(01-02-2009 04:02 PM)Artifice Wrote:  You are equating behavior which victimizes a participant with homosexuality, which does not. It's not apples to apples.

Actually homosexuality has nothing to do with my point. I'm arguing the definition of moral vs immoral.

(01-02-2009 11:16 PM)jh Wrote:  I would argue that understanding each other's standard & establishing a common, or at least common enough, ground is the beginning of the discussion.

How is this not society determining morality?

Quote:I agree that the whims of society do not determine morality. It's not nearly that tidy. All morals are relative, to different societies, cultures, religions, and times, and ultimately to different individuals.

Morality can't relative. If it is, as I've stated, there's no such thing as morality. There's only acceptable behavior based on the whims of said society. By your position gay marriage is immoral. The majority of people in the US don't want to allow it. Right?

Quote:Slavery did not become immoral because society's views changed. It was always immoral because by my standards slavery is immoral.

No offense but who ordained you to decide what is moral or immoral? By this logic Ted Bundy was a moral person and there was nothing wrong with the horrific crimes he committed because his standard said it was fine.

Quote:I do recognize, however, that for much of human history slavery was not considered immoral. This affects how I judge the people involved in slavery. People still involved in the slave trade today, when it is generally recognized as immoral, are worse than those engaged in the practice when it was generally acceptable. It affects the morality of the actors, not the action itself.

That's a hairy distinction to be sure. You're making morality to mean absolutely anything can be moral, it just depends on how you see it. That's not morality.

Quote:There are no absolute standards, at least none that we humans are aware of. Even if there were a set of absolute standards somewhere, there is absolutely no way to come up with an algorithim to allow these standards to be applied to the real world. It's much too messy.

You've just proven my point. Slavery is wrong or it isn't. It can't be both. You say in one sentence morality isn't dictated by the whims of society and then go on to make precisely that argument.

If you want to argue there is no morality, only preference, then that's a sound position to hold. But you can't logically argue that there is morality and say it's relative. Morality can't be relative, or else it's not morality. Logic states something can't be A and Not-A. Slavery can't be right and wrong. It's logically impossible. But if you believe morality is relative, that's precisely what you're saying, therefore your position is logically unsound. (note I don't say that to be a jerk or anything, just pointing out the logical flaw in your position as you've stated it.)

(01-03-2009 09:19 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  No offense but who ordained you to decide what is moral or immoral? By this logic Ted Bundy was a moral person and there was nothing wrong with the horrific crimes he committed because his standard said it was fine.

Oddly, you touch on an extremely weird thread of life that if you dig just a little deeper, may just scare the pants off of you.

Ted Bundy was an animal, a Sociopath, a Psychopathic Sadist, who had no idea that he as causing pain to others in the same way he felt pain to himself.

BUT - - let us go into the Twilight Zone of Ted Bundy's life and let us, for the sake of argument, say he was nice to Stray Kittens and took them in and cared for them ....

This is a "Form of Morality" is it not ???

So with that premise in mind, let's apply this to Society as a whole and we will then see, that Morality is a "Bit & Piece" part of human beings in general.

Legislated Law is the Governance of Morality onto the Populace, but having this Legislated Governance does not overrule our own Sense of Morality ... meaning adhering to our own Sense of Right & Wrong, because we just know what we are thinking is either Morally Correct or its not.

This "Individual Morality", that we all have, allows us to Do The Things We Do or Tells Us Not To Do Them .... we either listen to our hearts or we don't and that is where the Dark Side of Ted Bundy Lives.

There is a Ted Bundy in all of us .... we simply are able to not become that Monster that can easily be unleashed with a single solitary split second decision ..... most all of us have had at least one such decision like that to make and it would have either meant becoming totally evil or keeping to the Better Side of Your Thoughts.

And we absolutely hate admitting that we are actually this vulnerable ... see how many "I am not a Ted Bundy's" I get.

Let our Food Supplies start running out and we will see all the Ted Bundy's that dwells deep down inside each one of us, blossoming on a mass scale ....

.

(01-02-2009 10:27 PM)jh Wrote:  

(01-01-2009 07:24 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-01-2009 06:57 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2009 06:24 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I'm agnostic and find it immoral. You don't have to have religion to know right from wrong. You do have to be a liberal though to get confused between the two.

Ok, but why is it wrong? What reason do you give for that-other than you find it wrong?

Because they can't perpetuate themselves and that makes gaydom unnatural if not outright freakish. Just about all life requires a male and a female to keep the species alive. If there was a Garden of Eden what would have happened if Adam was gay? And another thing, when a teenager starts having his hormones kick in it's because he's at the prime age to procreate, his genes are telling him to keep the species going another generation. For a gay guy all those hormones do is provide a salty protein snack for his partner.

