Moral Relativism

Marine0I · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Some opinions are correct. Some are incorrect. That is a property of anything with a truth value. When I disagree with a person about the premises of our philosophy, we can relate to the other what caused us to think the way we do, and then investigate which of the two is correctly derived from the facts. That's what a debate is.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

But to have your moral system universilzed, its not good enough to be debating. The system must not be up for contention, it cannot be subject to change at a later date depending up the addition of more relevant information. If it is, then you may have been/being universalizing a moral theory that is wrong. I'd contend that to have a theory worthy of universalization, it must be perfect.

I also find it interesting that we both believe in absolute truth. I always imagined that in a thread on relative morals, the arguement would be relative truth vs absolute truth, but instead its absolute truth coming from God vs absolute truth coming from man.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You and the hindu wouldn't have to agree to disagree unless you believe eachother to be so beyond the reach of logic that it isn't worth it. You could each relate what leads you to believe in your respective god(s), and debate which is the more logically sound.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

As I said, when arguing with a hindu over the truth of our morals, the arguement automatically turns to whether our God/s exist or not. The truth of our morals is directly dependant on the existance of our deities. Since it is impossible to completley prove or disprove the existance of the divine, then the arguement is futile. Logic has nothing to do with it when the divine proclaim something truth.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The premise of a humanistic philosophy is most certainly not "what I believe is right." That would be absolutely absurd. However, "If I have rigorously derived something from the facts around me, the only way to function in the world is to believe that it is correct until new information presents itself," is a pretty reasonable premise of life in general irrespective of any philosophy. I would think that you follow it too.
I think the holdup here is that you aren't seeing the premises of a humanistic philosophy as being as important to it as the existence of god is to a religion.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

But what you "rigorously derive from the facts" has to be right or you have no business making it universal moral law. The hold up here is that I dont believe that the humanistic premise (or any premise in itself) is able to grant the right to apply morals universally. Premise's cannot grant anything, they are simple beliefs or assumptions on the part of individuals. Only if the premise is actually true can it be useful.

I keep getting the impression that your line of thinking goes like this. You have a premise (God exists and makes the rules) and its actually that premise that grants you the right to universally apply your moral system. I have a premise (man exists and makes the rules), so seeing as your premise grants you the right to universalize, why cant mine?

I disagree with that based on my belief that premises have no real power/authority, being mere beliefs. Only if the premise is true/exists does it have any authority. So we are in complete agreement there.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If a moral is correct, it should be universally applied. In any religion or philosophy, the correctness of the premises determines the correctness of the moral.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Agreed. So lets have a restating of your premise <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> I'm under the impression that the humanistic premise is "Mankind exists, and mankind makes its own rules". Is that correct?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What difference does it make? My point is that if you are incorrect about the existence of god, then you have been applying your morals incorrectly. If god, in fact, does not exist, then you have no right to apply them.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Zip difference, I'm just showing you my working. Agreed again.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The majority doesn't decide on a moral code. The proper function of law is not to legislate morality, but to protect rights. The majority takes the rights that they believe they have and makes laws to prevent them from being infringed. This is very different than foisting a moral code on the populace. Preventing the latter is the reasoning behind seperation of church and state. (This is getting tangential however.)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

To claim law and morality are completely separate seems really strange to me. Laws are supposed to reflect the collective beliefs of the people. If everyone in society decided that d/l mp3's for free is okay, then the law should reflect that. The rights that the majority believe they have are based on the majorities' moral code. The law is then created to prevent them from being infringed, but nevertheless the ultimate basis of it is common morality.

Marine0I · March 2004

Bump.

Come on Moultano, we are making ground here. I'm starting to agree with some of your points, and a forum record of a mutually ended discussion based on two parties considering the other sides argument and reaching a rational conclusion is within our grasp! I know I left the last reply for a while and you probably thought I'd bowed out of the arguement, but I wanna hear the response!

And also on that note, anyone here a relative moralist? I cant believe the entire forum consists of absolute moralists. Everywhere I go I hear people propounding the relative moralist mantra "Thats true for you, but not for me". Surely one of you must feel that way?

Nemesis_Zero · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Mar 6 2004, 07:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> And also on that note, anyone here a relative moralist? I cant believe the entire forum consists of absolute moralists. Everywhere I go I hear people propounding the relative moralist mantra "Thats true for you, but not for me". Surely one of you must feel that way?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Well, as I said earlier, the titles name was a mistake - the discussion of secular and religious morality has nothing to do with morallic relativism, so the issue was just not raised.

I've got to out myself as a mild relativist, but it's just not part of this subject.

xect · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Mar 6 2004, 08:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> And also on that note, anyone here a relative moralist? I cant believe the entire forum consists of absolute moralists. Everywhere I go I hear people propounding the relative moralist mantra "Thats true for you, but not for me". Surely one of you must feel that way? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
That would be me. You asked earlier a very critical question:

<b>"If I perform this deed, if this deed is morally acceptable TO ME, if I will not feel guilty after performing this deed, if I will not be caught in this lifetime and held accountable for this deed, then why shouldnt I?"</b>

Let's assume this question is asked you by a psychopath. This person does not believe in god, he does not believe in aesthetic morals. So, really, there is, given the perspective of the psychopath, no answer to the question. Now, the question I will ask is: "Why should there be an answer". Observing the past events of this world, it is clear that psychopaths actually do perform these deeds. So, it stands to reason that there is no incentive for these humans to not perform the given deeds, and as such, there is no answer to the question. Thus, I believe morale must be defined within the borders of one's own environment and the given situation

You keep returning to a point where you ask each other the critical question: "What gives you the right to enforce your beliefs on your fellow man". I don't believe any belief has that right, nor does I believe neither atheist nor religious beliefs NEED that right. Take this forum. Currently, I have just read through a discussion I found to be particularly interesting. As such, I saw no reason to close my browser, "killing" the participants of the discussion as far as I would be concerned. And that, I feel, applies to the whole world.

I have not killed any fellow humans. I have decided not to do so. I have not decided not to do so because I believe in some deity who told me not to, nor have I decided to do so because killing him would hurt him. I believe that the world is a better place to live for me without killing. Thus, I strive to avoid killing. You are right, given the most basic rules of logic, there is no reason humans shouldn't just slaughter each other. But if we had, we would not be here. So we're back to the pair and the flush. We have been lucky enough that our species is born, and brought up with, with an inherent idea of morality, containing values like "you shall not kill", "you shall not steal" and so on. There has likely been species who did not share these morals, but they are not here today, at least not with the same dominance and life expectency we have.

Basically, for me, morale is what benefits the most. I believe that basically, the only thing that defines a moral system's validity is the probability that the one believing in the moral system's expectency to achieve what he wants. If your psychopath wants to kill, his moral system is just perfect. Only problem is, our moral system tells us to put him in jail. And since our moral system also dictates that we must work together, we have the power to put him in jail. If 99% of the worlds population had been psychopaths, everyone would kill each other. So, insofar that the objective of the psychopaths was to kill each other, their moral system is valid. They would not be here tomorrow, but their moral system worked.

EDIT: phew, that was one long post. I guess that's what happens when you read through 93 posts and built up comments <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> Hope you don't mind

es_quatro · March 2004

EDIT Okay this is actually Marine01's ranting below, I've managed to jump on a computer logged in under my friends name.

Nem - I'm not so sure I agree there. Many religious people consider moral relativism and atheistic moral systems linked. When discussing morals, its impossible to get away from the basic question of "What backs your morals up?" When the answer lies in "logic" or the even more popular "Me" very often associated with atheistic morals, then relative morality and the criticisms of it become pertinent.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That would be me. You asked earlier a very critical question:

<b>"If I perform this deed, if this deed is morally acceptable TO ME, if I will not feel guilty after performing this deed, if I will not be caught in this lifetime and held accountable for this deed, then why shouldnt I?"</b>

Let's assume this question is asked you by a psychopath. This person does not believe in god, he does not believe in aesthetic morals. So, really, there is, given the perspective of the psychopath, no answer to the question. Now, the question I will ask is: "Why should there be an answer". Observing the past events of this world, it is clear that psychopaths actually do perform these deeds. So, it stands to reason that there is no incentive for these humans to not perform the given deeds, and as such, there is no answer to the question. Thus, I believe morale must be defined within the borders of one's own environment and the given situation</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

If there is no answer to that then you are in trouble. You will then move to stop the man and he will ask you why? What is your answer? Why should/will you stop him? Or do you think that because there is no answer, then his actions are morally acceptable? Remember that "what may be true for you may not be true for him" as held by relative moralists.

If there is no answer, then you have no right to attempt to stop him or judge his actions as wrong.

A moral system that lacks the ability to be applied/to judge the actions of someone else is a useless system for human interaction. It is sufficient if you spend your life without interacting with people, but when other people become involved it fails.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You keep returning to a point where you ask each other the critical question: "What gives you the right to enforce your beliefs on your fellow man". I don't believe any belief has that right, nor does I believe neither atheist nor religious beliefs NEED that right. Take this forum. Currently, I have just read through a discussion I found to be particularly interesting. As such, I saw no reason to close my browser, "killing" the participants of the discussion as far as I would be concerned. And that, I feel, applies to the whole world.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

If no one has the right to apply their belief to someone else, then you cannot criticise a man for stealing your things. You cannot criticise the actions of anyone for anything. That is what we mean by application. That question is highly critical because it is what grants a moral system validity in human society.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I have not killed any fellow humans. I have decided not to do so. I have not decided not to do so because I believe in some deity who told me not to, nor have I decided to do so because killing him would hurt him. I believe that the world is a better place to live for me without killing. Thus, I strive to avoid killing. You are right, given the most basic rules of logic, there is no reason humans shouldn't just slaughter each other. But if we had, we would not be here. So we're back to the pair and the flush. We have been lucky enough that our species is born, and brought up with, with an inherent idea of morality, containing values like "you shall not kill", "you shall not steal" and so on. There has likely been species who did not share these morals, but they are not here today, at least not with the same dominance and life expectency we have.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I cant see your point here. You personally have decided not to kill other people. You are here because everyone didnt decide to have a mass slaughter. You've decided the world is a better place for the not killing.

