslims root for him? Do you root for Mohammed? What about stories that the Taliban and al Qaeda will tell about Osama bin Laden? He’ll be portrayed as the hero, I’m sure. But will people universally root for him? Of course not.

You know why we see across the board homogeneity? Because we all act primarily in our own self-interest when you boil everything down. Self-interest isn’t measured strictly in economic or physical terms either. It can be measured in emotional terms as well, and for many people, acting within the moral framework that society has created gives them emotional comfort, which is good for the self in many ways. We perform deeds that may not be good for us in other ways because we gain emotional health by doing so.

We all view certain dastardly deeds as such because to have them happen to us would be bad for us, so it becomes “immoral”. We see people toss aside these morals all the time when they think or know that doing so will not come back to bite them in the ass. It is immoral for people to steal because it would be bad for people to steal from us. It is bad to kill because to be killed is bad. The reason you consider these sorts of moralities “universal” is because it is never good for people to have such immoral acts done to them. Or almost never. I suppose an argument could be made for killing someone in chronic, severe pain, but that’s for another post.

You say that morality is a law that has simply been discovered by humans and not constructed. If that is the case, give me an example of something you consider immoral that is ALWAYS immoral and does not involve humans. If it is not a human construct then there must be moral and immoral behavior that does not depend on humans. Name one such example. If deceit is immoral, give me an example of something other than humans being deceitful and which would then be immoral.

[/quote]

I’ve figured out your debate style, DB.

You take a single point, not the driving force of the argument, and then you give it the death of a thousand cuts and then throw in multiple side issues that are not quite red herrings until the point is completely lost in a wall of logorrhea. Add in a few choice misrepresentations of character and intent, and you have a debater with whom you will never achieve any sort of understanding, no matter how hard you try.

But let me try just once more.

Answer the question I originally posed that you STILL have yet to answer. If you don’t, I’m just going to move on and spend my time on something more rewarding, like cleaning my toenails.

Provide me with one instance in which the act of raping a baby can be considered a moral good. If morality is indeed relative, this should be a piece of cake mental problem for you. [/quote]

I already told you. Since we make our own morality, it can be considered morally good in the eye of anyone who deems it as such.

If morality is absolute, then can you give me an example of a moral act that can happen without humans? If it is absolute, give me an example of morality that is not dependent on humans to give it form.[/quote]

Ah forget it.

[DBCooper]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Natural law, such as the laws of science, are about as absolute as it gets. The laws of gravity, for instance, always exist. Those laws existed long before humans discovered them. They aren’t a human construct. The existence of the solar system and the gravitational fields of the planets within it prove as much. The same cannot be said about morality.
[/quote]

So you say.

And yet, somehow, we all know, and all societies have always known, that bearing false witness, cheating, stealing, backstabbing, and robbing others of their rights are evils.

You can even say this about state institutionalized evils, such as slavery, or the genocide of the Tutsi “cockroaches” or the Jews. In every case, that group being disenfranchised or murdered was first systematically dehumanized, because we, as humans, KNOW, INHERENTLY, that to do things kinds of things to other humans is evil.

If anything, the onus is upon you, DB, to provide evidence that morality is a human construct. Because in every instance that I can possibly come up with, it is a LAW that has been discovered, not constructed.

If what you were saying were really true, then why do we see such across the board homogeneity of thought among every major society that has ever been? Why then do we not see different constructions? Ever.

All of the great stories, for as long as we have told stories, have featured a strong, courageous, brave, righteous, usually virtuous, stolid hero, and an opposite enemy for him to defeat. We unanimously root for the good guy and against the bad guy. Why do we not see some societies do the opposite, and celebrate the murderous, lying, backstabbing, conniving, turncoat? Ever.

Well, because these virtues are UNIVERSAL. That’s why.

And in case it’s not clear, universal is another word for absolute.

[/quote]

All of the great stories? We unanimously root for the good guy and against the bad guy? Two of the greatest, most popular movies of all time are Citizen Kane and The Godfather. Kane and Michael Corleone are both bad guys, through and through. Tony Montana is another bad guy. And yet, we essentially root for them to win. Michael Corleone and Tony Montana were murderous, lying, backstabbing, conniving, etc and we celebrate them all the time. The same could be said for perhaps the greatest villain in movie history, Darth Vader. What about the Bible? Isn’t Jesus essentially the hero in that book? Does everyone root for him? Do Muslims root for him? Do you root for Mohammed? What about stories that the Taliban and al Qaeda will tell about Osama bin Laden? He’ll be portrayed as the hero, I’m sure. But will people universally root for him? Of course not.

