Total Posts:90|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Moral relativism is a joke

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 8:26:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is entirely subjective. What's considered moral depends on what society you happen to be living in. There's truly no such thing as criticizing slavery, genocide, child marriage or anything of that sort. There's no such thing as moral progress or basic human rights. Tolerance and acceptance is a figment of the imagination. If you live in a society with 50,001 people that are Nazi's and 49,999 people who are part of the international peace and love society, whatever the Nazi's decide is moral is moral and whatever anyone else thinks is wrong. Raping, brutalizing, murdering, and cannibalizing is really just as fine as any other behavior. No objective or true moral ideals exist whatsoever. It's not truly better for people to be intelligent rather than ignorant, it's not better to love than to hate, it's not better to be generous rather than to steal, it's not better to seek peace rather than war, it's not better to tell the truth rather than lie, nothing is really better or worse than anything imaginable. Any and all moral judgments are nothing more than meritless opinion. Whenever you make a moral judgement about anything it truly means as much as an astrological forecast. How does all of this sound when aligned with reality? Like a joke.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 8:36:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 8:26:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is entirely subjective. What's considered moral depends on what society you happen to be living in. There's truly no such thing as criticizing slavery, genocide, child marriage or anything of that sort. There's no such thing as moral progress or basic human rights. Tolerance and acceptance is a figment of the imagination. If you live in a society with 50,001 people that are Nazi's and 49,999 people who are part of the international peace and love society, whatever the Nazi's decide is moral is moral and whatever anyone else thinks is wrong. Raping, brutalizing, murdering, and cannibalizing is really just as fine as any other behavior. No objective or true moral ideals exist whatsoever. It's not truly better for people to be intelligent rather than ignorant, it's not better to love than to hate, it's not better to be generous rather than to steal, it's not better to seek peace rather than war, it's not better to tell the truth rather than lie, nothing is really better or worse than anything imaginable. Any and all moral judgments are nothing more than meritless opinion. Whenever you make a moral judgement about anything it truly means as much as an astrological forecast. How does all of this sound when aligned with reality? Like a joke.

You have finally learned that there is no definition to the words, good or evil. There is no Truth in these words. That's because the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is this world that each individual perceives as being their reality. Man has lived in this world for thousands of years believing it is real instead of being an illusion that was designed by God to keep His people deceived from the Truth while He's using His prophets and saints to teach us who we really are. Now we know we're only information that has to be processed into illusions that we perceive as being real. Now God can destroy this dream we're in so we can wake up in the next dream called the New Heaven and Earth.
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 8:37:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Baby rapers please step forward now.
mwuahahahahahahahaha.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
james14
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 8:42:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You have finally learned that there is no definition to the words, good or evil. There is no Truth in these words. That's because the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is this world that each individual perceives as being their reality. Man has lived in this world for thousands of years believing it is real instead of being an illusion that was designed by God to keep His people deceived from the Truth while He's using His prophets and saints to teach us who we really are.

Question, bornofgod: if God is deceiving, does that not make Him evil? Why would God wish to hide the truth? Where are you getting this all from?

I agree with Bonshapiro. Moral Relativism is a joke.
Maybe I'm a genius; maybe not.

||||?||||
||>|||||<|
|<||>||?|||
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 8:53:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 8:26:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is entirely subjective. What's considered moral depends on what society you happen to be living in. There's truly no such thing as criticizing slavery, genocide, child marriage or anything of that sort. There's no such thing as moral progress or basic human rights. Tolerance and acceptance is a figment of the imagination. If you live in a society with 50,001 people that are Nazi's and 49,999 people who are part of the international peace and love society, whatever the Nazi's decide is moral is moral and whatever anyone else thinks is wrong. Raping, brutalizing, murdering, and cannibalizing is really just as fine as any other behavior. No objective or true moral ideals exist whatsoever. It's not truly better for people to be intelligent rather than ignorant, it's not better to love than to hate, it's not better to be generous rather than to steal, it's not better to seek peace rather than war, it's not better to tell the truth rather than lie, nothing is really better or worse than anything imaginable. Any and all moral judgments are nothing more than meritless opinion. Whenever you make a moral judgement about anything it truly means as much as an astrological forecast. How does all of this sound when aligned with reality? Like a joke.