Guess what - I've decided world is a better place with killing. Guess what - I'm going to try and kill you. And unfortunately, according to you, there is no real reason why I shouldnt. Your morals are meaningless to me, and according to you - <b>Should be meaningless to me</b> because yours have no universal application. If the best arguement you can muster is that "well the species wouldnt propagate if everyone killed each other" - then I can reply "I'm not going to kill everyone - just you" then again you are stuck.

A murderer who you cannot logically explain to why he's doing the wrong thing. And this isnt because he isnt listening/is too stupid to understand. He's given you the opportunity to explain to him why, and if you can he wont kill you. The fact that he can logically argue you into a corner whereby you are forced to admit that there is no real reason he shouldnt kill you does not look cool for a moral theory.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Basically, for me, morale is what benefits the most. I believe that basically, the only thing that defines a moral system's validity is the probability that the one believing in the moral system's expectency to achieve what he wants. If your psychopath wants to kill, his moral system is just perfect. Only problem is, our moral system tells us to put him in jail. And since our moral system also dictates that we must work together, we have the power to put him in jail. If 99% of the worlds population had been psychopaths, everyone would kill each other. So, insofar that the objective of the psychopaths was to kill each other, their moral system is valid. They would not be here tomorrow, but their moral system worked.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Bingo! You hit the nail right on the head. Your moral system tells you to put him in jail, you have more power than he does, so you win. Might makes right. Do you honestly believe that sheer human power is the ultimate decider in morality? Does this mean that conquering armies have the moral right to butcher their opponents, as they have proved themselves and their morals (saying "you can kill opponents in gruesome ways, its okay") are correct via feats of arms?

Judging by the above statement, if I own three black slaves, and they benefit my family of 10, then its morally acceptable and valid to own slaves.

I dont mind long posts at all, as long as you dont do what I keep doing and repeat yourself and get confused halfway through <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

xect · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If there is no answer to that then you are in trouble. You will then move to stop the man and he will ask you why? What is your answer? Why should/will you stop him? Or do you think that because there is no answer, then his actions are morally acceptable? Remember that "what may be true for you may not be true for him" as held by relative moralists.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You're still thinking in absolute-moral terms. You believe that in order for my morales to apply to him, he has to agree with them. I do not. I believe that the fact that my morales are widely accepted, and even written down as "laws", gives them power.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If there is no answer, then you have no right to attempt to stop him or judge his actions as wrong.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I can stop him, because I don't want to die. But judge them as wrong? Only insofar as "wrong" is in the eyes of society. Morally, I'm split between respecting his moral system or supressing it. Usually, I strive for the former, but if the guy wants to kill me, I'll have to go for the latter.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A moral system that lacks the ability to be applied/to judge the actions of someone else is a useless system for human interaction. It is sufficient if you spend your life without interacting with people, but when other people become involved it fails.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Lots of leaders seem to follow a relavite moral system, but they're still leaders. The fact that they're leaders proves their ability to interact with humans. So I don't see your point.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Guess what - I've decided world is a better place with killing. Guess what - I'm going to try and kill you. And unfortunately, according to you, there is no real reason why I shouldnt. Your morals are meaningless to me, and according to you - <b>Should be meaningless to me</b> because yours have no universal application. If the best arguement you can muster is that "well the species wouldnt propagate if everyone killed each other" - then I can reply "I'm not going to kill everyone - just you" then again you are stuck. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Well, in such a situation, a religious moral system would say "because god says so". I imagine he would reply "so what, I've never even seen the guy, why would I care what he says". What I'd say is simple: "because at least 4 billion real, material humans happen to agree with me, and quite a lot of them will want to punish you if you do so, since it breaks their moral system and threatens to cause instability in their society".

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Bingo! You hit the nail right on the head. Your moral system tells you to put him in jail, you have more power than he does, so you win. Might makes right. Do you honestly believe that sheer human power is the ultimate decider in morality? Does this mean that conquering armies have the moral right to butcher their opponents, as they have proved themselves and their morals (saying "you can kill opponents in gruesome ways, its okay") are correct via feats of arms?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Yes, I do think that might makes right. It just so happens that the best way to achieve might is to cooperate in as large groups as possible. So, in most situations, following a "no kill, no stealing, no raping" moral system benefits the individual the most.

Sorry if I left a few points open, I'll get to them later. I haven't got much time to post right now.

Marine0I · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You're still thinking in absolute-moral terms. You believe that in order for my morales to apply to him, he has to agree with them. I do not. I believe that the fact that my morales are widely accepted, and even written down as "laws", gives them power.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Hrrmmmm. In some Middle Eastern countries, if your sister is raped then you as her brother have every right to kill her, as she is now unclean. In those countries, those morals are widely accepted and written down as law. Do you honestly consider those morals on par with yours?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Lots of leaders seem to follow a relavite moral system, but they're still leaders. The fact that they're leaders proves their ability to interact with humans. So I don't see your point.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Many people also believed the world was flat, and they managed to survive in the scientific community for hundreds of years. Merely believing in something wrong and getting by with it in no way validates your theory. Many people hold to relative moralist style theories, but they simply do not function logically or fairly. They work because people refuse to look into it see if it has substance logically. I suspect most of them dont wish too. Inconsistancy seems to mark everything they do.

You ask them if slavery is wrong and they say yes. You ask them if it was wrong in the 18th century and they say "well according to the people at the time it wasnt wrong, so I guess no". So you point to a black man and say "If everyone in this city thought slavery was okay, then I could drag him away from his family and loved ones and make him work for me for the rest of his natural life and that would be morally right" and they hesitate. Every fibre of their being tells them that that is just wrong, but according to their own theory, its okay.

They have reached a point where their morals are telling them something is wrong, but according to their moral theory its okay. If, when you are forcing consistency in a moral theory, you arrive at this scenario - then your moral theory has just been pwned.

So then I ask them "Whats the point of a moral system if it cant prevent/present a good arguement as to why a travesty such as that is wrong" and silence is always the answer.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well, in such a situation, a religious moral system would say "because god says so". I imagine he would reply "so what, I've never even seen the guy, why would I care what he says". What I'd say is simple: "because at least 4 billion real, material humans happen to agree with me, and quite a lot of them will want to punish you if you do so, since it breaks their moral system and threatens to cause instability in their society".</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Oh no no no. The religious system is based on more than just "cause a God you dont believe in says so". It has the "Because God will ensure that in this lifetime or the next, you will suffer retribution, and the cost will be excruitating. Dont believe in my God? Irrelevant, my God exists regardless of your belief, and will punish you belief or no. There is no escaping justice." The simple advantage this has over yours is that this reason extends to both before and after death.

His answer to yours would be: "Well I'm going to commit suicide straight after killing you anyway, so I dont fear your 4 billion people. Their power means nothing to me now, and it certainly wont save you. You still have yet to provide a reason why I shouldnt kill you if I fear no punishment in this life, I enjoy taking life and see it as morally wholesome."

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yes, I do think that might makes right. It just so happens that the best way to achieve might is to cooperate in as large groups as possible. So, in most situations, following a "no kill, no stealing, no raping" moral system benefits the individual the most.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Wow. I give you ten points for honestly, but thats the worst basis for a moral theory I've ever met. Thats actually why I put the "might makes right" scenario forward, because its such a horrible scenario to contemplate I thought no one would ever actually accept it.

Had the Nazi's won WW2, then the ethnic cleansing of the Jews would have been morally justified. Seeing as I am stronger than your wife, I have the moral right to do whatever I like to her. Everything the USA does is automatically morally justified given that they are powerful. The man with the gun is ALWAYS right and morally justified in doing anything, as the gun gives him power.

Do you really accept that? Do you really believe that? If my beliefs forced me to those conclusions, I'd take a looonnnggg hard look at them.

Geminosity · March 2004

I find the arguement rather odd that people would need a higher power to give them a working set of morals. But that could just be down to my mindset =/

Being an athiest, I've always followed a rather simple and easy to understand set of morals. They rely on the easily understandable principles often set forth in the old cliche 'walk a mile in another persons shoes'. The principles themselves are even learned somewhat easily =P

Simply put...

If I were the target or witness to this action would I find it distasteful, hurtful or otherwise negative.

That pretty much covers everything morally. Being stolen from would annoy me so therefore I don't do it to others. Physical harm and even death aren't exactly something you really want so as of yet I've got a RL frag count of nil.
Even something like having a secret relationship behind someone's back; it'd break the trust of the relationship and it'd hurt the person who it was hidden from.
For most parts it's easy to understand and follow for anyone, the only problems being someone who enjoys pain for example ^^;
But outside of the minority it's a fairly comphrensive life-rule that works all situations, especially when added to with a little education of the differences of others.