You know why we see across the board homogeneity? Because we all act primarily in our own self-interest when you boil everything down. Self-interest isn’t measured strictly in economic or physical terms either. It can be measured in emotional terms as well, and for many people, acting within the moral framework that society has created gives them emotional comfort, which is good for the self in many ways. We perform deeds that may not be good for us in other ways because we gain emotional health by doing so.

We all view certain dastardly deeds as such because to have them happen to us would be bad for us, so it becomes “immoral”. We see people toss aside these morals all the time when they think or know that doing so will not come back to bite them in the ass. It is immoral for people to steal because it would be bad for people to steal from us. It is bad to kill because to be killed is bad. The reason you consider these sorts of moralities “universal” is because it is never good for people to have such immoral acts done to them. Or almost never. I suppose an argument could be made for killing someone in chronic, severe pain, but that’s for another post.

You say that morality is a law that has simply been discovered by humans and not constructed. If that is the case, give me an example of something you consider immoral that is ALWAYS immoral and does not involve humans. If it is not a human construct then there must be moral and immoral behavior that does not depend on humans. Name one such example. If deceit is immoral, give me an example of something other than humans being deceitful and which would then be immoral.

[/quote]

I’ve figured out your debate style, DB.

You take a single point, not the driving force of the argument, and then you give it the death of a thousand cuts and then throw in multiple side issues that are not quite red herrings until the point is completely lost in a wall of logorrhea. Add in a few choice misrepresentations of character and intent, and you have a debater with whom you will never achieve any sort of understanding, no matter how hard you try.

But let me try just once more.

Answer the question I originally posed that you STILL have yet to answer. If you don’t, I’m just going to move on and spend my time on something more rewarding, like cleaning my toenails.

Provide me with one instance in which the act of raping a baby can be considered a moral good. If morality is indeed relative, this should be a piece of cake mental problem for you. [/quote]

I already told you. Since we make our own morality, it can be considered morally good in the eye of anyone who deems it as such.

If morality is absolute, then can you give me an example of a moral act that can happen without humans? If it is absolute, give me an example of morality that is not dependent on humans to give it form.[/quote]

Ah forget it. [/quote]

Yeah, that’s what I thought. You have no argument that can disprove the basic point that I made which you originally took issue with.

[Cortes]

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Natural law, such as the laws of science, are about as absolute as it gets. The laws of gravity, for instance, always exist. Those laws existed long before humans discovered them. They aren’t a human construct. The existence of the solar system and the gravitational fields of the planets within it prove as much. The same cannot be said about morality.
[/quote]

So you say.

And yet, somehow, we all know, and all societies have always known, that bearing false witness, cheating, stealing, backstabbing, and robbing others of their rights are evils.

You can even say this about state institutionalized evils, such as slavery, or the genocide of the Tutsi “cockroaches” or the Jews. In every case, that group being disenfranchised or murdered was first systematically dehumanized, because we, as humans, KNOW, INHERENTLY, that to do things kinds of things to other humans is evil.

If anything, the onus is upon you, DB, to provide evidence that morality is a human construct. Because in every instance that I can possibly come up with, it is a LAW that has been discovered, not constructed.

If what you were saying were really true, then why do we see such across the board homogeneity of thought among every major society that has ever been? Why then do we not see different constructions? Ever.

All of the great stories, for as long as we have told stories, have featured a strong, courageous, brave, righteous, usually virtuous, stolid hero, and an opposite enemy for him to defeat. We unanimously root for the good guy and against the bad guy. Why do we not see some societies do the opposite, and celebrate the murderous, lying, backstabbing, conniving, turncoat? Ever.

Well, because these virtues are UNIVERSAL. That’s why.

And in case it’s not clear, universal is another word for absolute.