Are you saying your morality is not relevant?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 8:55:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 8:53:17 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/20/2014 8:26:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is entirely subjective. What's considered moral depends on what society you happen to be living in. There's truly no such thing as criticizing slavery, genocide, child marriage or anything of that sort. There's no such thing as moral progress or basic human rights. Tolerance and acceptance is a figment of the imagination. If you live in a society with 50,001 people that are Nazi's and 49,999 people who are part of the international peace and love society, whatever the Nazi's decide is moral is moral and whatever anyone else thinks is wrong. Raping, brutalizing, murdering, and cannibalizing is really just as fine as any other behavior. No objective or true moral ideals exist whatsoever. It's not truly better for people to be intelligent rather than ignorant, it's not better to love than to hate, it's not better to be generous rather than to steal, it's not better to seek peace rather than war, it's not better to tell the truth rather than lie, nothing is really better or worse than anything imaginable. Any and all moral judgments are nothing more than meritless opinion. Whenever you make a moral judgement about anything it truly means as much as an astrological forecast. How does all of this sound when aligned with reality? Like a joke.

Are you saying your morality is not relevant?

If I am understanding the argument, and its ultimate conclusions, its that humans can't be moral, and instead must find 'true morality' in an outside source, IE God.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 9:07:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 8:55:36 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/20/2014 8:53:17 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/20/2014 8:26:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is entirely subjective. What's considered moral depends on what society you happen to be living in. There's truly no such thing as criticizing slavery, genocide, child marriage or anything of that sort. There's no such thing as moral progress or basic human rights. Tolerance and acceptance is a figment of the imagination. If you live in a society with 50,001 people that are Nazi's and 49,999 people who are part of the international peace and love society, whatever the Nazi's decide is moral is moral and whatever anyone else thinks is wrong. Raping, brutalizing, murdering, and cannibalizing is really just as fine as any other behavior. No objective or true moral ideals exist whatsoever. It's not truly better for people to be intelligent rather than ignorant, it's not better to love than to hate, it's not better to be generous rather than to steal, it's not better to seek peace rather than war, it's not better to tell the truth rather than lie, nothing is really better or worse than anything imaginable. Any and all moral judgments are nothing more than meritless opinion. Whenever you make a moral judgement about anything it truly means as much as an astrological forecast. How does all of this sound when aligned with reality? Like a joke.

Are you saying your morality is not relevant?


If I am understanding the argument, and its ultimate conclusions, its that humans can't be moral, and instead must find 'true morality' in an outside source, IE God.

If humans find their worth in God, alone, then, God alone has any value. To speak of anything else other than God is insignificant, meaningless dribble.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 9:14:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 8:42:46 PM, james14 wrote:
You have finally learned that there is no definition to the words, good or evil. There is no Truth in these words. That's because the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is this world that each individual perceives as being their reality. Man has lived in this world for thousands of years believing it is real instead of being an illusion that was designed by God to keep His people deceived from the Truth while He's using His prophets and saints to teach us who we really are.

Question, bornofgod: if God is deceiving, does that not make Him evil? Why would God wish to hide the truth? Where are you getting this all from?

I agree with Bonshapiro. Moral Relativism is a joke.

I've known our invisible Creator for 35 years as of December 7th, 1979. I'm not talking about becoming a Christian or any other religious person. I was an atheist back then who was dying from alcoholism. It took Him 28 1/2 years to get me ready to start testifying in writing and speaking the words He put in my mind to teach me what is going on and how He created us.

God is not good, evil or anything else that man has perceived Him to be. He's our Creator and that's all. He made a program called Eternal Life, which is starts out as information, like information on a CD-ROM. Once this information is processed through each individual created being, we perceive illusions that we believe are real.

Each individual gets a tiny portion of the world he perceives but collectively, we all learn about the make-believe universe we're living in that we all thought was our reality. Now I know that it's nothing but God's dream for us. We are not real people and never will be. By that I mean, there's no such thing as matter, space or time. It's all an illusion that we perceive as a universe with objects in it, including the flesh we make observations from.

God created two ages. This first one, He planned to teach us who we really are. This took thousands of years to use His illusions called prophets and saints to testify to the Word of God, which is the information we exist in including all our life experiences of the past, present and future. By making the world appear good and evil, God could keep His people believing it's real while getting the attention of His prophets and saints and teaching us that this world isn't real at all. The prophets didn't learn this but all us saints did. That's because the prophets were still under the old covenant, which means they weren't given the information to teach them that we're living in a dream.

So the good and evil that man perceives to be real during this age is only an illusion that will end when God destroys this world soon. We will all awaken in new bodies in the new Heaven and Earth without the good and evil contrast that we lived with in this age. There won't be a good or evil illusion. We'll understand that everything is an illusion and that every dream experience we have are only dreams that God dreamed up for each of us.

