That's a good way of putting it.

Like I said earlier, I don't totally DISBELIEVE in moral relativity, but the extent some people take it to is just DEE DEE DEE.

Normal people believe that murder is wrong because they have empathy. It's got nothing to do with society.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Moral Relativity is bull****.[/QUOTE]EXPLAIN. WHY. KAKDAMMIT.

Free: If you don't accept the organization of society as a reason for muder being wrong, where does society fit into your ideal world? For anything effective to happen in the world, people need to be able to work together, and for that to happen, we need at least a basic set of "rules". Without society, everything falls apart and we're back to living in caves.

It's not something you can just go "Moral relativity is bull**** because blah blah blah". I can give examples, but you either buy into the load of crap or you don't, and if you do, my examples will mean nothing to you.

Not only that, but the best example as to why it's bull**** will force this thread into GODWIN'Dism.

Then why are you arguing about something that can't be backed up with examples or reasoning? Is this supposed to be " 'Yes it is' 'no it isn't' "?

...it CAN be.

But most of them are still interpretation and opinion. It's common sense that moral relativity is bull****, but as we all know, there are way too many people out there with no common sense that will buy into a LOT of bull**** *eyes Scientology*

Explain how it's common sense! Even if it's all interpretation and opinion, you have to explain the reasoning behind your interpretations and opinions.

A man kills someone. According to his moral relativistic standpoint, he was doing the right thing. Why? Because he hated men with black hair. This man has black hair. He thought they were demons sent to the earth.

How would you judge this man?

Another man steals. He's hungry, hasn't had food for days, and needed food. However, he stole it, did not pay for it.

How would you judge this man?

Seriously, it's common sense--moral relativity goes hand in hand with stupidity. "Oh, he needed the food!" Yeah, and if every man who needed food stole whenever they felt like it food peddlers of all sorts would go out of business, then no one would get food stolen or not.

You have to set limits to society.

Like I said, it's common sense that Moral Relativity, as people like Free put it, is bull****.

Here's what I saw:

Who the hell added the new title?

Well it's hard to argue with someone who won't even BEGIN to try and understand your point of view.

Or as I call them, idiots.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm trying to show you can never convince anyone of anything going about it the way you are now. You're stating arguments like they're fact, then calling people idiots when they try and debate.

Oh, yeah, I forgot "Oh, you have no argument", that's a good debate tactic.

No, moral relativity is bull****--some people buy into it, some people don't. It's not hard to see that it's bull**** if you look at the world today, and how applying moral relativity to it would soon ensue in chaos and destruction.

It's an excuse for anything and everything.

PS--you're never gonna win any debate team awards by dismissing someone's argument, especially after trying heartily to get it from them.

Hypocrisy ftw.

Smock shouldn't have to solicit you three times for the reasoning behind your opinion in a debate. Now that's common sense.

"Moral Relativism is stupid."

"Why?"

"Because it's stupid! Duh! That's common sense!"

"No it isn't. Why is Moral Relativism stupid?"

"Stop asking me pesky questsion, it just is!"

"Why?"

"Well, if you insist..."

Fine, I'm arguing with you about how you have no argument. I agree that Moral Relativity is pretty stupid, but...
[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]...and how applying moral relativity to it would soon ensue in chaos and destruction.

It's an excuse for anything and everything.[/QUOTE]but that's the most explanation (that is comprehensible) of your opinion that I have seen in this thread so far. Now you can take it further. Provide examples of how chaos would ensue in one applied moral relativity to the real world.

I'm not saying that rampant murder wouldn't decrease society's ability to accomplish tasks; it obviously would. What I'm saying is that's not necessarily "wrong." Depending on your perspective, decreasing the cohesion of society could be beneficial.

Actually it was more like:
"Moral relativism is stupid"
"Why?"
"Well it's kinda common sense and the only example I can think of involves hitler."
"I repeat, why?"
"Okay, fine *shows examples*"
"That's not an argument, why?"
"Are you ****ing dense? Okay, since as much is obviously beyond you, I'll give you yet ANOTHER example."
"Oh, okay, you actually gave an argument this time"

Dismissing arguments is good guys, remember that.

