It means that what is considered correct can vary by place. If you write cat = perro on a Spanish test then you are wrong if you are in America. But if you are taking that class somewhere that cat = what we consider dog then you would be correct.
But the point is to determine which if any level of humanity (individual, family, clan, race, society), if any, is your moral source. If yourself, then the individual level, no? If none, because good/evil doesn’t exist? Or, because it exists independently of mankind?
Only you can answer my question. If you can’t or won’t, fine. But then I won’t see you morally outraged elsewhere, will I?
1 Like
Agreed. As is sloth. Blanket statements about morality being wrong is useless unless it’s benchmarked against something.
Hence the asking for clarification that he obviously isn’t going to provide, because it would undermine his missed gotcha.
It could be all.
This would mean that it would have existed before there were humans and will exist after there are no more humans. It would exist even if the Earth did not exist.
What about God?
I mean if I want to make abortion or Gay marriage illegal (well, not state recognized, but whatever), am I as an individual morally wrong? If no, that’s cool no more debate. If so, how?
Why do morals have to conform to right and wrong? They just can’t be.
If I am successful, and convince society at large to join me, is society morally wrong? Pfury?
Define wrong.
And I flat out accept there is no moral right or wrong for either the individual or society as an answer. I just want that consistently applied when judging individuals and socities like me, (socially conservative in many ways). And our positions.
If you are able to convince society of your moral leanings, society is not presently morally wrong.
That’s what societal morality means. Morality determined by society.
And if you can’t convince society that it is wrong, then you are?
When measured against societal morality? Yes
When measured against individual morality? No
(This was the context I was asking you for earlier).
1 Like
Is the society then always morally right up until it changes its mind, if ever?
Morally right in the context of societal morality? Yes.
Substitute god with society. Can God’s morality ever be wrong if she’s the one defining it? Of course not.
Likewise, society cannot be ‘wrong’ if the benchmark is societal morality.
You could, of course, then expand the scope of your ‘society.’
So both are right/wrong, good/evil. Which is to say neither is. So, why have you guys been arguing with me?
1 Like
Both are right or wrong based on the context of the question.
Because the project I’m on at work involved loading/refreshing some hella big queries. And I’ve spent like 20 of the last 40 work hours watching my 2 computers run/load shit.
This is what I don’t get, I have been saying that in a purely materialistic universe good and evil don’t exist. It takes faith to believe in the actual existence of good and evil.
I know. You’ve probably said it 50+ times in this thread lol. Nobody is misunderstanding your words, just disagreeing
It takes a person who is willing to define their universe. Belief in a diety is obviously not required for that
It’s like saying there’s a right favorite color. Society at large might say one color, but an individual another color.
There is no right favorite color. It doesn’t become a fact in the universe because the individual or society says so. Not like adding a singular thing to another singular thing makes some pre-approved number.
There is if you say “within the confines of my views, blue is the best color.”
Which is what all morality is, diety driven or otherwise.