I have lots of knowledge since I am God's knowledge called the Word of God where everything exists as information. One wavelength of energy is one bit of information, like a 0 and a 1 in computer binary code. There are lots of different wavelengths of energy to make illusions so perfectly that we believe they are real.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 9:19:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 8:26:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is entirely subjective. What's considered moral depends on what society you happen to be living in. There's truly no such thing as criticizing slavery, genocide, child marriage or anything of that sort.

Yes.

There's no such thing as moral progress or basic human rights.

No.

Tolerance and acceptance is a figment of the imagination.

No.

If you live in a society with 50,001 people that are Nazi's and 49,999 people who are part of the international peace and love society, whatever the Nazi's decide is moral is moral and whatever anyone else thinks is wrong.

No. The number of people is irrelevant to the 'truth content' of a moral statement, because moral statements do not have any 'truth content', they are just statements if preferences. It could be that 999,999,999 people prefer to save Jews, and 1 person would like to murder them. On relativism, those 999,999,999 people would not be 'correct' in their assertion just because they have a majority.

Raping, brutalizing, murdering, and cannibalizing is really just as fine as any other behavior.

Inherently, yes. Subjectively, no. Since people value things differently.

No objective or true moral ideals exist whatsoever.

Yes.t

It's not truly better for people to be intelligent rather than ignorant, it's not better to love than to hate, it's not better to be generous rather than to steal, it's not better to seek peace rather than war, it's not better to tell the truth rather than lie, nothing is really better or worse than anything imaginable.

Very good, nothing is 'true' in relativism nor is anything 'false'

Any and all moral judgments are nothing more than meritless opinion.

No. Define 'merit'. Moral judgements in relativism occur in the context of other values. Therefore judgements which appeal to deeper held values that many hold would allow for a society to work. Therefore those which benefit society (which contains people who value society), would be of more 'merit' for example.

Whenever you make a moral judgement about anything it truly means as much as an astrological forecast.

No, astrology makes false claims, moral relativism makes neither true or false claims.

How does all of this sound when aligned with reality? Like a joke.

It sounds pretty much exactly like reality as we observe it. Sovereign nations with a plethora of different, deeply held values, and consequentky different notions if right and wring. Our notions if right and wrong depending very much on personal preference, and hence the biology and psychology we all have, and not at all representative of an objective reality to morals.

Relativism is very aligned with reality. The joke is on you. Accept my debate if you wish.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 9:32:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I can't tell if your one word "yes" and "no" responses are agreeing or disagreeing with what I've written. If you disagree, explain why it isn't the case.

Also, I want you to explain what function you think morality serves in a society. I'm willing to nearly guarantee that once you provide an explanation you'll contradict yourself with what you've replied with in the above post.

None of what I posted aligns with the reality in the slightest.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 9:36:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 8:26:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is entirely subjective. What's considered moral depends on what society you happen to be living in. There's truly no such thing as criticizing slavery, genocide, child marriage or anything of that sort. There's no such thing as moral progress or basic human rights. Tolerance and acceptance is a figment of the imagination. If you live in a society with 50,001 people that are Nazi's and 49,999 people who are part of the international peace and love society, whatever the Nazi's decide is moral is moral and whatever anyone else thinks is wrong. Raping, brutalizing, murdering, and cannibalizing is really just as fine as any other behavior. No objective or true moral ideals exist whatsoever. It's not truly better for people to be intelligent rather than ignorant, it's not better to love than to hate, it's not better to be generous rather than to steal, it's not better to seek peace rather than war, it's not better to tell the truth rather than lie, nothing is really better or worse than anything imaginable. Any and all moral judgments are nothing more than meritless opinion. Whenever you make a moral judgement about anything it truly means as much as an astrological forecast. How does all of this sound when aligned with reality? Like a joke.

We are all individuals and we all have our own moral compass. Most people care and keep that compass pointing in the right direction. It doesn't matter what walk of life, religious background, or cultural influences are factors at large. We feel and therefore we are capable of personal moral decisions. Objective morality is not plausible unless all positions are treated equal. That creates a problem as it contradicts itself. Making a personal effort to do what is right is the best we can with what is given to us. And each case must be judged on its own merits. Sometimes the "sin" is the best that can be done at the moment.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 9:56:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 9:36:12 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/20/2014 8:26:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is entirely subjective. What's considered moral depends on what society you happen to be living in. There's truly no such thing as criticizing slavery, genocide, child marriage or anything of that sort. There's no such thing as moral progress or basic human rights. Tolerance and acceptance is a figment of the imagination. If you live in a society with 50,001 people that are Nazi's and 49,999 people who are part of the international peace and love society, whatever the Nazi's decide is moral is moral and whatever anyone else thinks is wrong. Raping, brutalizing, murdering, and cannibalizing is really just as fine as any other behavior. No objective or true moral ideals exist whatsoever. It's not truly better for people to be intelligent rather than ignorant, it's not better to love than to hate, it's not better to be generous rather than to steal, it's not better to seek peace rather than war, it's not better to tell the truth rather than lie, nothing is really better or worse than anything imaginable. Any and all moral judgments are nothing more than meritless opinion. Whenever you make a moral judgement about anything it truly means as much as an astrological forecast. How does all of this sound when aligned with reality? Like a joke.