I don't really want to go on a four page dissertation on how it would ensue in chaos and destruction, because I'm pretty sure you can reason it out yourself and I'm lazy. If you can't figure it out for yourself, then you're even more "hurr" than Free over here, for which I'd have to give you credit.

Seriously though, this time it would be me iterating why it would cause chaos to someone who already agrees with my viewpoint and probably has heard the argument already. I'm not gonna cater to you playing Devil's Advocate.


"Nothing's wrong! HURR!"

It has nothing to do with "cohesion of society" <--what the **** does that mean?

It has everything to do with the destruction of not only society, but humanity as we know it. If murder was okay everyone would be dead. Seriously, if I could kill anyone with no repercussions I know there's a few people I'd off, and I know a LOT of people who would off me.

It wouldn't even be survival of the fittest, just survival of those with the biggest guns.

All of my morals come from the Bible....

It seems to work for me.

LEGALISE CANNIBALISM

But aren't there passages in the Bible that put women into negative light, treating women as somewhat inferior beings and allowing slavery to exist?

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]
"Nothing's wrong! HURR!"

It has nothing to do with "cohesion of society" <--what the **** does that mean?

It has everything to do with the destruction of not only society, but humanity as we know it. If murder was okay everyone would be dead. Seriously, if I could kill anyone with no repercussions I know there's a few people I'd off, and I know a LOT of people who would off me.

It wouldn't even be survival of the fittest, just survival of those with the biggest guns.[/QUOTE]

I see you missed my point. I'm saying that the destruction of society isn't inherently wrong, nor would be the extinction of our species. Both instances have many benefits. To the environment; to animals; and to anarchists (in the former case).

If you say the destruction of our species is good, you need to just shoot yourself in the face.

Because you obviously aren't human.

There's a line you're crossing and it's a very fundamental one at that.

This is a Discussion Forum. Which means that it is setup to discuss subjects in whatever manner we deem fit. This includes arguments from both a Positive (meaning Application or Proven) and Nomitive (meaning Philosophical or Brain-storming) perspective.

Get your panty's out of a wad and let that soak in for a minute. Go ahead, we'll wait right here (if not, I foresee another ban-stick in your future if you continue down this path).

1) I don't wear panties.
2) You're not an admin.
3) You're a laughingstock of a man.
4) Go away.

Yeah, I'll get banned again...and again, and again. But my point still stands. If you think the destruction of our race is a good thing, kindly exit your existence. I'm sorry, I personally have that naturally ingrained instinct for survival that humanity has developed, hell, that ALL species have developed. I wouldn't kill myself to save another man, tree, forest, or planet. I wouldn't kill our race for the same reason.

I'm not crossing any line, I'm making a point.

PS--you still suck at physics.

tis to be expected though, everything has a shelf life.

[QUOTE=Mr. Stafford]tis to be expected though, everything has a shelf life.[/QUOTE]
Oh I'm not saying the human race will never be destroyed. Just that I would never do anything to further its destruction. I like my species, I like this age of man, I like my humanity, as brief and fragile it really is.

I want my species to live on, and anyone who doesn't needs to just drop dead, as far as I'm concerned.

i suppose we're ok... i always said we need more elbows.

I wonder if they can give robot elbows these days.

one on each arm totally sucks, you need at least 3 or 4.

If you had 3 or 4, you could steal from vending machines.

Yes. This is true. I still treat women well, and if I had a slave, I would treat him/her well.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]But my point still stands. If you think the destruction of our race is a good thing, kindly exit your existence. I'm sorry, I personally have that naturally ingrained instinct for survival that humanity has developed, hell, that ALL species have developed. I wouldn't kill myself to save another man, tree, forest, or planet. I wouldn't kill our race for the same reason.[/quote]

Yes, you've established your opinion on the topic (ad nauseam). Now, if you don't have anything constructive left to add...*points to exit*



Having a nomitive perspective on a subject matter is what inovates society to change. A positive perspective on subject matter is what has caused inovations to stagnate.

