By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Dinosaurs co-existed with man.

Khuutra on 02 October 2010
highwaystar101 said:

Please tell me that you're kidding.

I don't have to stand up for their position, I just have to prove it exists (which I have done) and that's what makes morals relative... Are you really that blinkered by your position that you can't even see that?

Here's the definition of relative morals from legal-dictionary.com...

"The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation"

What exactly would proving that torturing babies is right do to prove relative morals? All I have to do is prove that people exist who do hold that moral position, and not hold it myself. That is more than enough evidence to prove absolute morals wrong

It says their in plain black and white that relative morals are dependant on the individual or the society. I don't have to accept the morals of other societies, I just have to prove they exist, which I have done.

You say I'm not in a strong position, but my argument is solid. Clearly completely different sets of morals exist in different societies, and that proves relative morals.

(Sorry for the brutal honesty in this paragraph) The only reason you want me to defend a position I don't hold and would add nothing to the debate is because you know that you're on your last legs, and so you 've made up a false position that you claim I have to hold in order to prove my point (when I don't have to hold it to prove my point at all). It's dishonest debating.

I would just liek to point out that you're not actually arguing for moral relativism, you're arguing against universal morality (which is distinct from moral absolutism).



Around the Network
Slimebeast on 02 October 2010
Khuutra said:
Slimebeast said:

Wait a bit man.

I just explained that by "absolute morals" Im refering to what wikipedia calls universal morals. I understand it can easily be mistaken for moral absolutism. Moral absolutism is a different debate altogether, it's not relevant here and it's not used to prove the existance of something supernatural like universal morals are.

It's unfortunate that I don't consistently use the term universal morals since "absolute" morals would be confused with moral absolutism.

And infant genital mutilation (which has a purpose, imagined or real that's up to debate) is not what I meant by torturing babies. Think "3 guys 1 hammer" and you might get what I mean.

What you're referring to is cultural universals, not moral universals. Moral universals don't actually exist.

Again: you are absolutely wrong about this. There being a reason isn't the same thing as a thing being immoral. Generally they're seen as moral for that reason.

"Moral universals" would imply that every single person, ever, has held those morals. That's something thath as never been true, and is not true for any value you can come up with.

Even if there were moral universals (there aren't), it wouldn't be a cogent argument for the existence of God.

I don't understand this post. Cultural and moral universals?? What is that?

And as for the bold, that is not true. Obviously there are people with bad and twisted morals, in other words people who do evil and wrong. But that doesn't disprove universal morals or an absolute right and wrong.



dtewi on 02 October 2010

Slimebeast, what the hell do you mean by absolute morals then.



Kimi wa ne tashika ni ano toki watashi no soba ni ita

Itsudatte itsudatte itsudatte

Sugu yoko de waratteita

Nakushitemo torimodosu kimi wo

I will never leave you

marciosmg on 02 October 2010
Khuutra said:
highwaystar101 said:

Please tell me that you're kidding.

I don't have to stand up for their position, I just have to prove it exists (which I have done) and that's what makes morals relative... Are you really that blinkered by your position that you can't even see that?

Here's the definition of relative morals from legal-dictionary.com...

"The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation"

What exactly would proving that torturing babies is right do to prove relative morals? All I have to do is prove that people exist who do hold that moral position, and not hold it myself. That is more than enough evidence to prove absolute morals wrong

It says their in plain black and white that relative morals are dependant on the individual or the society. I don't have to accept the morals of other societies, I just have to prove they exist, which I have done.

You say I'm not in a strong position, but my argument is solid. Clearly completely different sets of morals exist in different societies, and that proves relative morals.

(Sorry for the brutal honesty in this paragraph) The only reason you want me to defend a position I don't hold and would add nothing to the debate is because you know that you're on your last legs, and so you 've made up a false position that you claim I have to hold in order to prove my point (when I don't have to hold it to prove my point at all). It's dishonest debating.

I would just liek to point out that you're not actually arguing for moral relativism, you're arguing agains universal morality (which is distinct from moral absolutism).

Could you explain these more, please?

Im interested in the discussion.

Also, I think that what Slimebeast is talking about is SUBJECTIVE TRUTH X OBJECTIVE TRUTH.

He says (and I personally agree to be honest) that it doesnt matter what people thought in the past or nowadays.

Truth (at least, certain truths) exists either we know it or not. Or if we can prove it or not.

He thinks that you guys are sayng that there is no right and wrong. Only what the majority thinks.

Is that a fair assesment, Slimebeast?

And highway and Khuutra - Do you believe in objective truth?



www.jamesvandermemes.com

Khuutra on 02 October 2010
Slimebeast said:
Khuutra said:

What you're referring to is cultural universals, not moral universals. Moral universals don't actually exist.

Again: you are absolutely wrong about this. There being a reason isn't the same thing as a thing being immoral. Generally they're seen as moral for that reason.

"Moral universals" would imply that every single person, ever, has held those morals. That's something thath as never been true, and is not true for any value you can come up with.

Even if there were moral universals (there aren't), it wouldn't be a cogent argument for the existence of God.

I don't understand this post. Cultural and moral universals?? What is that?

And as for the bold, that is not true. Obviously there are people with bad and twisted morals, in other words people who do evil and wrong. But that doesn't disprove universal morals or an absolute right and wrong.

The argument that there is an absolute morality is an argument for moral absolutism. You saidb efore that you weren't arguing for that.

