Morality is the sum of the results of our actions. Right and Wrong, and for a hypothetical scenario of right and wrong: Was my decision to kill this puppy in cold blood, skin it alive, and eat its eyeballs in front of sheltered six year old school children right or wrong?
The effect of my decision and the morality behind it are clearly seen in the after effects, there is no opinion in clearly seen, and palpable in the cause and effects that follow.
I may have perceived such an action to be good, to shock them into the reality of a cruel world, but it was not good, fore it was 'wrong'.
Why has murder been seen wrong since the beginning of time Griffen?
But suicide is wrong.Why would you throw away something precious like that.You get only once to live.
Oh ffs, I give up with you Elenai, you cannot even see that the theory of the good is an intrinsic part of morality (well, most moralities).
What's a moral judgment?Murder is illegal or wrongful killing; it has in itself a moral judgement contained. That's like asking why doing bad stuff has always been seen as wrong...
Killing, on the otherhand, most definately has not been seen as wrong since the beginning of time. Or even now.
Elenai, your argument is based on assumptions of what is right and wrong, which is where it falls apart.
If I'm not mistaken, Elenai is trying to point out that there are some "wrong" things that we feel bad for doing, our conscience tells us its wrong. Our conscience abides by natural law.Elenai, your argument is based on assumptions of what is right and wrong, which is where it falls apart.
If I'm not mistaken, Elenai is trying to point out that there are some "wrong" things that we feel bad for doing, our conscience tells us its wrong. Our conscience abides by natural law.
It would be foolish of you to think that reciprocation comes as a result of laws. Do you protect yourself because the law says self defense is allowed? Do people execute the murderer because the law says to do so?Me being able to smash your head in without fear of reciprocation is certainly more oppressive than most sets of laws.
The moral system, and by extension its ability to be universal, depends entirely on what X is. Each definition has a distinct set of morality. I think that most moral codes can use my incomplete definitions of the terms "right" and "wrong" with varying definitions of what X is. My morality has a certain idea of what X is. Would you care to share what yours is so we can test your assertion?Your idea of right and wrong though is putting predefined constraints on right and wrong - which means you are in fact NOT discussing a moral system, as you're already putting in place the moral system before you start the discussion, which totally misses the point.
While those may be relevant to my statement, they are not required for you to understand the idea I conveyed. There is a core idea I conveyed, but some of the details of the idea are not given. I do not care to give those details with my initial idea.Not that much.But What kind of dog?What kind of chocoloate?Where is he going to die?When is he going to die?What kind of death?We are all going to die.Does his death related to the fact he ate chocolate?
Ambiguity is not a property of every statement, but most statements are very lacking in detail.You see when you says something it's always ambiguous.
They are not. Most of them have a specific definition. If you do not understand the definition, more research may be conducted. Once you understand a word, it can be used in other definitions.ultimately words are ambiguous.
I agree. If there is someone who nobody cared about, who would hurt nobody and nothing by suicide, then it would be permissible.As long as the suicidal guy don't hurt others.
You are assuming they are strictly assumptions and not conclusions. His examples follow what I perceive to be his set of morality.Elenai, your argument is based on assumptions of what is right and wrong, which is where it falls apart.
You said laws were based on truth. If the province keeps flip-flopping, how can no matter what they do be based on truth in that sense?Edit: Poot, what does that have to do with our discussion?
They are assumptions as far as the evidence he has provided to us goes.You are assuming they are strictly assumptions and not conclusions. His examples follow what I perceive to be his set of morality.
Peoples opinion on what is truth changes, but truth itself does not.You said laws were based on truth. If the province keeps flip-flopping, how can no matter what they do be based on truth in that sense?
Elenai, are you talking about evil being the absence of good?
How are they not?Then how can laws be based on the truth?
Murder has been considered wrong as far back as human history can go. Rarely does anyone argue against it.Those are recent laws. Humans have been around for ages. Hell, your religion (or similar ones, like Judaism) have been around for thousands of years, and the laws are hardly a fraction that old.
And they do waver. Look at, say, the middle east, east Asia, or Africa.
Soldiers regret having to kill, we honour them because of their sacrifice, not their bloodied hands.
It would be foolish of you to think that reciprocation comes as a result of laws. Do you protect yourself because the law says self defense is allowed? Do people execute the murderer because the law says to do so?
The basic laws are usually based on truth. The stuff that deals with human rights mostly.
How are they not?
Also many basic laws almost never waiver. Murder is self-evident, and a truth.
