Ikonboard » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: Politics
Topic: Morals
started by: CatKnight

Posted by CatKnight on May 30 2002,21:52

replaced wiley's poll due to unnescessary flame, according to DSL's rules.

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 31 2002,00:16

it would've been nice if you would've at least left the question intact.

Posted by Beldurin on May 31 2002,00:18

Couldn't you have moved the posts so I don't have to retype? That's kind of skirting a fine line, but anyway...

My original post was: I have to go with the Parents/Teachers option (but not so much the teachers). My entire moral and ethical foundation I attribute to my parents. Granted, society has played a role, God has played a role, my experiences, etc. have played a role, however I owe all of my morals, my (so-called) intelligence, and most of my success to my parents. Because they were parents...good parents.

Posted by CatKnight on May 31 2002,01:26

oops my bad, i thought i did

Posted by DuSTman on May 31 2002,02:47

The poll appears to assume that all moral statutes are derived from the *same* source.

I personally believe that both nature and parental/society influence play significant parts in the development of most peoples way of thinking on this. Clearly parental guidance can alter the way children think on a particular situation, but we must consider that if that's the only way morals were ingrained, then how did the first humans ever refrain from killing each other long enough to compose a society in the first place.

One thing I'm against is the regard some people seem to find for morals. A lot of people talk on this subject like there should be nothing above morals to determine what to do in a particular situation.

Posted by Wiley on May 31 2002,03:44

Didn't think it was too much of a flame considering you spent an entire thread telling us what morals should be.
But what ever. I think I learned more from my parents about what is right and wrong ...I lumped it with teachers because I wanted to sepparate taught morals from natural or supernatural or some kinda mysterious force.

Posted by Vigilante on May 31 2002,05:02

Funny, I thought Wiley's fifth choice was perfectly legitimate as well. Sigh... have to settle for the next best choice.

Posted by CatKnight on May 31 2002,05:20

funny how people only interpret what they want to hear. I'm sure this won't be the last time, but here we go again. I NEVER EVER TRIED TO PUSH "MY" MORALS ON ANYONE, THE ENTIRE DEBATE WAS WHETHER ABSOLUTE MORALS EXIST OR NOT.

Posted by veistran on May 31 2002,09:49

I had a really good philosophical discussion about "truth" and "absolute truth." I'd imagine it would've been very similiar if we were talking about morals. As such, here's what we came to the conclusion of... Things are referred to with the _absolute_ sense implied, as such people are much more comfortable with things when they see them as absolutes. This makes sense given that the good majority of philosophy is the search for true absolutes. In general absolutes mean, this is what I believe, this is how I 'experience' it and barring some kind of major shift in my understanding of it, this is what it is. Most people's morals are like that.

As far as whether morals exist, yes, morals exist. Morals are always going to exist in some form for humans, having them is part of being human.

edit: minor spelling

Posted by Wiley on May 31 2002,16:13

I'm sorry CK, I must have misinterpreted that entire part when you were telling Kuru that she should believe abortion is immoral (as you do) as you pushing your morals on her.
<sarcasm>Now after re-reading the thread (especially this part)

Quote

that is besides the point though, because I'm not arguing whether it should be legal or illegal, I'm trying to get kuru to realize how wrong it is.

I can clearly see that you have no desire to persuade Kuru to share in your beliefs</sarcasm>

Posted by Wolfguard on May 31 2002,16:32

Quote (DuSTman @ 30 May 2002,21:47)

then how did the first humans ever refrain from killing each other long enough to compose a society in the first place.

I think it would be along the lines of.

"If i kill og, og cant help hunt. og is a good hunter and brings in a lot of food. killing og would be bad."

This would be the birth of the M word that everyone tosses around since it gets boiled down to killing is bad.

and for the record. you guys are discussing ethics...

1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles or values b : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> c plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> d : a guiding philosophy \

not morals
1 a : the moral significance or practical lesson (as of a story) b : a passage pointing out usually in conclusion the lesson to be drawn from a story
2 plural a : moral practices or teachings : modes of conduct

Posted by kuru on May 31 2002,18:06

Yes, clearly 'I am trying to get kuru to just understand that this is wrong because I believe it is morally and ethically wrong and so should she.' is not in any way trying to get kuru to adopt CK's morals.

Not at all can that be interpereted as CK trying to push his morals on kuru.

Anybody wanna buy some beachfront property in Arizona?