Why someone would need a deity or 'purpose' to come to such a simple and easily learned understanding is beyond me o.O

xect · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Hrrmmmm. In some Middle Eastern countries, if your sister is raped then you as her brother have every right to kill her, as she is now unclean. In those countries, those morals are widely accepted and written down as law. Do you honestly consider those morals on par with yours?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Well, those morals exist on the other side of the world. If that's how they do things, if that's what their beliefs and religion tells them, then so be it. I personally think that the thought is disgusting, but I have no power to change it (and neither have you, as far as I know. None of us are going to take the plane over there tomorrow to change it anyway)

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Many people also believed the world was flat, and they managed to survive in the scientific community for hundreds of years. Merely believing in something wrong and getting by with it in no way validates your theory. Many people hold to relative moralist style theories, but they simply do not function logically or fairly. They work because people refuse to look into it see if it has substance logically. I suspect most of them dont wish too. Inconsistancy seems to mark everything they do.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Actually, I don't think so. The moral system of these leades makes as much sense as that of the christian leaders. The christian leaders supported the flat earth, remember. The relative morals surely do not always function "fairly" in the christian sense of the world, but applied to the given world, they do make more logic sense as far as I can see.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You ask them if slavery is wrong and they say yes. You ask them if it was wrong in the 18th century and they say "well according to the people at the time it wasnt wrong, so I guess no". So you point to a black man and say "If everyone in this city thought slavery was okay, then I could drag him away from his family and loved ones and make him work for me for the rest of his natural life and that would be morally right" and they hesitate. Every fibre of their being tells them that that is just wrong, but according to their own theory, its okay.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Again, your claim makes sense only within the limited borders of absolute morale. Even though the morale of the slavers said that owning slaves was right, you can be sure the slaves thought different. But given the environment, slavers were in power. In the society of the 18th century, slaving was what counted, so in the morale system of the 18th century, slaving was acceptable. Of cause, today, that's just disgusting, which is why our morale is different. In two hundred years, morale will have changed it all.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Oh no no no. The religious system is based on more than just "cause a God you dont believe in says so". It has the "Because God will ensure that in this lifetime or the next, you will suffer retribution, and the cost will be excruitating. Dont believe in my God? Irrelevant, my God exists regardless of your belief, and will punish you belief or no. There is no escaping justice." The simple advantage this has over yours is that this reason extends to both before and after death.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Of cause, this assumes that this psycho believes in christianity. If it doesn't, I'll have that bullet in my head anyway, and wether or not I tried to explain any moral to him wouldn't change much. Suppose he did believe in heaven and hell, and I knew that. In that case, I'd definitely tell him he would be going to hell for shooting me. I might not personally believe in going to hell, but I would surely be respecting his right to believe in it (see bottom of this post), and on top, I'd want to save myself.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They have reached a point where their morals are telling them something is wrong, but according to their moral theory its okay. If, when you are forcing consistency in a moral theory, you arrive at this scenario - then your moral theory has just been pwned.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
That is, if you assume the worst in people. Take the scenario from before with the psycho society. If we had two distinct continents, one populated with psychos and another populated by people advocating peace and friendship. Which would you guess was the one to survive? We are here today because the morale of our ancestors told them not to kill each other. Thus, the general morale of our society is to not kill each other, simply because, instinctively, we know that this is <u>the best thing for humanity</u>. Or, please, don't tell me you seriously know any normal person who LIKES to kill.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Wow. I give you ten points for honestly, but thats the worst basis for a moral theory I've ever met. Thats actually why I put the "might makes right" scenario forward, because its such a horrible scenario to contemplate I thought no one would ever actually accept it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
That's because you're stepping off at the middle station and not following my argument through to the conclusion. If Hitler had won and we lived today in nazi society, do you think we would consider him wrong. Of cause we wouldn't, our morals would tell us he was right. I don't, however, believe that. Extinction of 'races' is not a good way to keep your species alive, so his idea of morale would probably have been dumped before the 21st century anyway.

But it seems you are misunderstanding a lot of my points here. I do not think that we should base our society on a "might makes right" principle. Nor to I like the "gun makes right" example you're using. The only difference between my morale system and your morale system is the way we reach the conclusion.

I believe that, as a species, we are here because our instincts told us to cooperate to a certain point. This "morale" allowed us to survive the natural selection, surviving and prospering. This morale system allows us to survive and prosper, and it furthers the cause of our species. It also gives me the advantage of being able to observe other morale bases and conclude that while their base is different from mine, they reach the same result, and thus have as much validity as mine. For that reason, I am able to respect other morale systems for what they are, recognizing that every human life holds a morale system, and that this morale system deserves optimal respect and rights insofar as it does not severely conflict with my own morale system. Because in honoring his morale, I am helping the species, and in helping the species, I am helping myself.

You believe that the rules you follow are set forth by some greater power. This allows you to recieve a specific guidance on morale, based on your bible and your connection with your god. This morale system allows you to survive and further the ends of both you and your fellow man. It also allows you to stand behind your specific rules with conviction, putting power behind the "thou shalt not kill", because you know that in a thousand years, the bible will still read "thou shalt not kill". You are able to respect other humans because your religion has taught you to respect them, and you see that this is the right way to go.

So, faced with the psycho in the alley, you will tell him that he should not kill you because he would face punishment if he did, while I would tell him that he should not kill me because he would be harming us all, but both will tell him that he should not kill.

The reason why I have chosen the relative morale system is because I believe it fits in. Wherever you look, you see places where the christian morale failed to achieve its purpose. You see bloody crusades and inhuman burnings. While your religion might tell you that is wrong, I, by nature, prefer the sytem that gives me the reason: "those people were percieved as a threat to the morale system of their time".

Legionnaired · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Mar 8 2004, 10:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I find the arguement rather odd that people would need a higher power to give them a working set of morals. But that could just be down to my mindset =/

Being an athiest, I've always followed a rather simple and easy to understand set of morals. They rely on the easily understandable principles often set forth in the old cliche 'walk a mile in another persons shoes'. The principles themselves are even learned somewhat easily =P

Simply put...

If I were the target or witness to this action would I find it distasteful, hurtful or otherwise negative.

That pretty much covers everything morally. Being stolen from would annoy me so therefore I don't do it to others. Physical harm and even death aren't exactly something you really want so as of yet I've got a RL frag count of nil.
Even something like having a secret relationship behind someone's back; it'd break the trust of the relationship and it'd hurt the person who it was hidden from.
For most parts it's easy to understand and follow for anyone, the only problems being someone who enjoys pain for example ^^;
But outside of the minority it's a fairly comphrensive life-rule that works all situations, especially when added to with a little education of the differences of others.

Why someone would need a deity or 'purpose' to come to such a simple and easily learned understanding is beyond me o.O  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
All the points that Marine01 raised still apply to that theory. Even if I wouldn't like to be killed, I've got all the guns, and thus, can do whatever I want to you with no retribution. Sure, I could be nice to you, but logically there is absolutely no reason to do so.

xect · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 8 2004, 05:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> but logically there is absolutely no reason to do so.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Apart from the fact that, as a human, you probably won't feel like shooting his head off for no reason.

Geminosity · March 2004

you seem a little tied up with logic... people aren't really all that logical, though we often like to think we are it's rarely so simple =/

If you really need logic then it's simple. If you kill one person while you've got all the guns then their relatives will come looking for vengeance and could possibly have more guns than you =P
Even if we go so far to the 'illogical' extreme of you having the ONLY guns in the whole wide universe then people are still going to find a way to get you. Once you start killing people you resign yourself to a life of unrest as there's always someone with a reason ranging from vengeance to an inevitable reward who'll try to get your head on a stick.

In the end it all comes back to the somewhat reasonable logic that you end up at the opposite end of your own actions eventually, so it's better to give what you want to recieve =3
If you push you'll be pushed.

If, and this is seriously hypothetical to the extremes, god was irrefutably proven to not exist, could you say with all honesty that you'd turn into a petty tyrant bent on the destruction and enslavement of everyone and anything around you? I don't think so, do you? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

Nemesis_Zero · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Mar 8 2004, 04:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Nem - I'm not so sure I agree there. Many religious people consider moral relativism and atheistic moral systems linked. When discussing morals, its impossible to get away from the basic question of "What backs your morals up?" When the answer lies in "logic" or the even more popular "Me" very often associated with atheistic morals, then relative morality and the criticisms of it become pertinent. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I already answered this once, but I will again:
Morallic relativism and secular morals are not linked because there are secular moral codes that do rely on premises such as the Kantian 'Ultimate morale', an universal morallic code that exists as a natural law comparable to, say, the physical laws. To Kant, every society makes an attempt at coming close to this universal morale, much as scientists try to create formulaes that describe physical laws as accurately as possible - the closer the resulting code is to the universal morale, the better the society.
Take this as the one example that's necessary to disprove a logical theorem.

Anyway, to your point. You summed your very abstract question about the right of a secular moralist of applying his views to others up in the example of the 'ethical thief'.
Basically, your example goes like this:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Suppose a burglar breaks into your house at night and tries to steal your DvD player. Suppose you catch him. On which grounds can you prosecute him if he tells you he follows a logic that makes stealing morallic?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
My answer (which has already been brought up by moultano, I'll just try to reword it to show why it answers your question) is the following: I can prosecute him on the grounds of reality.
In terms of the example, show me a morallic code, a system of rules and guidelines that is capable of regulating the life of an individual within the constant interaction of its society, that allows theft and does not show logical faults when applied to reality.
If you come up with one, I'll invite you over and give you my DvD player <i>and</i> my movie collection as a bonus, because you'll have earned it.