[/quote]

All of the great stories? We unanimously root for the good guy and against the bad guy? Two of the greatest, most popular movies of all time are Citizen Kane and The Godfather. Kane and Michael Corleone are both bad guys, through and through. Tony Montana is another bad guy. And yet, we essentially root for them to win. Michael Corleone and Tony Montana were murderous, lying, backstabbing, conniving, etc and we celebrate them all the time. The same could be said for perhaps the greatest villain in movie history, Darth Vader. What about the Bible? Isn’t Jesus essentially the hero in that book? Does everyone root for him? Do Muslims root for him? Do you root for Mohammed? What about stories that the Taliban and al Qaeda will tell about Osama bin Laden? He’ll be portrayed as the hero, I’m sure. But will people universally root for him? Of course not.

You know why we see across the board homogeneity? Because we all act primarily in our own self-interest when you boil everything down. Self-interest isn’t measured strictly in economic or physical terms either. It can be measured in emotional terms as well, and for many people, acting within the moral framework that society has created gives them emotional comfort, which is good for the self in many ways. We perform deeds that may not be good for us in other ways because we gain emotional health by doing so.

We all view certain dastardly deeds as such because to have them happen to us would be bad for us, so it becomes “immoral”. We see people toss aside these morals all the time when they think or know that doing so will not come back to bite them in the ass. It is immoral for people to steal because it would be bad for people to steal from us. It is bad to kill because to be killed is bad. The reason you consider these sorts of moralities “universal” is because it is never good for people to have such immoral acts done to them. Or almost never. I suppose an argument could be made for killing someone in chronic, severe pain, but that’s for another post.

You say that morality is a law that has simply been discovered by humans and not constructed. If that is the case, give me an example of something you consider immoral that is ALWAYS immoral and does not involve humans. If it is not a human construct then there must be moral and immoral behavior that does not depend on humans. Name one such example. If deceit is immoral, give me an example of something other than humans being deceitful and which would then be immoral.

[/quote]

I’ve figured out your debate style, DB.

You take a single point, not the driving force of the argument, and then you give it the death of a thousand cuts and then throw in multiple side issues that are not quite red herrings until the point is completely lost in a wall of logorrhea. Add in a few choice misrepresentations of character and intent, and you have a debater with whom you will never achieve any sort of understanding, no matter how hard you try.

But let me try just once more.

Answer the question I originally posed that you STILL have yet to answer. If you don’t, I’m just going to move on and spend my time on something more rewarding, like cleaning my toenails.

Provide me with one instance in which the act of raping a baby can be considered a moral good. If morality is indeed relative, this should be a piece of cake mental problem for you. [/quote]

I already told you. Since we make our own morality, it can be considered morally good in the eye of anyone who deems it as such.

If morality is absolute, then can you give me an example of a moral act that can happen without humans? If it is absolute, give me an example of morality that is not dependent on humans to give it form.[/quote]

Ah forget it. [/quote]

Yeah, that’s what I thought. You have no argument that can disprove the basic point that I made which you originally took issue with.[/quote]

No, I’m just done arguing with someone who spends most of his dialog answering his own questions and attempting to reframe the debate in his favor (then childishly declaring victory after hypocritically scolding me for the exact same behavior).

Trust me, you have NOT provided anything like a cogent argument for your point.

The huge point you are pressing about morality not existing in the absence of humans is a huge red herring. Maybe somebody else wants to pick that thing up. I’m not interested.

[DBCooper]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Natural law, such as the laws of science, are about as absolute as it gets. The laws of gravity, for instance, always exist. Those laws existed long before humans discovered them. They aren’t a human construct. The existence of the solar system and the gravitational fields of the planets within it prove as much. The same cannot be said about morality.
[/quote]

So you say.

And yet, somehow, we all know, and all societies have always known, that bearing false witness, cheating, stealing, backstabbing, and robbing others of their rights are evils.

You can even say this about state institutionalized evils, such as slavery, or the genocide of the Tutsi “cockroaches” or the Jews. In every case, that group being disenfranchised or murdered was first systematically dehumanized, because we, as humans, KNOW, INHERENTLY, that to do things kinds of things to other humans is evil.

If anything, the onus is upon you, DB, to provide evidence that morality is a human construct. Because in every instance that I can possibly come up with, it is a LAW that has been discovered, not constructed.

If what you were saying were really true, then why do we see such across the board homogeneity of thought among every major society that has ever been? Why then do we not see different constructions? Ever.