And even if you think murder is not wrong, you still are agreeing to truth. We are/were discussing if truth exists or not, not natural law.
You missed a key part of logic. Really, let me put this bluntly - I am far, far superior than you all at logic. Seriously. I can promise you that. So stop arguing straight logic with me, you'll not win.
No, based on what the majority believe to be 'truth'. And the majority are stupid.
Seems to me you missed a key part of logic here. I don't see how you can say you're superior at arguing logically with almost no reason.
Again, this sentence has little logic and go straight to conclusions here with no reason.
Jeez, I never said I was. I already stated that I am learning as we go here, it's not like I'm some "brilliant oxford man".You missed a key part of logic. Really, let me put this bluntly - I am far, far superior than you all at logic. Seriously. I can promise you that. So stop arguing straight logic with me, you'll not win.
But what murder is has changed so much that saying that is like saying that the religious bans of pork and multi-fabric clothes still make sense.
No, based on what the majority believe to be 'truth'. And the majority are stupid.
It is not the case that murder is wrong. It is not the case that murder is right. Right is not merely any case where it is not that case that it is wrong.
You missed a key part of logic. Really, let me put this bluntly - I am far, far superior than you all at logic. Seriously. I can promise you that. So stop arguing straight logic with me, you'll not win.
Well, feel free to argue with my Oxford tutors...
The reasoning is self-evident to anyone with a brain. People base their decisions on what they believe. They cannot base it on truth unless they believe what is truth, but that is incidental and not itself a causal link.
So basically you're saying murder is wrong because murder is defined as wrong.
That doesn't further your argument; in fact, it still discredits it, because it shows you've been arguing with purely circular logic on this point all along.
Yeah human moral and common sense brought up those rules to allow us to live in society and civilization.Murder is wrong because it invades the rights of an individual that you do not have authority over.
"You are stealing the life of an individual"
You do not own that life, and therefore have no rights to it, either as property, or as guardianship.
You therefore are not allowed to take it, since you do not own it.
To take it without justification by an authority above the people is to steal it, and thus commit a wrong, since it is inherently 'not right' to take what is not yours, and not-right is 'wrong'.
It is not circular logic, it is a simple series of truths that lead to a conclusion.
I don't own you > I don't have rights over you > I cannot infringe upon your right to live > If I do I am putting you out of your homeostatic existence, or removing you from existence entirely > I have invaded your right to exist > I have commited "wrong" against you > therefore "murder" is wrong, since it invades your right to exist, rights that I have no ownership over, and no authority to take.
There is no circular logic to this, unless a straight line is a circle in your world.
These are assumptions, not truths.Murder is wrong because it invades the rights of an individual that you do not have authority over.
"You are stealing the life of an individual"
You do not own that life, and therefore have no rights to it, either as property, or as guardianship.
You therefore are not allowed to take it, since you do not own it.
Tell that to Kim-Jong-il.You can't own an individual, since the individual owns himself. Can you prove otherwise?
So why slavery as been abolished only since the XIXth century?It isn't human morality, or common sense that says slavery is wrong, it is the very principle of being your own person that says so.
From the begining of time there were no man.Every man from the beginning of time has shaped his own destiny, made his own decisions, and dealt with the consequences thus. And this is because he is accountable to himself, he owns himself, and he will always own himself, even if he suffers the lash, and the title to his life is bought by another equal human being.
The only truth is that there is no truth.
Not really...Murder has always been 'killing without legal justification', in some form or another. The way murder is dealt with has changed, not murder itself.
The Majority decided slavery should be banned worldwide, and that all men have equal rights, rights that should not be invaded, and the freedom to do as they wish (within reason).
You call them stupid?
Let me put it bluntly to you my friend: Do not be so arrogant as to think that your mind and your skills in reasoning are superior to that of another, when you yourself have not provided any less of a measure of blatant assumptions without backup evidence of your own.
Do not assume that you are superior when you have not engaged him in all areas of the academic fields. Logic is a strange bed-mistress, and often times you find she is cheating on you, when you think she is on your side.
Likewise do not assume that you will always win, simply because you perceive your worldview to be more relevant.
This is a debate of Truth, Right, and Wrong, debate that, and not your perceived superiority, which for some reason seems to stem from your status of being an Oxford student. As seen here:
You are not your professors, you are not your tutors. Your logic and theirs have flaws, and are no more superior than ours, especially in a world were you believe in 'non-absolutes' and 'relevance in opinion'.