PS--If I was and admin (not that I was saying I was in the first place...just making a prediction), I would have permabanned you long ago. You've proven time and again that you're nothing more then a troll.

Says the man who came in here to flame me and try to make me seem like an idiot (and did a rather poor job at that)? My opinion stands, and so do I.


Uh huh. Yeah. I forgot--wanting the human race to die makes it go on longer, and wanting it to succeed makes it fail.

Yeah, man, you're so enlightened.


Good god I could take a pot shot, but I'll leave it at this--nobody cares.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Says the man who came in here to flame me and try to make me seem like an idiot (and did a rather poor job at that)? My opinion stands, and so do I.[/quote]

I didn't come in this thread to flame you. I was making you aware of something apparently never crossed your mind. Apparently, a vain attempt to keep the thread from derailing and turning into another flame war...

Out of curiosity, why arey ou standing?



I wasn't making a case for either side of the debate. Thanks for allowing all of us to see how flawed your logic works by drawing false assumptions...



Thank you. I tell myself that often.



I wonder why nobody cares?

What exactly is moral relativism, anyway? I really hope it's something better than just doing what feels right to you.

Honestly you can shout that something is wrong until you're black and blue. Who cares? The issue is if there is some objective standard out there that says that a certain things are wrong or right. If not why should you even care? It's just a bunch of organisms vying to be top dog. Why limit you self based on some emotional reaction embedded into the culture through thousands of years of superstition?

That's actually exactly what it is. In a sense.

Moral relativism is "what may be right to you is wrong to someone else"--basically, some people may think of murder as no big deal, some may think of it as a big deal. Etc etc. It has its merits as an idea, but only to a point. After that point it's complete retardation.

So the whole idea should be debunked strictly on that basis? Debunking an entire claim just because part of it seems inaccurate (or is inaccurate) doesn't make much sense. Wouldn't it be more useful to narrow the parameters such that it more closely describes such issues in general then just completely throwing it out?

The Wikipedia article on moral relativism describes it well. It would do you all go to thoroughly read it through with an open mind.

And yet that sort of thing happens in science all the time. Einstiens original theory of relativity almost bombed because it wasn't accurate in all applications. It wasn't until the general theory of relativity that people believed it. Copernicus was right when he said the planets orbit the sun - but his model didn't predict planet positions as accuratly as the older helenistic models. It wasn't until he replaced the circular orbits with eliptical ones, and the model was accurate in all cases, that it was accepted.

Moral relativism fails in one particular case : Rape. Rape can only be 'justified' by insanity. Murder can be justified; but not in the ways people have touted in this thread. Someone hating people with black hair doesn't justify killing them. That is no different then a Klansman killing black people, and you certainly can't claim that that is justifyable.
'Moral relativism' is a fancy way of saying 'It's not their fault'. You aren't going to pass off Moral Relativism until you defeat Personal Responsibility, and, thankfully, our justice system is still built on that.

Stop making excuses for bad behavior.

...what? I don't think you understand what moral relativism is.

I like you.

In other news--playing devil's advocate is another form of trolling. Friend14 is a hypocrite.

Playing devil's advocate is NOT trolling. Someone has to be wrong to have a discussion.


I know what it is. Unfortunatly, you aren't arguing the side of Moral Relativism. You - or, well, freelancer - are arguing that there are no absolute moral truths, which isn't a claim Moral Relativism makes. It says instead that noone is evil, which is perfectly true. By a certain definition, evil is doing 'bad' things for the sake of being 'bad'. Everyone justifies their own actions, even the most 'evil' of people. Hitler really thought it was all the Jews fault; he justified his actions - to himself. But that didn't make the holocaust 'good'. He still thought murder was wrong; he just found a reason to commit it. There are certain rules that every society has. Do not murder, do not steal, do not lie. No man breaks these rules just to break them; he always find a reason. He always justifies it to himself.

The article you linked explains quite well where this discussion went wrong. I'll quote it for you.


To put it simply; if you believed what you touted, you wouldn't be calling us wrong.

Eh, I think it is. I guess there's circumstances where it wouldn't be, but doing it just to start an argument...yeah...