# Moral Relativism



## Unkotare

Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.

I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.


----------



## boedicca

Moral Relativism is mental quicksand.  It essentially means that there is no such thing as an objective reality.  It's quite difficult to engage in the world when there is no truth and no reality.


----------



## DGS49

Someone who does not believe in "a higher power" can be ETHICAL, but they cannot claim to be MORAL.

Ethics are guidelines based on facts and logic: morals are guidelines based on Natural Law (which, admittedly, is not universally clear).

The problem with being "ethical" is that it can lead to evil behavior or positions, the most obvious of which are abortion and euthanasia.

Another danger of "ethical" principles is that they can lead to rationalization of evil, when it is convenient. 'I need his money more than the insurance company/government/bank does..."

"What she doesn't know won't hurt her..."

Moral Relativity is what happens when an atheist claims to be acting "morally."  It is nonsense.  While there are good faith differences in what constitutes "right" and "wrong," those concepts do not wander from place to place based on changing times.  For example, if homosexual sodomy was morally unacceptable 50 years ago, the fact that homosexuals are "celebrated" now doesn't make their sexual behavior "moral."  And any "religion" claiming otherwise is no better than the Church of Hugh Hefner.


----------



## pinqy

DGS49 said:


> While there are good faith differences in what constitutes "right" and "wrong," those concepts do not wander from place to place based on changing times.  For example, if homosexual sodomy was morally unacceptable 50 years ago, the fact that homosexuals are "celebrated" now doesn't make their sexual behavior "moral."


Why not?  Why was homosexuality immoral, and do those reasons still hold true?   It's my contention that when life-spans were short and infant mortality was high it was right to discourage open homosexuality, and reinforce heterosexual relationships as much as possible in order to increase procreation (as homosexuals would be pressured into heterosexual relationships) and preserve the species.   But that's not necessary now. There are no currently practical reasons to discourage homosexual behavior.


----------



## DGS49

While the background thinking around some "moral" precepts is unclear (e.g., some Jewish dietary laws), the basis for the immorality of homosexual sodomy remains unchanged and obvious.

Even the most primitive of societies understands the normal function and purpose of the male and female reproductive organs.  The male reproductive organs and seminal fluid are intended to fertilize the "eggs" that are produced in the ovaries of a woman.

The same is true of the human digestive system.  To be crude but accurate, we eat with our mouth and defecate through the back end of the digestive system.

Societies long ago recognized that the male organs and the MEN who wear them are wont to stimulate those organs in any conceivable way they can, simulating sexual intercourse and bringing about their own orgasms/ejaculations.  They also recognized that if such behavior were not constrained it would lead to a general deterioration of the society and culture.  If you doubt me, youtube some videos of gay pride parades in San Francisco.

We have recently concluded as a society - contrary to hundreds of years of tradition - that if a behavior doesn't create demonstrable damage or harm to any "person" or property, then that behavior cannot be prohibited by law.  Thus, gross pornography has been legalized, elective abortion has become a "constitutional right," marriage has become nothing more than a short list of legal rights and prerogatives, and sodomy has become nothing more than an expression of sexual "freedom." 

But this is not a matter of "changing morals."  The moral principles remain as they always were.  It is a matter of abandoning morals and adopting a system of ethics that lacks any moral underpinning.

Homosexual sodomy was, is, and always will be immoral.  The Government permits you to bugger away and even celebrate your immorality through a legal "wedding," but the morality of such activity remains the same as it was before these developments.

And people who believe in morality should keep that in mind.


----------



## Idadunno

DGS49 said:


> Moral Relativity is what happens when an atheist claims to be acting "morally."  It is nonsense.  While there are good faith differences in what constitutes "right" and "wrong," those concepts do not wander from place to place based on changing times.  For example, if homosexual sodomy was morally unacceptable 50 years ago, the fact that homosexuals are "celebrated" now doesn't make their sexual behavior "moral."  And any "religion" claiming otherwise is no better than the Church of Hugh Hefner.


Homosexuality was accepted since before the Roman Empire and became unaccepted during the Calvinist (Puritan) era--14th century--because the Black Plaque wiped out so many people that they were afraid the population would not regain its numbers--that was the excuse they used because homosexuality made them feel uncomfortable (or maybe they were jealous that no one wanted them). The Puritans believed that anyone who did not follow their religion should be put to death--those people actually tried to instill their religion as the US state religion with that exact penalty, hence the 1st amendment. But, I digress. 
Claiming to know what is morally accepted or unacceptable is arguable since no one actually knows. The Bible has been edited over 24 times throughout history by different men of different religions. The "books" are stories handed down through generations--there are no factual eye-witness accounts. The first Bible was composed of "books" of events that happened a thousand years before. There are factual mistakes in the Bible, which means the Bible is not the word of God but the word of man from a time before science. 
Morality comes from our own personal comfort zone of what feels right to us, or from years of programming of how we are supposed to be, and fear of the unknown. 
Labeling people who do not agree with your views as Atheists is a very Puritanical trait. That is moral relativity.


----------



## Unkotare

Idadunno said:


> Morality comes from our own personal comfort zone of what feels right to us....




Read the OP.


----------



## midcan5

Unkotare said:


> ....I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.



That sentence contradicts itself. While it is just words the words clash. 

Morality is a Culturally Conditioned Response Issue 82 Philosophy Now

7. What is the best moral system?

"Essentially, we'll never truly be able to distinguish between "right" and "wrong" actions. At any given time in history, however, philosophers, theologians, and politicians will claim to have discovered the best way to evaluate human actions and establish the most righteous code of conduct. But it's never that easy. Life is far too messy and complicated for there to be anything like a universal morality or an absolutist ethics. The Golden Rule is great (the idea that you should treat others as you would like them to treat you), but it disregards moral autonomy and leaves no room for the imposition of justice (such as jailing criminals), and can even be used to justify oppression (Immanuel Kant was among its most staunchest critics). Moreover, it's a highly simplified rule of thumb that doesn't provision for more complex scenarios. For example, should the few be spared to save the many? Who has more moral worth: a human baby or a full-grown great ape? And as neuroscientists have shown, morality is not only a culturally-ingrained thing, it's also a part of our psychologies (the Trolly Problem is the best demonstration of this). At best, we can only say that morality is normative, while acknowledging that our sense of right and wrong will change over time."  from '8 Great Philosophical Questions That We'll Never Solve'  George Dvorsky


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Great topic...can't write much at the moment...but just to say for now moral relativism and/or situation ethics is a very dangerous concept, especially when a government is involved. Then I call it "situation legislation".


----------



## Unkotare

midcan5 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sentence contradicts itself.
Click to expand...



It does not. It is one of the long-recognized flaws inherent in the concept of moral relativism. Perhaps you don't understand it yet.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

boedicca said:


> Moral Relativism is mental quicksand.  It essentially means that there is no such thing as an objective reality.  It's quite difficult to engage in the world when there is no truth and no reality.



Anything statable as truth can be statable as false by changing the observer's frame of reference. 

The sky is blue. = True

The sky is not blue, it's black. = Also true. Same place, but different time. 

I'm not aware of anything universally true other than hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe.  

Reality is entirely subjective. What we see is nothing close to reality. Our senses can only inform us about a tiny fraction of the respective spectrums. We don't see infrared or ultraviolet light for instance (unless you have a genetic thing where you can see a bit into UV.) Don't hear very high or low frequencies, can't smell or taste the whole range of smells and tastes, etc. Consequently, our impression of reality is only the smallest fraction of reality.


----------



## boedicca

Delta4Embassy said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral Relativism is mental quicksand.  It essentially means that there is no such thing as an objective reality.  It's quite difficult to engage in the world when there is no truth and no reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything statable as truth can be statable as false by changing the observer's frame of reference.
> 
> The sky is blue. = True
> 
> The sky is not blue, it's black. = Also true. Same place, but different time.
> 
> I'm not aware of anything universally true other than hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe.
> 
> Reality is entirely subjective. What we see is nothing close to reality.
Click to expand...



Good luck with that.

You think your money is yours.

I think it is mine - so give it to me.

See how that works?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

boedicca said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral Relativism is mental quicksand.  It essentially means that there is no such thing as an objective reality.  It's quite difficult to engage in the world when there is no truth and no reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything statable as truth can be statable as false by changing the observer's frame of reference.
> 
> The sky is blue. = True
> 
> The sky is not blue, it's black. = Also true. Same place, but different time.
> 
> I'm not aware of anything universally true other than hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe.
> 
> Reality is entirely subjective. What we see is nothing close to reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> You think your money is yours.
> 
> I think it is mine - so give it to me.
> 
> See how that works?
Click to expand...


Wow, that was the stupidest thing I've ever read. Has nothing to do with moral relativism. But that you thought it did was at least amusing.


----------



## boedicca

Delta4Embassy said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral Relativism is mental quicksand.  It essentially means that there is no such thing as an objective reality.  It's quite difficult to engage in the world when there is no truth and no reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything statable as truth can be statable as false by changing the observer's frame of reference.
> 
> The sky is blue. = True
> 
> The sky is not blue, it's black. = Also true. Same place, but different time.
> 
> I'm not aware of anything universally true other than hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe.
> 
> Reality is entirely subjective. What we see is nothing close to reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> You think your money is yours.
> 
> I think it is mine - so give it to me.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that was the stupidest thing I've ever read. Has nothing to do with moral relativism. But that you thought it did was at least amusing.
Click to expand...



If Reality is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE - as You Yourself Claimed, then my statements are completely consistent with that belief. 

Such Subjectivity is also the basis of Collectivist/Totalitarian ideology, which I'm sure eludes you.


----------



## midcan5

> It does not. It is one of the long-recognized flaws inherent in the concept of moral relativism. Perhaps you don't understand it yet.



Something that is relative cannot by definition be infallible. My links pretty much explain why moral relativism is the best humans can do. I have more and may stop back.


----------



## Unkotare

boedicca said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral Relativism is mental quicksand.  It essentially means that there is no such thing as an objective reality.  It's quite difficult to engage in the world when there is no truth and no reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything statable as truth can be statable as false by changing the observer's frame of reference.
> 
> The sky is blue. = True
> 
> The sky is not blue, it's black. = Also true. Same place, but different time.
> 
> I'm not aware of anything universally true other than hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe.
> 
> Reality is entirely subjective. What we see is nothing close to reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> You think your money is yours.
> 
> I think it is mine - so give it to me.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that was the stupidest thing I've ever read. Has nothing to do with moral relativism. But that you thought it did was at least amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If Reality is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE - as You Yourself Claimed, then my statements are completely consistent with that belief.
> 
> Such Subjectivity is also the basis of Collectivist/Totalitarian ideology, which I'm sure eludes you.
Click to expand...




Don't expect Herbert to understand anything beyond the usual filth he posts.


----------



## Unkotare

midcan5 said:


> It does not. It is one of the long-recognized flaws inherent in the concept of moral relativism. Perhaps you don't understand it yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something that is relative cannot by definition be infallible. My links pretty much explain why moral relativism is the best humans can do. I have more and may stop back.
Click to expand...




You obviously don't understand the concept in question.


----------



## RosieS

Everything is morally relativistic in a decrepit society that glorifies and celebrates violence at the same time it is devaluing lovemaking.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## DGS49

When considering the "morality" of male-male sodomy, it is enlightening to consider the difference between homosexuality (an involuntary compulsion to engage in quasi-sexual activities with someone of the same gender) and sodomy by non-homosexuals.

There have always been strained, unusual, or restrictive circumstances where young men have had no access to female "companionship" for long periods of time, and some of them engage in homosexual sodomy as an alternative to perpetual masturbation or the occasional "wet dream."   Prison life and the old British Navy are conspicuous examples.  One might also mention the ancient Greeks, who practiced open pederasty to some extent.

But the people engaging in sodomy under these circumstances are not "homosexuals," and generally would be insulted if they were accused of being homosexuals.

Still, morally, there is no difference.

But it is not correct to cite examples of these behaviors by heterosexuals and use them as the basis to claim that "homosexuality was considered normal..."

Baloney.


----------



## midcan5

> Unkotare, You obviously don't understand the concept in question.



You obviously don't understand words: infallible relativist, relative infallibility, look up oxymoron. Explain in your words. maybe that will make sense given your world. 

===========

I don't agree with this when it gets into the neurology of the brain, but it may provoke thought.

"A few philosophers claimed that we have a moral sense that perceives the moral rightness or wrongness of things directly and immediately. This theory might be worth taking seriously if morality were like mathematics. Mathematicians all agree that we know with certainty a large number of mathematical truths. Since experiment and observation could never be the source of such certainty, we (or at least mathematicians) must have some other way of knowing mathematical truths — a mathematical sense that directly perceives them. For this argument to work in ethics, there would have to be little or no ethical disagreement to begin with. Since many moral disagreements seem intractable even among experts, the hypothesis that we are equipped to know moral truths directly is very difficult to sustain." Alex Rosenberg

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/can-moral-disputes-be-resolved/

and this: Moral Skepticism and Moral Disagreement Developing an Argument from Nietzsche On the Human

source: Leiter Reports A Philosophy Blog


----------



## Unkotare

midcan5 said:


> Unkotare, You obviously don't understand the concept in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't understand words
Click to expand...



I understand them very well. You are the one apparently having trouble.


----------



## sealybobo

DGS49 said:


> Someone who does not believe in "a higher power" can be ETHICAL, but they cannot claim to be MORAL.
> 
> Ethics are guidelines based on facts and logic: morals are guidelines based on Natural Law (which, admittedly, is not universally clear).
> 
> The problem with being "ethical" is that it can lead to evil behavior or positions, the most obvious of which are abortion and euthanasia.
> 
> Another danger of "ethical" principles is that they can lead to rationalization of evil, when it is convenient. 'I need his money more than the insurance company/government/bank does..."
> 
> "What she doesn't know won't hurt her..."
> 
> Moral Relativity is what happens when an atheist claims to be acting "morally."  It is nonsense.  While there are good faith differences in what constitutes "right" and "wrong," those concepts do not wander from place to place based on changing times.  For example, if homosexual sodomy was morally unacceptable 50 years ago, the fact that homosexuals are "celebrated" now doesn't make their sexual behavior "moral."  And any "religion" claiming otherwise is no better than the Church of Hugh Hefner.


And just because men 50 years ago didn't like homosexuality doesn't make it wrong. If there is no God of the bible or Koran and ignorant men long ago said something doesn't make it fact, know what I mean?

My mom has Alzheimer's. I'm all for euthenasia in fact it's legal in some states. Do you think America is immoral? We also have abortions. So you live in an immoral country? 

Life is not so precious a woman who doesn't want a baby can't abort. In fact her life is too precious and short to let you nuts ruin it or tell it it has to be a mommy cause the rubber broke. Phuck u.


----------



## sealybobo

pinqy said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While there are good faith differences in what constitutes "right" and "wrong," those concepts do not wander from place to place based on changing times.  For example, if homosexual sodomy was morally unacceptable 50 years ago, the fact that homosexuals are "celebrated" now doesn't make their sexual behavior "moral."
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  Why was homosexuality immoral, and do those reasons still hold true?   It's my contention that when life-spans were short and infant mortality was high it was right to discourage open homosexuality, and reinforce heterosexual relationships as much as possible in order to increase procreation (as homosexuals would be pressured into heterosexual relationships) and preserve the species.   But that's not necessary now. There are no currently practical reasons to discourage homosexual behavior.
Click to expand...

We are over populated. And we have so many unwanted kids gays even get to adopt.

Maybe more gays is mother nature telling us to slow down on the multiplying. That made sense 2000 years ago not now.


----------



## G.T.

Unkotare said:


> Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
> 
> I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.


Id like to point out that "because if not, morals are relative" doesnt advance the bar in the discussion of is there or is there not a (religious) god figure.


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
> 
> I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Id like to point out that "because if not, morals are relative" doesnt advance the bar in the discussion of is there or is there not a (religious) god figure.
Click to expand...

My family comes from Sparta Greece. If we had a deformed baby we tossed it in the pit of death. Today we have late term abortion.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone who does not believe in "a higher power" can be ETHICAL, but they cannot claim to be MORAL.
> 
> Ethics are guidelines based on facts and logic: morals are guidelines based on Natural Law (which, admittedly, is not universally clear).
> 
> The problem with being "ethical" is that it can lead to evil behavior or positions, the most obvious of which are abortion and euthanasia.
> 
> Another danger of "ethical" principles is that they can lead to rationalization of evil, when it is convenient. 'I need his money more than the insurance company/government/bank does..."
> 
> "What she doesn't know won't hurt her..."
> 
> Moral Relativity is what happens when an atheist claims to be acting "morally."  It is nonsense.  While there are good faith differences in what constitutes "right" and "wrong," those concepts do not wander from place to place based on changing times.  For example, if homosexual sodomy was morally unacceptable 50 years ago, the fact that homosexuals are "celebrated" now doesn't make their sexual behavior "moral."  And any "religion" claiming otherwise is no better than the Church of Hugh Hefner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not so precious .......
Click to expand...




Speak for yourself, trash.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While there are good faith differences in what constitutes "right" and "wrong," those concepts do not wander from place to place based on changing times.  For example, if homosexual sodomy was morally unacceptable 50 years ago, the fact that homosexuals are "celebrated" now doesn't make their sexual behavior "moral."
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  Why was homosexuality immoral, and do those reasons still hold true?   It's my contention that when life-spans were short and infant mortality was high it was right to discourage open homosexuality, and reinforce heterosexual relationships as much as possible in order to increase procreation (as homosexuals would be pressured into heterosexual relationships) and preserve the species.   But that's not necessary now. There are no currently practical reasons to discourage homosexual behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are over populated. ...
Click to expand...



No, we are not.


----------



## chao$

There are no morals in nature. Rules are made to stop us from doing the things we enjoy. There is way too much gray out there to decide right from wrong.

Might makes right.


----------



## chao$

chirp chirp

Wow! I said there are no morals and that might makes right and all I hear is crickets.


----------



## mamooth

Imagine it's occupied Europe, 1943, and you do know where some Jews are hiding. The SS knocks on your door and asks you "Do you know where any Jews are hiding?".

You now have two choices.

You can proudly state "Lying is always wrong, so I'll tell you where those Jews are hiding!"

Or, you can be a dirty moral relativist and lie to the SS.

Everyone chooses the latter. I hope.

The point is that everyone is a moral relativist. It's just a matter of who is willing to be honest about that.


----------



## chao$

mamooth said:


> Imagine it's occupied Europe, 1943, and you do know where some Jews are hiding. The SS knocks on your door and asks you "Do you know where any Jews are hiding?".
> 
> You now have two choices.
> 
> You can proudly state "Lying is always wrong, so I'll tell you where those Jews are hiding!"
> 
> Or, you can be a dirty moral relativist and lie to the SS.
> 
> Everyone chooses the latter. I hope.
> 
> The point is that everyone is a moral relativist. It's just a matter of who is willing to be honest about that.


 
Even today a high percentage of Europeans despise the Jewish people. Some claim it's because jews have an illusory moral superiority, while others insist that jews have no morals at all and point to the settlements and the outdoor prison called the Gaza Strip. The Samson Option has a complete lack of morals. It shows that jews are very tribal with a primal instinct for survival – like the rest of the human species.

Ropey is my favorite jew because he is proud of his lack of morals.


----------



## Unkotare

Another one who doesn't understand the terms in use...


----------



## chao$

Unkotare said:


> Another one who doesn't understand the terms in use...