Substantiate.
not-right is 'wrong'.
The right to exist is given upon the start of life.
Is that how it works with laws? Of course not. Reciprocation comes from other humans, not laws.So...open season on child rape, since they cannot defend themselves?
In order to debate the assertion that there is no universal set of morality, we must agree upon the definitions of the terms used. Your definition defines right and wrong as opinions. I also think it is a lacking definition.The rest of what you've said in that post has no relevence to the debate on whether morality has any real basis besides assertions from opinions.
Is that how it works with laws? Of course not. Reciprocation comes from other humans, not laws.
In order to debate the assertion that there is no universal set of morality, we must agree upon the definitions of the terms used. Your definition defines right and wrong as opinions. I also think it is a lacking definition.
Does anyone have better definitions than the ones I provided?
I think my definitions can apply to any moral system. All it takes is a variation is what X is.
In order to debate this properly, we must have a definition of the terms "right" and "wrong" as applies to the concept of morality. Defining the terms is not the same as defining a set of things that classify as right and wrong.
I am superior at logic to you. You have litte understanding of how to form and argue a coherent argument. I've shown time and time again that you have falacies or inconsistencies in your arguments.
Oh really? Only recently, and the majority do NOT believe in the right not to be invaded, and DO NOT believe in equality of everyone, and DO NOT agree in how much freedom people should have.
No, but they agree I'm very good at logic. And deductive logic is not flawed; it is quite possibly the least flawed and most irrefutable thing on the planet, with the exception of cogito ergo sum.
Substantiate people do not work from what they do not know, but from what they believe...? That they use the information at hand, rather than non-existant omniscient powers...?
On what basis? Just because you have existance doesn't give you a right to it.
Dude, just because the Ku Klux Klan isn't banging on your front door, doesn't mean they don't exist anymore. There are still Skinheads and Racists and Cultists everywhere.
The Southern parts of America still have rampant racism, regardless of a black president.
If the majority did not believe in equality of everyone, or freedom that people should have, or even the right not to be invaded, then the world would be in the state of another world war, racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan would be booming like they were half a century ago and many millions of people would be dead as a result.
However, such a horrific world is avoided because the majority, or at least a significant portion of them, whom you arrogantly called stupid, believe in such virtues. Ask people you encounter on the street, and ask them if they believe some races are superior to other races. What do you think they would say?
Yes, deductive logic is hard to counter at many points, but you have not used deductive logic as much as you believe you have.
You've no right to call what many people believe in, non-existant.
Laws have no bearing on reciprocation. If they do, it is only to stifle it.I don't see your point.
The definition of the terms is not relevant to morals. The idea of right and wrong is the important thing.The definition of right and wrong IS a major part of morality.
Then X is simply, "nothing." In that set of morals, no action is right or wrong, because nothing cannot be positively or negatively affected.Nihilist ones don't, off the top of my head.
Yes, moral sets do define what is right and wrong. That is not the task I am giving. The task I purpose we solve right now is to have a common terminology to debate from. We can't debate if we don't understand each other.Right and wrong are defined by morality, not vice versa.
The world is not in a world war because one side is without the means to fight a conventional war, but war rages across the world...
'Hard to counter'? Good deductive logic is IMPOSSIBLE to counter (however, you can dispute the premises). But ofc not everything I have said is deductive logic, as it is not the be all and end all (but it can destroy bad arguments utterly).
Okay, you just lost any respect for telling me what I can and cannot say.
Tell that to Kim-Jong-il.
So why slavery as been abolished only since the XIXth century?
Slavery hasn't been abolished with a sudden revelation that you're your own person saying to themselves 'Hey it's worng!'.Slaves and some philosophers had to fight for it to make things change.
And since the XIVth century to XIXth century slavery were common and accepted by majority of population who'd benefit from it.
.From the begining of time there were no man
Concept of destiny is dogmatic.
You can't always own yourself since one day you'll cease to exist.
I think you awefuly blindly believe in the moral that has been taught to you as something absolute,immutable,total and universal.
Remember that if you're free today is because many men had fought and died for it.It's not something aquired since the begining of time.
And it's not the case in many countrys.
Murder is not an action in and of itself; it is an action and a judgement upon that action, two distinct concepts, one of which includes subjective judgements from the laws being put on it.
Oh really? Only recently, and the majority do NOT believe in the right not to be invaded, and DO NOT believe in equality of everyone, and DO NOT agree in how much freedom people should have.
Also, being stupid does not stop you from being right.