We are all individuals and we all have our own moral compass. Most people care and keep that compass pointing in the right direction. It doesn't matter what walk of life, religious background, or cultural influences are factors at large. We feel and therefore we are capable of personal moral decisions. Objective morality is not plausible unless all positions are treated equal. That creates a problem as it contradicts itself. Making a personal effort to do what is right is the best we can with what is given to us. And each case must be judged on its own merits. Sometimes the "sin" is the best that can be done at the moment.

But there isn't a "right" direction if all morality is subjective. Raping and brutalizing is just as "right" as loving and caring for somebody. That's the realized absurdity about relativistic morality. Objective morality varies depending on the context of the situation. Moral absolutism, on the other hand, doesn't. Moral absolutism claims that something is wrong regardless of context.
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 9:58:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 9:56:09 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/20/2014 9:36:12 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/20/2014 8:26:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is entirely subjective. What's considered moral depends on what society you happen to be living in. There's truly no such thing as criticizing slavery, genocide, child marriage or anything of that sort. There's no such thing as moral progress or basic human rights. Tolerance and acceptance is a figment of the imagination. If you live in a society with 50,001 people that are Nazi's and 49,999 people who are part of the international peace and love society, whatever the Nazi's decide is moral is moral and whatever anyone else thinks is wrong. Raping, brutalizing, murdering, and cannibalizing is really just as fine as any other behavior. No objective or true moral ideals exist whatsoever. It's not truly better for people to be intelligent rather than ignorant, it's not better to love than to hate, it's not better to be generous rather than to steal, it's not better to seek peace rather than war, it's not better to tell the truth rather than lie, nothing is really better or worse than anything imaginable. Any and all moral judgments are nothing more than meritless opinion. Whenever you make a moral judgement about anything it truly means as much as an astrological forecast. How does all of this sound when aligned with reality? Like a joke.

We are all individuals and we all have our own moral compass. Most people care and keep that compass pointing in the right direction. It doesn't matter what walk of life, religious background, or cultural influences are factors at large. We feel and therefore we are capable of personal moral decisions. Objective morality is not plausible unless all positions are treated equal. That creates a problem as it contradicts itself. Making a personal effort to do what is right is the best we can with what is given to us. And each case must be judged on its own merits. Sometimes the "sin" is the best that can be done at the moment.

But there isn't a "right" direction if all morality is subjective. Raping and brutalizing is just as "right" as loving and caring for somebody. That's the realized absurdity about relativistic morality. Objective morality varies depending on the context of the situation. Moral absolutism, on the other hand, doesn't. Moral absolutism claims that something is wrong regardless of context.
So do you suggest we get this objective morality from a god who demands human sacrifice?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 10:07:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 9:56:09 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/20/2014 9:36:12 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/20/2014 8:26:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is entirely subjective. What's considered moral depends on what society you happen to be living in. There's truly no such thing as criticizing slavery, genocide, child marriage or anything of that sort. There's no such thing as moral progress or basic human rights. Tolerance and acceptance is a figment of the imagination. If you live in a society with 50,001 people that are Nazi's and 49,999 people who are part of the international peace and love society, whatever the Nazi's decide is moral is moral and whatever anyone else thinks is wrong. Raping, brutalizing, murdering, and cannibalizing is really just as fine as any other behavior. No objective or true moral ideals exist whatsoever. It's not truly better for people to be intelligent rather than ignorant, it's not better to love than to hate, it's not better to be generous rather than to steal, it's not better to seek peace rather than war, it's not better to tell the truth rather than lie, nothing is really better or worse than anything imaginable. Any and all moral judgments are nothing more than meritless opinion. Whenever you make a moral judgement about anything it truly means as much as an astrological forecast. How does all of this sound when aligned with reality? Like a joke.