A cultural universal is a value or concept that is held by all cultures throughout history. All cultures have the concept of time, of death, of differences between gender, of property, of language, of language used falsely, and some other things. Cultural universals are not a universally accepted by anthropologists, but it's the concept you're referring to.

A moral universal would be a moral that is held universally, which is to say held by every person ever.

A morality common to all cultures would be a cultural universal, not a moral universal. There is no morality that's common to all cultures. That kind of cultural universal doesn't exist.

You are arguing about absolute morals, which is that some thigns are definitely moral while other things are not. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand in that it's not an argument for man walking with dinosaurs and it's not an argument for the existence of God.



Around the Network
Slimebeast on 02 October 2010
marciosmg said:
Khuutra said:
highwaystar101 said:

Please tell me that you're kidding.

I don't have to stand up for their position, I just have to prove it exists (which I have done) and that's what makes morals relative... Are you really that blinkered by your position that you can't even see that?

Here's the definition of relative morals from legal-dictionary.com...

"The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation"

What exactly would proving that torturing babies is right do to prove relative morals? All I have to do is prove that people exist who do hold that moral position, and not hold it myself. That is more than enough evidence to prove absolute morals wrong

It says their in plain black and white that relative morals are dependant on the individual or the society. I don't have to accept the morals of other societies, I just have to prove they exist, which I have done.

You say I'm not in a strong position, but my argument is solid. Clearly completely different sets of morals exist in different societies, and that proves relative morals.

(Sorry for the brutal honesty in this paragraph) The only reason you want me to defend a position I don't hold and would add nothing to the debate is because you know that you're on your last legs, and so you 've made up a false position that you claim I have to hold in order to prove my point (when I don't have to hold it to prove my point at all). It's dishonest debating.

I would just liek to point out that you're not actually arguing for moral relativism, you're arguing agains universal morality (which is distinct from moral absolutism).

Could you explain these more, please?

Im interested in the discussion.

Also, I think that what Slimebeast is talking about is SUBJECTIVE TRUTH X OBJECTIVE TRUTH.

He says (and I personally agree to be honest) that it doesnt matter what people thought in the past or nowadays.

Truth (at least, certain truths) exists either we know it or not. Or if we can prove it or not.

He thinks that you guys are sayng that there is no right and wrong. Only what the majority thinks.

Is that a fair assesment, Slimebeast?

And highway and Khuutra - Do you believe in objective truth?

Not really. Absolute truth is obvious. Almost no one denies the concept of absolute truth.

Moral could be described as some kind of truth but it's more than that. Right and wrong.

But you're on the right track.

Instead of "Truth (at least, certain truths) exists either we know it or not. Or if we can prove it or not."

I mean "Moral truths (at least, certain moral truths) exists either we know it or not. Or if we can prove it or not."



highwaystar101 on 02 October 2010
Khuutra said:

I would just liek to point out that you're not actually arguing for moral relativism, you're arguing against universal morality (which is distinct from moral absolutism).

Well, yeah, I understand that it is an aspect of normative moral relativism that because there is no clear moral definition we should accept other sets of morals. I personally would challenge that area of moral relativism, I have every right to think someone else's morals are sick and they have the right to think mine are too. Maybe I don't fit the complete definition, but I'm siding with it mainly because it's the side I identify with most. Everywhere I look I can only see morals as a relative thing.

You can say I'm not a true moral relativist if you want, but I do accept that morals are relative. I'm willing to concede that in that case I don't fit the full definition, but I would argue I fit the general base of it.

To make a comparison, I don't have to agree with everything about abortion to be on the side of the pro-choice crowd in debates. I have my doubts on allowing abortion in some cases, but I side mainly with the pro-choice crowd because I identify myself with them.

But to be honest as you say I'm more arguing against universal (or absolute) morals, and this is because I can only see relative morals wherever I look. I don't see how many different standards of morals can exist and yet still be described as absolute.

On another note, I'm getting a little tired of this debate now. I've said all I need to say to be honest. Anything else from this point will largely be repetition.



dtewi on 02 October 2010
Slimebeast said:

Not really. Absolute truth is obvious. Almost no one denies the concept of absolute truth.

Moral could be described as some kind of truth but it's more than that. Right and wrong.

But you're on the right track.

Instead of "Truth (at least, certain truths) exists either we know it or not. Or if we can prove it or not."

I mean "Moral truths (at least, certain moral truths) exists either we know it or not. Or if we can prove it or not."

Says who?



Kimi wa ne tashika ni ano toki watashi no soba ni ita

Itsudatte itsudatte itsudatte

Sugu yoko de waratteita

Nakushitemo torimodosu kimi wo

I will never leave you

marciosmg on 02 October 2010
Slimebeast said:

Not really. Absolute truth is obvious. Almost no one denies the concept of absolute truth.

Moral could be described as some kind of truth but it's more than that. Right and wrong.

But you're on the right track.

Instead of "Truth (at least, certain truths) exists either we know it or not. Or if we can prove it or not."

I mean "Morals (at least, certain morals) exists either we know it or not. Or if we can prove it or not."

Sure, but since we develop our thoughts on morals from what we perceive to be the truth, I thought you were talking about the basics.

But I like the conversation so far.

Of all the people on the site, highway, Khuutra and Kazs are the best people to discuss with.



www.jamesvandermemes.com

Slimebeast on 02 October 2010

marciosmg,

And "He (Slime) thinks that you guys are sayng that there is no right and wrong. Only what the majority thinks."

Yes, that is absolutely correct.