 |
|
|
|
| Morals Aren't Absolute, And Are A Matter Of Opinion, And Shouldn't Be Used As Proof In Debates |
| Definition of moral (Oxford Dictionary): Concerned with goodness or badness of human character or behavior, or with the distinction between right and wrong; concerned with accepted rules and standards of human behavior; conforming to accepted standards of human conduct
I think that morals are social standards and vary depending on which social group you're a part of. Because social groups are a choice, and how you interpret the rules of a social group is up to you, morals are a matter of opinion, not fact, and shouldn't be used as proof, only to state your position. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are exceptions, but as a general rule, morals are worthless in debate |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Cultures decide morals
its to the individual what morals they choose
some morals are widely accepted through multicultures
but not all of them
take the moral that pre-marital sex is wrong
take that moral and place it 100 years in the future... Into modern day
all of a sudden that moral is changed because it IS NOT ABSOLUTE |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, because there may be one moral, but another moral says the exact opposite of that. I can say
that I have no morals whatsoever, and there is no problem with that. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Most of you don't seem to be really getting the debate... I'll explain myself more:
Yes, I state my opinion (my morals) (this is to clarify), but I also provided a reason for them, and
this topic is really to see who agrees with me, and for me to try to convince people to agree with
me.
Basic (aka absolute) morals: Imo, 'basic' morals (things like don't harm innocents, which a lot of
people don't seem to have BTW despite it being a so called basic moral, be civil to others, etc) are
morals that are pretty much necessary for a society to advance past the most basic of cultures. If
you're not polite, often times it's hard to work together effectively, slowing down advancement or
halting it altogether. Things like slavery (which is now immoral, though it wasn't originally) have
actually been historically shown to hold societies back, removing the need for them to develop more
effective ways of doing things (necessary begets invention. When you don't have the need to, let's
say, grind grain easier and with little man power since you have so much cheap manpower, then you're
not likely to attempt to set up a system where a waterwheel grinds grain [which were actually used
in ancient times in a few areas with extremely low slave to not slave percentages but very high
populations, that were also nearby rivers and the like]). Crimes against humanity (like harming
innocents for amusement, lack of rights, etc) hold back a society by removing incentive, slowing
down the free flow of ideas, etc. Also, things like rape weren't originally immoral (unless
committed against someone with any power, of course) because women were thought of as property, and
unless you didn't happen to 'own' the woman, it was perfectly acceptable to do whatever the hell you
wanted.. The idea that things like killing innocents, raping, slavery, restricting rights, etc are
immoral is a fairly recent one (in some cases 'recent' can mean relatively recent, as in the last
few centuries or even half a millenia, though some morals actually came about in the last few
decades or even years.
Most 'basic' morals only became basic recently, people.
And if morals weren't social standards, and were somehow biological, then why are they so subject to
change? Why do they vary so much across cultures? Between sub-sub divisions within a culture?
If there's some problem with my words, feel free to point it out and I'll either explain myself
further or correct myself (I'm not exactly entirely awake at the moment...) |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This is so obviously true that you would think that we have reached a sufficiently advanced stage to
make it unnecessary to have a debate about it. Alas, that does not seem to be true.
Even if you accept the premise that our standards for correct moral conduct were and should be
prescribed in ancient times by invisible magical beings, it's clear that those rules cover only an
extremely limited number of circumstances, leaving a vast sphere of activity not even mentioned in
those rules; and that the application of the same rules has varied dramatically over time.
Conduct today that the average Christian engages in routinely could easily have led to being
ostracised or murdered in earlier times. How do the cultists justify this? They say that the magical
rules are subject to interpretation and that those in earlier periods interpreted them wrongly.
Thus, there is a basic contradiction at the heart of their belief system. On the one hand, they say
that the rules governing moral conduct have an external source and are eternal; on the other, they
say that those rules are subject to interpretation by us and those interpretations vary with time. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes and no, but at least this side I can get back to disagreeing with Innomen.
Yes morals do tend to change/evolve over time according to the socail group and climate, but I would
say that many are absolute, and remain consistent all across the world. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Your premise that morals aren't absolute may be correct, but your interpretation of morals'
cause-and-effect relationship with society is too heavily weighted towards the individual.
The individual cannot interpret the rules of the society; only the society itself can do that. The
individual merely chooses whether to follow them. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Most of the debates on this site are on moral issues so you can't take morals out of them. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
While many of the morals dictated by society are arbitrary, there are absolutes, without which there
would be no debates, no forandagainst.com, no society, and no civilization. For example, killing
someone, doing something to them against their will, blackmail, threat, rape, torture, battery,
theft, fraud, etc. Beyond that, it is arbitrary. However, even society-dictated lesser morals have a
place in personal arguments, faith, culture, decency, art, all that good jazz. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm going to REALLY open a can of worms here....and let's see if it hits the fan. I'm going to pick
word out of that definition, that says morals, but in brief....because I really don't want to type
forever. Morals are concerned with good/bad character and acceptable behavior for the benefit of
the whole social group. NOW IS THAT DEFINITION ACCEPTABLE without getting anal, and talking
forever. If so, then if people have defined morals that are necessary to keep the social group
HAPPY and HEALTHY, how can those morals ever change without jeopardizing parts of the social group.
Now here's where I'm going to piss people off. Example (and I don't mean to offend anyone, please)
If homosexual behavior has been deemed immoral in a society because it has been deemed to be an
unhealthy act, then how can that moral change? Just because people sue to get their way. Please,
name one society that has stood the test of time that ever condoned such behavior, they are ALL
gone, NONE, NOT ONE has EVER survived. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Absolute morals exist. When is it ever right to torture innocent babies for fun. What culture has
ever said being a traitor is just fine. When is it right to cheat your friends. If there are no
absolute morals who is to say Hitler was wrong and immoral. The only thing one can say is that his
only mistake was to lose.
I enjoyed your last sentence---"morals are a matter of opinion and shouldn't be used as proof".
Think about it. You are making a moral claim about how others should behave--they shouldn't use
morality to make a case in a debate. Is this just the way you are going to behave morally or do you
mean your moral rule should apply to others?? This sort of statement is self-refuting. It's like
me saying, "All English sentences contain no more than three words". |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yeah too many people use morals to excuse their views which otherwise have no foundation. However
some debates are based on morals and so the comments have to be based on them also. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
With out morals there wouldn't be laws |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Even though i agree that morals are opinion and are chosen they do shape everything you believe in,
that's how you know right from wrong due to your morals so in that case no one would debate or
comment on anything if they couldn't use their own personal definition of right and wrong |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Morality is not always subjective. Morals that are based on dogma and tradition tend to be, but
morals that are based on virtue are not subjective. They are not a matter of opinion, but I'm not
sure they can be used as proof of anything either.
There is no proof that morals are the result of social evolution. Morals go against our instinct
and often go contrary to the Darwinian model of survival of the fittest, and natural selection. The
explanations of morals being a product of a social construct is every bit of a theory as being
something of a higher result.
To say that morals are "proof" might be a stretch, but for those who are inclined to believe in a
power greater than themselves, it is more evidentiary in the purpose and meaning of man. |
| |
| | | | |
19 May 2008 11:57