There's a number of basic assumptions that have to be made in any society that's not to collapse into itself - which would show that the moral code was faulty simply by breaking with the very <i>definition</i> of a moral code. Whether that is because of human nature, the existence of an unviersal morale, a deity, an inherited social contract within every society we knew of, external circumstances of our life in a world of limited resources, or what have you is up to your own discretion, but the fact remains: You will not be able to build a consistent morallic system to be followed by humans without them, and for all we know, 'respect other peoples property' is generally one of them.
I say 'generally' because there are indeed cases in which theft is not considered amorallic - cases in which other, higher regarded morallic principles are at stake (thus the exception of stealing a loaf of bread for a starving family, for example).

You will now tell me that I'm making a big assumption by proclaiming that 'my' morals (although they aren't mine; as I said, I base my morals at least partly on a deity) is so logically refined that I can assume that it'll trump any other persons possible objections. The matter of fact is that I don't have to.
Why do you think is there a Supreme Court that has the ability of refuting laws based on objections raised by individual citizens in the United States and any other western democracy? It's there because they acknowledge that the majorities morallic code might be faulty in some cases, and that the logically superior minority deserves a voice.
Similiar for personal morals - who says they can't develop? They have to!
This doesn't degrade them in the slightest; flexibility is a sign of strength, not weakness. For now, I can impose my morallic opinion that thievery is generally bad on the burglar, because I have yet to see a logically conciese objection. As for the future - well, we will see.

xect · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Mar 8 2004, 06:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If you really need logic then it's simple. If you kill one person while you've got all the guns then their relatives will come looking for vengeance and could possibly have more guns than you =P  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Or basically just follow the instincts that the previous thousand generations left you, combined with the upbringing that the last two or three gave you, and you'll more often than not automatically know what's the right thing to do. Because your ancestors doing that "right thing" is the reason you are here today.

Geminosity · March 2004

I know... I was just answering legion ^^

The 'moral instinct' thingy is an odd one. Primates don't really run around killing each other often... if there's a death in a troop it's usually accidental, illness, old-age or predators. Most people who take up medical professions are a pretty good example of the selfless human spirit, along with voluntary workers and whatnot (yeah, yeah... i know some are religious but some aren't too. Keep that in mind).
On the same parallel though, we have groups of 'neds' that walk about breaking things and beating people up, going completely against the idea of a benefitial nature. They're like societies failures and they're out to get it back for it =P

I like to be optimistic and think that all people are intrinsically capable of being nice people, even the nastiest of bullies tend to just be vulnerable humans like the rest of us once you get under the aggressive armour. I just find myself forgetting that sometimes when a 'posse' of loud, obnoxious brats wanders down the street -.-

xect · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Mar 8 2004, 09:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> On the same parallel though, we have groups of 'neds' that walk about breaking things and beating people up, going completely against the idea of a benefitial nature.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
True, but those people are rarely accepted by society. It's that simple, they are bad for survival, so they can't be part of it. I don't believe that any morality, neither christian nor aesthetic, could convince them to change their ways, and neither morality does, as far as I can see, provide a decent way to change their ways by force, since the forcefull methods are against both morale systems. This is where I think relative morals apply, because treating them like we'd want to be treated simply won't work.

Geminosity · March 2004

In their case I ignore them and they ignore me... I think the system still works ^~

Marine0I · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Well, those morals exist on the other side of the world. If that's how they do things, if that's what their beliefs and religion tells them, then so be it. I personally think that the thought is disgusting, but I have no power to change it (and neither have you, as far as I know. None of us are going to take the plane over there tomorrow to change it anyway)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This is a cop out. You totally dodged the bullet here. You have pretty much two answers. It's either "Yes, what they are doing is morally good and justified" as this has fulfilled your criteria for a decent moral system, or "no, they are doing the wrong thing." Your personal dislike of it is irrelevant - according to your relative moral theory they dont and shouldnt care less about how you feel, and this has no bearing on the rightness of their actions. They only have to act according to their own morals. So whats your answer?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Actually, I don't think so. The moral system of these leades makes as much sense as that of the christian leaders. The christian leaders supported the flat earth, remember. The relative morals surely do not always function "fairly" in the christian sense of the world, but applied to the given world, they do make more logic sense as far as I can see.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, the logic behind them is what I'm attempting to disprove. In my experience I have yet to meet a man holding true relative morals who can enforce consistency between his morallic code and his personal morals.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Again, your claim makes sense only within the limited borders of absolute morale. Even though the morale of the slavers said that owning slaves was right, you can be sure the slaves thought different. But given the environment, slavers were in power. In the society of the 18th century, slaving was what counted, so in the morale system of the 18th century, slaving was acceptable. Of cause, today, that's just disgusting, which is why our morale is different. In two hundred years, morale will have changed it all.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

But according to you might makes right. You said it yourself. Please, feel free to check the quote to see if I am misrepresenting you.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Bingo! You hit the nail right on the head. Your moral system tells you to put him in jail, you have more power than he does, so you win. Might makes right. Do you honestly believe that sheer human power is the ultimate decider in morality? Does this mean that conquering armies have the moral right to butcher their opponents, as they have proved themselves and their morals (saying "you can kill opponents in gruesome ways, its okay") are correct via feats of arms? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, I do think that might makes right.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

My example makes perfect sense. If everyone today believed slavery was right, then according to your moral theory, it would be morally acceptable. According to your moral beliefs, it would be morally unacceptable. Your moral theory and your moral beliefs are at odds with each other - that is a bad news for a moral theory.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Of cause, this assumes that this psycho believes in christianity. If it doesn't, I'll have that bullet in my head anyway, and wether or not I tried to explain any moral to him wouldn't change much. Suppose he did believe in heaven and hell, and I knew that. In that case, I'd definitely tell him he would be going to hell for shooting me. I might not personally believe in going to hell, but I would surely be respecting his right to believe in it (see bottom of this post), and on top, I'd want to save myself.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Not true. This doesnt assume the psycho believes in Christianity. Nothing will stop a man like that, certainly not individual beliefs. The point of this exercise is not to conn your way out of being shot. The point is to provided him with a reason why he shouldnt. Logically, you cant with relative morals. The only reason that will be relevant to a man like that is a reason that extends beyond death.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They have reached a point where their morals are telling them something is wrong, but according to their moral theory its okay. If, when you are forcing consistency in a moral theory, you arrive at this scenario - then your moral theory has just been pwned.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
That is, if you assume the worst in people. Take the scenario from before with the psycho society. If we had two distinct continents, one populated with psychos and another populated by people advocating peace and friendship. Which would you guess was the one to survive? We are here today because the morale of our ancestors told them not to kill each other. Thus, the general morale of our society is to not kill each other, simply because, instinctively, we know that this is <u>the best thing for humanity</u>. Or, please, don't tell me you seriously know any normal person who LIKES to kill.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

My point stands irrespective of whether or not I assume the worst in people. Could you please deal with my statement in a little more specific manner so I can see whereabouts specifically you disagree.

Some people feel the instinct to kill. Supermen are one example, they have an extra chromosome (not sure if its y or x) and they have the natural drive to rape and kill women. If instincts are the bottom line of your morallic theory, then again we are in trouble. However, for you its instincts combined with might makes right <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That's because you're stepping off at the middle station and not following my argument through to the conclusion. If Hitler had won and we lived today in nazi society, do you think we would consider him wrong. Of cause we wouldn't, our morals would tell us he was right. I don't, however, believe that. Extinction of 'races' is not a good way to keep your species alive, so his idea of morale would probably have been dumped before the 21st century anyway.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I dont see where I'm stepping off to early. Hitler and Hitler's morals firmly believed that eliminating the "parasite on society" and uplifting those most evolutionairy gifted he would be improving the species. Extinction of races may be a good way to keep your species alive - survival of the fittest. Supposedly that is the engine behind evolution.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But it seems you are misunderstanding a lot of my points here. I do not think that we should base our society on a "might makes right" principle. Nor to I like the "gun makes right" example you're using. The only difference between my morale system and your morale system is the way we reach the conclusion.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, you'll have to forgive me for thinking you believed in might makes right - especially when you post "Yes, I do think that might makes right."

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

You dont like the gun makes right example, but your moral theory validifies it. Unless you want to posit that there is a moral absolute "everything done in order to advance the species is morally good, anything done to inhibit the advancement of the species is morally wrong" - and then you no longer have relative morals. This seems to be what you are saying below.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I believe that, as a species, we are here because our instincts told us to cooperate to a certain point. This "morale" allowed us to survive the natural selection, surviving and prospering. This morale system allows us to survive and prosper, and it furthers the cause of our species. It also gives me the advantage of being able to observe other morale bases and conclude that while their base is different from mine, they reach the same result, and thus have as much validity as mine. For that reason, I am able to respect other morale systems for what they are, recognizing that every human life holds a morale system, and that this morale system deserves optimal respect and rights insofar as it does not severely conflict with my own morale system. Because in honoring his morale, I am helping the species, and in helping the species, I am helping myself.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

But when it does conflict with your moral system, what then? Then you break out the guns, call up the militia, send out the police and force him to be judged by your moral system. And in that case, despite the fact his morals say he's doing the right thing, you are going to ram yours down his throat regardless. What ultimately makes your morals right and accepted in this scenario? Power. Might makes right. I dont need to repeat the examples to show that "might makes right" is a horrible basis.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So, faced with the psycho in the alley, you will tell him that he should not kill you because he would face punishment if he did, while I would tell him that he should not kill me because he would be harming us all, but both will tell him that he should not kill.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Both will tell him the same thing, but only one can provide a way in which this can actually have negative effects for him.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The reason why I have chosen the relative morale system is because I believe it fits in. Wherever you look, you see places where the christian morale failed to achieve its purpose. You see bloody crusades and inhuman burnings. While your religion might tell you that is wrong, I, by nature, prefer the sytem that gives me the reason: "those people were percieved as a threat to the morale system of their time".</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The Christian moral system only works when its applied. When it is tossed out the window, its effectivness plummets. This is what happened in The Crusades. If you think the Crusades was all about religions and morals, then you are seriously mistaken. The Crusades were about trade routes, power and money - with the religious justifier tossed in to make it more palatable to the masses. That was not a failure of the theory, merely a failure to apply the theory.