 
Yeah, you're the only one here that understands philosophy. That's not a productive way to show the term you agree with as valid.


----------



## Michelle420

chao$ said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine it's occupied Europe, 1943, and you do know where some Jews are hiding. The SS knocks on your door and asks you "Do you know where any Jews are hiding?".
> 
> You now have two choices.
> 
> You can proudly state "Lying is always wrong, so I'll tell you where those Jews are hiding!"
> 
> Or, you can be a dirty moral relativist and lie to the SS.
> 
> Everyone chooses the latter. I hope.
> 
> The point is that everyone is a moral relativist. It's just a matter of who is willing to be honest about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even today a high percentage of Europeans despise the Jewish people. Some claim it's because jews have an illusory moral superiority, while others insist that jews have no morals at all and point to the settlements and the outdoor prison called the Gaza Strip. The Samson Option has a complete lack of morals. It shows that jews are very tribal with a primal instinct for survival – like the rest of the human species.
> 
> Ropey is my favorite jew because he is proud of his lack of morals.
Click to expand...


Where did you meet Ropey? He's been missing in action a long time.


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

Morality* is* subjective...​


----------



## Unkotare




----------



## chao$

drifter said:


> Where did you meet Ropey? He's been missing in action a long time.


 
I met Ropey on possibly the most heterogeneous site on the net. He has a great sense of humor and proved that we are all pretty much the same no matter our culture or status.


----------



## Michelle420

chao$ said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you meet Ropey? He's been missing in action a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I met Ropey on possibly the most heterogeneous site on the net. He has a great sense of humor and proved that we are all pretty much the same no matter our culture or status.
Click to expand...


I thought he was in Israel and working on family things. Tell him Hello.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Unkotare said:


> Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
> 
> I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.








Does it?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## JFish123

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Votto

pinqy said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While there are good faith differences in what constitutes "right" and "wrong," those concepts do not wander from place to place based on changing times.  For example, if homosexual sodomy was morally unacceptable 50 years ago, the fact that homosexuals are "celebrated" now doesn't make their sexual behavior "moral."
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  Why was homosexuality immoral, and do those reasons still hold true?   It's my contention that when life-spans were short and infant mortality was high it was right to discourage open homosexuality, and reinforce heterosexual relationships as much as possible in order to increase procreation (as homosexuals would be pressured into heterosexual relationships) and preserve the species.   But that's not necessary now. There are no currently practical reasons to discourage homosexual behavior.
Click to expand...


Really?

Gay males in the US account for well over half the new AIDS and STD cases every year even though they are only about 5% of the population.

Is this really a healthy life style?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## PK1

Delta4Embassy said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral Relativism is mental quicksand.  It essentially means that there is no such thing as an objective reality.  It's quite difficult to engage in the world when there is no truth and no reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything statable as truth can be statable as false by changing the observer's frame of reference.
> 
> The sky is blue. = True
> 
> The sky is not blue, it's black. = Also true. Same place, but different time.
> 
> I'm not aware of anything universally true other than hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe.
> 
> Reality is entirely subjective. What we see is nothing close to reality. Our senses can only inform us about a tiny fraction of the respective spectrums. We don't see infrared or ultraviolet light for instance (unless you have a genetic thing where you can see a bit into UV.) Don't hear very high or low frequencies, can't smell or taste the whole range of smells and tastes, etc. Consequently, our impression of reality is only the smallest fraction of reality.
Click to expand...

---
You are absolutely correct ... from a *psychological* perspective, which is a SUBJECTIVE domain.

However, we also gather information thru other beings we communicate with (primarily same species) that we ourselves don't experience, but can input into our brain-matrix field of reality. That is the OBJECTIVE domain, which only reflects the overall fields of experiences of our species in our solar system.

The combination of SUBJECTIVE & OBJECTIVE info processed in our brains reflects our *RELATIVE* *REALITY*, including the humanoid concepts we define as. "moral" or "ethical".
.


----------



## PK1

Goddess_Ashtara said:


> Morality* is* subjective...​


---
Yes, it's a human concept, shared among humans.

The evolutionary process does not care about "morality".
.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
> 
> I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.


...


----------



## Unkotare

Seems many are misunderstanding normative morality.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> Seems many are misunderstanding normative morality.


---
Are you going to tell us how we ought to live, or are you going to define/describe what you are referring to?
.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems many are misunderstanding normative morality.
> 
> 
> 
> --- are you going to define/describe what you are referring to?
> .
Click to expand...



I just did.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems many are misunderstanding normative morality.
> 
> 
> 
> --- are you going to define/describe what you are referring to?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just did.
Click to expand...

---
Instead of being indirect, simply complete this sentence:
I define normative "morality"  as ...


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems many are misunderstanding normative morality.
> 
> 
> 
> --- are you going to define/describe what you are referring to?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Instead of being indirect, simply complete this sentence:
> I define normative "morality"  as ...
Click to expand...




What is your first language?


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems many are misunderstanding normative morality.
> 
> 
> 
> --- are you going to define/describe what you are referring to?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Instead of being indirect, simply complete this sentence:
> I define normative "morality"  as ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your first language?
Click to expand...

---
Russian.
Why can't you answer a simple question?
Or is it not that simple?
.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems many are misunderstanding normative morality.
> 
> 
> 
> --- are you going to define/describe what you are referring to?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Instead of being indirect, simply complete this sentence:
> I define normative "morality"  as ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your first language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Russian.
> Why can't you answer a simple question?
> Or is it not that simple?
> .
Click to expand...



Which word don't you understand?


----------



## Indeependent

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> --- are you going to define/describe what you are referring to?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Instead of being indirect, simply complete this sentence:
> I define normative "morality"  as ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your first language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Russian.
> Why can't you answer a simple question?
> Or is it not that simple?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which word don't you understand?
Click to expand...


Goggled "normative morality"...not found.
Goggled "normative ethics"...found.


----------



## Unkotare

"Googled".........


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

Can't google "normative morality" but you can google "Unkotare" LOL​


----------



## PK1

Goddess_Ashtara said:


> Can't google "normative morality" but you can google "Unkotare" LOL​


---
You can also google "Kakatte koi" and link it to Unkotare.
.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> --- are you going to define/describe what you are referring to?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Instead of being indirect, simply complete this sentence:
> I define normative "morality"  as ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your first language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Russian.
> Why can't you answer a simple question?
> Or is it not that simple?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which word don't you understand?
Click to expand...

---
Which word don't you understand?
I asked you to complete the following sentence:

*I define normative "morality" as ...*
.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Unkotare said:


> Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
> 
> I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.



I'll start by pointing out The Republic in book one begins the discourse on Moral Dilemmas (MD).  All who have taken the first course in Hist. of Western Philosophy will recall the MD in book one where one is faced with returning a weapon to a person not in his right mind which one has borrowed.  

First try to tackle MD's.  Is it moral to pay one's debts (return the weapon) if one suspects in doing so the weapon will be used to attack another?

Does the law enforce the duty to return an item borrowed?  Does the law hold accountable the person who returns such a weapon and suspects is would be used it to kill?  

Are laws moral obligations, or examples of moral relativism?  And how is one to decide how to act?


----------



## Wry Catcher

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just did.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Instead of being indirect, simply complete this sentence:
> I define normative "morality"  as ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your first language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Russian.
> Why can't you answer a simple question?
> Or is it not that simple?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which word don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Which word don't you understand?
> I asked you to complete the following sentence:
> 
> *I define normative "morality" as ...*
> .
Click to expand...



*"Normative ethics,* that part of moral philosophy, or ethics, concerned with criteria of what is morally right and wrong. It includes the formulation of moral rules that have direct implications for what human actions, institutions, and ways of life should be like.

"The central question of normative ethics is determining how basic moral standards are arrived at and justified. The answers to this question fall into two broad categories—deontological and teleological. The principal difference between them is that deontological theories do not appeal to value considerations in establishing ethical standards, while teleological theories do. Deontological theories use the concept of their inherent rightness in establishing such standards, while teleological theories consider the goodness or value brought into being by actions as the principal criterion of their ethical value. In other words, a deontological approach calls for doing certain things on principle or because they are inherently right, whereas a teleological approach advocates that certain kinds of actions are right because of the goodness of their consequences. Deontological theories thus stress the concepts of obligation, ought, duty, and right and wrong, while teleological theories lay stress on the good, the valuable, and the desirable. Deontological theories set forth formal or relational criteria such as equality or impartiality; teleological theories, by contrast, provide material or substantive criteria, as, for example, happiness or pleasure."

Link:  normative ethics | philosophy


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just did.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Instead of being indirect, simply complete this sentence:
> I define normative "morality"  as ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your first language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Russian.
> Why can't you answer a simple question?
> Or is it not that simple?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which word don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Which word don't you understand?
> I asked you to complete the following sentence:
> 
> *I define normative "morality" as ...*
> .
Click to expand...



Why do you put morality in quotation marks?


----------



## Indeependent

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Instead of being indirect, simply complete this sentence:
> I define normative "morality"  as ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your first language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Russian.
> Why can't you answer a simple question?
> Or is it not that simple?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which word don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Which word don't you understand?
> I asked you to complete the following sentence:
> 
> *I define normative "morality" as ...*
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you put morality in quotation marks?
Click to expand...


You cannot escape the fact that morality is not equal to ethics.
Morality requires a superhuman or super humanistic basis whilst ethics varies depending on profession or a very human influence.
For instance, Legal Ethics are disgusting.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Indeependent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your first language?
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Russian.
> Why can't you answer a simple question?
> Or is it not that simple?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which word don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Which word don't you understand?
> I asked you to complete the following sentence:
> 
> *I define normative "morality" as ...*
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you put morality in quotation marks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot escape the fact that morality is not equal to ethics.
> Morality requires a superhuman or super humanistic basis whilst ethics varies depending on profession or a very human influence.
> For instance, Legal Ethics are disgusting.
Click to expand...


Morality is personal, ethics are social.

Apply the Golden Rule:

Would you want to be granted asylum if you fled a country in turmoil?
Is it ethical for a nation to deny entry to persons fleeing a country in turmoil?


----------



## Unkotare

Wry Catcher said:


> Morality is personal, ethics are social.




Morality is, by definition, universal rather than personal.


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

Unkotare said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morality is personal, ethics are social.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morality is, by definition, universal rather than personal.
Click to expand...


No
​


----------



## Unkotare

Goddess_Ashtara said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morality is personal, ethics are social.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morality is, by definition, universal rather than personal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No
> ​
Click to expand...




By definition.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Unkotare said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morality is personal, ethics are social.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morality is, by definition, universal rather than personal.
Click to expand...


Where do you find morality so defined?


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> Goddess_Ashtara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morality is personal, ethics are social.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morality is, by definition, universal rather than personal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition.
Click to expand...

---
What definition?
You refused to provide a definition of "*morality*".
Once you do that, if you can, then please expand that to "*normative *morality". Or, do you agree with the defs provided by Wry Catcher (for _normative ethics)_?

I assume you learned a little about Ontology in your philosophy classes, right?
.


----------



## PK1

Wry Catcher said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Russian.
> Why can't you answer a simple question?
> Or is it not that simple?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which word don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Which word don't you understand?
> I asked you to complete the following sentence:
> 
> *I define normative "morality" as ...*
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you put morality in quotation marks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot escape the fact that morality is not equal to ethics.
> Morality requires a superhuman or super humanistic basis whilst ethics varies depending on profession or a very human influence.
> For instance, Legal Ethics are disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morality is personal, ethics are social.
> 
> Apply the Golden Rule:
> 
> Would you want to be granted asylum if you fled a country in turmoil?
> Is it ethical for a nation to deny entry to persons fleeing a country in turmoil?
Click to expand...

---
An interesting distinction, which is valuable.
Both reflect natural human "rights", which are both *relative* (from human cultural perspectives) & *ought to be* "universal" within humanity (among h.sapiens).

Then, beyond that, we ought to defend  animal "rights".
.


----------



## Unkotare

Wry Catcher said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morality is personal, ethics are social.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morality is, by definition, universal rather than personal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you find morality so defined?
Click to expand...



That's what the word means. That is the norm, standard, meaning of the word. The point is that moral _relativism_ isn't moral at all (nor is it logical).


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morality is personal, ethics are social.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morality is, by definition, universal rather than personal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you find morality so defined?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the word means. That is the norm, standard, meaning of the word. The point is that moral _relativism_ isn't moral at all (nor is it logical).
Click to expand...

---
You still have not defined what "*moral*" is to you.
Is it an overt behavior?  
A concept representing something real?
A fantasy in your own mind unrelated to reality?
A tautology?
.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morality is personal, ethics are social.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morality is, by definition, universal rather than personal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you find morality so defined?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the word means. That is the norm, standard, meaning of the word. The point is that moral _relativism_ isn't moral at all (nor is it logical).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> You still have not defined what "*moral*" is to you.
> .
Click to expand...



It's not a matter of "to me" or "to you." The word means something, and that something seems to make you very uncomfortable.


----------



## Unkotare

What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.


----------



## Wry Catcher

PK1 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which word don't you understand?
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Which word don't you understand?
> I asked you to complete the following sentence:
> 
> *I define normative "morality" as ...*
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you put morality in quotation marks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot escape the fact that morality is not equal to ethics.
> Morality requires a superhuman or super humanistic basis whilst ethics varies depending on profession or a very human influence.
> For instance, Legal Ethics are disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morality is personal, ethics are social.
> 
> Apply the Golden Rule:
> 
> Would you want to be granted asylum if you fled a country in turmoil?
> Is it ethical for a nation to deny entry to persons fleeing a country in turmoil?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> An interesting distinction, which is valuable.
> Both reflect natural human "rights", which are both *relative* (from human cultural perspectives) & *ought to be* "universal" within humanity (among h.sapiens).
> 
> Then, beyond that, we ought to defend  animal "rights".
> .
Click to expand...


 Passing thought:  The moral equivalence posted by some when the killing of Cecil the Lion for a trophy hit these pages.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Unkotare said:


> What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.



Then post what you hold to be the moral authority.  I pretty much hold to the golden rule, with the caveat, I won't be taken advantage of and I will never turn the other cheek.  I believe in a hard, fast counter punch as morally correct and much more effective in creating change.

A sign of leadership, once & no more, in the Republican Party (speak softly and carry a big stick).


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morality is personal, ethics are social.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morality is, by definition, universal rather than personal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you find morality so defined?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the word means. That is the norm, standard, meaning of the word. The point is that moral _relativism_ isn't moral at all (nor is it logical).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> You still have not defined what "*moral*" is to you.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a matter of "to me" or "to you." The word means something, and that something seems to make you very uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

---
The word means_ "something"?_

Let us know what that is, when you figure it out for yourself.

In the meantime, I believe morality reflects a sense of "*live & let live*" together with a sense of "*fairness*", which the Golden Rule alludes to.

And it should include our respect for and relations with other animal species too, within practical considerations, exclusive of gluttony & greed.

And respecting our planet Earth too.
.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> I believe morality reflects a sense of "*live & let live*"...
> .



That is not what the word means.


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

I understand morality a few different ways.  There is that collective subjective morality which refers to a group's collective subjective perspective of "good" and "evil" or "right" and "wrong", which people often attempt to define as objective, especially when the group comprises of all humanity, or has to do with religion.

Then there is that individual subjective morality which refers to an individual's subjective perspective of "good" and "evil" or "right" and "wrong", whether or not they believe in such things, and regardless of to what extent that perspective has been influenced by collective group thought.

For me personally... terms like "good" and "evil" are often extremely reductive... those words tend to make everything white and black and tend to simplify your Weltanschauung, and imposes drastic limits on how much you can potentially understand about human Nature.  

​


----------



## Unkotare

Fallacy: Relativist Fallacy


Stephen Law: Moral Relativism


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

How do those links have anything to do with what I said?​


----------



## Wry Catcher

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe morality reflects a sense of "*live & let live*"...
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the word means.
Click to expand...


What behavior defines a moral act, an immoral act and an amoral act?

If there exists a test, one able to determine if a law is moral (or ethical) or Immoral or amoral *what source guides us?*  A priest (hardly), a legislator (not likely), our Mom (maybe), a philosopher or our conscience?


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.


---
You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "_*Moral Relativism*_".
If you did, you would understand there is no fallacy with its argument, based on its premise definition of "morality", which represents a variable, not a constant.
Since you refused to supply a definition for "*Normative Morality*", you are the one who is confused of its existence.

1) In your own 1st URL (subsequent post):
_*If there are cases in which truth is actually relative, then such reasoning need not be fallacious.*_

2) In your 2nd URL ref, Dr Zen rebuts:
_*how do you determine what is "morally wrong"? I agree with you about female circumcision, but then I would. But what is your ground for it? Talking about moral rights and wrongs as "matters of fact" is ridiculous. What you wish to say is that our morality is "better". You just don't have the balls to say it without pretending there's an absolute involved.*_
.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe morality reflects a sense of "*live & let live*"...
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the word means.
Click to expand...

---
To help you understand definitions of Morality, here is an opening snipet from a reputable source ...

The term “*morality*” can be used either:
1) _*descriptively*_ to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or ...
2) _*normatively*_ to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I and others here in this thread have provided you with definitions that appear to reflect the above definitions.

So, once again. which definition of "_morality_" are you proposing?
.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "_*Moral Relativism*_"....
> .
Click to expand...



Moral relativism is a fallacy. You don't seem very familiar with logic in general.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe morality reflects a sense of "*live & let live*"...
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the word means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> To help you understand definitions of Morality, here is an opening snipet from a reputable source ...
> 
> The term “*morality*” can be used either:
> 1) _*descriptively*_ to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
> some other group, such as a religion, or
> accepted by an individual for her own behavior or ...
> 2) _*normatively*_ to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
> 
> The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)......
> .
Click to expand...



You copy and paste and still don't understand the terms in use.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "_*Moral Relativism*_"....
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moral relativism is a fallacy. You don't seem very familiar with logic in general.
Click to expand...

---
If a fallacy, then use your logic to provide a *valid argument *to demonstrate the fallacy, including your premises & conclusion.
.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe morality reflects a sense of "*live & let live*"...
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the word means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> To help you understand definitions of Morality, here is an opening snipet from a reputable source ...
> 
> The term “*morality*” can be used either:
> 1) _*descriptively*_ to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
> some other group, such as a religion, or
> accepted by an individual for her own behavior or ...
> 2) _*normatively*_ to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
> 
> The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)......
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You copy and paste and still don't understand the terms in use.
Click to expand...

---
If you cannot explain, then you are the confused one.
.


----------



## PK1

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "_*Moral Relativism*_"....
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moral relativism is a fallacy. You don't seem very familiar with logic in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> If a fallacy, then use your logic to provide a *valid argument *to demonstrate the fallacy, including your premises & conclusion.
> .
Click to expand...

---
I did not realize my simple request to provide a valid *logical* deductive argument would strain the brain of someone who claims to have a Philosophy degree!
.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "_*Moral Relativism*_"....
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moral relativism is a fallacy. You don't seem very familiar with logic in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> If a fallacy, then use your logic to provide a *valid argument *to demonstrate the fallacy, including your premises & conclusion.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I did not realize my simple request to provide a valid *logical* deductive argument would strain the brain of someone who claims to have a Philosophy degree!
> .
Click to expand...



