Moral Imperative
- Thread starter hughball
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No. There's always two sides to every coin. Although I think I find your question either confusing or vague.
I'm not too good with morals.
I'm not too good with morals.
Uh, if you want to get all existentialist about it, technically you can just apply one to the universe by conceiving of one.
I concur with both of your sentiments.HBrutusH post=18.69788.671504 said:
Even things such as murder are not viewed as absolute, and that's pretty much the biggest moral issue that a person can face. Certain states in America still carry the death penalty don't they. Pretty much any morally questionable act can be justified somehow, whether I agree with it or not (which in the case of state executions I don't).
No, anyone who can classify something as a moral absolute can be proven wrong just by someone saying no. It's loads of fun to get into people who claim that there are such things. I think ethics is the only field of thought where you can win just by saying "No!". Three cheers for deliberate amorality!
No. I don't believe in moral absolutes.
The idea of a moral absolute requires the belief that morality was handed down to humanity from a higher power rather than created by humanity, and I don't believe that.
To anyone who would challenge my assertion that one must believe in a higher power to believe in moral absolutes I ask you to find the morality in an atom.
The idea of a moral absolute requires the belief that morality was handed down to humanity from a higher power rather than created by humanity, and I don't believe that.
To anyone who would challenge my assertion that one must believe in a higher power to believe in moral absolutes I ask you to find the morality in an atom.
I'd say the closest we can get is Kant's categorical imperative [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative], though I know there are competing schools of philosophy that disagree.
-- Steve
-- Steve
I made it an open question because i was trying to avoid hypothetical situations, besides i only know the ones everyone's heard so i thought I'd start with an open question and hope that someone more intelligent than i would provide food for thought.HBrutusH post=18.69788.671504 said:
Ah, okay, I get it now. Fair enough then, I still stand by my original response. Just sans-"vague comment".hughball post=18.69788.671649 said:
Oh, Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very ra- I mean, I don't generally agree with Kant. I do believe in moral absolutes. And I believe that the man who professes to know those moral absolutes is usually not to be trusted.
well there are a few absolutes in the world that are mostly based on human instinct like the taboo nature of incest that prevents inbreeding and deformed children. The don't are easy ones, it is easy not to practice cannibalism, deliberately self harm and or other dumb stuff.
The trouble is with other instinctive actions are things that drive people to do things like being attracted to the opposite gender or even the same with the chance of it not being reciprocated. the compulsion to use violence when threatened and other negative aspects are all deeply hardwired into our minds that can sometimes cause us to act "highly Illogical" in emotional situations though we may rationalise it later even unconsciously.
The trouble is with other instinctive actions are things that drive people to do things like being attracted to the opposite gender or even the same with the chance of it not being reciprocated. the compulsion to use violence when threatened and other negative aspects are all deeply hardwired into our minds that can sometimes cause us to act "highly Illogical" in emotional situations though we may rationalise it later even unconsciously.
If a moral absolute falls in the forest, and no one's around...?werepossum post=18.69788.671662 said:
Nah, I'd have to say that if a moral absolute actually exists we likely would've found it by now and it'd be propagated everywhere thanks to the Weeb. All hail memetic warfare!
-- Steve (who's not quite as sloshed as Schlegel)
Being a christian, I do believe in morals, and that sometimes they would be very clear, but sometimes not.
For example, (sorry for the hypothetical situation, this is just how I think best)if you see a baby on the street of people you don't know, this is totally random, I wouldn't go up to it and eat its still beating heart. Thats just wrong. Most of my morals work on a respect basis, like i wouldn't like someone stealing from me, so I don't or I wouldn't really appreciate it if someone just walked up and lopped my head off. They're supposed to formally declare a challenge first ( a muffin flavoured cookie for first to get it).
TRANSACTION COMPLETE: PLEASE DEPOSIT $0.02
For example, (sorry for the hypothetical situation, this is just how I think best)if you see a baby on the street of people you don't know, this is totally random, I wouldn't go up to it and eat its still beating heart. Thats just wrong. Most of my morals work on a respect basis, like i wouldn't like someone stealing from me, so I don't or I wouldn't really appreciate it if someone just walked up and lopped my head off. They're supposed to formally declare a challenge first ( a muffin flavoured cookie for first to get it).
TRANSACTION COMPLETE: PLEASE DEPOSIT $0.02
No, not really. There are plenty of people out there who make me sick, but I would call none of them "evil" or anything like that. Morals should be personal in my opinion, what is see as wrong isn't necessarily "wrong". I have no right to enforce my beliefs on them. I'm kind of a fan of Anarchy. The only problem is that damned "freedom to oppress".