Marine0I · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Mar 9 2004, 05:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> you seem a little tied up with logic... people aren't really all that logical, though we often like to think we are it's rarely so simple =/  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
A little tied up with logic? Please dont criticise logic and then use logic to make points. If you want to make a moral theory, it has to A)be consistant and B)make logical sense.

If you throw out/break the second rule, then we have serious trouble. I believe killing is wrong because 3 bananas AND a cucumber told me. Clearly three talking bananas coupled with the wisdom of a cucumber cannot be wrong, and is above contestation. Thats assuming of course that the cucumber has juicy insides, because if its insides where dry then it would have no authority to deal out morals. Pumpkins on the other hand......

Seeing as logic has no play here - that theory has all the validity of anything you whip up. How do you plan to criticise that? By claiming cucumbers dont talk? Hang on, thats not logical reasoning ur usin there is it? If you honestly believe that theory is as valid as yours, then good luck to you, and dont fight the men in white coats, they are your friends <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

FilthyLarry · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Mar 8 2004, 07:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well, you'll have to forgive me for thinking you believed in might makes right - especially when you post "Yes, I do think that might makes right."

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I'm going to have to snipe at this particular idea. So you think "might makes right" makes for a poor basis for a moral system.

And yet you believe in an almighty, the key being _mighty_, being that has layed down "the rules" so to speak. So what makes Him/Her/It correct is might ultimately.... what with the threat of punishment and all that...

and so it seems that might makes right in any system, including yours.

Is this not so ?

Marine0I · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I already answered this once, but I will again:
Morallic relativism and secular morals are not linked because there are secular moral codes that do rely on premises such as the Kantian 'Ultimate morale', an universal morallic code that exists as a natural law comparable to, say, the physical laws. To Kant, every society makes an attempt at coming close to this universal morale, much as scientists try to create formulaes that describe physical laws as accurately as possible - the closer the resulting code is to the universal morale, the better the society.
Take this as the one example that's necessary to disprove a logical theorem.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I see. The debate (despite the title) was actually "secular morals vs religious morals" not "relative morals vs absolute morals". The debate about the validity of humanistic morals was still going when moultano went afk however - and he has yet to answer my points.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Suppose a burglar breaks into your house at night and tries to steal your DvD player. Suppose you catch him. On which grounds can you prosecute him if he tells you he follows a logic that makes stealing morallic?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
My answer (which has already been brought up by moultano, I'll just try to reword it to show why it answers your question) is the following: I can prosecute him on the grounds of reality.
In terms of the example, show me a morallic code, a system of rules and guidelines that is capable of regulating the life of an individual within the constant interaction of its society, that allows theft and does not show logical faults when applied to reality.
If you come up with one, I'll invite you over and give you my DvD player <i>and</i> my movie collection as a bonus, because you'll have earned it.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The criticism of that still stands. You ended your post with "I'd be really curious to see how you are going to answer mine and moultano's points, but good night" and I replyed maybe three pages later so you probably missed it. I asked the counter-question "What do you feel gives you the right to force your moral belief on him despite his disbelief in yours"? I suspect the answer was going to be "Logic states that my theory works when universally applied to society", so the answer to the underlying justification for your enforcing is your logic.

I hold no faith in logic, being the thought processes of a flawed human mind. The fact that his moral code is based upon his own logic gives it the same value as yours.

As I said before, I really like Kants imperative. It's pretty much the Golden Rule from the Bible, and I feel it has divine origins. But when you ask what actually gives Kants imperative authority, I find the answers lacking.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You will now tell me that I'm making a big assumption by proclaiming that 'my' morals (although they aren't mine; as I said, I base my morals at least partly on a deity) is so logically refined that I can assume that it'll trump any other persons possible objections.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Give this man a cookie - he reads minds <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />. For all events and purposes in this thread, can we assume you are pure atheist, seeing as this is a secular vs religous moral style arguement.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The matter of fact is that I don't have to.
Why do you think is there a Supreme Court that has the ability of refuting laws based on objections raised by individual citizens in the United States and any other western democracy? It's there because they acknowledge that the majorities morallic code might be faulty in some cases, and that the logically superior minority deserves a voice.
Similiar for personal morals - who says they can't develop? They have to!
This doesn't degrade them in the slightest; flexibility is a sign of strength, not weakness. For now, I can impose my morallic opinion that thievery is generally bad on the burglar, because I have yet to see a logically conciese objection. As for the future - well, we will see.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I disagree strongly there. Having the Supreme Court sort something out logically and having you sort something out logically makes no difference. You cant simply point out that there is an appeals process and use that to escape having to personally justify to the man why your morals are so superior. You believe your morals are superior because the logic behind them works perfectly to you. He believes his morals are superior because the logic he follows makes perfect sense to him. Personal reasoning, or even the reasoning of a specially set up appeals process is no decent foundation for a moral system.

Marine0I · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Mar 9 2004, 01:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Mar 8 2004, 07:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well, you'll have to forgive me for thinking you believed in might makes right - especially when you post "Yes, I do think that might makes right."

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I'm going to have to snipe at this particular idea. So you think "might makes right" makes for a poor basis for a moral system.

And yet you believe in an almighty, the key being _mighty_, being that has layed down "the rules" so to speak. So what makes Him/Her/It correct is might ultimately.... what with the threat of punishment and all that...

and so it seems that might makes right in any system, including yours.

Is this not so ?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I was wondering if someone would pick that up.

I actually do believe might makes right. The strongest and most powerful being in existance gets to set the rules. For me, that is God. However, for Xect, its not, its actually a human/group of humans. He believes in no higher power than humans. His experience with humans and knowledge of history tells him that powerful groups of humans often do things that contradict his personal morals, and as such doesnt/should believe that might makes right.

Geminosity · March 2004

lol marine. While people are capable of logical thought I don't think they, themselves are logical. But I see your point all the same =3
I was merely bringing it up because he was trying to dictate that without reason we don't associate something with a 'worth'. People cling desperately to useless inanimate objects every day merely because of simple things, from nostalgia to a host of other emotional reasons that go against the cold dictation of logical thought.
I have a cuddly toy or two, for example, that would upset me greatly if they were destroyed. Taking a step back from my feelings here I can happily say they're really just hopelessly useless pieces of fluff; they serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever in my life. Yet if someone wrecked them I'd still be both upset and angry at them, not because they were 'mine' but because... well, I don't actually know why. Probably the same reasons I sometimes say stuff to them and cuddle them =P
(I tend to be quite unattached to a lot of my stuff... usually if something breaks I just shrug and get on with life, even my PC's harddrive going nukesville when I had no backups barely got me in a tizzy despite it basically being the reason I failed my last year in university)
Anyways, to bring this to bear on the point I questioned, even though people might not believe that other's lives have 'purpose' they're still more than capable of respecting that they're alive regardless of the illogical reasoning behind it.

Regardless, I still gave some logic counterpoints to justify why the 'reflective' directive works even assuming the worst in humanity so it's a moot point =P

xect · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This is a cop out. You totally dodged the bullet here. You have pretty much two answers. It's either "Yes, what they are doing is morally good and justified" as this has fulfilled your criteria for a decent moral system, or "no, they are doing the wrong thing." ... So whats your answer?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Well, if that's how you want it. Yes, I do believe that their actions are justified. It's their country, it's their home, their morals apply. As long as their morals don't mess with mine, they have as much right to follow their moral beliefs as I have.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well, the logic behind them is what I'm attempting to disprove. In my experience I have yet to meet a man holding true relative morals who can enforce consistency between his morallic code and his personal morals.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I don't really get what you mean, sorry. Are you saying that the moral they show doesn't fit the moral they supposedly believe in?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>My example makes perfect sense. If everyone today believed slavery was right, then according to your moral theory, it would be morally acceptable...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Yeah, and if you look at morals from back then, it was.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>According to your moral beliefs, it would be morally unacceptable. Your moral theory and your moral beliefs are at odds with each other - that is a bad news for a moral theory.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Not really, my moral theory provides a reason for why my moral belief is as it is.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Not true. This doesnt assume the psycho believes in Christianity. Nothing will stop a man like that, certainly not individual beliefs. The point of this exercise is not to conn your way out of being shot. The point is to provided him with a reason why he shouldnt.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
What stops "you shooting me will hurt humanity" from being as valid as "some being you don't believe in tells you you shouldn't shoot me"?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If instincts are the bottom line of your morallic theory, then again we are in trouble. However, for you its instincts combined with might makes right <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Well, if instincts tell these people to kill then their moral is in conflict with mine, and that means I will have to stop them. Of cause, if the majority of humans had their morals, I would be in trouble. But if that was the case, I would not even have been born.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I dont see where I'm stepping off to early. Hitler and Hitler's morals firmly believed that eliminating the "parasite on society" and uplifting those most evolutionairy gifted he would be improving the species. Extinction of races may be a good way to keep your species alive - survival of the fittest. Supposedly that is the engine behind evolution.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
True, true. And it's pretty clear, quite a lot of germans seemed to agree with Hitler. So he can't have been that much immoral, or the ones with christian morals would certainly have stopped him, wouldn't they? Extinction of races works if the races have moral codes in conflict with yours. But for every race you remove, that's one less race to stand by your side. I'm not saying that Hitler was right, because had he been allowed to take power, I believe it would have messed up the world pretty badly. What I'm saying is that to sit here, fifty years after he lived, and decide that what he did was horribly evil and there was no shade of right to it is, if anything, more immoral than what he did. Anyone, no matter who they are, no matter what they do, deserve to have their moral beliefs respected.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well, you'll have to forgive me for thinking you believed in might makes right - especially when you post "Yes, I do think that might makes right."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I do, but you keep applying it to the wrong examples. You keep using the example of some guy wielding a gun. But really, that man, no matter how many magazines of lead he has, no matter how well he aims, and no matter how much lead his weapon can pour into me, has no power. Might makes right, and being alone makes you weak. Thus, the only way to get might, and thus, the only way to be right, is to respect your fellow humans, because that's the only way you're going to get them to respect you and help you. I have never killed anyone, and for that reason, I can count on the average man I meet on the street to support me if someone wants to kill me, even if I do not know his name.