Go buy a book on basic logic (and maybe a dictionary) and then get back to me, kid.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Unkotare said:


> Fallacy: Relativist Fallacy
> 
> 
> Stephen Law: Moral Relativism









*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "_*Moral Relativism*_".
> If you did, you would understand there is no fallacy with its argument, based on its premise definition of "morality", which represents a variable, not a constant.
> Since you refused to supply a definition for "*Normative Morality*", you are the one who is confused of its existence.
> 
> 1) In your own 1st URL (subsequent post):
> _*If there are cases in which truth is actually relative, then such reasoning need not be fallacious.*_
> 
> 2) In your 2nd URL ref, Dr Zen rebuts:
> _*how do you determine what is "morally wrong"? I agree with you about female circumcision, but then I would. But what is your ground for it? Talking about moral rights and wrongs as "matters of fact" is ridiculous. What you wish to say is that our morality is "better". You just don't have the balls to say it without pretending there's an absolute involved.*_
> .
Click to expand...







If you are a moral relativist then neither side of the equation is wrong.

In other words both sides of a dispute over morality are equally moral if a person is a moral relativist.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> Go buy a book on basic logic (and maybe a dictionary) and then get back to me, kid.


---
Diversion tactic = *emotional response*.

Cannot provide logical argument to support your fallacy claim = *intellectual incompetence* .
.


----------



## PK1

Damaged Eagle said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "_*Moral Relativism*_".
> If you did, you would understand there is no fallacy with its argument, based on its premise definition of "morality", which represents a variable, not a constant.
> Since you refused to supply a definition for "*Normative Morality*", you are the one who is confused of its existence.
> 
> 1) In your own 1st URL (subsequent post):
> _*If there are cases in which truth is actually relative, then such reasoning need not be fallacious.*_
> 
> 2) In your 2nd URL ref, Dr Zen rebuts:
> _*how do you determine what is "morally wrong"? I agree with you about female circumcision, but then I would. But what is your ground for it? Talking about moral rights and wrongs as "matters of fact" is ridiculous. What you wish to say is that our morality is "better". You just don't have the balls to say it without pretending there's an absolute involved.*_
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a moral relativist then neither side of the equation is wrong.
> 
> In other words both sides of a dispute over morality are equally moral if a person is a moral relativist.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

---
_"both sides of a dispute over morality are equally moral if a person is a moral relativist."_

Could you provide an example of such a "morality dispute"?
.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

PK1 said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "_*Moral Relativism*_".
> If you did, you would understand there is no fallacy with its argument, based on its premise definition of "morality", which represents a variable, not a constant.
> Since you refused to supply a definition for "*Normative Morality*", you are the one who is confused of its existence.
> 
> 1) In your own 1st URL (subsequent post):
> _*If there are cases in which truth is actually relative, then such reasoning need not be fallacious.*_
> 
> 2) In your 2nd URL ref, Dr Zen rebuts:
> _*how do you determine what is "morally wrong"? I agree with you about female circumcision, but then I would. But what is your ground for it? Talking about moral rights and wrongs as "matters of fact" is ridiculous. What you wish to say is that our morality is "better". You just don't have the balls to say it without pretending there's an absolute involved.*_
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a moral relativist then neither side of the equation is wrong.
> 
> In other words both sides of a dispute over morality are equally moral if a person is a moral relativist.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> _"both sides of a dispute over morality are equally moral if a person is a moral relativist."_
> 
> Could you provide an example of such a "morality dispute"?
> .
Click to expand...






Plenty of them out there pick one.

Just remember that if you're a moral relativist both sides are right...

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## PK1

Damaged Eagle said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "_*Moral Relativism*_".
> If you did, you would understand there is no fallacy with its argument, based on its premise definition of "morality", which represents a variable, not a constant.
> Since you refused to supply a definition for "*Normative Morality*", you are the one who is confused of its existence.
> 
> 1) In your own 1st URL (subsequent post):
> _*If there are cases in which truth is actually relative, then such reasoning need not be fallacious.*_
> 
> 2) In your 2nd URL ref, Dr Zen rebuts:
> _*how do you determine what is "morally wrong"? I agree with you about female circumcision, but then I would. But what is your ground for it? Talking about moral rights and wrongs as "matters of fact" is ridiculous. What you wish to say is that our morality is "better". You just don't have the balls to say it without pretending there's an absolute involved.*_
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a moral relativist then neither side of the equation is wrong.
> 
> In other words both sides of a dispute over morality are equally moral if a person is a moral relativist.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> _"both sides of a dispute over morality are equally moral if a person is a moral relativist."_
> 
> Could you provide an example of such a "morality dispute"?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 55975
> 
> Plenty of them out there pick one.
> 
> Just remember that if you're a moral relativist both sides are right...
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

---
I asked you to pick an example to support your claim.
No can do?
.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

PK1 said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "_*Moral Relativism*_".
> If you did, you would understand there is no fallacy with its argument, based on its premise definition of "morality", which represents a variable, not a constant.
> Since you refused to supply a definition for "*Normative Morality*", you are the one who is confused of its existence.
> 
> 1) In your own 1st URL (subsequent post):
> _*If there are cases in which truth is actually relative, then such reasoning need not be fallacious.*_
> 
> 2) In your 2nd URL ref, Dr Zen rebuts:
> _*how do you determine what is "morally wrong"? I agree with you about female circumcision, but then I would. But what is your ground for it? Talking about moral rights and wrongs as "matters of fact" is ridiculous. What you wish to say is that our morality is "better". You just don't have the balls to say it without pretending there's an absolute involved.*_
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a moral relativist then neither side of the equation is wrong.
> 
> In other words both sides of a dispute over morality are equally moral if a person is a moral relativist.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> _"both sides of a dispute over morality are equally moral if a person is a moral relativist."_
> 
> Could you provide an example of such a "morality dispute"?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 55975
> 
> Plenty of them out there pick one.
> 
> Just remember that if you're a moral relativist both sides are right...
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I asked you to pick an example to support your claim.
> No can do?
> .
Click to expand...







Fine! Then let's do this one...

All mature willing companions should be allowed to marry as they choose because it's neither the governments nor your business... Therefore multiple partner, close relative, and interspecies, marriage should be allowed.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## PK1

Damaged Eagle said:


> Then let's do this one...
> 
> All mature willing companions should be allowed to marry as they choose because it's neither the governments nor your business... Therefore multiple partner, close relative, and interspecies, marriage should be allowed.


---
I view "Moral Relativism" as realistic, flexible, tolerant, and having Normative components.
Therefore, its position needs not reflect your conclusion that _"if you're a moral relativist both sides are right"_.

In your example, I believe it's OK for the mature/responsible individuals to make their own decisions re: who to marry, and the gov should simply record for legal implementations. 
I am a Libertarian, with a "social responsibility" flavor. Ethically, i take the "*Live & Let Live*" position, which has both relative (to each their own) & normative (Golden Rule) features.
Just like the "Nature vs Nurture" debate is senseless (it's usually both), the Normative/Universal vs Relative Morality debate is extreme & unrealistic at both ends.

Back to your example ...
I favor individuals choosing multiple partners if they take responsibility over their children (if they have any), but NOT agree with marriage among close relatives;  two genetically similar adults are more likely to give a child two copies of a defective gene (not fair to the child).
Also, interspecies coupling is difficult to defend; the other species is not likely to understand the relationship's commitments from the human perspective.
.


----------



## Unkotare

In other words, you don't believe in morality at all.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> In other words, you don't believe in morality at all.


---
Of course i do, from MY *rational* perspective.

It's been noted that you have not provided YOUR *definition* of "morality" from YOUR "universal-normative" or whatever-you-want-to-call-it perspective ...
Until you do, you have no logical argument.
.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe in morality at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Of course i do, from MY *rational* perspective.
> 
> It's been noted that you have not provided YOUR *definition* of "morality" from YOUR..... perspective ...
> Until you do, you have no logical argument.
> .
Click to expand...



You don't seem to have the first clue what "logical" means.


It is not a matter of "your definition" or "my definition," fool. Words have meanings; even this word.


----------



## there4eyeM

Anyone capable of thinking should be able to realize that morality, good, bad, etc., are all human terms for human concepts. They exist only in the mind of a human. Fear of our human potential provokes the effort to make rules absolute. Society wants to protect itself from the people who compose it. Nothing more.


----------



## Unkotare

"Nothing more"


----------



## PK1

there4eyeM said:


> Anyone capable of thinking should be able to realize that morality, good, bad, etc., are all human terms for human concepts. They exist only in the mind of a human. Fear of our human potential provokes the effort to make rules absolute. Society wants to protect itself from the people who compose it. Nothing more.


---
Armchair "philosophers" don't have many experiences in the real world.
At least academically, they should take classes in anthropology and other social sciences, esp developmental psychology, to understand what you wrote.
The guy can't even *define* or conceptualize his own thoughts on the subject, and seems dependent on what some others wrote that sounds good to his amygdalae*.*
.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone capable of thinking should be able to realize that morality, good, bad, etc., are all human terms for human concepts. They exist only in the mind of a human. Fear of our human potential provokes the effort to make rules absolute. Society wants to protect itself from the people who compose it. Nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Armchair "philosophers" don't have many experiences in the real world.
> At least academically, they should take classes in anthropology and other social sciences, esp developmental psychology, to understand what you wrote.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



You fail again, kid.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

PK1 said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let's do this one...
> 
> All mature willing companions should be allowed to marry as they choose because it's neither the governments nor your business... Therefore multiple partner, close relative, and interspecies, marriage should be allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I view "Moral Relativism" as realistic, flexible, tolerant, and having Normative components.
> Therefore, its position needs not reflect your conclusion that _"if you're a moral relativist both sides are right"_.
> 
> In your example, I believe it's OK for the mature/responsible individuals to make their own decisions re: who to marry, and the gov should simply record for legal implementations.
> I am a Libertarian, with a "social responsibility" flavor. Ethically, i take the "*Live & Let Live*" position, which has both relative (to each their own) & normative (Golden Rule) features.
> Just like the "Nature vs Nurture" debate is senseless (it's usually both), the Normative/Universal vs Relative Morality debate is extreme & unrealistic at both ends.
> 
> Back to your example ...
> I favor individuals choosing multiple partners if they take responsibility over their children (if they have any), but NOT agree with marriage among close relatives;  two genetically similar adults are more likely to give a child two copies of a defective gene (not fair to the child).
> Also, interspecies coupling is difficult to defend; the other species is not likely to understand the relationship's commitments from the human perspective.
> .
Click to expand...








I see... You want everyone to stay out of everyone else's bedrooms so long as they are only relationships that you approve of... Sort of sounds like what the nuclear heterosexuals wanted until the progressives decided that they should stay out of the bedrooms and marriage rights of homosexuals.

What business is it of yours to judge other relationships if the premise of the homosexual argument was that others should stay out of their bedrooms and business?

Why isn't it the right of all mature willing companions to form relationships as they choose in your little world?

Why do you accept that people with known genetic defects such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, inheritable diabetes, etc,... can marry but in turn you deny those same right to close relatives because of only possible genetic defects?

Do you really believe that 'all people' understand a relationships commitments when they form a marriage vow?

What makes you think that your view of marriage any better than the nuclear heterosexual view if you're going disallow other marriages that are between other mature willing companions?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone capable of thinking should be able to realize that morality, good, bad, etc., are all human terms for human concepts. They exist only in the mind of a human. Fear of our human potential provokes the effort to make rules absolute. Society wants to protect itself from the people who compose it. Nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Armchair "philosophers" don't have many experiences in the real world.
> At least academically, they should take classes in anthropology and other social sciences, esp developmental psychology, to understand what you wrote.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fail again, kid.
Click to expand...

---
Boy, you are full of insight again.

.


----------



## PK1

Damaged Eagle said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let's do this one...
> 
> All mature willing companions should be allowed to marry as they choose because it's neither the governments nor your business... Therefore multiple partner, close relative, and interspecies, marriage should be allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I view "Moral Relativism" as realistic, flexible, tolerant, and having Normative components.
> Therefore, its position needs not reflect your conclusion that _"if you're a moral relativist both sides are right"_.
> 
> In your example, I believe it's OK for the mature/responsible individuals to make their own decisions re: who to marry, and the gov should simply record for legal implementations.
> I am a Libertarian, with a "social responsibility" flavor. Ethically, i take the "*Live & Let Live*" position, which has both relative (to each their own) & normative (Golden Rule) features.
> Just like the "Nature vs Nurture" debate is senseless (it's usually both), the Normative/Universal vs Relative Morality debate is extreme & unrealistic at both ends.
> 
> Back to your example ...
> I favor individuals choosing multiple partners if they take responsibility over their children (if they have any), but NOT agree with marriage among close relatives;  two genetically similar adults are more likely to give a child two copies of a defective gene (not fair to the child).
> Also, interspecies coupling is difficult to defend; the other species is not likely to understand the relationship's commitments from the human perspective.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see... You want everyone to stay out of everyone else's bedrooms so long as they are only relationships that you approve of... Sort of sounds like what the nuclear heterosexuals wanted until the progressives decided that they should stay out of the bedrooms and marriage rights of homosexuals.
> 
> What business is it of yours to judge other relationships if the premise of the homosexual argument was that others should stay out of their bedrooms and business?
> 
> Why isn't it the right of all mature willing companions to form relationships as they choose in your little world?
> 
> Why do you accept that people with known genetic defects such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, inheritable diabetes, etc,... can marry but in turn you deny those same right to close relatives because of only possible genetic defects?
> 
> Do you really believe that 'all people' understand a relationships commitments when they form a marriage vow?
> 
> What makes you think that your view of marriage any better than the nuclear heterosexual view if you're going disallow other marriages that are between other mature willing companions?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

---
_"What business is it of yours to judge ..."_

I responded to your example(s) about moral disputes, and provided rational explanations.
That's what "morality" reflects: *rational judgements*.
I also implied tolerance is a part of my moral relativism; if another culture practices inbreeding _responsibly_, for example, i would not impose my rational *preferences* on them.
However, if another culture killed its members for behaving against its *irrational preferences* (religion), then i would have a moral problem with them.

What are YOUR rational judgements for the examples you provided?
.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone capable of thinking should be able to realize that morality, good, bad, etc., are all human terms for human concepts. They exist only in the mind of a human. Fear of our human potential provokes the effort to make rules absolute. Society wants to protect itself from the people who compose it. Nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Armchair "philosophers" don't have many experiences in the real world.
> At least academically, they should take classes in anthropology and other social sciences, esp developmental psychology, to understand what you wrote.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fail again, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Boy, you are full of insight again.
> 
> .
Click to expand...









What exactly do you need, kid? "Many experiences in the real world," or "academically "?


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone capable of thinking should be able to realize that morality, good, bad, etc., are all human terms for human concepts. They exist only in the mind of a human. Fear of our human potential provokes the effort to make rules absolute. Society wants to protect itself from the people who compose it. Nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Armchair "philosophers" don't have many experiences in the real world.
> At least academically, they should take classes in anthropology and other social sciences, esp developmental psychology, to understand what you wrote.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fail again, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Boy, you are full of insight again.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you need, kid? "Many experiences in the real world," or "academically "?
Click to expand...

---
Let's start with something easy ...
1) Which definition of "morality" do you prefer?
Then, for brownie points ...
2) Provide a logical argument for why it must be universally observed by humans.
.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone capable of thinking should be able to realize that morality, good, bad, etc., are all human terms for human concepts. They exist only in the mind of a human. Fear of our human potential provokes the effort to make rules absolute. Society wants to protect itself from the people who compose it. Nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Armchair "philosophers" don't have many experiences in the real world.
> At least academically, they should take classes in anthropology and other social sciences, esp developmental psychology, to understand what you wrote.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fail again, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Boy, you are full of insight again.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you need, kid? "Many experiences in the real world," or "academically "?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Let's start with something easy ...
> 1) Which definition of "morality" do you prefer?.....
> .
Click to expand...



It means ONE thing. Stop begging for answers until or unless you are willing to grow up and/or demonstrate any capacity to learn.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Armchair "philosophers" don't have many experiences in the real world.
> At least academically, they should take classes in anthropology and other social sciences, esp developmental psychology, to understand what you wrote.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fail again, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Boy, you are full of insight again.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you need, kid? "Many experiences in the real world," or "academically "?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Let's start with something easy ...
> 1) Which definition of "morality" do you prefer?.....
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It means ONE thing. Stop begging for answers until or unless you are willing to grow up and/or demonstrate any capacity to learn.
Click to expand...

---
Why don't you grow up and answer the SIMPLE question?
What is that ONE "thing"?
.


----------



## Igrok_

Moral relativism is very close to the ideology of liberalism, which stands for people since their born are good. So, the more people have freedom, the better conditions of living are in a whole society. Maybe some could hesitate, but for me is obviuos that people are not good and need to be overseed. So, there is no reality which leads to the peoples' wishes. There is only reality which sometimes is against sensivity and comfort living.

The love, which is so adorable for extreme liberals, could hurt a lot. And that is the point!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*"in zugzwang" relatively speaking*


----------



## Damaged Eagle

PK1 said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let's do this one...
> 
> All mature willing companions should be allowed to marry as they choose because it's neither the governments nor your business... Therefore multiple partner, close relative, and interspecies, marriage should be allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I view "Moral Relativism" as realistic, flexible, tolerant, and having Normative components.
> Therefore, its position needs not reflect your conclusion that _"if you're a moral relativist both sides are right"_.
> 
> In your example, I believe it's OK for the mature/responsible individuals to make their own decisions re: who to marry, and the gov should simply record for legal implementations.
> I am a Libertarian, with a "social responsibility" flavor. Ethically, i take the "*Live & Let Live*" position, which has both relative (to each their own) & normative (Golden Rule) features.
> Just like the "Nature vs Nurture" debate is senseless (it's usually both), the Normative/Universal vs Relative Morality debate is extreme & unrealistic at both ends.
> 
> Back to your example ...
> I favor individuals choosing multiple partners if they take responsibility over their children (if they have any), but NOT agree with marriage among close relatives;  two genetically similar adults are more likely to give a child two copies of a defective gene (not fair to the child).
> Also, interspecies coupling is difficult to defend; the other species is not likely to understand the relationship's commitments from the human perspective.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see... You want everyone to stay out of everyone else's bedrooms so long as they are only relationships that you approve of... Sort of sounds like what the nuclear heterosexuals wanted until the progressives decided that they should stay out of the bedrooms and marriage rights of homosexuals.
> 
> What business is it of yours to judge other relationships if the premise of the homosexual argument was that others should stay out of their bedrooms and business?
> 
> Why isn't it the right of all mature willing companions to form relationships as they choose in your little world?
> 
> Why do you accept that people with known genetic defects such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, inheritable diabetes, etc,... can marry but in turn you deny those same right to close relatives because of only possible genetic defects?
> 
> Do you really believe that 'all people' understand a relationships commitments when they form a marriage vow?
> 
> What makes you think that your view of marriage any better than the nuclear heterosexual view if you're going disallow other marriages that are between other mature willing companions?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> _"What business is it of yours to judge ..."_
> 
> I responded to your example(s) about moral disputes, and provided rational explanations.
> That's what "morality" reflects: *rational judgements*.
> I also implied tolerance is a part of my moral relativism; if another culture practices inbreeding _responsibly_, for example, i would not impose my rational *preferences* on them.
> However, if another culture killed its members for behaving against its *irrational preferences* (religion), then i would have a moral problem with them.
> 
> What are YOUR rational judgements for the examples you provided?
> .
Click to expand...