We are all individuals and we all have our own moral compass. Most people care and keep that compass pointing in the right direction. It doesn't matter what walk of life, religious background, or cultural influences are factors at large. We feel and therefore we are capable of personal moral decisions. Objective morality is not plausible unless all positions are treated equal. That creates a problem as it contradicts itself. Making a personal effort to do what is right is the best we can with what is given to us. And each case must be judged on its own merits. Sometimes the "sin" is the best that can be done at the moment.

But there isn't a "right" direction if all morality is subjective. Raping and brutalizing is just as "right" as loving and caring for somebody. That's the realized absurdity about relativistic morality. Objective morality varies depending on the context of the situation. Moral absolutism, on the other hand, doesn't. Moral absolutism claims that something is wrong regardless of context.

I think it all comes down to intent. Murder and killing are two different things. Murder is the intent to take another person's life. Killing could be accidental, self defense or indirect. There can't be a moral code that is all inclusive to every possible scenario. Does someone who is insane truly know what they are doing? What are their core intentions? We have no way of knowing that.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 10:08:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Bulproop, (1) I'm not a Christian and (2) you have yet to provide any substantive rebuttal.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 10:10:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 9:07:24 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/20/2014 8:55:36 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/20/2014 8:53:17 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/20/2014 8:26:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is entirely subjective. What's considered moral depends on what society you happen to be living in. There's truly no such thing as criticizing slavery, genocide, child marriage or anything of that sort. There's no such thing as moral progress or basic human rights. Tolerance and acceptance is a figment of the imagination. If you live in a society with 50,001 people that are Nazi's and 49,999 people who are part of the international peace and love society, whatever the Nazi's decide is moral is moral and whatever anyone else thinks is wrong. Raping, brutalizing, murdering, and cannibalizing is really just as fine as any other behavior. No objective or true moral ideals exist whatsoever. It's not truly better for people to be intelligent rather than ignorant, it's not better to love than to hate, it's not better to be generous rather than to steal, it's not better to seek peace rather than war, it's not better to tell the truth rather than lie, nothing is really better or worse than anything imaginable. Any and all moral judgments are nothing more than meritless opinion. Whenever you make a moral judgement about anything it truly means as much as an astrological forecast. How does all of this sound when aligned with reality? Like a joke.

Are you saying your morality is not relevant?


If I am understanding the argument, and its ultimate conclusions, its that humans can't be moral, and instead must find 'true morality' in an outside source, IE God.

If humans find their worth in God, alone, then, God alone has any value. To speak of anything else other than God is insignificant, meaningless dribble.

This would assume that humans do find worth in God, alone, and that God, alone, exists.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 10:22:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 10:07:07 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/20/2014 9:56:09 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/20/2014 9:36:12 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/20/2014 8:26:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is entirely subjective. What's considered moral depends on what society you happen to be living in. There's truly no such thing as criticizing slavery, genocide, child marriage or anything of that sort. There's no such thing as moral progress or basic human rights. Tolerance and acceptance is a figment of the imagination. If you live in a society with 50,001 people that are Nazi's and 49,999 people who are part of the international peace and love society, whatever the Nazi's decide is moral is moral and whatever anyone else thinks is wrong. Raping, brutalizing, murdering, and cannibalizing is really just as fine as any other behavior. No objective or true moral ideals exist whatsoever. It's not truly better for people to be intelligent rather than ignorant, it's not better to love than to hate, it's not better to be generous rather than to steal, it's not better to seek peace rather than war, it's not better to tell the truth rather than lie, nothing is really better or worse than anything imaginable. Any and all moral judgments are nothing more than meritless opinion. Whenever you make a moral judgement about anything it truly means as much as an astrological forecast. How does all of this sound when aligned with reality? Like a joke.

We are all individuals and we all have our own moral compass. Most people care and keep that compass pointing in the right direction. It doesn't matter what walk of life, religious background, or cultural influences are factors at large. We feel and therefore we are capable of personal moral decisions. Objective morality is not plausible unless all positions are treated equal. That creates a problem as it contradicts itself. Making a personal effort to do what is right is the best we can with what is given to us. And each case must be judged on its own merits. Sometimes the "sin" is the best that can be done at the moment.

But there isn't a "right" direction if all morality is subjective. Raping and brutalizing is just as "right" as loving and caring for somebody. That's the realized absurdity about relativistic morality. Objective morality varies depending on the context of the situation. Moral absolutism, on the other hand, doesn't. Moral absolutism claims that something is wrong regardless of context.

I think it all comes down to intent. Murder and killing are two different things. Murder is the intent to take another person's life. Killing could be accidental, self defense or indirect. There can't be a moral code that is all inclusive to every possible scenario. Does someone who is insane truly know what they are doing? What are their core intentions? We have no way of knowing that.