I think I need to clear up something. "Might makes right" is not the cornerstone of my moral theory, the idea that everyone has their own moral viewpoint, and that this viewpoint deserves respect no matter what, is. But sometimes there will just be a situation where two moral viewpoints are in conflict, and only one can prevail. And in those cases, "might makes right" is the best solution I have seen so far. Of cause, if I was able to find some deity who'd give me his cell-phone number, so that I could ask him whenever a conflict occured, I'd be happy to shift my faith. But so far, all the deities I have heard of have preferred the silent approach.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You dont like the gun makes right example, but your moral theory validifies it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
No it does not. Your interpretation of my moral theory validifies it. The gun example has the single, major flaw that a gun does not give you might, society give you might.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But when it does conflict with your moral system, what then? Then you break out the guns, call up the militia, send out the police and force him to be judged by your moral system. And in that case, despite the fact his morals say he's doing the right thing, you are going to ram yours down his throat regardless. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
If the militia responds, chance is that my morals are supported by more people than his morals are. Thus, I have the choice between honoring the morals of this man, or honoring the morals of the whole militia. There's more than five billion humans on this planet, some of them will have to live with having morals rammed down their throats.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Both will tell him the same thing, but only one can provide a way in which this can actually have negative effects for him.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Yeah, insofar as he believes in it. And in that case, I'm in trouble anyway. Moral in that alley is only a hypothetical thing, and I believe that applying morals to situations where moral does not apply only weakens moral, because it proves the fundamental shortcomings of the moral system. Any system that says he should not kill me has no value in that alley if it fails to stop him regardless.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Christian moral system only works when its applied. When it is tossed out the window, its effectivness plummets. This is what happened in The Crusades. If you think the Crusades was all about religions and morals, then you are seriously mistaken. The Crusades were about trade routes, power and money - with the religious justifier tossed in to make it more palatable to the masses. That was not a failure of the theory, merely a failure to apply the theory.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I believe these two things are strongly connected. Each time a moral system fails to have been applied, people lose faith in it. The way I see it, a moral system has to have some connection to real life. It seems the flaw of all those moral systems. They all present an utopia and describes how people should behave within this utopia. But they fail to apply to the real world, and thus lose their meaning. In my opinion, a moral code should influence things, rather than just be there AFTER disaster has happened to say "Well, that was wrong. Too bad it's too late to change it".

The way I apply my moral system is through my belief that anyone has their own moral code, and in the case of non-psychos, their moral code is justified. Thus, if someone do something that conflicts with my moral code, instead of saying "well, that was wrong", I try to find out why he did it, find out what in his moral code made him do it. In many situations, I become that much wiser, rather than just ending up with a proud, but fake, feeling of superiority. I'll try to provide you with an extreme example: Try thinking about Hitler again. Now, I know you think what he did was wrong, of cause you do. But try to ignore that. Try asking yourself: "Why did Hitler do what he did? Why was Hitler a good man?". Try to take five minutes where you forget all the Jews, ignore the war, and just think about the reasons that made the germans follow him.

Doing that will most likely not make you believe Hitler was a good man, because when you're finished, you will remember the Jews again. But it will also make you remember how he tried to pull Germany out of the poverty that the aftermath of the first world war left them in. You will remember all the jobs he created, all the germans who had only him to thank for the bread on their tables. It will, as I said, not make you believe he was a good man. But I personally find comfort in the fact that no matter where I look, I can turn it to something good.

Nemesis_Zero · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Mar 9 2004, 01:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Suppose a burglar breaks into your house at night and tries to steal your DvD player. Suppose you catch him. On which grounds can you prosecute him if he tells you he follows a logic that makes stealing morallic?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
My answer (which has already been brought up by moultano, I'll just try to reword it to show why it answers your question) is the following: I can prosecute him on the grounds of reality.
In terms of the example, show me a morallic code, a system of rules and guidelines that is capable of regulating the life of an individual within the constant interaction of its society, that allows theft and does not show logical faults when applied to reality.
If you come up with one, I'll invite you over and give you my DvD player <i>and</i> my movie collection as a bonus, because you'll have earned it.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The criticism of that still stands. You ended your post with "I'd be really curious to see how you are going to answer mine and moultano's points, but good night" and I replyed maybe three pages later so you probably missed it. I asked the counter-question "What do you feel gives you the right to force your moral belief on him despite his disbelief in yours"? I suspect the answer was going to be "Logic states that my theory works when universally applied to society", so the answer to the underlying justification for your enforcing is your logic.

I hold no faith in logic, being the thought processes of a flawed human mind. The fact that his moral code is based upon his own logic gives it the same value as yours. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Erm... Could you do me a favor and descend from those lofty spaces of abstraction down into the real world? Give me an example of a disputable moral code we can work on, staying around this hypothetical thief won't do the discussion any good. On that note, before you bring him up again, Stalin is not an example for a logically sufficient moral code: He was a clinical paranoic fearing first Trotzky, then the former big landowners, then co-revolutionaries, then Hitler, then the western alliance. His crimes were not committed on a morallic basis more elaborate than that of a child screaming and flaying out at everyone who looks imposing.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I hold no faith in logic, being the thought processes of a flawed human mind.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I'm a little baffled by this remark: You employ logic - pretty damn sharp logic, actually - to defend your opinion. You challenge the validity of secular morals on a logical ground. And now you tell me you don't believe in it if I use it against another mans logic? How does that fit together?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You will now tell me that I'm making a big assumption by proclaiming that 'my' morals (although they aren't mine; as I said, I base my morals at least partly on a deity) is so logically refined that I can assume that it'll trump any other persons possible objections.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Give this man a cookie - he reads minds <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />. For all events and purposes in this thread, can we assume you are pure atheist, seeing as this is a secular vs religous moral style arguement.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Well, I read my threads <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /> OK, assume me an atheist for the purposes of this topic.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The matter of fact is that I don't have to.
Why do you think is there a Supreme Court that has the ability of refuting laws based on objections raised by individual citizens in the United States and any other western democracy? It's there because they acknowledge that the majorities morallic code might be faulty in some cases, and that the logically superior minority deserves a voice.
Similiar for personal morals - who says they can't develop? They have to!
This doesn't degrade them in the slightest; flexibility is a sign of strength, not weakness. For now, I can impose my morallic opinion that thievery is generally bad on the burglar, because I have yet to see a logically conciese objection. As for the future - well, we will see.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I disagree strongly there. Having the Supreme Court sort something out logically and having you sort something out logically makes no difference. You cant simply point out that there is an appeals process and use that to escape having to personally justify to the man why your morals are so superior. You believe your morals are superior because the logic behind them works perfectly to you. He believes his morals are superior because the logic he follows makes perfect sense to him. Personal reasoning, or even the reasoning of a specially set up appeals process is no decent foundation for a moral system.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I mentioned the Surpreme Court because you described democracy as a 'mob rule' based on the assumption that 'might makes right'. The Surpreme Court was my explanation as to why it isn't, it was a seperate example not directely linked to the ethical thief.
To sum my argumentation up in an abstract forumlae:
<b>"Deductions derived from secular morals can be imposed on other people for as long as these deductions can be considered logically correct in relation to the real world. This inherently includes the assumption of the possibility of a more refined logic that might be presented at any point in the future and will then have to be subsequently adopted."</b>
In terms of the example of the thief (for the last time): If he can truly trump the logic behind my assumption that personal property should stay in the owners posession unless exchanged for something of comparable value, in other words: If he can present me with a morallic system that is more conciese against reality than mine and allows for the theft of DvD players, I will accept it. Until then, I'm calling the cops.
This is of course where the story of the ethical thief finally collapses into itself: The idea of personal property is very well founded on reality, and although debated in theory, seldomly touched in any here and now terms. In smaller or newer cases of morals, however, a constant evolution can be observed. Take, for example, pedagogic methods and their underlying morallic assumptions and how far they changed (and continue to change) over the last fifty years. Humanity, flawed as it might be, is the natural end of any kind of moral code. It's only fitting that such codes develop alongside it.

Marine0I · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well, if that's how you want it. Yes, I do believe that their actions are justified. It's their country, it's their home, their morals apply. As long as their morals don't mess with mine, they have as much right to follow their moral beliefs as I have.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This is not good Xect. You have every right to hold your own opinions, but I am proud to be intolerant of any moral system that has violent murder of women for committing an act in which they had no choice in the matter filed away under "morally good and acceptable depending upon location".

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I don't really get what you mean, sorry. Are you saying that the moral they show doesn't fit the moral they supposedly believe in?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

What I was trying to say is that a lot of people believe in a moral system e.g. the relative moral system. They use that as a justification for why they hold their morals and the way in which the apply/choose not to apply them to other people. Very frequently, their moral system that they have chosen (relative morality in this case) makes conclusions that are at odds with the individuals beliefs. An example is "Murder is morally right". According to their moral system ie relative morality, it can be depending upon your location in the world. According to their actual morals, its not morally right in any situation.