No you haven't. You've evaded the whole issue by implying that multiple partners and close relatives have to be responsible while you've placed no conditions on any currently 'approved' marriages.

Why should any other forms of not currently approved marriage types be held to a higher standard than your 'approved' marriage types?

You hypocrisy is starting to show.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## PK1

Igrok_ said:


> Moral relativism is very close to the ideology of liberalism, which stands for people since their born are good. So, the more people have freedom, the better conditions of living are in a whole society. Maybe some could hesitate, but for me is obviuos that people are not good and need to be overseed. So, there is no reality which leads to the peoples' wishes. There is only reality which sometimes is against sensivity and comfort living.
> 
> The love, which is so adorable for extreme liberals, could hurt a lot. And that is the point!


---
Yes, i agree that liberalism and moral relativism can be compatible.
However, people are not born "good" or "bad". They are born "neutral" with varying temperamental dispositions.
Their psychological development will decide if their learned behavioral patterns are "good/bad" according to their cultures.
.


----------



## PK1

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *"in zugzwang" relatively speaking*


---
LOL. *Zugzwang* may explain Unk's reluctance to provide his definition of morality that "_means ONE thing_" (his words).

Instead of a Japanese name that indicates dripping poop, he should have adopted a handle reflecting anal retentiveness.

.


----------



## PK1

Damaged Eagle said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let's do this one...
> 
> All mature willing companions should be allowed to marry as they choose because it's neither the governments nor your business... Therefore multiple partner, close relative, and interspecies, marriage should be allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I view "Moral Relativism" as realistic, flexible, tolerant, and having Normative components.
> Therefore, its position needs not reflect your conclusion that _"if you're a moral relativist both sides are right"_.
> 
> In your example, I believe it's OK for the mature/responsible individuals to make their own decisions re: who to marry, and the gov should simply record for legal implementations.
> I am a Libertarian, with a "social responsibility" flavor. Ethically, i take the "*Live & Let Live*" position, which has both relative (to each their own) & normative (Golden Rule) features.
> Just like the "Nature vs Nurture" debate is senseless (it's usually both), the Normative/Universal vs Relative Morality debate is extreme & unrealistic at both ends.
> 
> Back to your example ...
> I favor individuals choosing multiple partners if they take responsibility over their children (if they have any), but NOT agree with marriage among close relatives;  two genetically similar adults are more likely to give a child two copies of a defective gene (not fair to the child).
> Also, interspecies coupling is difficult to defend; the other species is not likely to understand the relationship's commitments from the human perspective.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see... You want everyone to stay out of everyone else's bedrooms so long as they are only relationships that you approve of... Sort of sounds like what the nuclear heterosexuals wanted until the progressives decided that they should stay out of the bedrooms and marriage rights of homosexuals.
> 
> What business is it of yours to judge other relationships if the premise of the homosexual argument was that others should stay out of their bedrooms and business?
> 
> Why isn't it the right of all mature willing companions to form relationships as they choose in your little world?
> 
> Why do you accept that people with known genetic defects such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, inheritable diabetes, etc,... can marry but in turn you deny those same right to close relatives because of only possible genetic defects?
> 
> Do you really believe that 'all people' understand a relationships commitments when they form a marriage vow?
> 
> What makes you think that your view of marriage any better than the nuclear heterosexual view if you're going disallow other marriages that are between other mature willing companions?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> _"What business is it of yours to judge ..."_
> 
> I responded to your example(s) about moral disputes, and provided rational explanations.
> That's what "morality" reflects: *rational judgements*.
> I also implied tolerance is a part of my moral relativism; if another culture practices inbreeding _responsibly_, for example, i would not impose my rational *preferences* on them.
> However, if another culture killed its members for behaving against its *irrational preferences* (religion), then i would have a moral problem with them.
> 
> What are YOUR rational judgements for the examples you provided?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you haven't. You've evaded the whole issue by implying that multiple partners and close relatives have to be responsible while you've placed no conditions on any currently 'approved' marriages.
> 
> Why should any other forms of not currently approved marriage types be held to a higher standard than your 'approved' marriage types?
> 
> You hypocrisy is starting to show.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

---
No hypocrisy. No fallacy. Apparently, my consistent "moral relativism" position is difficult to understand, esp for inflexible traditionalists. Therefore, i'll review & elaborate further ...

As i mentioned previously, i take the "*Live & Let Live*" position, with a "*social responsibility*" amendment.
If one lives alone on an island, there's no need for "morality", which is a SOCIAL concept.
Morality reflects social responsibility with *rational judgments*.
Therefore, in a social environment, the "*Let Live*" portion of my definition reflects avoidance of victimization.

In your *marriage* examples, my morality position focuses on the innocent children. Willing adults are free to relate with each other as they wish, but when children are involved, then marriage as a *moral* & *legal* obligation reflects *fairness & protection for minors*.
My morality says a baby "ought" to be born healthy (without maladaptive genetic mutations), and if the couple/society chooses not to abort the mutant, then THEY should take on the responsibility for the child's best development.
IMO, there should be no legal marriage until a child is born or adopted. Otherwise, the childless adults are just "partners".

Therefore, my marriage morality has a Normative component (must take responsibility for child's development), and is tolerant with Relative cultural laws that may or may not allow genetically related couples to reproduce.
.


----------



## PK1

Damaged Eagle said:


> Then let's do this one...
> 
> All mature willing companions should be allowed to marry as they choose because it's neither the governments nor your business... Therefore multiple partner, close relative, and interspecies, marriage should be allowed.


---
Did you answer my Q?
"*What are YOUR rational moral judgments for the examples you provided on marriage?"*
Also, how about putting forward YOUR definition of "morality"?
You & Unk write about what morality is *NOT*, but avoid indicating what it *IS* ...
.


----------



## Igrok_

PK1 said:


> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral relativism is very close to the ideology of liberalism, which stands for people since their born are good. So, the more people have freedom, the better conditions of living are in a whole society. Maybe some could hesitate, but for me is obviuos that people are not good and need to be overseed. So, there is no reality which leads to the peoples' wishes. There is only reality which sometimes is against sensivity and comfort living.
> 
> The love, which is so adorable for extreme liberals, could hurt a lot. And that is the point!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Yes, i agree that liberalism and moral relativism can be compatible.
> However, people are not born "good" or "bad". They are born "neutral" with varying temperamental dispositions.
> Their psychological development will decide if their learned behavioral patterns are "good/bad" according to their cultures.
> .
Click to expand...

so, you approve that for some cultures there is "good" to commit mass murders, don't you? Do you accept if some people will start killing your neighbours only because it is their free choice according to their culture?


----------



## PK1

Igrok_ said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral relativism is very close to the ideology of liberalism, which stands for people since their born are good. So, the more people have freedom, the better conditions of living are in a whole society. Maybe some could hesitate, but for me is obviuos that people are not good and need to be overseed. So, there is no reality which leads to the peoples' wishes. There is only reality which sometimes is against sensivity and comfort living.
> 
> The love, which is so adorable for extreme liberals, could hurt a lot. And that is the point!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Yes, i agree that liberalism and moral relativism can be compatible.
> However, people are not born "good" or "bad". They are born "neutral" with varying temperamental dispositions.
> Their psychological development will decide if their learned behavioral patterns are "good/bad" according to their cultures.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, you approve that for some cultures there is "good" to commit mass murders, don't you? Do you accept if some people will start killing your neighbours only because it is their free choice according to their culture?
Click to expand...

---
Why don't you understand my morality position of "Live and *Let Live*"?
Killing others without *rational* justification is not moral in my book.
Please read my previous posts carefully. Religion, a cultural artifact, is not rational.
.


----------



## Igrok_

PK1 said:


> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral relativism is very close to the ideology of liberalism, which stands for people since their born are good. So, the more people have freedom, the better conditions of living are in a whole society. Maybe some could hesitate, but for me is obviuos that people are not good and need to be overseed. So, there is no reality which leads to the peoples' wishes. There is only reality which sometimes is against sensivity and comfort living.
> 
> The love, which is so adorable for extreme liberals, could hurt a lot. And that is the point!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Yes, i agree that liberalism and moral relativism can be compatible.
> However, people are not born "good" or "bad". They are born "neutral" with varying temperamental dispositions.
> Their psychological development will decide if their learned behavioral patterns are "good/bad" according to their cultures.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, you approve that for some cultures there is "good" to commit mass murders, don't you? Do you accept if some people will start killing your neighbours only because it is their free choice according to their culture?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Why don't you understand my morality position of "Live and *Let Live*"?
> Killing others without *rational* justification is not moral in my book.
> Please read my previous posts carefully. Religion, a cultural artifact, is not rational.
> .
Click to expand...

So, your religion is mind like for other atheists. Look on Northern Corea and Soviet Russia – it was made in the honor of the mind. Tens million were killed because they did not match the rules made up by someone's mind.

Is it not logical to kill people if this could lead to common prosperity? You are killing one and 100 are happy. Very rational, I think.


----------



## PK1

Igrok_ said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral relativism is very close to the ideology of liberalism, which stands for people since their born are good. So, the more people have freedom, the better conditions of living are in a whole society. Maybe some could hesitate, but for me is obviuos that people are not good and need to be overseed. So, there is no reality which leads to the peoples' wishes. There is only reality which sometimes is against sensivity and comfort living.
> 
> The love, which is so adorable for extreme liberals, could hurt a lot. And that is the point!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Yes, i agree that liberalism and moral relativism can be compatible.
> However, people are not born "good" or "bad". They are born "neutral" with varying temperamental dispositions.
> Their psychological development will decide if their learned behavioral patterns are "good/bad" according to their cultures.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, you approve that for some cultures there is "good" to commit mass murders, don't you? Do you accept if some people will start killing your neighbours only because it is their free choice according to their culture?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Why don't you understand my morality position of "Live and *Let Live*"?
> Killing others without *rational* justification is not moral in my book.
> Please read my previous posts carefully. Religion, a cultural artifact, is not rational.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, your religion is mind like for other atheists. Look on Northern Corea and Soviet Russia – it was made in the honor of the mind. Tens million were killed because they did not match the rules made up by someone's mind.
> 
> Is it not logical to kill people if this could lead to common prosperity? You are killing one and 100 are happy. Very rational, I think.
Click to expand...

---
I agree, it could be rational to kill another human; never said otherwise.

I'm more of an AGNOSTIC than atheist; don't believe in ghosts.
I take the scientific approach to knowledge-based beliefs, supported by philosophy of science concepts.

Your references to Soviet Russia & North Korea don't apply to me.
What are your morality rules?
.


----------



## Igrok_

PK1 said:


> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral relativism is very close to the ideology of liberalism, which stands for people since their born are good. So, the more people have freedom, the better conditions of living are in a whole society. Maybe some could hesitate, but for me is obviuos that people are not good and need to be overseed. So, there is no reality which leads to the peoples' wishes. There is only reality which sometimes is against sensivity and comfort living.
> 
> The love, which is so adorable for extreme liberals, could hurt a lot. And that is the point!
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Yes, i agree that liberalism and moral relativism can be compatible.
> However, people are not born "good" or "bad". They are born "neutral" with varying temperamental dispositions.
> Their psychological development will decide if their learned behavioral patterns are "good/bad" according to their cultures.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, you approve that for some cultures there is "good" to commit mass murders, don't you? Do you accept if some people will start killing your neighbours only because it is their free choice according to their culture?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Why don't you understand my morality position of "Live and *Let Live*"?
> Killing others without *rational* justification is not moral in my book.
> Please read my previous posts carefully. Religion, a cultural artifact, is not rational.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, your religion is mind like for other atheists. Look on Northern Corea and Soviet Russia – it was made in the honor of the mind. Tens million were killed because they did not match the rules made up by someone's mind.
> 
> Is it not logical to kill people if this could lead to common prosperity? You are killing one and 100 are happy. Very rational, I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I agree, it could be rational to kill another human; never said otherwise.
> 
> I'm more of an AGNOSTIC than atheist; don't believe in ghosts.
> I take the scientific approach to knowledge-based beliefs, supported by philosophy of science concepts.
> 
> Your references to Soviet Russia & North Korea don't apply to me.
> What are your morality rules?
> .
Click to expand...

i am orthodox christian

don't believe in ghosts too.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

PK1 said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let's do this one...
> 
> All mature willing companions should be allowed to marry as they choose because it's neither the governments nor your business... Therefore multiple partner, close relative, and interspecies, marriage should be allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I view "Moral Relativism" as realistic, flexible, tolerant, and having Normative components.
> Therefore, its position needs not reflect your conclusion that _"if you're a moral relativist both sides are right"_.
> 
> In your example, I believe it's OK for the mature/responsible individuals to make their own decisions re: who to marry, and the gov should simply record for legal implementations.
> I am a Libertarian, with a "social responsibility" flavor. Ethically, i take the "*Live & Let Live*" position, which has both relative (to each their own) & normative (Golden Rule) features.
> Just like the "Nature vs Nurture" debate is senseless (it's usually both), the Normative/Universal vs Relative Morality debate is extreme & unrealistic at both ends.
> 
> Back to your example ...
> I favor individuals choosing multiple partners if they take responsibility over their children (if they have any), but NOT agree with marriage among close relatives;  two genetically similar adults are more likely to give a child two copies of a defective gene (not fair to the child).
> Also, interspecies coupling is difficult to defend; the other species is not likely to understand the relationship's commitments from the human perspective.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see... You want everyone to stay out of everyone else's bedrooms so long as they are only relationships that you approve of... Sort of sounds like what the nuclear heterosexuals wanted until the progressives decided that they should stay out of the bedrooms and marriage rights of homosexuals.
> 
> What business is it of yours to judge other relationships if the premise of the homosexual argument was that others should stay out of their bedrooms and business?
> 
> Why isn't it the right of all mature willing companions to form relationships as they choose in your little world?
> 
> Why do you accept that people with known genetic defects such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, inheritable diabetes, etc,... can marry but in turn you deny those same right to close relatives because of only possible genetic defects?
> 
> Do you really believe that 'all people' understand a relationships commitments when they form a marriage vow?
> 
> What makes you think that your view of marriage any better than the nuclear heterosexual view if you're going disallow other marriages that are between other mature willing companions?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> _"What business is it of yours to judge ..."_
> 
> I responded to your example(s) about moral disputes, and provided rational explanations.
> That's what "morality" reflects: *rational judgements*.
> I also implied tolerance is a part of my moral relativism; if another culture practices inbreeding _responsibly_, for example, i would not impose my rational *preferences* on them.
> However, if another culture killed its members for behaving against its *irrational preferences* (religion), then i would have a moral problem with them.
> 
> What are YOUR rational judgements for the examples you provided?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you haven't. You've evaded the whole issue by implying that multiple partners and close relatives have to be responsible while you've placed no conditions on any currently 'approved' marriages.
> 
> Why should any other forms of not currently approved marriage types be held to a higher standard than your 'approved' marriage types?
> 
> You hypocrisy is starting to show.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> No hypocrisy. No fallacy. Apparently, my consistent "moral relativism" position is difficult to understand, esp for inflexible traditionalists. Therefore, i'll review & elaborate further ...
> 
> As i mentioned previously, i take the "*Live & Let Live*" position, with a "*social responsibility*" amendment.
> If one lives alone on an island, there's no need for "morality", which is a SOCIAL concept.
> Morality reflects social responsibility with *rational judgments*.
> Therefore, in a social environment, the "*Let Live*" portion of my definition reflects avoidance of victimization.
> 
> In your *marriage* examples, my morality position focuses on the innocent children. Willing adults are free to relate with each other as they wish, but when children are involved, then marriage as a *moral* & *legal* obligation reflects *fairness & protection for minors*.
> My morality says a baby "ought" to be born healthy (without maladaptive genetic mutations), and if the couple/society chooses not to abort the mutant, then THEY should take on the responsibility for the child's best development.
> IMO, there should be no legal marriage until a child is born or adopted. Otherwise, the childless adults are just "partners".
> 
> Therefore, my marriage morality has a Normative component (must take responsibility for child's development), and is tolerant with Relative cultural laws that may or may not allow genetically related couples to reproduce.
> .
Click to expand...








All I see in you is another hypocritical bigot who wants to change where the bar is set because it suits his standards even though it doesn't match the arguments he utilizes to justify his beliefs.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## PK1

Igrok_ said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Yes, i agree that liberalism and moral relativism can be compatible.
> However, people are not born "good" or "bad". They are born "neutral" with varying temperamental dispositions.
> Their psychological development will decide if their learned behavioral patterns are "good/bad" according to their cultures.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> so, you approve that for some cultures there is "good" to commit mass murders, don't you? Do you accept if some people will start killing your neighbours only because it is their free choice according to their culture?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Why don't you understand my morality position of "Live and *Let Live*"?
> Killing others without *rational* justification is not moral in my book.
> Please read my previous posts carefully. Religion, a cultural artifact, is not rational.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, your religion is mind like for other atheists. Look on Northern Corea and Soviet Russia – it was made in the honor of the mind. Tens million were killed because they did not match the rules made up by someone's mind.
> 
> Is it not logical to kill people if this could lead to common prosperity? You are killing one and 100 are happy. Very rational, I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I agree, it could be rational to kill another human; never said otherwise.
> 
> I'm more of an AGNOSTIC than atheist; don't believe in ghosts.
> I take the scientific approach to knowledge-based beliefs, supported by philosophy of science concepts.
> 
> Your references to Soviet Russia & North Korea don't apply to me.
> What are your morality rules?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am orthodox christian
> 
> don't believe in ghosts too.
Click to expand...

---
Русская Православная Церковь?
I attended this orthodox church in my youth, before discovering critical thinking methods, and then i rejected dogma.
Don't Christians believe in the "Holy Ghost", including orthodox adherents?
.