At least one recent study has suggested that families with the (or at least one of the) male "gay" gene are more sucessful at reproducing and passing along their genes to future generations. While the gay male is less likely to reproduce, female relatives are more likely than average to reproduce. It appears as if the gene works the same way in both men & women, increasing the level of attraction to men and that the gay genes are not a detriment to the propogation of the species.

There is NO GAY GENE. Everytime the gay gene has been 'proven" it has been disproven by scientific means. I remember a few years back when one individual was in all the media sources stating he had finally proven the gay gene existed beyond a resaonable doubt. A few months later he was proven a hoax and he admitted to fabriacting his results. And later admitted to being a homosexual with am agenda.

The best analogy to the gay gene would be global warning. After the libs and media went goo goo over this the scientific community has proven without doubt that it was a hoax.

(01-03-2009 06:50 PM)West Is the Best Wrote:  

(01-02-2009 10:27 PM)jh Wrote:  

(01-01-2009 07:24 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-01-2009 06:57 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2009 06:24 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I'm agnostic and find it immoral. You don't have to have religion to know right from wrong. You do have to be a liberal though to get confused between the two.

Ok, but why is it wrong? What reason do you give for that-other than you find it wrong?

Because they can't perpetuate themselves and that makes gaydom unnatural if not outright freakish. Just about all life requires a male and a female to keep the species alive. If there was a Garden of Eden what would have happened if Adam was gay? And another thing, when a teenager starts having his hormones kick in it's because he's at the prime age to procreate, his genes are telling him to keep the species going another generation. For a gay guy all those hormones do is provide a salty protein snack for his partner.

At least one recent study has suggested that families with the (or at least one of the) male "gay" gene are more sucessful at reproducing and passing along their genes to future generations. While the gay male is less likely to reproduce, female relatives are more likely than average to reproduce. It appears as if the gene works the same way in both men & women, increasing the level of attraction to men and that the gay genes are not a detriment to the propogation of the species.

There is NO GAY GENE. Everytime the gay gene has been 'proven" it has been disproven by scientific means. I remember a few years back when one individual was in all the media sources stating he had finally proven the gay gene existed beyond a resaonable doubt. A few months later he was proven a hoax and he admitted to fabriacting his results. And later admitted to being a homosexual with am agenda.

The best analogy to the gay gene would be global warning. After the libs and media went goo goo over this the scientific community has proven without doubt that it was a hoax.

So because it has not yet been officially found(at least according to you) that it doesn't exist? Um, global warming isn't a joke. Actually, the joke is that you accept the coal and oil industries "scientific" evidence that there isn't global warming.

(01-03-2009 09:19 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-02-2009 11:16 PM)jh Wrote:  I would argue that understanding each other's standard & establishing a common, or at least common enough, ground is the beginning of the discussion.

How is this not society determining morality?

Because it's just you, with your set of morals, and me, with my set of morals, having a discussion. The rest of society doesn't matter a bit. Also, the common ground doesn't have to be accepted by either party as actually being true. Much can be learned from discussing things from a point of view not your own.

Quote:

Quote:I agree that the whims of society do not determine morality. It's not nearly that tidy. All morals are relative, to different societies, cultures, religions, and times, and ultimately to different individuals.

Morality can't relative. If it is, as I've stated, there's no such thing as morality. There's only acceptable behavior based on the whims of said society. By your position gay marriage is immoral. The majority of people in the US don't want to allow it. Right?

Again, the whims of society don't matter. You can talk about the morals of a society but that is only an aggregate, a rough approximation of the views of its members. It can be useful in comparing different societies (or cultures, religions, or times) but it doesn't determine anything. Morality is determined at an individual level.

By my standards laws against gay marriage are immoral. The majority of society is just using the wrong set of standards. As society continues to advance their views will come into conformance with my own and the morality of gay marriage will be recognized (before you get too upset about what an arrogant prick I am, read the next section).

Quote:

Quote:Slavery did not become immoral because society's views changed. It was always immoral because by my standards slavery is immoral.

No offense but who ordained you to decide what is moral or immoral? By this logic Ted Bundy was a moral person and there was nothing wrong with the horrific crimes he committed because his standard said it was fine.

As a moral agent, responsible for my decisions & the conduct of my life, who else could decide for me? I understand that you are likely to have different morals than me. Each of us must determine our own morality, come to our own understanding of right & wrong and our willingness to live up to those standards. That's where the discussions come in, all the way back to the foundational standards.

As Tripster noted, Ted Bundy was a sociopath. I don't believe he was capable of making moral judgments about his actions. But yes, there are people who engage in horrific activities that they consider to be perfectly moral. They are using the wrong standards. There are also many other people who act horiffically but recognize what they are doing is immoral. For whatever reason, they are not strong enough to live morally.