You really have to recognise the difference between a mans personal morals, and his moralic code. He derives his morals from his code. Now you have quite personally surprised me by actually maintaining consistency. You believe murder/rape/a million other horrific acts can actually be morally good given current popularity in society. The majority of people subscribing to the relative moralist theory disagree there, despite the fact that its justified by their theory.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>According to your moral beliefs, it would be morally unacceptable. Your moral theory and your moral beliefs are at odds with each other - that is a bad news for a moral theory.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Not really, my moral theory provides a reason for why my moral belief is as it is.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I know that now, thats what scares me <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' />

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What stops "you shooting me will hurt humanity" from being as valid as "some being you don't believe in tells you you shouldn't shoot me"?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Because while it will hurt humanity, it wont hurt him. If your morallic theory/beliefs are correct, this man suffers nothing no matter what he does. If my morallic theory/beliefs are correct, this man cannot escape punishment.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>True, true. And it's pretty clear, quite a lot of germans seemed to agree with Hitler. So he can't have been that much immoral, or the ones with christian morals would certainly have stopped him, wouldn't they? Extinction of races works if the races have moral codes in conflict with yours. But for every race you remove, that's one less race to stand by your side. I'm not saying that Hitler was right, because had he been allowed to take power, I believe it would have messed up the world pretty badly. What I'm saying is that to sit here, fifty years after he lived, and decide that what he did was horribly evil and there was no shade of right to it is, if anything, more immoral than what he did. Anyone, no matter who they are, no matter what they do, deserve to have their moral beliefs respected.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Maybe. Some tried, some didnt. Anyone of them who failed to try failed his moral belief/code. To sit here fifty years after and judge the actions of a sick, vicious dictator with the blood of thousands can in no way be considered immoral. I guess this is why I cant ever understand a moral theory like yours. That last sentence screams wrong! at me.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>No it does not. Your interpretation of my moral theory validifies it. The gun example has the single, major flaw that a gun does not give you might, society give you might.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You support might makes right, but only on a large scale? So not as far as two individuals are concerned, but certainly as far as society vs the individual is concerned. We've seen that system fail time after time. That system was responsible for the Inquisition, apartheid and slavery. If thats the best you have, then you honestly havent got much......

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yeah, insofar as he believes in it. And in that case, I'm in trouble anyway. Moral in that alley is only a hypothetical thing, and I believe that applying morals to situations where moral does not apply only weakens moral, because it proves the fundamental shortcomings of the moral system. Any system that says he should not kill me has no value in that alley if it fails to stop him regardless.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You still are stuck on the idea that you can possibly stop this man, or that your words can have an impact upon him, or that his personal beliefs matter. Thats not the point, although I can understand how you got that impression given some statements I made earlier. The point is to provide a moral system which provides a reason not to do so, that will have some impact (or have an effect on what happens to this psycho) upon him. Not to impact upon how he thinks or what he will do, but what will happen to him if he does.

According to your beliefs/code, nothing happens to the man. Kill you, not kill you, it makes no difference in terms of what will happen to him. According to mine, there are serious, inescapable negative impacts.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I believe these two things are strongly connected. Each time a moral system fails to have been applied, people lose faith in it. The way I see it, a moral system has to have some connection to real life. It seems the flaw of all those moral systems. They all present an utopia and describes how people should behave within this utopia. But they fail to apply to the real world, and thus lose their meaning.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I see no coincidence when a flawed human being knows what they should do but doesnt do it anyway. We see that day in day out, irrespective of their personal moral beliefs. I fail to see how the Christian moral system presents a utopia. Its based around the Ten Commandments - a set of laws God gave to the Jews to show them just how buggered they really where and how they had no chance of ever following them perfectly. It applies directly and vividly with the real world. You shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not lie - all gold.

I tried what you said about Hitler, and you're right. A lot of things Hitler did was good. He helped several people. And then I remember all the bad things he did (as you said I would), the millions dead because of him, the mass grief and suffering directly caused by his actions. Some people do little bits of good and masses of evil.

I dont see your point Xect. I go to my friend and say "Hey guess what, I helped an old lady across the street." He says "Great, well done". I say "Oh yeah, but I raped your sister and strangled your mother to death". And he says "Well if I just relax and think about the good thing you did, then I'll realise you arent so bad after all". Seem a little strange to you? I can find a silver lining in every cloud too, but that doesnt make things less or more evil.

I find a lot of what you said intensly disturbing, bordering on an embracing of evil actually <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' />....

Nem - Ill answer you sometime at uni, but I dont really feel like typing a reply atm now...

Burr · March 2004

In my anthropology class I learned that other than humans, there was one species (or group, Im not sure) of chimpanzees that actually go to war with each other for no reason other than they don't like each other. I just felt like psoting that, it may be useful in this topic.

I think that you can live a moral life and not be religious, only because I have seen the opposite, I have seen those who are EXTREMELY religious but have very little morals what-so-ever. One of my "friends" (I use the term losely) is borderline religious fanatic, which means he would try to get me to go to church if he wasn't so conviced I worship Satan just because I don't like religion. He, however, is one of those people who wear a necklace of a cross around his neck, which wouldn't be so bad if he took it off when he smoked weed, gets drunk, and sleeps with a different women every weekend. Hell, he doesn't like to listen to some bands because he thinks they are satanic, but he will do things that lead to deauchery.

Me, on the other hand, hates religion, not God mind you, I tolerate God, but I believe that religion is a tool. Anyway, I try to lead a decent moral life, sure I do get drunk everyweekend, but thats about it for the bad part of me. I think that anybody, religious or not, can be a good person.

xect · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Mar 12 2004, 04:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This is not good Xect. You have every right to hold your own opinions, but I am proud to be intolerant of any moral system that has violent murder of women for committing an act in which they had no choice in the matter filed away under "morally good and acceptable depending upon location".</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
True, but I have enough respect for their ways to let them choose their own matters. I would be disgusted if any of them came to my country and tried to do the same thing, but to hate them for what they do in their own country gets us nothing but hate.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You believe murder/rape/a million other horrific acts can actually be morally good given current popularity in society. The majority of people subscribing to the relative moralist theory disagree there, despite the fact that its justified by their theory.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I think I'll leave that point to the ten commandments below.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Because while it will hurt humanity, it wont hurt him. If your morallic theory/beliefs are correct, this man suffers nothing no matter what he does. If my morallic theory/beliefs are correct, this man cannot escape punishment. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Thing is, HE believes he won't be punished afterwards. In fact, he doesn't care about God (I do, but that's beside the point). So, you stand there with a system that is right in your eyes, and is just in your eyes, but just has no meaning except if the bible is true. I don't like the idea of creating a moral system that only works if a specific deity, whom few can claim to have met, exists.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>To sit here fifty years after and judge the actions of a sick, vicious dictator with the blood of thousands can in no way be considered immoral. I guess this is why I cant ever understand a moral theory like yours. That last sentence screams wrong! at me.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Let's pick out a few examples then, of things that fit the other side. A good beginning example would be the other side: the allies. Walking up the beach of Omaha, they slaughtered thousands of german soldiers who had done nothing but what they were told to do. They burned Germans alive for no crime but that of not deserting their country. The allies bombed whole cities, killing thousands of innocent civilians. The allies were part of the alliance that split the world in east and west, leaving countless people to suffer because they were not allowed to live with their families. Now, go for it, tell me that those people are horribly evil, that they are sick and vicious, and that their leaders have the blood of thousands on their hands. Because so far, the only difference I can see, from the actions presented, is that the allies came out on top.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You support might makes right, but only on a large scale?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I believe that "might makes right" is, on the large scale, only effective when viewed on the large scale. Let me elaborate. Your psycho with a gun has, in my eyes, no place in a moral system. If one man cares about nothing but his gun and his disease, then there's no moral system that would have any basis. If that's the place where you want your morals to apply, then I'd rather live without morals in a system like the one I'm in.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That system was responsible for the Inquisition, apartheid and slavery. If thats the best you have, then you honestly havent got much.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
The inquisition and the crusades, both were based on christian beliefs. Does that make christian beliefs fundamentally wrong?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The point is to provide a moral system which provides a reason not to do so, that will have some impact (or have an effect on what happens to this psycho) upon him. Not to impact upon how he thinks or what he will do, but what will happen to him if he does.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Again, this only holds works within your moral system if God really does exist, and the afterlife really does happen, and if God really is the type that'd want <u>revenge</u> for someone who merely failed to control a disease they were born with.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>According to your beliefs/code, nothing happens to the man. Kill you, not kill you, it makes no difference in terms of what will happen to him. According to mine, there are serious, inescapable negative impacts.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Yeah, there's the man up there, with all his might, who must surely be right because he has the power to burn people in the eternal flame if he feels like it, or...?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Its based around the Ten Commandments - a set of laws God gave to the Jews to show them just how buggered they really where and how they had no chance of ever following them perfectly. It applies directly and vividly with the real world. You shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not lie - all gold.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Those ten commandmends have flaws within the boundaries of our society. In truth, they won't work for a moral system. Instead of their original sound, they are in fact more like:

- You shall not kill, except if they have WMDs (and I'm not talking "you think they have", I'm talking "they have them and will fire in 10...9...)

- You shall not steal, except if you work for the police and has solved a robbery case, in which case you may steal in order to give the money back.