----------



## PK1

Damaged Eagle said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I view "Moral Relativism" as realistic, flexible, tolerant, and having Normative components.
> Therefore, its position needs not reflect your conclusion that _"if you're a moral relativist both sides are right"_.
> 
> In your example, I believe it's OK for the mature/responsible individuals to make their own decisions re: who to marry, and the gov should simply record for legal implementations.
> I am a Libertarian, with a "social responsibility" flavor. Ethically, i take the "*Live & Let Live*" position, which has both relative (to each their own) & normative (Golden Rule) features.
> Just like the "Nature vs Nurture" debate is senseless (it's usually both), the Normative/Universal vs Relative Morality debate is extreme & unrealistic at both ends.
> 
> Back to your example ...
> I favor individuals choosing multiple partners if they take responsibility over their children (if they have any), but NOT agree with marriage among close relatives;  two genetically similar adults are more likely to give a child two copies of a defective gene (not fair to the child).
> Also, interspecies coupling is difficult to defend; the other species is not likely to understand the relationship's commitments from the human perspective.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I see... You want everyone to stay out of everyone else's bedrooms so long as they are only relationships that you approve of... Sort of sounds like what the nuclear heterosexuals wanted until the progressives decided that they should stay out of the bedrooms and marriage rights of homosexuals.
> 
> What business is it of yours to judge other relationships if the premise of the homosexual argument was that others should stay out of their bedrooms and business?
> 
> Why isn't it the right of all mature willing companions to form relationships as they choose in your little world?
> 
> Why do you accept that people with known genetic defects such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, inheritable diabetes, etc,... can marry but in turn you deny those same right to close relatives because of only possible genetic defects?
> 
> Do you really believe that 'all people' understand a relationships commitments when they form a marriage vow?
> 
> What makes you think that your view of marriage any better than the nuclear heterosexual view if you're going disallow other marriages that are between other mature willing companions?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> _"What business is it of yours to judge ..."_
> 
> I responded to your example(s) about moral disputes, and provided rational explanations.
> That's what "morality" reflects: *rational judgements*.
> I also implied tolerance is a part of my moral relativism; if another culture practices inbreeding _responsibly_, for example, i would not impose my rational *preferences* on them.
> However, if another culture killed its members for behaving against its *irrational preferences* (religion), then i would have a moral problem with them.
> 
> What are YOUR rational judgements for the examples you provided?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you haven't. You've evaded the whole issue by implying that multiple partners and close relatives have to be responsible while you've placed no conditions on any currently 'approved' marriages.
> 
> Why should any other forms of not currently approved marriage types be held to a higher standard than your 'approved' marriage types?
> 
> You hypocrisy is starting to show.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> No hypocrisy. No fallacy. Apparently, my consistent "moral relativism" position is difficult to understand, esp for inflexible traditionalists. Therefore, i'll review & elaborate further ...
> 
> As i mentioned previously, i take the "*Live & Let Live*" position, with a "*social responsibility*" amendment.
> If one lives alone on an island, there's no need for "morality", which is a SOCIAL concept.
> Morality reflects social responsibility with *rational judgments*.
> Therefore, in a social environment, the "*Let Live*" portion of my definition reflects avoidance of victimization.
> 
> In your *marriage* examples, my morality position focuses on the innocent children. Willing adults are free to relate with each other as they wish, but when children are involved, then marriage as a *moral* & *legal* obligation reflects *fairness & protection for minors*.
> My morality says a baby "ought" to be born healthy (without maladaptive genetic mutations), and if the couple/society chooses not to abort the mutant, then THEY should take on the responsibility for the child's best development.
> IMO, there should be no legal marriage until a child is born or adopted. Otherwise, the childless adults are just "partners".
> 
> Therefore, my marriage morality has a Normative component (must take responsibility for child's development), and is tolerant with Relative cultural laws that may or may not allow genetically related couples to reproduce.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All I see in you is another hypocritical bigot who wants to change where the bar is set because it suits his standards even though it doesn't match the arguments he utilizes to justify his beliefs.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

---
Sorry, your response had no philosophical value and no *specific* constructive criticism.
Only an emotional rant.

*****CHUCKLE likewise*****
.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

PK1 said:


> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, you approve that for some cultures there is "good" to commit mass murders, don't you? Do you accept if some people will start killing your neighbours only because it is their free choice according to their culture?
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Why don't you understand my morality position of "Live and *Let Live*"?
> Killing others without *rational* justification is not moral in my book.
> Please read my previous posts carefully. Religion, a cultural artifact, is not rational.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, your religion is mind like for other atheists. Look on Northern Corea and Soviet Russia – it was made in the honor of the mind. Tens million were killed because they did not match the rules made up by someone's mind.
> 
> Is it not logical to kill people if this could lead to common prosperity? You are killing one and 100 are happy. Very rational, I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I agree, it could be rational to kill another human; never said otherwise.
> 
> I'm more of an AGNOSTIC than atheist; don't believe in ghosts.
> I take the scientific approach to knowledge-based beliefs, supported by philosophy of science concepts.
> 
> Your references to Soviet Russia & North Korea don't apply to me.
> What are your morality rules?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am orthodox christian
> 
> don't believe in ghosts too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Русская Православная Церковь?
> I attended this orthodox church in my youth, before discovering critical thinking methods, and then i rejected dogma.
Click to expand...


I might believe the former assentation about the Orthodox thingee however I don't believe the latter one since all you're using is the liberal handbook of 'What To Believe And Say As A Liberal'.



PK1 said:


> Don't Christians believe in the "Holy Ghost", including orthodox adherents?
> .








Where did I say I was Christian?

Is this another bigoted assumption on your part?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## dblack

The important question is whether moral should be enforced by law.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

PK1 said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see... You want everyone to stay out of everyone else's bedrooms so long as they are only relationships that you approve of... Sort of sounds like what the nuclear heterosexuals wanted until the progressives decided that they should stay out of the bedrooms and marriage rights of homosexuals.
> 
> What business is it of yours to judge other relationships if the premise of the homosexual argument was that others should stay out of their bedrooms and business?
> 
> Why isn't it the right of all mature willing companions to form relationships as they choose in your little world?
> 
> Why do you accept that people with known genetic defects such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, inheritable diabetes, etc,... can marry but in turn you deny those same right to close relatives because of only possible genetic defects?
> 
> Do you really believe that 'all people' understand a relationships commitments when they form a marriage vow?
> 
> What makes you think that your view of marriage any better than the nuclear heterosexual view if you're going disallow other marriages that are between other mature willing companions?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> _"What business is it of yours to judge ..."_
> 
> I responded to your example(s) about moral disputes, and provided rational explanations.
> That's what "morality" reflects: *rational judgements*.
> I also implied tolerance is a part of my moral relativism; if another culture practices inbreeding _responsibly_, for example, i would not impose my rational *preferences* on them.
> However, if another culture killed its members for behaving against its *irrational preferences* (religion), then i would have a moral problem with them.
> 
> What are YOUR rational judgements for the examples you provided?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you haven't. You've evaded the whole issue by implying that multiple partners and close relatives have to be responsible while you've placed no conditions on any currently 'approved' marriages.
> 
> Why should any other forms of not currently approved marriage types be held to a higher standard than your 'approved' marriage types?
> 
> You hypocrisy is starting to show.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> No hypocrisy. No fallacy. Apparently, my consistent "moral relativism" position is difficult to understand, esp for inflexible traditionalists. Therefore, i'll review & elaborate further ...
> 
> As i mentioned previously, i take the "*Live & Let Live*" position, with a "*social responsibility*" amendment.
> If one lives alone on an island, there's no need for "morality", which is a SOCIAL concept.
> Morality reflects social responsibility with *rational judgments*.
> Therefore, in a social environment, the "*Let Live*" portion of my definition reflects avoidance of victimization.
> 
> In your *marriage* examples, my morality position focuses on the innocent children. Willing adults are free to relate with each other as they wish, but when children are involved, then marriage as a *moral* & *legal* obligation reflects *fairness & protection for minors*.
> My morality says a baby "ought" to be born healthy (without maladaptive genetic mutations), and if the couple/society chooses not to abort the mutant, then THEY should take on the responsibility for the child's best development.
> IMO, there should be no legal marriage until a child is born or adopted. Otherwise, the childless adults are just "partners".
> 
> Therefore, my marriage morality has a Normative component (must take responsibility for child's development), and is tolerant with Relative cultural laws that may or may not allow genetically related couples to reproduce.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All I see in you is another hypocritical bigot who wants to change where the bar is set because it suits his standards even though it doesn't match the arguments he utilizes to justify his beliefs.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Sorry, your response had no philosophical value and no *specific* constructive criticism.
> Only an emotional rant.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE likewise*****
> .
Click to expand...







No! That would be the arguments you've used to deny others the same rights for other marriage arrangements even though they meet the criteria you use to justify SSM (Same Sex Marriage).

As I stated... You are a hypocritical bigot.

Your critical thinking skills come right out of the Progressive Handbook of how to parrot a talking point against a far right conservative.

It doesn't teach you how to deal with a independent with a conservative lean, such as myself, who does know how to think critically and make you look like the hypocritical bigot you truly are.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## PK1

Damaged Eagle said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Why don't you understand my morality position of "Live and *Let Live*"?
> Killing others without *rational* justification is not moral in my book.
> Please read my previous posts carefully. Religion, a cultural artifact, is not rational.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> So, your religion is mind like for other atheists. Look on Northern Corea and Soviet Russia – it was made in the honor of the mind. Tens million were killed because they did not match the rules made up by someone's mind.
> 
> Is it not logical to kill people if this could lead to common prosperity? You are killing one and 100 are happy. Very rational, I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I agree, it could be rational to kill another human; never said otherwise.
> 
> I'm more of an AGNOSTIC than atheist; don't believe in ghosts.
> I take the scientific approach to knowledge-based beliefs, supported by philosophy of science concepts.
> 
> Your references to Soviet Russia & North Korea don't apply to me.
> What are your morality rules?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am orthodox christian
> 
> don't believe in ghosts too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Русская Православная Церковь?
> I attended this orthodox church in my youth, before discovering critical thinking methods, and then i rejected dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I might believe the former assentation about the Orthodox thingee however I don't believe the latter one since all you're using is the liberal handbook of 'What To Believe And Say As A Liberal'.
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't Christians believe in the "Holy Ghost", including orthodox adherents?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say I was Christian?
> 
> Is this another bigoted assumption on your part?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

---
I was not addressing my comments about orthodox Christianity to you, so please calm down.

.


----------



## PK1

Damaged Eagle said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> _"What business is it of yours to judge ..."_
> 
> I responded to your example(s) about moral disputes, and provided rational explanations.
> That's what "morality" reflects: *rational judgements*.
> I also implied tolerance is a part of my moral relativism; if another culture practices inbreeding _responsibly_, for example, i would not impose my rational *preferences* on them.
> However, if another culture killed its members for behaving against its *irrational preferences* (religion), then i would have a moral problem with them.
> 
> What are YOUR rational judgements for the examples you provided?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't. You've evaded the whole issue by implying that multiple partners and close relatives have to be responsible while you've placed no conditions on any currently 'approved' marriages.
> 
> Why should any other forms of not currently approved marriage types be held to a higher standard than your 'approved' marriage types?
> 
> You hypocrisy is starting to show.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> No hypocrisy. No fallacy. Apparently, my consistent "moral relativism" position is difficult to understand, esp for inflexible traditionalists. Therefore, i'll review & elaborate further ...
> 
> As i mentioned previously, i take the "*Live & Let Live*" position, with a "*social responsibility*" amendment.
> If one lives alone on an island, there's no need for "morality", which is a SOCIAL concept.
> Morality reflects social responsibility with *rational judgments*.
> Therefore, in a social environment, the "*Let Live*" portion of my definition reflects avoidance of victimization.
> 
> In your *marriage* examples, my morality position focuses on the innocent children. Willing adults are free to relate with each other as they wish, but when children are involved, then marriage as a *moral* & *legal* obligation reflects *fairness & protection for minors*.
> My morality says a baby "ought" to be born healthy (without maladaptive genetic mutations), and if the couple/society chooses not to abort the mutant, then THEY should take on the responsibility for the child's best development.
> IMO, there should be no legal marriage until a child is born or adopted. Otherwise, the childless adults are just "partners".
> 
> Therefore, my marriage morality has a Normative component (must take responsibility for child's development), and is tolerant with Relative cultural laws that may or may not allow genetically related couples to reproduce.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All I see in you is another hypocritical bigot who wants to change where the bar is set because it suits his standards even though it doesn't match the arguments he utilizes to justify his beliefs.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Sorry, your response had no philosophical value and no *specific* constructive criticism.
> Only an emotional rant.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE likewise*****
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No! That would be the arguments you've used to deny others the same rights for other marriage arrangements even though they meet the criteria you use to justify SSM (Same Sex Marriage).
> 
> As I stated... You are a hypocritical bigot.
> 
> Your critical thinking skills come right out of the Progressive Handbook of how to parrot a talking point against a far right conservative.
> 
> It doesn't teach you how to deal with a independent with a conservative lean, such as myself, who does know how to think critically and make you look like the hypocritical bigot you truly are.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

---
Apparently, you don't read very carefully & jump to conclusions.
I think independently, so if my thoughts reflect a liberal or conservative group, then i honor them.

I don't deny anyone rights if their behavior does not victimize others.
Please be *specific* where you believe i am a _"hypocritical bigot_".

I noticed you have not provided your definition of "*morality*". How come?

.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

PK1 said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't. You've evaded the whole issue by implying that multiple partners and close relatives have to be responsible while you've placed no conditions on any currently 'approved' marriages.
> 
> Why should any other forms of not currently approved marriage types be held to a higher standard than your 'approved' marriage types?
> 
> You hypocrisy is starting to show.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> No hypocrisy. No fallacy. Apparently, my consistent "moral relativism" position is difficult to understand, esp for inflexible traditionalists. Therefore, i'll review & elaborate further ...
> 
> As i mentioned previously, i take the "*Live & Let Live*" position, with a "*social responsibility*" amendment.
> If one lives alone on an island, there's no need for "morality", which is a SOCIAL concept.
> Morality reflects social responsibility with *rational judgments*.
> Therefore, in a social environment, the "*Let Live*" portion of my definition reflects avoidance of victimization.
> 
> In your *marriage* examples, my morality position focuses on the innocent children. Willing adults are free to relate with each other as they wish, but when children are involved, then marriage as a *moral* & *legal* obligation reflects *fairness & protection for minors*.
> My morality says a baby "ought" to be born healthy (without maladaptive genetic mutations), and if the couple/society chooses not to abort the mutant, then THEY should take on the responsibility for the child's best development.
> IMO, there should be no legal marriage until a child is born or adopted. Otherwise, the childless adults are just "partners".
> 
> Therefore, my marriage morality has a Normative component (must take responsibility for child's development), and is tolerant with Relative cultural laws that may or may not allow genetically related couples to reproduce.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All I see in you is another hypocritical bigot who wants to change where the bar is set because it suits his standards even though it doesn't match the arguments he utilizes to justify his beliefs.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Sorry, your response had no philosophical value and no *specific* constructive criticism.
> Only an emotional rant.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE likewise*****
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No! That would be the arguments you've used to deny others the same rights for other marriage arrangements even though they meet the criteria you use to justify SSM (Same Sex Marriage).
> 
> As I stated... You are a hypocritical bigot.
> 
> Your critical thinking skills come right out of the Progressive Handbook of how to parrot a talking point against a far right conservative.
> 
> It doesn't teach you how to deal with a independent with a conservative lean, such as myself, who does know how to think critically and make you look like the hypocritical bigot you truly are.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Apparently, you don't read very carefully & jump to conclusions.
> I think independently, so if my thoughts reflect a liberal or conservative group, then i honor them.
> 
> I don't deny anyone rights if their behavior does not victimize others.
> Please be *specific* where you believe i am a _"hypocritical bigot_".
> 
> I noticed you have not provided your definition of "*morality*". How come?
> 
> .
Click to expand...






I'll apologize for the not noting on that post who you were replying to since I'm a little tired. However...

You deny close relatives the right to marry while continuing to not speak out against other people with known genetic defects who are allowed to marry.

I have no reason to provide a definition of my morality since you've already proven that you're nothing but a hypocrite who uses his Progressive Handbook to do his critical thinking.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## ogibillm

Unkotare said:


> Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
> 
> I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.


actually it would seem the culture that doesn't employ moral relativism is the one implying it's infallible


----------



## PK1

Damaged Eagle said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> No hypocrisy. No fallacy. Apparently, my consistent "moral relativism" position is difficult to understand, esp for inflexible traditionalists. Therefore, i'll review & elaborate further ...
> 
> As i mentioned previously, i take the "*Live & Let Live*" position, with a "*social responsibility*" amendment.
> If one lives alone on an island, there's no need for "morality", which is a SOCIAL concept.
> Morality reflects social responsibility with *rational judgments*.
> Therefore, in a social environment, the "*Let Live*" portion of my definition reflects avoidance of victimization.
> 
> In your *marriage* examples, my morality position focuses on the innocent children. Willing adults are free to relate with each other as they wish, but when children are involved, then marriage as a *moral* & *legal* obligation reflects *fairness & protection for minors*.
> My morality says a baby "ought" to be born healthy (without maladaptive genetic mutations), and if the couple/society chooses not to abort the mutant, then THEY should take on the responsibility for the child's best development.
> IMO, there should be no legal marriage until a child is born or adopted. Otherwise, the childless adults are just "partners".
> 
> Therefore, my marriage morality has a Normative component (must take responsibility for child's development), and is tolerant with Relative cultural laws that may or may not allow genetically related couples to reproduce.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> All I see in you is another hypocritical bigot who wants to change where the bar is set because it suits his standards even though it doesn't match the arguments he utilizes to justify his beliefs.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Sorry, your response had no philosophical value and no *specific* constructive criticism.
> Only an emotional rant.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE likewise*****
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No! That would be the arguments you've used to deny others the same rights for other marriage arrangements even though they meet the criteria you use to justify SSM (Same Sex Marriage).
> 
> As I stated... You are a hypocritical bigot.
> 
> Your critical thinking skills come right out of the Progressive Handbook of how to parrot a talking point against a far right conservative.
> 
> It doesn't teach you how to deal with a independent with a conservative lean, such as myself, who does know how to think critically and make you look like the hypocritical bigot you truly are.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Apparently, you don't read very carefully & jump to conclusions.
> I think independently, so if my thoughts reflect a liberal or conservative group, then i honor them.
> 
> I don't deny anyone rights if their behavior does not victimize others.
> Please be *specific* where you believe i am a _"hypocritical bigot_".
> 
> I noticed you have not provided your definition of "*morality*". How come?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll apologize for the not noting on that post who you were replying to since I'm a little tired. However...
> 
> You deny close relatives the right to marry while continuing to not speak out against other people with known genetic defects who are allowed to marry.
> 
> I have no reason to provide a definition of my morality since you've already proven that you're nothing but a hypocrite who uses his Progressive Handbook to do his critical thinking.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

---
What don't you understand about my morality reflecting anti-victimization?

In the case of marriage *and* children, i don't think an innocent baby should start its life *deformed*, whether born from genetically-related parents *or* from a parent with a genetic defect.
If both, then the baby has double chance of being deformed.
HOWEVER, if the adults/culture take rational precautions in their reproductive activities (genetic analysis or embryo testing) and abort any "mistake" (deformed fetus/embryo) or take FULL responsibility in raising that mutant, then my tolerant morality says "OK".
Why would you disagree?
Why are you afraid of providing your definition or views on morality?

.


----------



## PK1

ogibillm said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
> 
> I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.
> 
> 
> 
> actually it would seem the culture that doesn't employ moral relativism is the one implying it's infallible
Click to expand...

---
Good luck in seeing Unk provide any rational *explanation*!
He can't even define/explain his normative version of morality.
The best he can do is to say _"it's ONE Thing"_.
.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

PK1 said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I see in you is another hypocritical bigot who wants to change where the bar is set because it suits his standards even though it doesn't match the arguments he utilizes to justify his beliefs.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Sorry, your response had no philosophical value and no *specific* constructive criticism.
> Only an emotional rant.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE likewise*****
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No! That would be the arguments you've used to deny others the same rights for other marriage arrangements even though they meet the criteria you use to justify SSM (Same Sex Marriage).
> 
> As I stated... You are a hypocritical bigot.
> 
> Your critical thinking skills come right out of the Progressive Handbook of how to parrot a talking point against a far right conservative.
> 
> It doesn't teach you how to deal with a independent with a conservative lean, such as myself, who does know how to think critically and make you look like the hypocritical bigot you truly are.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Apparently, you don't read very carefully & jump to conclusions.
> I think independently, so if my thoughts reflect a liberal or conservative group, then i honor them.
> 
> I don't deny anyone rights if their behavior does not victimize others.
> Please be *specific* where you believe i am a _"hypocritical bigot_".
> 
> I noticed you have not provided your definition of "*morality*". How come?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll apologize for the not noting on that post who you were replying to since I'm a little tired. However...
> 
> You deny close relatives the right to marry while continuing to not speak out against other people with known genetic defects who are allowed to marry.
> 
> I have no reason to provide a definition of my morality since you've already proven that you're nothing but a hypocrite who uses his Progressive Handbook to do his critical thinking.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> What don't you understand about my morality reflecting anti-victimization?
> 
> In the case of marriage *and* children, i don't think an innocent baby should start its life *deformed*, whether born from genetically-related parents *or* from a parent with a genetic defect.
> If both, then the baby has double chance of being deformed.
> HOWEVER, if the adults/culture take rational precautions in their reproductive activities (genetic analysis or embryo testing) and abort any "mistake" (deformed fetus/embryo) or take FULL responsibility in raising that mutant, then my tolerant morality says "OK".
> Why would you disagree?
> Why are you afraid of providing your definition or views on morality?
> 
> .
Click to expand...