I think intent has a lot to do with it too. The absolutist would say that killing for any reason is wrong, the objectivist would say that killing without sufficient cause is wrong, and the relativist says that killing may or may not be wrong depending on what society you live in but it truly it isn't right or wrong regardless of the situation anyway. I prefer a moral sense theory definition of objective morality: that human beings have an innate, shared sense of right and wrong on some issues that is ingrained into the human consciousness. If a sociopath doesn't realize any innate sense of right and wrong would this disprove objection morality? Not any less than a colorblind person trying to disprove the existence of color.
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 10:24:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 10:08:31 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Bulproop, (1) I'm not a Christian and (2) you have yet to provide any substantive rebuttal.

You have yet to provide any substantive basis for your mythical objective morality.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 10:25:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 10:22:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/20/2014 10:07:07 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/20/2014 9:56:09 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/20/2014 9:36:12 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/20/2014 8:26:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is entirely subjective. What's considered moral depends on what society you happen to be living in. There's truly no such thing as criticizing slavery, genocide, child marriage or anything of that sort. There's no such thing as moral progress or basic human rights. Tolerance and acceptance is a figment of the imagination. If you live in a society with 50,001 people that are Nazi's and 49,999 people who are part of the international peace and love society, whatever the Nazi's decide is moral is moral and whatever anyone else thinks is wrong. Raping, brutalizing, murdering, and cannibalizing is really just as fine as any other behavior. No objective or true moral ideals exist whatsoever. It's not truly better for people to be intelligent rather than ignorant, it's not better to love than to hate, it's not better to be generous rather than to steal, it's not better to seek peace rather than war, it's not better to tell the truth rather than lie, nothing is really better or worse than anything imaginable. Any and all moral judgments are nothing more than meritless opinion. Whenever you make a moral judgement about anything it truly means as much as an astrological forecast. How does all of this sound when aligned with reality? Like a joke.

We are all individuals and we all have our own moral compass. Most people care and keep that compass pointing in the right direction. It doesn't matter what walk of life, religious background, or cultural influences are factors at large. We feel and therefore we are capable of personal moral decisions. Objective morality is not plausible unless all positions are treated equal. That creates a problem as it contradicts itself. Making a personal effort to do what is right is the best we can with what is given to us. And each case must be judged on its own merits. Sometimes the "sin" is the best that can be done at the moment.

But there isn't a "right" direction if all morality is subjective. Raping and brutalizing is just as "right" as loving and caring for somebody. That's the realized absurdity about relativistic morality. Objective morality varies depending on the context of the situation. Moral absolutism, on the other hand, doesn't. Moral absolutism claims that something is wrong regardless of context.

I think it all comes down to intent. Murder and killing are two different things. Murder is the intent to take another person's life. Killing could be accidental, self defense or indirect. There can't be a moral code that is all inclusive to every possible scenario. Does someone who is insane truly know what they are doing? What are their core intentions? We have no way of knowing that.

I think intent has a lot to do with it too. The absolutist would say that killing for any reason is wrong, the objectivist would say that killing without sufficient cause is wrong, and the relativist says that killing may or may not be wrong depending on what society you live in but it truly it isn't right or wrong regardless of the situation anyway. I prefer a moral sense theory definition of objective morality: that human beings have an innate, shared sense of right and wrong on some issues that is ingrained into the human consciousness. If a sociopath doesn't realize any innate sense of right and wrong would this disprove objection morality? Not any less than a colorblind person trying to disprove the existence of color.

God is the only true killer there is. He's the one who planned all the deaths of His people.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Deuteronomy 32
39: "`See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 10:56:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 10:24:05 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/20/2014 10:08:31 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Bulproop, (1) I'm not a Christian and (2) you have yet to provide any substantive rebuttal.

You have yet to provide any substantive basis for your mythical objective morality.

Is the genocide, slavery, and infanticide that's written in the Bible truly immoral or only subjectively immoral?
whatevs
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 10:57:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 8:26:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is entirely subjective. What's considered moral depends on what society you happen to be living in. There's truly no such thing as criticizing slavery, genocide, child marriage or anything of that sort. There's no such thing as moral progress or basic human rights. Tolerance and acceptance is a figment of the imagination. If you live in a society with 50,001 people that are Nazi's and 49,999 people who are part of the international peace and love society, whatever the Nazi's decide is moral is moral and whatever anyone else thinks is wrong. Raping, brutalizing, murdering, and cannibalizing is really just as fine as any other behavior. No objective or true moral ideals exist whatsoever. It's not truly better for people to be intelligent rather than ignorant, it's not better to love than to hate, it's not better to be generous rather than to steal, it's not better to seek peace rather than war, it's not better to tell the truth rather than lie, nothing is really better or worse than anything imaginable. Any and all moral judgments are nothing more than meritless opinion. Whenever you make a moral judgement about anything it truly means as much as an astrological forecast. How does all of this sound when aligned with reality? Like a joke.