All of the great stories, for as long as we have told stories, have featured a strong, courageous, brave, righteous, usually virtuous, stolid hero, and an opposite enemy for him to defeat. We unanimously root for the good guy and against the bad guy. Why do we not see some societies do the opposite, and celebrate the murderous, lying, backstabbing, conniving, turncoat? Ever.

Well, because these virtues are UNIVERSAL. That’s why.

And in case it’s not clear, universal is another word for absolute.

[/quote]

All of the great stories? We unanimously root for the good guy and against the bad guy? Two of the greatest, most popular movies of all time are Citizen Kane and The Godfather. Kane and Michael Corleone are both bad guys, through and through. Tony Montana is another bad guy. And yet, we essentially root for them to win. Michael Corleone and Tony Montana were murderous, lying, backstabbing, conniving, etc and we celebrate them all the time. The same could be said for perhaps the greatest villain in movie history, Darth Vader. What about the Bible? Isn’t Jesus essentially the hero in that book? Does everyone root for him? Do Muslims root for him? Do you root for Mohammed? What about stories that the Taliban and al Qaeda will tell about Osama bin Laden? He’ll be portrayed as the hero, I’m sure. But will people universally root for him? Of course not.

You know why we see across the board homogeneity? Because we all act primarily in our own self-interest when you boil everything down. Self-interest isn’t measured strictly in economic or physical terms either. It can be measured in emotional terms as well, and for many people, acting within the moral framework that society has created gives them emotional comfort, which is good for the self in many ways. We perform deeds that may not be good for us in other ways because we gain emotional health by doing so.

We all view certain dastardly deeds as such because to have them happen to us would be bad for us, so it becomes “immoral”. We see people toss aside these morals all the time when they think or know that doing so will not come back to bite them in the ass. It is immoral for people to steal because it would be bad for people to steal from us. It is bad to kill because to be killed is bad. The reason you consider these sorts of moralities “universal” is because it is never good for people to have such immoral acts done to them. Or almost never. I suppose an argument could be made for killing someone in chronic, severe pain, but that’s for another post.

You say that morality is a law that has simply been discovered by humans and not constructed. If that is the case, give me an example of something you consider immoral that is ALWAYS immoral and does not involve humans. If it is not a human construct then there must be moral and immoral behavior that does not depend on humans. Name one such example. If deceit is immoral, give me an example of something other than humans being deceitful and which would then be immoral.

[/quote]

I’ve figured out your debate style, DB.

You take a single point, not the driving force of the argument, and then you give it the death of a thousand cuts and then throw in multiple side issues that are not quite red herrings until the point is completely lost in a wall of logorrhea. Add in a few choice misrepresentations of character and intent, and you have a debater with whom you will never achieve any sort of understanding, no matter how hard you try.

But let me try just once more.

Answer the question I originally posed that you STILL have yet to answer. If you don’t, I’m just going to move on and spend my time on something more rewarding, like cleaning my toenails.

Provide me with one instance in which the act of raping a baby can be considered a moral good. If morality is indeed relative, this should be a piece of cake mental problem for you. [/quote]

I already told you. Since we make our own morality, it can be considered morally good in the eye of anyone who deems it as such.

If morality is absolute, then can you give me an example of a moral act that can happen without humans? If it is absolute, give me an example of morality that is not dependent on humans to give it form.[/quote]

Ah forget it. [/quote]

Yeah, that’s what I thought. You have no argument that can disprove the basic point that I made which you originally took issue with.[/quote]

No, I’m just done arguing with someone who spends most of his dialog answering his own questions and attempting to reframe the debate in his favor (then childishly declaring victory after hypocritically scolding me for the exact same behavior).

Trust me, you have NOT provided anything like a cogent argument for your point.

The huge point you are pressing about morality not existing in the absence of humans is a huge red herring. Maybe somebody else wants to pick that thing up. I’m not interested.

[/quote]

Sounds like a copout to me. I already put forth a completely cogent argument. You’re the one arguing that all that is good must also be moral, hence pizza must be moral, not me. Talk about cogency.

Answering my own questions? Well, I guess someone has to since you refuse to despite demanding that I answer yours.