So now you're saying that people who have genetic abnormalities should not be allowed to reproduce... I'm sure the Navajo Nation will appreciate your views. Shall we round them all up and sterilize them to fit with your aggressive stance on child protection since half the Navajo's have diabetes and the other half most likely are carriers of the genetic inheritable diabetes defect? Can we prosecute you for Hate Crimes afterwards since now you've decided that a whole minority group is pretty much not worthy of reproducing? How about black people with Sickle Cell? Is Lactose Intolerance on your list of genetic defects? That last one should pretty much wipe out the Asian population of the world.

If you must know... I'm a Constitutional conservative and so far you've been failing the test.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
> 
> I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.
> 
> 
> 
> actually it would seem the culture that doesn't employ moral relativism is the one implying it's infallible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Good luck in seeing Unk provide any rational *explanation*!
> He can't even define/explain his normative version of morality.
> The best he can do is to say _"it's ONE Thing"_.
> .
Click to expand...



This is why you have to sit at the kiddie table.


----------



## Coloradomtnman

Unkotare said:


> Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
> 
> I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.



If morality is objective, then how would one know that?

Some find homosexuality immoral; others do not.  Which is the moral position and how do you know it is?  How do others disagree with your objectively moral position?  Are they sociopaths?  Are they all morally handicapped?  Or, does everyone try to be moral and follow what they perceive to be moral and it doesn't all work out the same because morality is subjective?


----------



## PK1

Damaged Eagle said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Sorry, your response had no philosophical value and no *specific* constructive criticism.
> Only an emotional rant.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE likewise*****
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No! That would be the arguments you've used to deny others the same rights for other marriage arrangements even though they meet the criteria you use to justify SSM (Same Sex Marriage).
> 
> As I stated... You are a hypocritical bigot.
> 
> Your critical thinking skills come right out of the Progressive Handbook of how to parrot a talking point against a far right conservative.
> 
> It doesn't teach you how to deal with a independent with a conservative lean, such as myself, who does know how to think critically and make you look like the hypocritical bigot you truly are.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Apparently, you don't read very carefully & jump to conclusions.
> I think independently, so if my thoughts reflect a liberal or conservative group, then i honor them.
> 
> I don't deny anyone rights if their behavior does not victimize others.
> Please be *specific* where you believe i am a _"hypocritical bigot_".
> 
> I noticed you have not provided your definition of "*morality*". How come?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll apologize for the not noting on that post who you were replying to since I'm a little tired. However...
> 
> You deny close relatives the right to marry while continuing to not speak out against other people with known genetic defects who are allowed to marry.
> 
> I have no reason to provide a definition of my morality since you've already proven that you're nothing but a hypocrite who uses his Progressive Handbook to do his critical thinking.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> What don't you understand about my morality reflecting anti-victimization?
> 
> In the case of marriage *and* children, i don't think an innocent baby should start its life *deformed*, whether born from genetically-related parents *or* from a parent with a genetic defect.
> If both, then the baby has double chance of being deformed.
> HOWEVER, if the adults/culture take rational precautions in their reproductive activities (genetic analysis or embryo testing) and abort any "mistake" (deformed fetus/embryo) or take FULL responsibility in raising that mutant, then my tolerant morality says "OK".
> Why would you disagree?
> Why are you afraid of providing your definition or views on morality?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you're saying that people who have genetic abnormalities should not be allowed to reproduce... I'm sure the Navajo Nation will appreciate your views. Shall we round them all up and sterilize them to fit with your aggressive stance on child protection since half the Navajo's have diabetes and the other half most likely are carriers of the genetic inheritable diabetes defect? Can we prosecute you for Hate Crimes afterwards since now you've decided that a whole minority group is pretty much not worthy of reproducing? How about black people with Sickle Cell? Is Lactose Intolerance on your list of genetic defects? That last one should pretty much wipe out the Asian population of the world.
> 
> If you must know... I'm a Constitutional conservative and so far you've been failing the test.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

---
Again you misread what i wrote, and then you salt it with extremism.
I clearly stated that if the adults take FULL responsibility in preparing for and raising their offspring, then i'm OK with that. Otherwise, i'm not OK with innocent kids being victimized by irresponsible adults/parents.

Again you fail to provide your definition of morality.
As a "_Constitutional conservative_", you must be for SSM. What else does that mean re: morality examples?
.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
> 
> I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.
> 
> 
> 
> actually it would seem the culture that doesn't employ moral relativism is the one implying it's infallible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Good luck in seeing Unk provide any rational *explanation*!
> He can't even define/explain his normative version of morality.
> The best he can do is to say _"it's ONE Thing"_.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is why you have to sit at the kiddie table.
Click to expand...

---
Is that where you have been lately, while i provided *explanations* for my opinions?
.


----------



## PK1

Coloradomtnman said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
> 
> I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If morality is objective, then how would one know that?
> 
> Some find homosexuality immoral; others do not.  Which is the moral position and how do you know it is?  How do others disagree with your objectively moral position?  Are they sociopaths?  Are they all morally handicapped?  Or, does everyone try to be moral and follow what they perceive to be moral and it doesn't all work out the same because morality is subjective?
Click to expand...

---
Good luck in getting a lucid response to all your Q's.
.


----------



## dblack

If we can agree on an objective definition and purpose for morality, it should, in theory at least, be possible to objectively judge whether a given rule is moral or not.


----------



## ogibillm

if morality is objective are we more or less moral than say 60 years ago?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

PK1 said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No! That would be the arguments you've used to deny others the same rights for other marriage arrangements even though they meet the criteria you use to justify SSM (Same Sex Marriage).
> 
> As I stated... You are a hypocritical bigot.
> 
> Your critical thinking skills come right out of the Progressive Handbook of how to parrot a talking point against a far right conservative.
> 
> It doesn't teach you how to deal with a independent with a conservative lean, such as myself, who does know how to think critically and make you look like the hypocritical bigot you truly are.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Apparently, you don't read very carefully & jump to conclusions.
> I think independently, so if my thoughts reflect a liberal or conservative group, then i honor them.
> 
> I don't deny anyone rights if their behavior does not victimize others.
> Please be *specific* where you believe i am a _"hypocritical bigot_".
> 
> I noticed you have not provided your definition of "*morality*". How come?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll apologize for the not noting on that post who you were replying to since I'm a little tired. However...
> 
> You deny close relatives the right to marry while continuing to not speak out against other people with known genetic defects who are allowed to marry.
> 
> I have no reason to provide a definition of my morality since you've already proven that you're nothing but a hypocrite who uses his Progressive Handbook to do his critical thinking.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> What don't you understand about my morality reflecting anti-victimization?
> 
> In the case of marriage *and* children, i don't think an innocent baby should start its life *deformed*, whether born from genetically-related parents *or* from a parent with a genetic defect.
> If both, then the baby has double chance of being deformed.
> HOWEVER, if the adults/culture take rational precautions in their reproductive activities (genetic analysis or embryo testing) and abort any "mistake" (deformed fetus/embryo) or take FULL responsibility in raising that mutant, then my tolerant morality says "OK".
> Why would you disagree?
> Why are you afraid of providing your definition or views on morality?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you're saying that people who have genetic abnormalities should not be allowed to reproduce... I'm sure the Navajo Nation will appreciate your views. Shall we round them all up and sterilize them to fit with your aggressive stance on child protection since half the Navajo's have diabetes and the other half most likely are carriers of the genetic inheritable diabetes defect? Can we prosecute you for Hate Crimes afterwards since now you've decided that a whole minority group is pretty much not worthy of reproducing? How about black people with Sickle Cell? Is Lactose Intolerance on your list of genetic defects? That last one should pretty much wipe out the Asian population of the world.
> 
> If you must know... I'm a Constitutional conservative and so far you've been failing the test.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Again you misread what i wrote, and then you salt it with extremism.
> I clearly stated that if the adults take FULL responsibility in preparing for and raising their offspring, then i'm OK with that. Otherwise, i'm not OK with innocent kids being victimized by irresponsible adults/parents.
> 
> Again you fail to provide your definition of morality.
> As a "_Constitutional conservative_", you must be for SSM. What else does that mean re: morality examples?
> .
Click to expand...








I've misread nothing. If you're going to apply your demands of taking FULL responsibility to one group then it applies to all, including those you find genetically suitable who have children with genetic defects. So now we can do away with all those illegal social programs, like Planned Parenthood, that the government funds right? After all those people are supposed to take FULL responsibility for preparing and raising their offspring right? Then they shouldn't require any governmental assistance since they are supposed to take FULL responsibility correct?

If you're going to provide the definition of what it means to be a Constitutional conservative and what I must believe, then you might as well provide the definition of morality too. After all your objective reality must demand such since you believe that your definition is the only one that holds truth. However I don't think you'll get to far in making me believe you're right since you keep contradicting and digging a deeper hole for yourself every time you post.

On the other hand since the original argument for SSM was 'they're mature willing companions and should be allowed the same rights to marry as heterosexuals' then the only natural conclusion I can draw as a Constitutionals conservative is that those same rights apply to all mature willing companions and any type of marriage arrangement they choose to form so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## PK1

Damaged Eagle said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Apparently, you don't read very carefully & jump to conclusions.
> I think independently, so if my thoughts reflect a liberal or conservative group, then i honor them.
> 
> I don't deny anyone rights if their behavior does not victimize others.
> Please be *specific* where you believe i am a _"hypocritical bigot_".
> 
> I noticed you have not provided your definition of "*morality*". How come?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll apologize for the not noting on that post who you were replying to since I'm a little tired. However...
> 
> You deny close relatives the right to marry while continuing to not speak out against other people with known genetic defects who are allowed to marry.
> 
> I have no reason to provide a definition of my morality since you've already proven that you're nothing but a hypocrite who uses his Progressive Handbook to do his critical thinking.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> What don't you understand about my morality reflecting anti-victimization?
> 
> In the case of marriage *and* children, i don't think an innocent baby should start its life *deformed*, whether born from genetically-related parents *or* from a parent with a genetic defect.
> If both, then the baby has double chance of being deformed.
> HOWEVER, if the adults/culture take rational precautions in their reproductive activities (genetic analysis or embryo testing) and abort any "mistake" (deformed fetus/embryo) or take FULL responsibility in raising that mutant, then my tolerant morality says "OK".
> Why would you disagree?
> Why are you afraid of providing your definition or views on morality?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you're saying that people who have genetic abnormalities should not be allowed to reproduce... I'm sure the Navajo Nation will appreciate your views. Shall we round them all up and sterilize them to fit with your aggressive stance on child protection since half the Navajo's have diabetes and the other half most likely are carriers of the genetic inheritable diabetes defect? Can we prosecute you for Hate Crimes afterwards since now you've decided that a whole minority group is pretty much not worthy of reproducing? How about black people with Sickle Cell? Is Lactose Intolerance on your list of genetic defects? That last one should pretty much wipe out the Asian population of the world.
> 
> If you must know... I'm a Constitutional conservative and so far you've been failing the test.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Again you misread what i wrote, and then you salt it with extremism.
> I clearly stated that if the adults take FULL responsibility in preparing for and raising their offspring, then i'm OK with that. Otherwise, i'm not OK with innocent kids being victimized by irresponsible adults/parents.
> 
> Again you fail to provide your definition of morality.
> As a "_Constitutional conservative_", you must be for SSM. What else does that mean re: morality examples?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've misread nothing. If you're going to apply your demands of taking FULL responsibility to one group then it applies to all, including those you find genetically suitable who have children with genetic defects. So now we can do away with all those illegal social programs, like Planned Parenthood, that the government funds right? After all those people are supposed to take FULL responsibility for preparing and raising their offspring right? Then they shouldn't require any governmental assistance since they are supposed to take FULL responsibility correct?
> 
> If you're going to provide the definition of what it means to be a Constitutional conservative and what I must believe, then you might as well provide the definition of morality too. After all your objective reality must demand such since you believe that your definition is the only one that holds truth. However I don't think you'll get to far in making me believe you're right since you keep contradicting and digging a deeper hole for yourself every time you post.
> 
> On the other hand since the original argument for SSM was 'they're mature willing companions and should be allowed the same rights to marry as heterosexuals' then the only natural conclusion I can draw as a Constitutionals conservative is that those same rights apply to all mature willing companions and any type of marriage arrangement they choose to form so long as all involved are mature willing companions.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

---
So, you can't define what you think "morality" is?
Or, are you saying that "constitutional conservative" = "morality"?
.


----------



## Igrok_

PK1 said:


> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, you approve that for some cultures there is "good" to commit mass murders, don't you? Do you accept if some people will start killing your neighbours only because it is their free choice according to their culture?
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Why don't you understand my morality position of "Live and *Let Live*"?
> Killing others without *rational* justification is not moral in my book.
> Please read my previous posts carefully. Religion, a cultural artifact, is not rational.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, your religion is mind like for other atheists. Look on Northern Corea and Soviet Russia – it was made in the honor of the mind. Tens million were killed because they did not match the rules made up by someone's mind.
> 
> Is it not logical to kill people if this could lead to common prosperity? You are killing one and 100 are happy. Very rational, I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I agree, it could be rational to kill another human; never said otherwise.
> 
> I'm more of an AGNOSTIC than atheist; don't believe in ghosts.
> I take the scientific approach to knowledge-based beliefs, supported by philosophy of science concepts.
> 
> Your references to Soviet Russia & North Korea don't apply to me.
> What are your morality rules?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am orthodox christian
> 
> don't believe in ghosts too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Русская Православная Церковь?
> I attended this orthodox church in my youth, before discovering critical thinking methods, and then i rejected dogma.
> Don't Christians believe in the "Holy Ghost", including orthodox adherents?
> .
Click to expand...

Neither Christians nor Orthodox Christians believe in "Holy Ghost". They believe in God.
Is rejecting dogma is not a dogma as well? You have to stay in certain paradigm in all cases.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

PK1 said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll apologize for the not noting on that post who you were replying to since I'm a little tired. However...
> 
> You deny close relatives the right to marry while continuing to not speak out against other people with known genetic defects who are allowed to marry.
> 
> I have no reason to provide a definition of my morality since you've already proven that you're nothing but a hypocrite who uses his Progressive Handbook to do his critical thinking.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> What don't you understand about my morality reflecting anti-victimization?
> 
> In the case of marriage *and* children, i don't think an innocent baby should start its life *deformed*, whether born from genetically-related parents *or* from a parent with a genetic defect.
> If both, then the baby has double chance of being deformed.
> HOWEVER, if the adults/culture take rational precautions in their reproductive activities (genetic analysis or embryo testing) and abort any "mistake" (deformed fetus/embryo) or take FULL responsibility in raising that mutant, then my tolerant morality says "OK".
> Why would you disagree?
> Why are you afraid of providing your definition or views on morality?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you're saying that people who have genetic abnormalities should not be allowed to reproduce... I'm sure the Navajo Nation will appreciate your views. Shall we round them all up and sterilize them to fit with your aggressive stance on child protection since half the Navajo's have diabetes and the other half most likely are carriers of the genetic inheritable diabetes defect? Can we prosecute you for Hate Crimes afterwards since now you've decided that a whole minority group is pretty much not worthy of reproducing? How about black people with Sickle Cell? Is Lactose Intolerance on your list of genetic defects? That last one should pretty much wipe out the Asian population of the world.
> 
> If you must know... I'm a Constitutional conservative and so far you've been failing the test.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Again you misread what i wrote, and then you salt it with extremism.
> I clearly stated that if the adults take FULL responsibility in preparing for and raising their offspring, then i'm OK with that. Otherwise, i'm not OK with innocent kids being victimized by irresponsible adults/parents.
> 
> Again you fail to provide your definition of morality.
> As a "_Constitutional conservative_", you must be for SSM. What else does that mean re: morality examples?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've misread nothing. If you're going to apply your demands of taking FULL responsibility to one group then it applies to all, including those you find genetically suitable who have children with genetic defects. So now we can do away with all those illegal social programs, like Planned Parenthood, that the government funds right? After all those people are supposed to take FULL responsibility for preparing and raising their offspring right? Then they shouldn't require any governmental assistance since they are supposed to take FULL responsibility correct?
> 
> If you're going to provide the definition of what it means to be a Constitutional conservative and what I must believe, then you might as well provide the definition of morality too. After all your objective reality must demand such since you believe that your definition is the only one that holds truth. However I don't think you'll get to far in making me believe you're right since you keep contradicting and digging a deeper hole for yourself every time you post.
> 
> On the other hand since the original argument for SSM was 'they're mature willing companions and should be allowed the same rights to marry as heterosexuals' then the only natural conclusion I can draw as a Constitutionals conservative is that those same rights apply to all mature willing companions and any type of marriage arrangement they choose to form so long as all involved are mature willing companions.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> So, you can't define what you think "morality" is?
> Or, are you saying that "constitutional conservative" = "morality"?
> .
Click to expand...







I'm saying that everyone has their own definition of what is moral and that those morals change given the circumstances.

Are you going to answer my questions about your FULL responsibility issue now or has your objective reality taken a irreparable hit?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## PK1

Igrok_ said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Why don't you understand my morality position of "Live and *Let Live*"?
> Killing others without *rational* justification is not moral in my book.
> Please read my previous posts carefully. Religion, a cultural artifact, is not rational.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> So, your religion is mind like for other atheists. Look on Northern Corea and Soviet Russia – it was made in the honor of the mind. Tens million were killed because they did not match the rules made up by someone's mind.
> 
> Is it not logical to kill people if this could lead to common prosperity? You are killing one and 100 are happy. Very rational, I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I agree, it could be rational to kill another human; never said otherwise.
> 
> I'm more of an AGNOSTIC than atheist; don't believe in ghosts.
> I take the scientific approach to knowledge-based beliefs, supported by philosophy of science concepts.
> 
> Your references to Soviet Russia & North Korea don't apply to me.
> What are your morality rules?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am orthodox christian
> 
> don't believe in ghosts too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Русская Православная Церковь?
> I attended this orthodox church in my youth, before discovering critical thinking methods, and then i rejected dogma.
> Don't Christians believe in the "Holy Ghost", including orthodox adherents?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither Christians nor Orthodox Christians believe in "Holy Ghost". They believe in God.
> Is rejecting dogma is not a dogma as well? You have to stay in certain paradigm in all cases.
Click to expand...

---
*Mainstream* Christians believe in God's "*Trinity*", including "Holy Ghost" (aka "Holy Spirit").

Apparently, you don't understand science, which questions/tests its hypotheses and theories, and adapts to evidence. 
Not so with religious dogma.
.