I am superior at logic to you. You have litte understanding of how to form and argue a coherent argument. I've shown time and time again that you have falacies or inconsistencies in your arguments.
No, but they agree I'm very good at logic. And deductive logic is not flawed; it is quite possibly the least flawed and most irrefutable thing on the planet, with the exception of cogito ergo sum.
Substantiate people do not work from what they do not know, but from what they believe...? That they use the information at hand, rather than non-existant omniscient powers...?
Incorrect. Something can be not right without necessarily being wrong. In addition, your assertion of what is not-right is assertion, but things can be morally neutral, unless you make preconditions on what moral code you want to exist. In fact, you're also having the premise that there is a moral code, or everything is both not right and not wrong; hence, circular arguments and thus useless to the debate.
On what basis? Just because you have existance doesn't give you a right to it.
Thus he owns them more than they own themselves.Elenai said:He does not own his people, he rules them through fear, and through propaganda.
If it would be a fundamental truth why it's not the case?Maybe you learnt that supposed truth but not whole mankind.Elenai said:Eventually, mankind learns the fundamental truth that all men are equal.
You were taught.It tooks more than 2000 years for mankind to accept freedomship and human rights ;in occident at least.Don't make me think you discovered it all by yourself in less than 20 years.Elenai said:I was not taught...I discovered.
If it would be a fundamental truth why it's not the case?Maybe you learnt that supposed truth but not whole mankind.
But could a feral child learn the same conclusion as you from those observation?No.Because he can't read or speak a language.It was not my culture that taught me, it was me looking at history, and my own experiences.
If it would be innate why some people act immoraly?Morality is innate, or else it would never have come about in the first place.
"A caveman did not just decide one day "rape is wrong"
Or maybe you're so genius you figured out by yourself that the earth were spheric and not flat.Did you ever observed it by yourself?Did you ever traveled in outer space?Or Someone told you that it was this way and you accepted it?
Can you observe that it's the earth revolving around the sun and not the sun around the earth from where you are?Or someone told you it was that way and you believed it?
But could a feral child learn the same conclusion as you from those observation?No.Because he can't read or speak a language.
If you were a feral child no matter you conscious of being individual you'll still need to be socialized to learn a language and being guided by someone to understand and interprete observation of your environement.
If it would be innate why some people act immoraly?
Why in some country justice system force raped woman and her family to compensate the disgrace 'she caused' to the raper and his familiy?Is it innate?
Maybe the need of a moral codes to allow people to leave in society is innate but not moral codes itself.
Some moral codes are considered immoral in other country.
That's what your post inspired me quote again :Don't insult me by taking what I said out of context, attempting to write my history, or painting me as a self proclaimed genius.
It means what it means.Elenai said:I was not taught...I discovered.
You take part in your own education but you didn't do your whole education.And education isn't always a matter of conscious.Sometime thing come unconsciously to you.You know nothing of me, my history, or my past. Don't dare to assume otherwise that I did not uncover these truths on my own accord, and without the aid of my guardians, or my culture. I went on my own path and did my own research, looked at the research of others. My parents did not sit me down and say "black people are people too", I said that to myself after looking at history.
See you got a little help in your education.At least from those who wrote history books and record historic event.And even books are written from a subjective point of view even if historians try to be as objective as possible they slightly bent to one side.I learned much of what I know about history on my own, and the conclusions thus from such learning. My teachers were not particularly brilliant, barring one, my senior grade Government teacher, of whom we covered the Cold War, Middle East, and economics with, not civil rights.
But it seems the man who put him in cage don't think so.The feral child still knows that if he is put in a cage he doesn't like it, and he still knows that it is wrong to put him in a cage.
Barabric insitincts are Morality of others.Morality is just as innate as our barbaric instincts.
Actualy it often happens that the victim's family don't pay the compensation and let their raped daughter pay it after having denied her for ashaming their clan by being raped.The culture may be different, but the family still complains when their raped daughter must pay "it isn't fair", and they know it well.
It means what it means.
It tooks billion years for humanity to come as far as we are and you're saying you re-discovered everything without being taught.
And it's not out of context.
You didn't discovered but you interpreted what you've observed.It's not the same thing.
But it seems the man who put him in cage don't think so.
Barabric insitincts are Morality of others.
Actualy it often happens that the victim's family don't pay the compensation and let their raped daughter pay it after having denied her for ashaming their clan by being raped.
Pretty unfair hu?
You're all retarded with no understanding of how to debate anything I give up, now stfu.