Quote:

Quote:There are no absolute standards, at least none that we humans are aware of. Even if there were a set of absolute standards somewhere, there is absolutely no way to come up with an algorithim to allow these standards to be applied to the real world. It's much too messy.

You've just proven my point. Slavery is wrong or it isn't. It can't be both. You say in one sentence morality isn't dictated by the whims of society and then go on to make precisely that argument.

If you want to argue there is no morality, only preference, then that's a sound position to hold. But you can't logically argue that there is morality and say it's relative. Morality can't be relative, or else it's not morality. Logic states something can't be A and Not-A. Slavery can't be right and wrong. It's logically impossible. But if you believe morality is relative, that's precisely what you're saying, therefore your position is logically unsound. (note I don't say that to be a jerk or anything, just pointing out the logical flaw in your position as you've stated it.)

Just as an object can be both still and moving, depending on your frame of reference, things can be A and Not-A as long as they are judged by different standards. I'm not saying that slavery is both right and wrong. It is wrong now, just as it always was, because by my standards slavery is wrong (I'm very absolute in my relativity). By the standards of much of human history, however, it was not wrong. Not because it was right in and of itself, but because they were using the wrong standards (they weren't using my standards).

There is nothing illogical about believing that different people have different conceptions of morality, as you and I clearly do. You believe that there must be something absolute that can be referenced to resolve these differences. I do not. It would be much easier if there were. It's much harder to convince people that their understanding of their own morality is incorrect, or that their standards are wrong, or even that their metric for evaluating standards is wrong.

If you're still reading this, I have some questions for you (or anyone else who believes in an absolute standard of morality). Where are these rules complied? How can we be sure we are living, or at least attempting to live, in accordance with their standards? If it is the moral sense that we all seem to have, and if this moral sense hasn't changed over time, why was slavery ever allowed? Why wasn't it immediately recognized as evil from the moment it was first proposed?

(01-03-2009 07:43 PM)RobertN Wrote:  So because it has not yet been officially found(at least according to you) that it doesn't exist?

You're right but it's easier to believe something doesn't exist if it's never been seen, in that sense there's every reason to believe it doesn't exist and merely hope that it does. I've heard of things that people absolutely believe exist but can't cough up proof of it, coming to mind are space men, Big Foot, Yeti, chupa cabra, Santa, the Easter bunny and a liberal who won't raise taxes.

(01-03-2009 08:02 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-03-2009 07:43 PM)RobertN Wrote:  So because it has not yet been officially found(at least according to you) that it doesn't exist?

You're right but it's easier to believe something doesn't exist if it's never been seen, in that sense there's every reason to believe it doesn't exist and merely hope that it does. I've heard of things that people absolutely believe exist but can't cough up proof of it, coming to mind are space men, Big Foot, Yeti, chupa cabra, Santa, the Easter bunny and a liberal who won't raise taxes.

Here is a rare species. With useful talents as well.

.

GEEZE !!!!!

Them SOME BRIGHT HEAD LIGHTS PAW PAW !!!!!!

....................

.

(01-04-2009 01:05 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-03-2009 08:02 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-03-2009 07:43 PM)RobertN Wrote:  So because it has not yet been officially found(at least according to you) that it doesn't exist?

You're right but it's easier to believe something doesn't exist if it's never been seen, in that sense there's every reason to believe it doesn't exist and merely hope that it does. I've heard of things that people absolutely believe exist but can't cough up proof of it, coming to mind are space men, Big Foot, Yeti, chupa cabra, Santa, the Easter bunny and a liberal who won't raise taxes.

Here is a rare species. With useful talents as well.

Nah. Redneck sluts aren't all that rare. As for talents, I suppose that holding a beer between her breasts is a "talent". It may impress you but it just doesn't impress me.

(01-05-2009 01:19 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Nah. Redneck sluts aren't all that rare. As for talents, I suppose that holding a beer between her breasts is a "talent". It may impress you but it just doesn't impress me.

Robie, Nah, It's just your latent homosexual tendencies bubbling to the surface again.

(01-03-2009 09:19 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  No offense but who ordained you to decide what is moral or immoral?

Quote:I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

As you well know, IMLTHO, this quote is an overarching truism absolutely lost on modern society.

As for moral absolutes, they exist, but they're based on humanity. It's a chicken and the egg dilemma. Bottom line, the only real moral absolute is the golden rule - the law of consequence, karma, order versus chaos, or whichever religious, including Biblical, interpretation you choose to credit for it. It's the common thread for the continution and stability of life. You can find it in religion, philosophy or science (physics), it's in all of them.