----------



## PK1

Damaged Eagle said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> What don't you understand about my morality reflecting anti-victimization?
> 
> In the case of marriage *and* children, i don't think an innocent baby should start its life *deformed*, whether born from genetically-related parents *or* from a parent with a genetic defect.
> If both, then the baby has double chance of being deformed.
> HOWEVER, if the adults/culture take rational precautions in their reproductive activities (genetic analysis or embryo testing) and abort any "mistake" (deformed fetus/embryo) or take FULL responsibility in raising that mutant, then my tolerant morality says "OK".
> Why would you disagree?
> Why are you afraid of providing your definition or views on morality?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you're saying that people who have genetic abnormalities should not be allowed to reproduce... I'm sure the Navajo Nation will appreciate your views. Shall we round them all up and sterilize them to fit with your aggressive stance on child protection since half the Navajo's have diabetes and the other half most likely are carriers of the genetic inheritable diabetes defect? Can we prosecute you for Hate Crimes afterwards since now you've decided that a whole minority group is pretty much not worthy of reproducing? How about black people with Sickle Cell? Is Lactose Intolerance on your list of genetic defects? That last one should pretty much wipe out the Asian population of the world.
> 
> If you must know... I'm a Constitutional conservative and so far you've been failing the test.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Again you misread what i wrote, and then you salt it with extremism.
> I clearly stated that if the adults take FULL responsibility in preparing for and raising their offspring, then i'm OK with that. Otherwise, i'm not OK with innocent kids being victimized by irresponsible adults/parents.
> 
> Again you fail to provide your definition of morality.
> As a "_Constitutional conservative_", you must be for SSM. What else does that mean re: morality examples?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've misread nothing. If you're going to apply your demands of taking FULL responsibility to one group then it applies to all, including those you find genetically suitable who have children with genetic defects. So now we can do away with all those illegal social programs, like Planned Parenthood, that the government funds right? After all those people are supposed to take FULL responsibility for preparing and raising their offspring right? Then they shouldn't require any governmental assistance since they are supposed to take FULL responsibility correct?
> 
> If you're going to provide the definition of what it means to be a Constitutional conservative and what I must believe, then you might as well provide the definition of morality too. After all your objective reality must demand such since you believe that your definition is the only one that holds truth. However I don't think you'll get to far in making me believe you're right since you keep contradicting and digging a deeper hole for yourself every time you post.
> 
> On the other hand since the original argument for SSM was 'they're mature willing companions and should be allowed the same rights to marry as heterosexuals' then the only natural conclusion I can draw as a Constitutionals conservative is that those same rights apply to all mature willing companions and any type of marriage arrangement they choose to form so long as all involved are mature willing companions.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> So, you can't define what you think "morality" is?
> Or, are you saying that "constitutional conservative" = "morality"?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying that everyone has their own definition of what is moral and that those morals change given the circumstances.
> 
> Are you going to answer my questions about your FULL responsibility issue now or has your objective reality taken a irreparable hit?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

---
I'm glad to see that you are a moral relativist after all. Yes, of course _"morals change given the circumstances"_.


In your case of marriage with children, if a couple or group decides to have kids, they should take FULL responsibility in *raising them* after they're born (preferably w/out major defects). *It's only fair to the innocent kids.*
HOWEVER, adults with a greater likelihood of having a defective baby "ought" to take precautions or *not procreate.*
Likewise, adults who cannot provide for a child due to their impoverished economic circumstances or unhealthy-lifestyle (extremely fat or druggie/alcoholic) should *not procreate.* Not fair to offspring.

That's where PLANNING for PARENTHOOD is important ... if an adult is MORAL in developed countries (often not feasible in poor cultures).
Planned Parenthood's mission is vital for young/poor women without other health care availability, and *society benefits as a whole with healthier children*.
.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

PK1 said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you're saying that people who have genetic abnormalities should not be allowed to reproduce... I'm sure the Navajo Nation will appreciate your views. Shall we round them all up and sterilize them to fit with your aggressive stance on child protection since half the Navajo's have diabetes and the other half most likely are carriers of the genetic inheritable diabetes defect? Can we prosecute you for Hate Crimes afterwards since now you've decided that a whole minority group is pretty much not worthy of reproducing? How about black people with Sickle Cell? Is Lactose Intolerance on your list of genetic defects? That last one should pretty much wipe out the Asian population of the world.
> 
> If you must know... I'm a Constitutional conservative and so far you've been failing the test.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Again you misread what i wrote, and then you salt it with extremism.
> I clearly stated that if the adults take FULL responsibility in preparing for and raising their offspring, then i'm OK with that. Otherwise, i'm not OK with innocent kids being victimized by irresponsible adults/parents.
> 
> Again you fail to provide your definition of morality.
> As a "_Constitutional conservative_", you must be for SSM. What else does that mean re: morality examples?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've misread nothing. If you're going to apply your demands of taking FULL responsibility to one group then it applies to all, including those you find genetically suitable who have children with genetic defects. So now we can do away with all those illegal social programs, like Planned Parenthood, that the government funds right? After all those people are supposed to take FULL responsibility for preparing and raising their offspring right? Then they shouldn't require any governmental assistance since they are supposed to take FULL responsibility correct?
> 
> If you're going to provide the definition of what it means to be a Constitutional conservative and what I must believe, then you might as well provide the definition of morality too. After all your objective reality must demand such since you believe that your definition is the only one that holds truth. However I don't think you'll get to far in making me believe you're right since you keep contradicting and digging a deeper hole for yourself every time you post.
> 
> On the other hand since the original argument for SSM was 'they're mature willing companions and should be allowed the same rights to marry as heterosexuals' then the only natural conclusion I can draw as a Constitutionals conservative is that those same rights apply to all mature willing companions and any type of marriage arrangement they choose to form so long as all involved are mature willing companions.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> So, you can't define what you think "morality" is?
> Or, are you saying that "constitutional conservative" = "morality"?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying that everyone has their own definition of what is moral and that those morals change given the circumstances.
> 
> Are you going to answer my questions about your FULL responsibility issue now or has your objective reality taken a irreparable hit?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I'm glad to see that you are a moral relativist after all. Yes, of course _"morals change given the circumstances"_.
> 
> 
> In your case of marriage with children, if a couple or group decides to have kids, they should take FULL responsibility in *raising them* after they're born (preferably w/out major defects). *It's only fair to the innocent kids.*
> HOWEVER, adults with a greater likelihood of having a defective baby "ought" to take precautions or *not procreate.*
> Likewise, adults who cannot provide for a child due to their impoverished economic circumstances or unhealthy-lifestyle (extremely fat or druggie/alcoholic) should *not procreate.* Not fair to offspring.
> 
> That's where PLANNING for PARENTHOOD is important ... if an adult is MORAL in developed countries (often not feasible in poor cultures).
> Planned Parenthood's mission is vital for young/poor women without other health care availability, and *society benefits as a whole with healthier children*.
> .
Click to expand...







If the parents are supposed to take FULL responsibility as you state then there's no need for Planned Parenthood and other government entitlements. If they're poor and have children are they taking FULL responsibility? I think not. So who are you to judge other people who love each other who make a choice to live together and procreate? The argument used for granting SSM was that they're mature willing companions yet you will not allow all mature willing companions the same rights thereby violating the 14th Amendment. You say those with a higher chance of genetic birth defects should not procreate but won't carry through and demand that those who are carriers of known inheritable genetic defects not be allowed to marry and reproduce. Your hypocrisy in that matter is glaringly obvious. Now you've made another hypocritical statement about how people should take FULL responsibility for their ability to procreate yet think government services should be provided for those who in your own words are not fully responsible.

Sounds to me like you need to make some choices:

1. Either get out of other peoples bedrooms because it's none of your business or the governments as to who's marrying who so long as all involved are mature willing companions or go back to where the government only allows nuclear heterosexual marriages.

2. Demand everyone who is not genetically suitable not be allowed to marry and have the government enforce it or leave everyone else who forms a loving bound and wishes to reproduce alone.

3. Have the government get out of everyones family affairs with their Planned Parenthood and other entitlements once they start procreating because they are supposed to take FULL responsibility or have the government provide for everyone who forms loving relationships and reproduces.

You're three for three so far and battin' a thousand in the area of hypocrisy.

Shall we go for four for four?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
> 
> I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If morality is objective, then how would one know that?
> 
> Some find homosexuality immoral; others do not.  Which is the moral position and how do you know it is?  How do others disagree with your objectively moral position?  Are they sociopaths?  Are they all morally handicapped?  Or, does everyone try to be moral and follow what they perceive to be moral and it doesn't all work out the same because morality is subjective?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Good luck in getting a lucid response to all your Q's.
> .
Click to expand...





This is why you sit at the kiddie table.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

PK1 said:


> ---
> I'm glad to see that you are a moral relativist after all. Yes, of course _"morals change given the circumstances"_.
> 
> 
> 
> .








Oh yes!!!!! My moral relativism works just fine and so does my critical thinking skills... but then that's because I actually use my cerebral cortex instead of letting the Progressive Handbook do my critical thinking for me.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Igrok_

PK1 said:


> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your religion is mind like for other atheists. Look on Northern Corea and Soviet Russia – it was made in the honor of the mind. Tens million were killed because they did not match the rules made up by someone's mind.
> 
> Is it not logical to kill people if this could lead to common prosperity? You are killing one and 100 are happy. Very rational, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I agree, it could be rational to kill another human; never said otherwise.
> 
> I'm more of an AGNOSTIC than atheist; don't believe in ghosts.
> I take the scientific approach to knowledge-based beliefs, supported by philosophy of science concepts.
> 
> Your references to Soviet Russia & North Korea don't apply to me.
> What are your morality rules?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am orthodox christian
> 
> don't believe in ghosts too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Русская Православная Церковь?
> I attended this orthodox church in my youth, before discovering critical thinking methods, and then i rejected dogma.
> Don't Christians believe in the "Holy Ghost", including orthodox adherents?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither Christians nor Orthodox Christians believe in "Holy Ghost". They believe in God.
> Is rejecting dogma is not a dogma as well? You have to stay in certain paradigm in all cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> *Mainstream* Christians believe in God's "*Trinity*", including "Holy Ghost" (aka "Holy Spirit").
> 
> Apparently, you don't understand science, which questions/tests its hypotheses and theories, and adapts to evidence.
> Not so with religious dogma.
> .
Click to expand...

Don't understand science? I am studying applied math in one of the top russian universities. So, i understand the structure of science, but do not need to prove you anything. If you think that believers don't understand anything - so be it.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
> 
> I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If morality is objective, then how would one know that?
> 
> Some find homosexuality immoral; others do not.  Which is the moral position and how do you know it is?  How do others disagree with your objectively moral position?  Are they sociopaths?  Are they all morally handicapped?  Or, does everyone try to be moral and follow what they perceive to be moral and it doesn't all work out the same because morality is subjective?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Good luck in getting a lucid response to all your Q's.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why you sit at the kiddie table.
Click to expand...

---
Another example of your kiddie-focused "intellect". LOL.
.


----------



## PK1

Igrok_ said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I agree, it could be rational to kill another human; never said otherwise.
> 
> I'm more of an AGNOSTIC than atheist; don't believe in ghosts.
> I take the scientific approach to knowledge-based beliefs, supported by philosophy of science concepts.
> 
> Your references to Soviet Russia & North Korea don't apply to me.
> What are your morality rules?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> i am orthodox christian
> 
> don't believe in ghosts too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Русская Православная Церковь?
> I attended this orthodox church in my youth, before discovering critical thinking methods, and then i rejected dogma.
> Don't Christians believe in the "Holy Ghost", including orthodox adherents?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither Christians nor Orthodox Christians believe in "Holy Ghost". They believe in God.
> Is rejecting dogma is not a dogma as well? You have to stay in certain paradigm in all cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> *Mainstream* Christians believe in God's "*Trinity*", including "Holy Ghost" (aka "Holy Spirit").
> 
> Apparently, you don't understand science, which questions/tests its hypotheses and theories, and adapts to evidence.
> Not so with religious dogma.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't understand science? I am studying applied math in one of the top russian universities. So, i understand the structure of science, but do not need to prove you anything. If you think that believers don't understand anything - so be it.
Click to expand...

---
Nice to hear about your "applied" focus in math, and if that helps you "prove" any of your religious fantasies, please let me know!
.


----------



## PK1

Damaged Eagle said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Again you misread what i wrote, and then you salt it with extremism.
> I clearly stated that if the adults take FULL responsibility in preparing for and raising their offspring, then i'm OK with that. Otherwise, i'm not OK with innocent kids being victimized by irresponsible adults/parents.
> 
> Again you fail to provide your definition of morality.
> As a "_Constitutional conservative_", you must be for SSM. What else does that mean re: morality examples?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've misread nothing. If you're going to apply your demands of taking FULL responsibility to one group then it applies to all, including those you find genetically suitable who have children with genetic defects. So now we can do away with all those illegal social programs, like Planned Parenthood, that the government funds right? After all those people are supposed to take FULL responsibility for preparing and raising their offspring right? Then they shouldn't require any governmental assistance since they are supposed to take FULL responsibility correct?
> 
> If you're going to provide the definition of what it means to be a Constitutional conservative and what I must believe, then you might as well provide the definition of morality too. After all your objective reality must demand such since you believe that your definition is the only one that holds truth. However I don't think you'll get to far in making me believe you're right since you keep contradicting and digging a deeper hole for yourself every time you post.
> 
> On the other hand since the original argument for SSM was 'they're mature willing companions and should be allowed the same rights to marry as heterosexuals' then the only natural conclusion I can draw as a Constitutionals conservative is that those same rights apply to all mature willing companions and any type of marriage arrangement they choose to form so long as all involved are mature willing companions.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> So, you can't define what you think "morality" is?
> Or, are you saying that "constitutional conservative" = "morality"?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying that everyone has their own definition of what is moral and that those morals change given the circumstances.
> 
> Are you going to answer my questions about your FULL responsibility issue now or has your objective reality taken a irreparable hit?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I'm glad to see that you are a moral relativist after all. Yes, of course _"morals change given the circumstances"_.
> 
> 
> In your case of marriage with children, if a couple or group decides to have kids, they should take FULL responsibility in *raising them* after they're born (preferably w/out major defects). *It's only fair to the innocent kids.*
> HOWEVER, adults with a greater likelihood of having a defective baby "ought" to take precautions or *not procreate.*
> Likewise, adults who cannot provide for a child due to their impoverished economic circumstances or unhealthy-lifestyle (extremely fat or druggie/alcoholic) should *not procreate.* Not fair to offspring.
> 
> That's where PLANNING for PARENTHOOD is important ... if an adult is MORAL in developed countries (often not feasible in poor cultures).
> Planned Parenthood's mission is vital for young/poor women without other health care availability, and *society benefits as a whole with healthier children*.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the parents are supposed to take FULL responsibility as you state then there's no need for Planned Parenthood and other government entitlements. If they're poor and have children are they taking FULL responsibility? I think not. So who are you to judge other people who love each other who make a choice to live together and procreate? The argument used for granting SSM was that they're mature willing companions yet you will not allow all mature willing companions the same rights thereby violating the 14th Amendment. You say those with a higher chance of genetic birth defects should not procreate but won't carry through and demand that those who are carriers of known inheritable genetic defects not be allowed to marry and reproduce. Your hypocrisy in that matter is glaringly obvious. Now you've made another hypocritical statement about how people should take FULL responsibility for their ability to procreate yet think government services should be provided for those who in your own words are not fully responsible.
> 
> Sounds to me like you need to make some choices:
> 
> 1. Either get out of other peoples bedrooms because it's none of your business or the governments as to who's marrying who so long as all involved are mature willing companions or go back to where the government only allows nuclear heterosexual marriages.
> 
> 2. Demand everyone who is not genetically suitable not be allowed to marry and have the government enforce it or leave everyone else who forms a loving bound and wishes to reproduce alone.
> 
> 3. Have the government get out of everyones family affairs with their Planned Parenthood and other entitlements once they start procreating because they are supposed to take FULL responsibility or have the government provide for everyone who forms loving relationships and reproduces.
> 
> You're three for three so far and battin' a thousand in the area of hypocrisy.
> 
> Shall we go for four for four?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

---
Apparently, you don't know what hypocrisy is, and take your "critical thinking" black/white simpleton mantras from your groupthink's conservative handbook.

Morality is about rational judgments. You don't have any? If you do, who are you to judge others? (your criticism)

*Moral behaviors,* as one/group may judge, is often not related to a culture's *laws*. The more extreme examples should be, however, such as "do not kill, unless it's self-defense". Laws against end-of-life personal decisions are unethical.

Regarding your 3 scenarios, my focus was/is on the welfare of *innocent offspring*, not only on the adults who make uneducated or irresponsible decisions. To help protect innocent children & society overall, assisting these young/naive adults or teens in PLANNING for PARENTHOOD is a wise investment.
Now, about your 3 "choices" ...

1) Obviously, as i repeatedly said, my socially-responsible Libertarian morality advocates *FULL freedom for adults UNLESS they victimize others *(e.g., children). If they are poor, uneducated, irresponsible, then i believe gov's assistance is a good investment for society as a whole.

2) Legally, gov should leave loving couples alone with their reproductive plans (legal perspective), but morally, in my opinion, couples not genetically suitable (probability-wise) should take precautions to NOT victimize their offspring, and Planned Parenthood is an excellent resource for poor/uneducated women.

3) Obviously, Planned Parenthood is a valuable resource for ALL citizens to help them take FULL responsibility with future child care. There's no "or" here. Black/White thinking in this case reflects financial/religious selfishness, an icon of conservative ideology.
.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
> 
> I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If morality is objective, then how would one know that?
> 
> Some find homosexuality immoral; others do not.  Which is the moral position and how do you know it is?  How do others disagree with your objectively moral position?  Are they sociopaths?  Are they all morally handicapped?  Or, does everyone try to be moral and follow what they perceive to be moral and it doesn't all work out the same because morality is subjective?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Good luck in getting a lucid response to all your Q's.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why you sit at the kiddie table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Another example of your kiddie-focused "intellect". LOL.
> .
Click to expand...



Try not to make too much noise down there.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
> 
> I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If morality is objective, then how would one know that?
> 
> Some find homosexuality immoral; others do not.  Which is the moral position and how do you know it is?  How do others disagree with your objectively moral position?  Are they sociopaths?  Are they all morally handicapped?  Or, does everyone try to be moral and follow what they perceive to be moral and it doesn't all work out the same because morality is subjective?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Good luck in getting a lucid response to all your Q's.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why you sit at the kiddie table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Another example of your kiddie-focused "intellect". LOL.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try not to make too much noise down there.
Click to expand...

---
LOLROF! Another example of your emotional stupidity as substitution for intellectual contributions.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

PK1 said:


> ---Apparently, you don't know what hypocrisy is, and take your "critical thinking" black/white simpleton mantras from your groupthink's conservative handbook.



I'm well aware of what hypocrisy is and my critical thinking isn't from any groupthink tank like your  progressive liberal responses. It's pure Eagle which is obvious from your inability to cope with the current argument.

Of course bigots like yourself want to deny your own bigotry because they think they're morally superior.

Oh wait! Isn't that what progressives like yourself accuse the Christians and other religions of? I do believe it is!



PK1 said:


> Morality is about rational judgments. You don't have any? If you do, who are you to judge others? (your criticism)



I see... So now I have no morals because I want you to get out of everyone else's bedrooms.

I do believe that makes you four for four on the hypocrite list.

*


PK1 said:



			Moral behaviors,
		
Click to expand...