- You shall not lie, except when the psycho is asking you where that white-haired guy went, because he wants to kill him.

These commandments seem especially hollow when presented by a guy who claims he will send anyone who does not follow them to hell, where they are to burn forever.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I fail to see how the Christian moral system presents a utopia. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
They do because the world we live in too often presents cases where we have to ignore the ten commandments or suffer for following them. A society that follows the ten commandments most likely won't exist for long.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Some people do little bits of good and masses of evil.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
And you're the one to judge that. You believe that you, in all your wisdom, have the right to judge people? You believe that you are able to tell that Hitler was evil but the allies were good? I don't think that's a good standpoint, because it can lead to nothing but revenge and hatred, things that I believe even your moral system does not advocate.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I dont see your point Xect. I go to my friend and say "Hey guess what, I helped an old lady across the street." He says "Great, well done". I say "Oh yeah, but I raped your sister and strangled your mother to death".</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
And he will ask you why. Assuming he was able to look past his own instinctual hatred, he would want to know WHY you had done it. Because there's no action without reason, and that reason is, in all but a few cases, something good, and thus deserves respect. Of cause, that doesn't mean that we should allow everything, or forgive everything, but we should at least judge people based on the reasons they had and punish them only if doing so is neccesary to further our own morals.

Back to the psycho in your ally. You keep saying that he must be punished, but you also say that there's no saving yourself. Why then, if you're going to heaven anyway, punish him? What reason is there to punish him. No matter how I look upon the question, I can only interpret it in one way: "How can your moral system provide a way for me to get my <u>revenge</u>?".

Marine0I · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Erm... Could you do me a favor and descend from those lofty spaces of abstraction down into the real world? Give me an example of a disputable moral code we can work on, staying around this hypothetical thief won't do the discussion any good. On that note, before you bring him up again, Stalin is not an example for a logically sufficient moral code: He was a clinical paranoic fearing first Trotzky, then the former big landowners, then co-revolutionaries, then Hitler, then the western alliance. His crimes were not committed on a morallic basis more elaborate than that of a child screaming and flaying out at everyone who looks imposing.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Hrrmmmm okay. This will be a tough one, given that I strongly support the idea of a Kant style system.

My impression of the system is that it runs along two lines. One is the "If everyone in society did this, would it enhance or degrade our society." The other is "If the positions were reversed, would I enjoy taking what I am currently dishing out". You have to fulfill both criteria for it to pass into "acceptable moral law". Thats the assumption I'm starting out from, so what follows may be garbage if the above is.

Lets try crime and punishment. You catch a man committing a crime, and having evaluated what he did through the first part of your system, if everyone in society did that, it would be bad. Lets say the crime is forgery. We cant have everyone running around forging each others signatures, as documents would become worthless. So you go to punish him. But this man feels he did the right thing, and regardless you throw him in jail.

Now we apply rule two. You punished a man for doing what he considered morally right. Turn that around, would you like to be punished for doing what you considered to be morally right?

Bear with me here, I'm working things out as I go along. If you say "But our first law has already ruled what he did immoral and wrong, so it doesnt matter how he feels" then this two step process is in reality a one step. That first step is the decider, the judge, jury and executor, the second step is irrelevant in determining what is morally right or wrong. Now whats wrong with this one step process, or "for the good of society" without "Do unto others".

10 minutes later......

Ah ha. Here we go. Here is the new rule. If a man forges another mans signature, he should be executed. Throw that through the first step, and it works. Execution of these wrong doer's in society helps the society as a whole. Therefore killing people for forging signatures is morally right and acceptable. If we could apply the second step we could invalidate this (I wouldnt like to face the chair for copying my mothers signature to get out of class - would you?), but I've already shown that the second step is void. I dont agree with that, but your proposed moral system supports it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm a little baffled by this remark: You employ logic - pretty damn sharp logic, actually - to defend your opinion. You challenge the validity of secular morals on a logical ground. And now you tell me you don't believe in it if I use it against another mans logic? How does that fit together?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I believe logic is the best that is currently available to me. We can use logic as a basis to communicate, understand and criticise each others points. But logic that seems solid to me may be flawed, its just no-one has pointed it out to me yet. I cant throw my 100% support behind something like logic if its not guaranteed correct. So while I use it, I hold no belief that logic holds all the answers. I also argue logic against secular beliefs because that's the bottom line of their beliefs. They believe them because it makes logical sense to them. If I can show a contradiction between logic and their beliefs, then usually for them that is enough for them to abandon their beliefs/at least question them.

I use logic, but its not strong enough to base moral systems upon.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I mentioned the Surpreme Court because you described democracy as a 'mob rule' based on the assumption that 'might makes right'. The Surpreme Court was my explanation as to why it isn't, it was a seperate example not directely linked to the ethical thief. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Its still a majority rules situation. Supreme court will listen, they will use their logic to try and see if they can agree with you on any points, but at the end of the day, what they says goes not because they have leet logic (though they may well do), but because they have the power to enforce it. Not exactly mob like no, but still a case of "I have power, what the powerful man says goes GOES!"

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>To sum my argumentation up in an abstract forumlae:
<b>"Deductions derived from secular morals can be imposed on other people for as long as these deductions can be considered logically correct in relation to the real world. This inherently includes the assumption of the possibility of a more refined logic that might be presented at any point in the future and will then have to be subsequently adopted."</b></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And who gets to decide what is logically correct? And what happens if in the future this more refined logic shows up? "Well damn, turns out we we're wrong, sorry about the whole chopping your head off for crime x" A moral system that comes back in 20 years and says sorry is a bad moral system. Flexible yes, feasible no, at least in my mind.

Unless I have 100% confidence in something, I cant justify putting it on another person.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If he can present me with a morallic system that is more conciese against reality than mine and allows for the theft of DvD players, I will accept it. Until then, I'm calling the cops.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Unless he can present you with a morallic system that is more conciese against reality <b>in your eyes</b> then you are calling the cops. Again you put yourself as the arbiter of morality.

Marine0I · March 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>True, but I have enough respect for their ways to let them choose their own matters. I would be disgusted if any of them came to my country and tried to do the same thing, but to hate them for what they do in their own country gets us nothing but hate.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Hating that which is wrong is not bad. To hate them (or rather to hate their actions) that they perform in their own country gets us nothing but a hatred of their actions. I have no respect for the doings of the mass murderer, the rapist or the torturer.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Thing is, HE believes he won't be punished afterwards. In fact, he doesn't care about God (I do, but that's beside the point). So, you stand there with a system that is right in your eyes, and is just in your eyes, but just has no meaning except if the bible is true. I don't like the idea of creating a moral system that only works if a specific deity, whom few can claim to have met, exists.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Few can claim to have met? Given that vast millions of people claim to have a deep and personal relationship with God, I find that a little strange....

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Let's pick out a few examples then, of things that fit the other side. A good beginning example would be the other side: the allies. Walking up the beach of Omaha, they slaughtered thousands of german soldiers who had done nothing but what they were told to do. They burned Germans alive for no crime but that of not deserting their country. The allies bombed whole cities, killing thousands of innocent civilians. The allies were part of the alliance that split the world in east and west, leaving countless people to suffer because they were not allowed to live with their families. Now, go for it, tell me that those people are horribly evil, that they are sick and vicious, and that their leaders have the blood of thousands on their hands. Because so far, the only difference I can see, from the actions presented, is that the allies came out on top.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Some of the things the Allies did I consider wrong, particularliy the extended fire bombing of an already cowed German populace, so we are agreed there. They burned Germans alive for being an integral part of a regime that murdered millions and was bent on subjugating Europe. These soldiers didnt commit a "crime", and you dont attack enemy soldiers in a war based on "crimes". You attack them because they are part of the opposing force. That is why when the average grunt surrenders, you dont prosecute him.

Simply killing thousands doesnt make you evil or wrong. Its why you did it, and what crime your victims committed. If you did it to enhance your own personal power, and your victims actually didnt do anything, then I judge you morally wrong. In some cases, the Allies did just that, and I would condemn those actions and those responsible for them. In the same way I judge the Nazi party. I find it easy to differentiate the actions of the Allies from those of the Nazi's.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The inquisition and the crusades, both were based on christian beliefs. Does that make christian beliefs fundamentally wrong?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Absolutely, at least as far as the inquisition is concerned. The Christian beliefs that they took and used at the time were fundamentally wrong, and at serious odds with other parts of the Bible. Generally they accepted parts of the old testament that seemed to support their ideas, and ignored anything in the New that might contradict/supercede the OT ideas. Thou shalt not kill? Screw that! In short, the religious morals used to justify the inquisition were fundamentally wrong.

However, to claim the crusades was based on religion is just plain wrong. The Crusades was motivated by trade routes and personal power. Wth is MonsE when you need him, he had a nice thread <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=51695&hl=crusades' target='_blank'>Here</a> about wars and economics.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Again, this only holds works within your moral system if God really does exist, and the afterlife really does happen, and if God really is the type that'd want <u>revenge</u> for someone who merely failed to control a disease they were born with.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yup!

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yeah, there's the man up there, with all his might, who must surely be right because he has the power to burn people in the eternal flame if he feels like it, or...?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

To requote what I said earlier about God being "evil"

Moultano - you do realise that its impossible for God to be evil right? If you accept the existance of an all powerful God who created the Universe - then he sets the rules. If he decides that its okay to rape women - then it IS okay. It is impossible for God to be "evil", as he defines what is good and evil. Everything he does is good and right because he makes the rules.

You dont assume God is good. Either he is good, or he doesnt exist.

Dammit, Uni calls. I'll edit this post to answer the rest of your statements.

Moral Relativism

Comments