Why is this in the Religion section? It should be in the Philosophy section.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 11:04:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 10:57:57 PM, whatevs wrote:
At 11/20/2014 8:26:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is entirely subjective. What's considered moral depends on what society you happen to be living in. There's truly no such thing as criticizing slavery, genocide, child marriage or anything of that sort. There's no such thing as moral progress or basic human rights. Tolerance and acceptance is a figment of the imagination. If you live in a society with 50,001 people that are Nazi's and 49,999 people who are part of the international peace and love society, whatever the Nazi's decide is moral is moral and whatever anyone else thinks is wrong. Raping, brutalizing, murdering, and cannibalizing is really just as fine as any other behavior. No objective or true moral ideals exist whatsoever. It's not truly better for people to be intelligent rather than ignorant, it's not better to love than to hate, it's not better to be generous rather than to steal, it's not better to seek peace rather than war, it's not better to tell the truth rather than lie, nothing is really better or worse than anything imaginable. Any and all moral judgments are nothing more than meritless opinion. Whenever you make a moral judgement about anything it truly means as much as an astrological forecast. How does all of this sound when aligned with reality? Like a joke.

Why is this in the Religion section? It should be in the Philosophy section.

Because morality is a relevant religious topic and has implications that imply the existence/nonexistence of God. If "Gay marriage should be legal everywhere" is apparently a religious topic this one definitely is.
whatevs
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 11:12:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 11:04:32 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/20/2014 10:57:57 PM, whatevs wrote:
At 11/20/2014 8:26:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is entirely subjective. What's considered moral depends on what society you happen to be living in. There's truly no such thing as criticizing slavery, genocide, child marriage or anything of that sort. There's no such thing as moral progress or basic human rights. Tolerance and acceptance is a figment of the imagination. If you live in a society with 50,001 people that are Nazi's and 49,999 people who are part of the international peace and love society, whatever the Nazi's decide is moral is moral and whatever anyone else thinks is wrong. Raping, brutalizing, murdering, and cannibalizing is really just as fine as any other behavior. No objective or true moral ideals exist whatsoever. It's not truly better for people to be intelligent rather than ignorant, it's not better to love than to hate, it's not better to be generous rather than to steal, it's not better to seek peace rather than war, it's not better to tell the truth rather than lie, nothing is really better or worse than anything imaginable. Any and all moral judgments are nothing more than meritless opinion. Whenever you make a moral judgement about anything it truly means as much as an astrological forecast. How does all of this sound when aligned with reality? Like a joke.

Why is this in the Religion section? It should be in the Philosophy section.

Because morality is a relevant religious topic and has implications that imply the existence/nonexistence of God. If "Gay marriage should be legal everywhere" is apparently a religious topic this one definitely is.

I think that you'd have better responses/discussions were this to be in the Philosophy forum (moral relativism after all is a meta-ethical viewpoint), but w/e.
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 11:13:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 10:56:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/20/2014 10:24:05 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/20/2014 10:08:31 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Bulproop, (1) I'm not a Christian and (2) you have yet to provide any substantive rebuttal.

You have yet to provide any substantive basis for your mythical objective morality.

Is the genocide, slavery, and infanticide that's written in the Bible truly immoral or only subjectively immoral?
You're not a christian, don't reference the bible.
Now try again.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 11:14:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 11:13:08 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/20/2014 10:56:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/20/2014 10:24:05 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/20/2014 10:08:31 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Bulproop, (1) I'm not a Christian and (2) you have yet to provide any substantive rebuttal.

You have yet to provide any substantive basis for your mythical objective morality.

Is the genocide, slavery, and infanticide that's written in the Bible truly immoral or only subjectively immoral?
You're not a christian, don't reference the bible.
Now try again.

As a non-christian asking you, is the genocide, slavery, and infanticide that's written in the Bible truly immoral or only subjectively immoral?
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 11:51:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 11:14:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/20/2014 11:13:08 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/20/2014 10:56:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/20/2014 10:24:05 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/20/2014 10:08:31 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Bulproop, (1) I'm not a Christian and (2) you have yet to provide any substantive rebuttal.

You have yet to provide any substantive basis for your mythical objective morality.