*


PK1 said:


> as one/group may judge, is often not related to a culture's *laws*. The more extreme examples should be, however, such as "do not kill, unless it's self-defense". Laws against end-of-life personal decisions are unethical.



Why should I accept your definition of morality?



PK1 said:


> Regarding your 3 scenarios, my focus was/is on the welfare of *innocent offspring*, not only on the adults who make uneducated or irresponsible decisions. To help protect innocent children & society overall, assisting these young/naive adults or teens in PLANNING for PARENTHOOD is a wise investment.
> Now, about your 3 "choices" ...



The welfare of the offspring was covered when you became a hypocrite for not demanding that know carriers of genetic defects not be allowed to marry and reproduce.



PK1 said:


> 1) Obviously, as i repeatedly said, my socially-responsible Libertarian morality advocates *FULL freedom for adults UNLESS they victimize others *(e.g., children).



Then demand that the government not allow carriers of known genetic defects to marry and reproduce or quit being a bigot and get out of everyone else's bedroom.



PK1 said:


> If they are poor, uneducated, irresponsible, then i believe gov's assistance is a good investment for society as a whole.



I thought you posted that people who reproduce were supposed to be prepared and take full responsibility for their children... Yep! You sure did back in post #134.



PK1 said:


> 2) Legally, gov should leave loving couples alone with their reproductive plans (legal perspective), but morally, in my opinion, couples not genetically suitable (probability-wise) should take precautions to NOT victimize their offspring, and Planned Parenthood is an excellent resource for poor/uneducated women.



If they're supposed to be prepared and take FULL responsibility like you stated in post #134 then they don't need government assistance. So all you're proving here is that you're a hypocritical bigot.



PK1 said:


> 3) Obviously, Planned Parenthood is a valuable resource for ALL citizens to help them take FULL responsibility with future child care. There's no "or" here. Black/White thinking in this case reflects financial/religious selfishness, an icon of conservative ideology.
> .








Then get out of other people's bedrooms and quit violating the 14th Amendment or accept the fact that you are a hypocritical bigot who thinks he has to mind what other people do in their bedrooms because of that bigotry.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Igrok_

PK1 said:


> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Igrok_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am orthodox christian
> 
> don't believe in ghosts too.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Русская Православная Церковь?
> I attended this orthodox church in my youth, before discovering critical thinking methods, and then i rejected dogma.
> Don't Christians believe in the "Holy Ghost", including orthodox adherents?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither Christians nor Orthodox Christians believe in "Holy Ghost". They believe in God.
> Is rejecting dogma is not a dogma as well? You have to stay in certain paradigm in all cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> *Mainstream* Christians believe in God's "*Trinity*", including "Holy Ghost" (aka "Holy Spirit").
> 
> Apparently, you don't understand science, which questions/tests its hypotheses and theories, and adapts to evidence.
> Not so with religious dogma.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't understand science? I am studying applied math in one of the top russian universities. So, i understand the structure of science, but do not need to prove you anything. If you think that believers don't understand anything - so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Nice to hear about your "applied" focus in math, and if that helps you "prove" any of your religious fantasies, please let me know!
> .
Click to expand...

sure!


----------



## PK1

Damaged Eagle said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---Apparently, you don't know what hypocrisy is, and take your "critical thinking" black/white simpleton mantras from your groupthink's conservative handbook.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm well aware of what hypocrisy is and my critical thinking isn't from any groupthink tank like your  progressive liberal responses. It's pure Eagle which is obvious from your inability to cope with the current argument.
> 
> Of course bigots like yourself want to deny your own bigotry because they think they're morally superior.
> 
> Oh wait! Isn't that what progressives like yourself accuse the Christians and other religions of? I do believe it is!
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morality is about rational judgments. You don't have any? If you do, who are you to judge others? (your criticism)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see... So now I have no morals because I want you to get out of everyone else's bedrooms.
> 
> I do believe that makes you four for four on the hypocrite list.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral behaviors,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as one/group may judge, is often not related to a culture's *laws*. The more extreme examples should be, however, such as "do not kill, unless it's self-defense". Laws against end-of-life personal decisions are unethical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I accept your definition of morality?
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding your 3 scenarios, my focus was/is on the welfare of *innocent offspring*, not only on the adults who make uneducated or irresponsible decisions. To help protect innocent children & society overall, assisting these young/naive adults or teens in PLANNING for PARENTHOOD is a wise investment.
> Now, about your 3 "choices" ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The welfare of the offspring was covered when you became a hypocrite for not demanding that know carriers of genetic defects not be allowed to marry and reproduce.
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Obviously, as i repeatedly said, my socially-responsible Libertarian morality advocates *FULL freedom for adults UNLESS they victimize others *(e.g., children).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then demand that the government not allow carriers of known genetic defects to marry and reproduce or quit being a bigot and get out of everyone else's bedroom.
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are poor, uneducated, irresponsible, then i believe gov's assistance is a good investment for society as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you posted that people who reproduce were supposed to be prepared and take full responsibility for their children... Yep! You sure did back in post #134.
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Legally, gov should leave loving couples alone with their reproductive plans (legal perspective), but morally, in my opinion, couples not genetically suitable (probability-wise) should take precautions to NOT victimize their offspring, and Planned Parenthood is an excellent resource for poor/uneducated women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they're supposed to be prepared and take FULL responsibility like you stated in post #134 then they don't need government assistance. So all you're proving here is that you're a hypocritical bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Obviously, Planned Parenthood is a valuable resource for ALL citizens to help them take FULL responsibility with future child care. There's no "or" here. Black/White thinking in this case reflects financial/religious selfishness, an icon of conservative ideology.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then get out of other people's bedrooms and quit violating the 14th Amendment or accept the fact that you are a hypocritical bigot who thinks he has to mind what other people do in their bedrooms because of that bigotry.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

---
I no longer believe you are misinterpreting my comments & opinions about my view of morality; you are *ignoring* them. Instead, you are playing a broken record from your conservative political handbook. And *you cannot propose your own definition of "morality"? *Incompetent? Afraid? No independent thoughts?

I was very clear about my definition:
*Morality represents "Live & Let Live" lifestyles and involves "social responsibility", which reflects the Golden Rule.*

Also as mentioned repeatedly, i believe *mature adults* should be left alone to make their own decisions, but they should take FULL responsibility to care for their offspring if they ignore precautions or fail to abort their deformed embryos.
To aid prospective parents in making informed, rational decisions, EDUCATION is a valuable tool gov has to benefit society. Or, *do you think gov should not provide free PUBLIC education to immature citizens?*
Children feel bad if they are born with deformities, or *would YOU enjoy being a mutant?*

My ideas are *rational & fair* toward ALL kids and prospective babies.
Please learn the common meanings of words you twist from your con's bigot handbook.
*Bigot* = "a person whose habitual state of mind includes an irrational or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own".

If i disagree with you and your group of cons, i have rational reasons for doing so.
So, please explain how my moral OPINIONS violate the 14th Amendment, while your accusation doesn't violate my rights to the 1st Amendment?


Here's another word you don't understand:
*Hypocrisy* = "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform".

I practice exactly what i advocate. How about you?
Like Unk, you can't even propose a definition of "morality"?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

PK1 said:


> ---
> I no longer believe you are misinterpreting my comments & opinions about my view of morality; you are *ignoring* them. Instead, you are playing a broken record from your conservative political handbook. And *you cannot propose your own definition of "morality"? *Incompetent? Afraid? No independent thoughts?



I provided you my stance on morals and agreed with what you said about it... So what's the problem? Just because your inflexible and incapable of changing your latent closet religious beliefs is of no consequence to how I feel about your hypocritical bigotry.



PK1 said:


> I was very clear about my definition:
> *Morality represents "Live & Let Live" lifestyles and involves "social responsibility", which reflects the Golden Rule.*



And been very consistent in proving that your morals and beliefs are just as bigoted as those you criticize.



PK1 said:


> Also as mentioned repeatedly, i believe *mature adults* should be left alone to make their own decisions, but they should take FULL responsibility to care for their offspring if they ignore precautions or fail to abort their deformed embryos.



No you don't because you believe that they require government assistance and intervention.

Which is very hypocritical of you!



PK1 said:


> To aid prospective parents in making informed, rational decisions, EDUCATION is a valuable tool gov has to benefit society. Or, *do you think gov should not provide free PUBLIC education to immature citizens?*



Why should the government be involved in any social programming? They've already proven that they're a failure at providing public education. So using that as an example of how great government is at providing any sort of societal benefits is very bright of you.



PK1 said:


> Children feel bad if they are born with deformities, or *would YOU enjoy being a mutant?*



We're all mutants. Otherwise we'd all look the same, talk the same, think the same, etc...

Do you have a problem being different?



PK1 said:


> My ideas are *rational & fair* toward ALL kids and prospective babies.



What makes you think your ideas are rational and fair? All I've seen is a hypocritical bigot so far.



PK1 said:


> Please learn the common meanings of words you twist from your con's bigot handbook.



No handbook here. Just a mind that can think all for itself.

*


PK1 said:



			Bigot
		
Click to expand...

*


PK1 said:


> = "a person whose habitual state of mind includes an irrational or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own".



Yep! You fit that definition to a T.

You sound more and more like the conservatives that you criticize every time you post.



PK1 said:


> If i disagree with you and your group of cons, i have rational reasons for doing so.



You haven't shown me any so far.

Are you going to refer to some religious text to do so?

Don't you think that would make you an even bigger hypocritical bigot?



PK1 said:


> So, please explain how my moral OPINIONS violate the 14th Amendment, while your accusation doesn't violate my rights to the 1st Amendment?



*United States Constitution

14th Amendment*

*Section 1.* All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Looks like all mature willing companions should be given the same right to marry however they choose to me.



PK1 said:


> Here's another word you don't understand:
> *Hypocrisy* = "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform".



It's pretty obvious that it's you that needs to read that definition a few times then sit back and contemplate what it truly means.



PK1 said:


> I practice exactly what i advocate.



If you mean your being a hypocritical bigot then I completely agree.



PK1 said:


> How about you?



I am the wind!



PK1 said:


> Like Unk, you can't even propose a definition of "morality"?



This really bothers you doesn't it? Why don't you just accept that I'm perfectly willing to grant you SSM under my conditions. After all you don't have a religious text to fall back on to tell you what to believe and not believe.






Now let's see how well your moral relativism works...

In other words you need to compromise or accept that you're a class A1 hypocritical bigot.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## PK1

Damaged Eagle said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I no longer believe you are misinterpreting my comments & opinions about my view of morality; you are *ignoring* them. Instead, you are playing a broken record from your conservative political handbook. And *you cannot propose your own definition of "morality"? *Incompetent? Afraid? No independent thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I provided you my stance on morals and agreed with what you said about it... So what's the problem? Just because your inflexible and incapable of changing your latent closet religious beliefs is of no consequence to how I feel about your hypocritical bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was very clear about my definition:
> *Morality represents "Live & Let Live" lifestyles and involves "social responsibility", which reflects the Golden Rule.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And been very consistent in proving that your morals and beliefs are just as bigoted as those you criticize.
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also as mentioned repeatedly, i believe *mature adults* should be left alone to make their own decisions, but they should take FULL responsibility to care for their offspring if they ignore precautions or fail to abort their deformed embryos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't because you believe that they require government assistance and intervention.
> 
> Which is very hypocritical of you!
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To aid prospective parents in making informed, rational decisions, EDUCATION is a valuable tool gov has to benefit society. Or, *do you think gov should not provide free PUBLIC education to immature citizens?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should the government be involved in any social programming? They've already proven that they're a failure at providing public education. So using that as an example of how great government is at providing any sort of societal benefits is very bright of you.
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children feel bad if they are born with deformities, or *would YOU enjoy being a mutant?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're all mutants. Otherwise we'd all look the same, talk the same, think the same, etc...
> 
> Do you have a problem being different?
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My ideas are *rational & fair* toward ALL kids and prospective babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think your ideas are rational and fair? All I've seen is a hypocritical bigot so far.
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please learn the common meanings of words you twist from your con's bigot handbook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No handbook here. Just a mind that can think all for itself.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> = "a person whose habitual state of mind includes an irrational or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep! You fit that definition to a T.
> 
> You sound more and more like the conservatives that you criticize every time you post.
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If i disagree with you and your group of cons, i have rational reasons for doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't shown me any so far.
> 
> Are you going to refer to some religious text to do so?
> 
> Don't you think that would make you an even bigger hypocritical bigot?
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, please explain how my moral OPINIONS violate the 14th Amendment, while your accusation doesn't violate my rights to the 1st Amendment?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *United States Constitution
> 
> 14th Amendment*
> 
> *Section 1.* All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> Looks like all mature willing companions should be given the same right to marry however they choose to me.
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another word you don't understand:
> *Hypocrisy* = "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's pretty obvious that it's you that needs to read that definition a few times then sit back and contemplate what it truly means.
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I practice exactly what i advocate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you mean your being a hypocritical bigot then I completely agree.
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am the wind!
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like Unk, you can't even propose a definition of "morality"?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This really bothers you doesn't it? Why don't you just accept that I'm perfectly willing to grant you SSM under my conditions. After all you don't have a religious text to fall back on to tell you what to believe and not believe.
> 
> Now let's see how well your moral relativism works...
> 
> In other words you need to compromise or accept that you're a class A1 hypocritical bigot.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

---
Again, like a broken record, you misrepresent my comments as if you're trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Are you really that dense? Or, blinded by your politics and/or religion?

YOU: "_*you believe that they require government assistance and intervention.*_"
ME: I never said that MATURE adults require gov intervention.

YOU: "_*Looks like all mature willing companions should be given the same *_*right to marry however they choose to me.*"
ME: I agree.
And i also support the 14th Amendment, as well as the 1st.

I mentioned that LAW is not synonymous with ETHICS, and we're talking *MORALITY* here. Capisce?
My flexible morality tolerates procreation between MATURE/informed relatives, as long as they *don't victimize* offspring with significant genetic deformities.

You still cannot contribute your own definition of MORALITY?
Therefore, you must agree with my definition, or your incompetence is noted.

I stand by my comments in Post #161 & prev posts. If you still have disagreements, please be specific in your example(s) to minimize your confusion.

Happy New Year!


----------



## midcan5

This appears to have gone off track, no, you are, you are, no, you are..............

"If by relativism one means a cast of mind that renders you unable to prefer your own convictions to those of your adversary, then relativism could hardly end because it never began. Our convictions are by definition preferred; that's what makes them our convictions. Relativizing them is neither an option nor a danger. ¶ But if by relativism one means the practice of putting yourself in your adversary's shoes, not in order to wear them as your own but in order to have some understanding (far short of approval) of why someone else might want to wear them, then relativism will not and should not end, because it is simply another name for serious thought."  Stanley Fish

"Acts are not made right or wrong simply by people believing that they are right or wrong. ... Relativists think that moral absolutism is a bad view, encouraging intolerance and so on. But I ask them: Is absolutism only bad in a relative way -- only wrong for them and not necessarily for others? If so, then it might not be wrong for me. I can believe in it and act on it. On the other hand, if it is wrong for everybody, then it is absolutely wrong, which contradicts the relativist's [own] position. So moral relativism is either self-refuting or it has no claim on my moral beliefs."  Colin McGinn

"Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation." Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory by Hugo  Mercier, Dan  Sperber :: SSRN


----------



## PK1

midcan5 said:


> This appears to have gone off track, no, you are, you are, no, you are..............
> 
> "If by relativism one means a cast of mind that renders you unable to prefer your own convictions to those of your adversary, then relativism could hardly end because it never began. Our convictions are by definition preferred; that's what makes them our convictions. Relativizing them is neither an option nor a danger. ¶ But if by relativism one means the practice of putting yourself in your adversary's shoes, not in order to wear them as your own but in order to have some understanding (far short of approval) of why someone else might want to wear them, then relativism will not and should not end, because it is simply another name for serious thought."  Stanley Fish
> 
> "Acts are not made right or wrong simply by people believing that they are right or wrong. ... Relativists think that moral absolutism is a bad view, encouraging intolerance and so on. But I ask them: Is absolutism only bad in a relative way -- only wrong for them and not necessarily for others? If so, then it might not be wrong for me. I can believe in it and act on it. On the other hand, if it is wrong for everybody, then it is absolutely wrong, which contradicts the relativist's [own] position. So moral relativism is either self-refuting or it has no claim on my moral beliefs."  Colin McGinn
> 
> "Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation." Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory by Hugo  Mercier, Dan  Sperber :: SSRN


---
I like your Fish quote the most.
Here is another that i favor:

_"Why is it people of different moral persuasions - such as liberals and conservatives - just can't seem to see eye to eye on many issues? The latest research in evolutionary biology, moral and political psychology and game theory suggests a startling revelation: we have an evolved moral faculty, but that this faculty operates in different ways in different people - and it does so for very good evolutionary reasons. The end result is a *'moral ecology*', with a vast plurality of moral approaches that enables us to respond to a wide range of environmental situations."_ 
Tim Dean, 2011.
.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
> 
> I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.


.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> ... moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.


---
Only a philosophy simpleton would believe that "implication".
Most brains perceive many shades of gray ... and color too!

.


----------



## Unkotare

Kiddie table ^^^^^^^


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> Kiddie table ^^^^^^^


---
There you go again, with your "philosophical" insights.

.


----------



## Coloradomtnman

Can anyone provide just one absolute objective moral?


----------



## PK1

Coloradomtnman said:


> Can anyone provide just one absolute objective moral?


---
Do not "victimize" an "innocent" person.
.


----------



## PK1

Coloradomtnman said:


> Can anyone provide just one absolute objective moral?


---
If feasible, help a person who is "significantly" less fortunate than you.
.


----------



## Coloradomtnman

PK1 said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone provide just one absolute objective moral?
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Do not "victimize" an "innocent" person.
> .
Click to expand...


Victimize and innoncence are subjective terms.  

Do not torture infants might be closer to objective.  But what if you believe God commanded that you torture the infants of your enemies?


----------



## Coloradomtnman

PK1 said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone provide just one absolute objective moral?
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> If feasible, help a person who is "significantly" less fortunate than you.
> .
Click to expand...


If feasible is a subjective determination.  Significantly is a value judgement and so also subjective.


----------



## PK1

Coloradomtnman said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone provide just one absolute objective moral?
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Do not "victimize" an "innocent" person.
> 
> If feasible, help a person who is "significantly" less fortunate than you.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Victimize and innoncence are subjective terms.
> Do not torture infants might be closer to objective.  ...
> 
> If feasible is a subjective determination.  Significantly is a value judgement and so also subjective.
Click to expand...

---
You sound like a moral relativist!
I agree about the subjectivism involved in many judgements; that's why i used quotes for those elements.

However, once we define those variables AND agree to their meanings, then we, as a social group, can deploy those moral concepts objectively.
.


----------



## Coloradomtnman

PK1 said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone provide just one absolute objective moral?
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Do not "victimize" an "innocent" person.
> 
> If feasible, help a person who is "significantly" less fortunate than you.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Victimize and innoncence are subjective terms.
> Do not torture infants might be closer to objective.  ...
> 
> If feasible is a subjective determination.  Significantly is a value judgement and so also subjective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> You sound like a moral relativist!
> I agree about the subjectivism involved in many judgements; that's why i used quotes for those elements.
> 
> However, once we define those variables AND agree to their meanings, then we, as a social group, can deploy those moral concepts objectively.
> .
Click to expand...


I think morality is relative and I agree with your post.


----------

