The Moral Law. Ratonality of Faith (2 Viewers)

[Seven]

But going by that logic Seven then i can conclude that laws in Saudi Arabia like forbidding women from driving are moral. Because most Saudi's are convinced that it is not moral for a woman to be driving a car and walking in the street without a veil. Using your logic, it is moral because it is widely accepted by the Saudi people, right?

Yes, I believe they may think it's moral. What you consider moral is not necessarily what I consider moral. So it is moral for the Saudis.

I'll explain about Hitler tomorrow.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Fred]

Yes, I believe they may think it's moral. What you consider moral is not necessarily what I consider moral. So it is moral for the Saudis.

I'll explain about Hitler tomorrow.

There is the flaw right there. Meaning, you can't really condemn the Saudi's, because they are acting morally by your definition.


I'll be waiting for your thoughts on Adolf.

 

[Seven]

There is the flaw right there. Meaning, you can't really condemn the Saudi's, because they are acting morally by your definition.


I'll be waiting for your thoughts on Adolf.

I can condemn people even if they're acting morally. I don't have to accept their moral beliefs. Just like I don't accept your moral beliefs.

 

[Fred]

I can condemn people even if they're acting morally. I don't have to accept their moral beliefs. Just like I don't accept your moral beliefs.

Ethical Relativism?

We'll just go round in circles if we talk ethics then. No point discussing any further then is there?

 

[Seven]

Ethical Relativism?

We'll just go round in circles if we talk ethics then. No point discussing any further then is there?

Not quite. I say moral, to an extent, is manmade. You can still discuss moral values and say why you think yours are better than mine though.

 

[rounder]

There is a clear logical contrdiction in this way of thinking. What you are talking about here is the potmodernism theory, however, if there is no absolute truth, can postmodernism be itself true?Indeed, if there is no right and wrong, there is no need to argue for the discipline of ethics in the first place.

If we were to go with your theory just for a second, and say that morality is debatable in every sense. Notice than in any ethical argument, one part or the other is clearly applying to a higher standard, or an absolute truth. In other words, an objective morality.

Also, when you do argue about a certain topic concerning morality, there is never a clear winner in this case. Meaning that if country A argued that child abuse was an obscene and disgusting act while country B argued that child abuse is perfectly normal. Under your theory ofcourse, country A does not have the right or the authority to be able to condemn country B. If the people in country B think child abuse is moral, then it is, and there is nothing you can do to stop them.

To take this further, all of these suicide bombers killing themselves to destroy other people's lives would then not be considered immoral. These terrorists truly believe that they are bringing good to their country, that they are defending their people, and protecting their families. Thus, why is terrorism at all immoral? If, again, you believe morality is merely relative, the world has no right at all to even mildly suggest that terrorism is an immoral act.

 

[rounder]

Not quite. I say moral, to an extent, is manmade. You can still discuss moral values and say why you think yours are better than mine though.

Since an opinion is abolutely more viable than another, then all you are doing is applying to a higher standard of morality. Thus, there is objective morality. If there wasn't, there would be no point in arguing in the first place since there is no greater truth.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

the only valid belief system is liberalism and the way john stuart mill saw it. you all are sick, disgusting, ignorant people. now, goodbye ... don't worry i am not really leaving

 

[Seven]

There is a clear logical contrdiction in this way of thinking. What you are talking about here is the potmodernism theory, however, if there is no absolute truth, can postmodernism be itself true?Indeed, if there is no right and wrong, there is no need to argue for the discipline of ethics in the first place.

If we were to go with your theory just for a second, and say that morality is debatable in every sense. Notice than in any ethical argument, one part or the other is clearly applying to a higher standard, or an absolute truth. In other words, an objective morality.

Also, when you do argue about a certain topic concerning morality, there is never an clear winner. Meaning that if country A argued that child abuse was an obscene and disgusting act while country B will argue that child abuse is perfectly normal. Under your theory ofcourse, country A does not have the right or the authority to be able to condemn country B. If the people in country B think child abuse is moral, then it is, and there is nothing you can do to stop them.