I don’t think you’re even capable of providing a cogent argument here. You’ve avoided every single point I’ve made or completely misconstrued it. Why else would you avoid these questions I’ve put forth to you other than because you can’t answer them. You yourself just said a page or two ago that you don’t avoid arguments. Then why are you avoiding this one? If what I am positing is so far from reality it shouldn’t be much of a problem for you to demonstrate why.

The definition of “absolute” is “not limited by restrictions or conditions; unconditional…unqualified in extent or degree; total”.

By virtue of that definition, I don’t see how morality can be absolute if it does not apply to anything other than humans. The definition of morality, no matter what your source is, has some restrictions or conditions or qualifications. Morality is put forth by society, or a system of law or people. Even if ALL societies come up with the same basic moral codes/laws, it is not absolute. Even if all the religions in the world come up with the same idea of morality, it is not absolute. It HAS to have a qualification to exist: humans. If morality is absolute, BY DEFINITION, it must be applied to everything without a set of restrictions or conditions. BY DEFINITION, it must be applicable to not only all living things, but all things, period.

If morality is absolute, then stealing for instance, which I think you would argue is immoral, must ALWAYS be immoral NO MATTER what. Murder must always be immoral, no matter what. Lying, cheating, etc, anything that you would say is “universally” immoral must be immoral in any and all circumstances. But even you would admit this is not the case. Is it immoral to lie even to save a life? If lying is not moral and morality is absolute, then lying even to save a life must be immoral. Stealing to feed your children when no other option for doing so is possible is still completely immoral if morality is absolute.

You ask me if I can conceive of a situation where raping a baby can ever be considered moral. Can you conceive of a situation where murder or stealing can ever be considered moral? I sure can, and I know you can as well.

Talk all you want about cogency, but the fact is that from a purely logical standpoint, from a purely if P then Q standpoint, no matter how you personally feel about morality, my argument is completely cogent and sound. That doesn’t mean that I am right. I can still be wrong. But the logic is flawless.

[A_rod1]

DB Cooper

Your logic is crystal clear. I feel you made your point very clear several pages ago. The ensuing squabble was rather repetitive and redundant. It is foolish to argue moral relativism with a religious zealot(to truly be a religious person is to be a zealot) To lend any sort of credence to the verity of moral relativism is to discredit the very moral compass by which they navigate their path through life. It shakes the foundation upon which they have built their life. So they as Christian/Jew/Moslem/whatever can never subject themselves to the notion that morality may not be constant or absolute.

It is comforting to believe in some sort of code that is absolute from which you can rely and depend upon time and time again. But it is an illusion.

Society tends to progress forward as time goes on. Jewish law was getting stale and was no longer appropriate for the current society at the time. Here cometh Jesus who amended these laws for the new modern society. Fast forward 2000 years and is it ridiculous to think that maybe that code laid out by Jesus and his followers may not suit this society we live in today. Did it ever suit anyone? Hmm would wager my new blue jeans that Jesus was a moral relativist himself.

[angry_chicken]

I think the core value of a man can be summed up with one word: CONTROL

self control, lifestyle control, financial control, relationship control, penis control, etc…

Failing to control your impulses, instincts, cravings and addictions makes one less of a man.

Successfulling controlling them makes one a successfull man.

I’m not touching the moral argument here. LOL

[Cortes]

[quote]A-rod wrote:
DB Cooper

Your logic is crystal clear. I feel you made your point very clear several pages ago. The ensuing squabble was rather repetitive and redundant. It is foolish to argue moral relativism with a religious zealot(to truly be a religious person is to be a zealot) To lend any sort of credence to the verity of moral relativism is to discredit the very moral compass by which they navigate their path through life. It shakes the foundation upon which they have built their life. So they as Christian/Jew/Moslem/whatever can never subject themselves to the notion that morality may not be constant or absolute.

It is comforting to believe in some sort of code that is absolute from which you can rely and depend upon time and time again. But it is an illusion.

Society tends to progress forward as time goes on. Jewish law was getting stale and was no longer appropriate for the current society at the time. Here cometh Jesus who amended these laws for the new modern society. Fast forward 2000 years and is it ridiculous to think that maybe that code laid out by Jesus and his followers may not suit this society we live in today. Did it ever suit anyone? Hmm would wager my new blue jeans that Jesus was a moral relativist himself.[/quote]

You, too, are confusing a law and a moral.

Tell me, do humans progress past the evil of false witness?