Is the genocide, slavery, and infanticide that's written in the Bible truly immoral or only subjectively immoral?
You're not a christian, don't reference the bible.
Now try again.

As a non-christian asking you, is the genocide, slavery, and infanticide that's written in the Bible truly immoral or only subjectively immoral?

You refused to answer my question concerning the bible because you aren't a christian, you don't get to change the rules midstream.
Runaway until you can have an intelligent discussion.
Tell us all about baby raping again. Child.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 11:58:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 11:51:11 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/20/2014 11:14:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/20/2014 11:13:08 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/20/2014 10:56:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/20/2014 10:24:05 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/20/2014 10:08:31 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Bulproop, (1) I'm not a Christian and (2) you have yet to provide any substantive rebuttal.

You have yet to provide any substantive basis for your mythical objective morality.

Is the genocide, slavery, and infanticide that's written in the Bible truly immoral or only subjectively immoral?
You're not a christian, don't reference the bible.
Now try again.

As a non-christian asking you, is the genocide, slavery, and infanticide that's written in the Bible truly immoral or only subjectively immoral?

You refused to answer my question concerning the bible because you aren't a christian, you don't get to change the rules midstream.
Runaway until you can have an intelligent discussion.
Tell us all about baby raping again. Child.

If you can't answer the question just say so. Now, for the third time, " is the genocide, slavery, and infanticide that's written in the Bible truly immoral or only subjectively immoral?"
dee-em
Posts: 6,454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 12:07:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 8:37:23 PM, bulproof wrote:
Baby rapers please step forward now.
mwuahahahahahahahaha.

It's going to come up. I can feel it. He's just obsessed!
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 1:03:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 8:26:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is entirely subjective. What's considered moral depends on what society you happen to be living in. There's truly no such thing as criticizing slavery, genocide, child marriage or anything of that sort. There's no such thing as moral progress or basic human rights. Tolerance and acceptance is a figment of the imagination. If you live in a society with 50,001 people that are Nazi's and 49,999 people who are part of the international peace and love society, whatever the Nazi's decide is moral is moral and whatever anyone else thinks is wrong. Raping, brutalizing, murdering, and cannibalizing is really just as fine as any other behavior. No objective or true moral ideals exist whatsoever. It's not truly better for people to be intelligent rather than ignorant, it's not better to love than to hate, it's not better to be generous rather than to steal, it's not better to seek peace rather than war, it's not better to tell the truth rather than lie, nothing is really better or worse than anything imaginable. Any and all moral judgments are nothing more than meritless opinion. Whenever you make a moral judgement about anything it truly means as much as an astrological forecast. How does all of this sound when aligned with reality? Like a joke.

Here we go again... More straw man fallacies, more false binary reductions, more misinterpretations of what "atheists believe," more ignorance about morality, in general. It's the same garbage, over and over and over. You've been thoroughly refuted every time you start one of these ignorant topics, and still you persist in spouting your rhetoric and propaganda as though your statements are axiomatic, rather than the opinionated ramblings of a narrow minded and ignorant zealot.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
dee-em
Posts: 6,454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 3:56:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 1:03:53 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/20/2014 8:26:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is entirely subjective. What's considered moral depends on what society you happen to be living in. There's truly no such thing as criticizing slavery, genocide, child marriage or anything of that sort. There's no such thing as moral progress or basic human rights. Tolerance and acceptance is a figment of the imagination. If you live in a society with 50,001 people that are Nazi's and 49,999 people who are part of the international peace and love society, whatever the Nazi's decide is moral is moral and whatever anyone else thinks is wrong. Raping, brutalizing, murdering, and cannibalizing is really just as fine as any other behavior. No objective or true moral ideals exist whatsoever. It's not truly better for people to be intelligent rather than ignorant, it's not better to love than to hate, it's not better to be generous rather than to steal, it's not better to seek peace rather than war, it's not better to tell the truth rather than lie, nothing is really better or worse than anything imaginable. Any and all moral judgments are nothing more than meritless opinion. Whenever you make a moral judgement about anything it truly means as much as an astrological forecast. How does all of this sound when aligned with reality? Like a joke.

Here we go again... More straw man fallacies, more false binary reductions, more misinterpretations of what "atheists believe," more ignorance about morality, in general. It's the same garbage, over and over and over. You've been thoroughly refuted every time you start one of these ignorant topics, and still you persist in spouting your rhetoric and propaganda as though your statements are axiomatic, rather than the opinionated ramblings of a narrow minded and ignorant zealot.

It's not more, it's the same. I feel like I'm in Groundhog Day!