The Moral Law. Ratonality of Faith (11 Viewers)

[Seven]

So what?

No, they aren't violating the law of the majority and that's exactly my point. The government of Palestine is run by a terrorist organization. The general public truly believe in the morality of terrorism. What laws are these terrorists violating then? Their country's people want them to do what they are doing, and since they run by the 'majority's' standard, then they are doing absolutely nothing wrong.


I am not getting it because there are consistent logical flaws. I hope you are understanding them by now.

No, that's not a logical flaw. I said that democracy was the way to go. If you don't live in a democracy, ethics don't necessarily have anything to do with the law .

You keep missing the point, it's quite astonishing.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

Which is where the arrogance lies. It's incredible how easy it is for you guys to determine right and wrong. That's what years of manipulative behaviour do to you I suppose.

Well, couldn't that argument go both ways? Couldn't you be the one who has been manipulated by the media, your friends, family etc..? What gives you the authority of insinuating that I am the one being manipulated?

 

[rounder]

No, that's not a logical flaw. I said that democracy was the way to go. If you don't live in a democracy, ethics don't necessarily have anything to do with the law .

You keep missing the point, it's quite astonishing.

Very well, in the Israeli-Lebanese war in the summer of 2006. Israel, a government elected by the public, commited some of the largest acts against humanity in Lebanon. They bombed a school with around 60 children in it, I hope I don't have to name all the immoral events that occured. Now, this is the democracy you are talking about, and since morality is relative, no one has the right to condemn this democratic government for their actions.

Enough of a logical flaw for you now.

 

[Seven]

Well, couldn't that argument go both ways? Couldn't you be the one who has been manipulated by the media, your friends, family etc..? What gives you the authority of insinuating that I am the one being manipulated?

What? They told me there wasn't an objective moral standard and said I had to make my own moral choices? Yeah, they would really benefit from that.

Very well, in the Israeli-Lebanese war in the summer of 2006. Israel, a government elected by the public, commited some of the largest acts against humanity in Lebanon. They bombed a school with around 60 children in it, I hope I don't have to name all the immoral events that occured. Now, this is the democracy you are talking about, and since morality is relative, no one has the right to condemn this democratic government for their actions.

Enough of a logical flaw for you now.

This is the last time I'm explaining this to you. It is by no means a logical flaw. The FACT that there is no objective moral standard does not mean we can't condemn people for their moral choices. We literally say OUR moral choices are better. In this case it doesn't really matter, because we have tons of means to condemn their actions. They signed a treaty for instance.

But all of this is easy stuff. Not even Israel would say their actions were completely morally correct. Euthanasia.. now that's difficult in your world where you are supposed to have a fixed moral guideline. What does your guideline say about this?

I find it amusing how you turned democracy into a bad thing. Very telling.

 

[rounder]

What? They told me there wasn't an objective moral standard and said I had to make my own moral choices? Yeah, they would really benefit from that.



This is the last time I'm explaining this to you. It is by no means a logical flaw. The FACT that there is no objective moral standard does not mean we can't condemn people for their moral choices. We literally say OUR moral choices are better. In this case it doesn't really matter, because we have tons of means to condemn their actions. They signed a treaty for instance.

But all of this is easy stuff. Not even Israel would say their actions were completely morally correct. Euthanasia.. now that's difficult in your world where you are supposed to have a fixed moral guideline. What does your guideline say about this?

I find it amusing how you turned democracy into a bad thing. Very telling.

Do you think democracy is good, as in objectively good?

 

[Seven]

Do you think democracy is good, as in objectively good?

I think it is a good thing, yes. I don't think there's an objective moral standard that says democracy is a good thing though. In fact there are some other political forms that might prove useful as well.

 

[rounder]

I think it is a good thing, yes. I don't think there's an objective moral standard that says democracy is a good thing though. In fact there are some other political forms that might prove useful as well.

Is there any political form that is better than democracy?

 

[Seven]

IMHO no.

Just so we're clear on this one: you're picking a very poor example and you're about to be badly burnt if you think this is leading to your precious moral standard.

 

[rounder]

IMHO no.

Just so we're clear on this one: you're picking a very poor example and you're about to be badly burnt if you think this is leading to your precious moral standard.

Can we not postulate that giving the people of any country democracy and freedom of speech, the fundamental right of a human being, the greatest values any political system can ever offer. Thus, why can we not say democracy is objectively moral?

 

[Seven]

Can we not postulate that giving the people of any country democracy and freedom of speech, the fundamental right of a human being, the greatest values any political system can ever offer. Thus, why can we not say democracy is objectively moral?

Because it isn't. If it had been objectively moral people would always have said democracy was the only moral option. And they haven't. So it's not objectively moral.

 

[rounder]

Can we also not conclude that oppression, dectatorship, and totalitarianism are morally wrong political systems. Surely, religion has not influenced me to feel this way.

 

[Seven]

Can we also not conclude that oppression, dectatorship, and totalitarianism are morally wrong political systems. Surely, religion has not influenced me to feel this way.

I think they are morally wrong. Millions of Chinese beg to differ.

 

[rounder]

Because it isn't. If it had been objectively moral people would always have said democracy was the only moral option. And they haven't. So it's not objectively moral.

If two people were arguing about what methodology their political government should use in the middle east, are they not applying to an unknown moral standard, a moral law if you will?

I suppose the reason I find ethical morality very difficult to digest is because it would seem rather pointless arguing for a specific kind of morality, thus there is no reason we should ever discuss morality for that matter. Since it is subjective, and can never be disproved or proved to be objectivelu true, what's the point. Nothing is really 'wrong' with doing anything.

Again, I apologize if I may seem very hesitant in accepting this, but I still see too many holes in that theory.

 

[Seven]

Wait a minute..

do you understand the exact difference between objective and subjective?

 

[rounder]

Subjective : Relative

Objective : Not Relative, Absolute

 

[Seven]

That's not correct.

 

[Hist]

If two people were arguing about what methodology their political government should use in the middle east, are they not applying to an unknown moral standard, a moral law if you will?

I suppose the reason I find ethical morality very difficult to digest is because it would seem rather pointless arguing for a specific kind of morality, thus there is no reason we should ever discuss morality for that matter. Since it is subjective, and can never be disproved or proved to be objectively true, what's the point. Nothing is really 'wrong' with doing anything.

Yes nothing is really wrong... its all about what is more useful and more suitable to serve our purposes. Some may think a city should be ruled by its best wisest, smartest men.. others think its about the most popular man. Democracy is neither good nor bad it all lies within what the people choose to do.. to go to war? to make peace? anything.

SO my point is we debate which is better for our purposes (meaning more useful, most productive etc) not which is False and which is true.

 

[Raz]

Kant's categorical imperative?

Lol, i didnt knew it was Kants idea. I tend to agree with him on this subject though. Thanks for the info

And the paragraph above the one where i said what i think, wasnt what i am thinking, i thought you misunderstood what Seven said, so i tried to explain it, i thought i made myself clear there.

 

[Fred]

Seven, you aren't really making any arguments here. Just running around in circles.

Lol, i didnt knew it was Kants idea. I tend to agree with him on this subject though. Thanks for the info

And the paragraph above the one where i said what i think, wasnt what i am thinking, i thought you misunderstood what Seven said, so i tried to explain it, i thought i made myself clear there.

fair enough

 

[Hist]

He is making the same point I am. The premise you use to arrive at the conclusion that there is moral objectivity is incorrect.
We've been trying to say it over and over again