Do we outgrow our taboo against father-daughter sex?

Will rape one day be considered okay?

Nobody has yet provided any sort of evidence that humans show any sign whatsoever of “evolving” beyond these silly, primitive superstitions.

For some reason, they have always been with us, and they refuse to budge a millimeter.

I’m still waiting to hear why some societies don’t “create” morals that are different than the ones that we never see changed, despite thousands of years of opportunity to do so.

Somehow, honesty, charity, compassion, selflessness, righteousness and self-constraint have been the standard across the board throughout human history. From start to present.

But you come in hear and drop the word “religious zealot” in an argument where the moral absolutist side has specifically resisted all attempts to turn this debate into a theological one as if that gives you some sort of authority. How about providing some evidence for your point, rather than just dropping a big fat steaming pile of ad hominem into the middle of the thread?

[Cortes]

Can anyone here even imagine a society where lying is considered a virtue? Where charity is an evil? Where rape is desired (that’s not even definitionally possible)?

MORALS are not about Levitican law. They aren’t about situational problems. They aren’t about culture or time. They are about the deepest, most fundamental traits that separate us, HUMANS, from animals. They actually exist in spite of an evolutionary imperative that screams at us to act in opposition to them. And yet, they remain the same, across all societies, throughout time.

[DBCooper]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Can anyone here even imagine a society where lying is considered a virtue? Where charity is an evil? Where rape is desired (that’s not even definitionally possible)?

MORALS are not about Levitican law. They aren’t about situational problems. They aren’t about culture or time. They are about the deepest, most fundamental traits that separate us, HUMANS, from animals. They actually exist in spite of an evolutionary imperative that screams at us to act in opposition to them. And yet, they remain the same, across all societies, throughout time. [/quote]

Which gets right back to part of my original point. Those things are “universal” because they do us harm in one way or another when done to us. So what is moral is what is good for us and what is immoral is what is bad for us. It is therefore not absolute but completely dependent upon the human condition to exist. Hence, morality is a human construct, which was part of my original point.

[DBCooper]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]A-rod wrote:
DB Cooper

Your logic is crystal clear. I feel you made your point very clear several pages ago. The ensuing squabble was rather repetitive and redundant. It is foolish to argue moral relativism with a religious zealot(to truly be a religious person is to be a zealot) To lend any sort of credence to the verity of moral relativism is to discredit the very moral compass by which they navigate their path through life. It shakes the foundation upon which they have built their life. So they as Christian/Jew/Moslem/whatever can never subject themselves to the notion that morality may not be constant or absolute.

It is comforting to believe in some sort of code that is absolute from which you can rely and depend upon time and time again. But it is an illusion.

Society tends to progress forward as time goes on. Jewish law was getting stale and was no longer appropriate for the current society at the time. Here cometh Jesus who amended these laws for the new modern society. Fast forward 2000 years and is it ridiculous to think that maybe that code laid out by Jesus and his followers may not suit this society we live in today. Did it ever suit anyone? Hmm would wager my new blue jeans that Jesus was a moral relativist himself.[/quote]

You, too, are confusing a law and a moral.

Tell me, do humans progress past the evil of false witness?

Do we outgrow our taboo against father-daughter sex?

Will rape one day be considered okay?

Nobody has yet provided any sort of evidence that humans show any sign whatsoever of “evolving” beyond these silly, primitive superstitions.

For some reason, they have always been with us, and they refuse to budge a millimeter.

I’m still waiting to hear why some societies don’t “create” morals that are different than the ones that we never see changed, despite thousands of years of opportunity to do so.

Somehow, honesty, charity, compassion, selflessness, righteousness and self-constraint have been the standard across the board throughout human history. From start to present.

But you come in hear and drop the word “religious zealot” in an argument where the moral absolutist side has specifically resisted all attempts to turn this debate into a theological one as if that gives you some sort of authority. How about providing some evidence for your point, rather than just dropping a big fat steaming pile of ad hominem into the middle of the thread?[/quote]

Actually, there is a lot of evidence of an evolution of morality amongst societies. I suggest you take a look at Homeric and Roman morality versus Judeo-Christian morality. They’re not entirely different, but the virtues put forth in The Iliad and The Odyssey are much different than those put forth in the Bible, or even in the Koran.