To take this further, all of these suicide bombers killing themselves to destroy other peoples' lives would then not be considered immoral. These terrorists truly believe that they are bringing good to their country, that they are defending their people, and protecting their families. Thus, why is terrorism at all immoral? If, again, you believe morality is merely relative, the world has no right at all to even mildly suggest that terrorism is an immoral act.

I have already answered your questions in posts a lot shorter than this one. I suggest you read them first.

 

[Seven]

Since an opinion is abolutely more viable than another, then all you are doing is applying to a higher standard of morality. Thus, there is objective morality. If there wasn't, there would be no point in arguing in the first place since there is no greater truth.

No, there is no objective morality, it's always a struggle between values. It has been for thousands of years.

 

[rounder]

No, there is no objective morality, it's always a struggle between values. It has been for thousands of years.

Ofcourse, not everything is objective.

However, Wouldn't you consider rape, child abuse, or genocide objectively immoral?

 

[Seven]

Ofcourse, not everything is objective.

However, Wouldn't you consider rape, child abuse, or genocide objectively immoral?

Genocide is one of the things that has not always been considered immoral, but it has been frowned upon in almost any culture. You remember the Romans burning down Carthage? It was seen as a brutal move even back then.

As for rape and child abuse.. I would consider it immoral, but there are so many examples of people who didn't in history.

 

[Fred]

Genocide is one of the things that has not always been considered immoral, but it has been frowned upon in almost any culture. You remember the Romans burning down Carthage? It was seen as a brutal move even back then.

As for rape and child abuse.. I would consider it immoral, but there are so many examples of people who didn't in history.

Which is why we need objective moral standards.

 

[Seven]

Which is why we need objective moral standards.

No, we need laws.

Which we have.

 

[rounder]

Genocide is one of the things that has not always been considered immoral, but it has been frowned upon in almost any culture. You remember the Romans burning down Carthage? It was seen as a brutal move even back then.

As for rape and child abuse.. I would consider it immoral, but there are so many examples of people who didn't in history.

Like who?

And if there were poeple who considered child abuse to be moral, could we not say they were simply 'wrong'?

 

[rounder]

No, we need laws.

Which we have.

Yes, but laws change in every state and every country, so what determines what is moral and what is not?

 

[Seven]

Like who?

And if there were poeple who considered child abuse to be moral, could we not say they were simply 'wrong'?

Yes, we could. But it's still not an objective moral standard. They are wrong according to your moral standard.

Yes, but laws change in every state and every country, so what determines what is moral and what is not?

The people. Who also determine the laws. In a way democracy shows you the moral values of the majority of the people. That doesn't mean they're the right ones though.

 

[rounder]

Yes, we could. But it's still not an objective moral standard. They are wrong according to your moral standard.

But if it's not an objective moral standard, I have no right to condemn these people, neither does anyone. In fact, why should we have the right to condemn terrorism? Since not everyone believes it is wrong, why should it be?



The people. Who also determine the laws. In a way democracy shows you the moral values of the majority of the people. That doesn't mean they're the right ones though. [/QUOTE]

The UN would then never have the right to punish any country for being immoral. If a country in Africa believed that child abuse was right, the HA comittee in the UN would have no authority in helping those children since they just have a different moral standard.

 

[Fred]

No, we need laws.

Which we have.

But these laws will be made after determining whats "right" and whats "wrong". So before we reach the stage where we make laws, we have to find a way to determine whats right and whats wrong.

 

[rounder]

I have already answered your questions in posts a lot shorter than this one. I suggest you read them first.

Yes, you are saying you can condemn terrorism because it conflicts with your moral standar. But my question is, why should it even matter? If everyone has his own moral standard, then we don't really have the right to label anything wrong. In fact, it may be considered presumptous and arrogant to condemn anything at all, since you would be relating everything to your own moral standard which you arrogantly assume to be correct.