Posted by CatKnight on May 31 2002,21:08

stop saying "CK's morals", as if they were mine and I made them up and I am trying to force them on all of you. That is what I am complaining about. If I told you stealing was wrong, you wouldn't say I was pushing MY laws on you, you would be saying I was taking that from the law which most people follow.

Posted by CatKnight on May 31 2002,21:15

oh, and if ANYONE has ever made a straw-man argument, it is you.

The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.

This is exactly what you do. First you misrepresent my position by stating that I am trying to impose MY morals on everyone. You don't deal with the actual question of whether absolute morals exist or not, all you do is claim that you should have the right to abide by whatever morals you feel like, regardless of absolute exist or not.

Posted by kuru on May 31 2002,22:22

Do you or do you not personally believe that abortion is wrong?

Are you or are you not trying to get me to agree with a personal moral belief that you hold?

Since you do believe that and you are trying that, it is 100% accurate to say you are trying to shove your morals on me.

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 31 2002,22:55

damn good points, wolfguard. I had wondered about the moral vs. ethics thing.

and yes, ck, you ARE trying to push your ethics on kuru.

Posted by Dysorderia on Jun. 01 2002,00:42

Quote (CatKnight @ 31 May 2002,16:15)

This is exactly what you do. First you misrepresent my position by stating that I am trying to impose MY morals on everyone.

which you do do(quite a lot, too)

Quote

You don't deal with the actual question of whether absolute morals exist or not

nor do you, CK.
your posts never progressed past being pathetic attacks on the IQ range of the person that you are debating with.

::edit:: Ok then, CK, you fucking smartass, here's an extra-special edit for your benefit.

edited text

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 01 2002,01:05

starting? yeah well you've never gotten past that level to begin with.

Posted by kuru on Jun. 01 2002,01:39

<mod hat on>Aight look, you've gotten away with implied insults on the character and intelligence of the people you're arguing against, but a direct insult in which you say a person's IQ isn't high enough to debate with you is NOT within the rules of rhetoric.

CK, keep it to the topic at hand. Attack your oppoent's viewpoint. But you will stop attacking your opponent as a person.<mod hat off>

Posted by DELUDED_BIPED on Jun. 01 2002,02:42

Quote (Beldurin @ 30 May 2002,19:18)

Bel, you are absolutely correct in your point of parents being a strong morale role model, but what if you have inane, ignorant parents?

Personally my parents didn't have good world views when I was growing up and I still find it lacking to a point, however, it has gotten better.

In my case after I graduated high school and moved on to college my friends I made thier helped me shape my moral views on most subjects. I am the type that must see it in practice and be proved that it works before I will adopt it into my own doctrine. Now I am not saying I had saints of friends far from it, but due to thier honesty of being screwed up I was able to see that the things they did were wrong, fun, but wrong.

Parents, in a childs eyes at least, are always right. Dad and Mom are far too unconditionally loved at first to be good people to shape morals, they don't have the question of "why" to deal with. At least mine didn't because of the fear factor, so I have to go with friends being the molders of moral.

Posted by DuSTman on Jun. 01 2002,16:03

Quote (Wolfguard @ 31 May 2002,08:32)

"If i kill og, og cant help hunt. og is a good hunter and brings in a lot of food. killing og would be bad."

That implies that og being a good hunter directly benefits you. You'd be not killing og because he's supporting you with food..

But then why would og be supporting you with food? what's in it for him?

For whatever reason og must not want you to starve.

That, IMO, would be a sort of instinctive thing..

Posted by kuru on Jun. 01 2002,16:30

"me can kill mammoth. hard task, stalk mammoth."
"og can kill mammoth. hard task, og stalk mammoth."
"me chase mammoth to og. og kill mammoth."
"og and me eat mammoth. mammoth big."

Co-operative hunting, or 'hunting parties'.

So Og, me, and several others go out together and kill a mammoth. The task is too big for one hunter, but not for five hunters, and the mammoth is too big for one family to eat (before it rots) but not for five families.

Now we have a society in which each member has value to the others.

"me kill og. og not hunt. mammoth get away."
"me go hungry. me kill og bad idea."

Posted by demonk on Jun. 02 2002,08:02

Who is this 'Og' person and when did he sign up with detnet? Sorry, just couldn't resist the obviously bad joke. Back to your serious converstation.

Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 02 2002,15:12

Quote (DuSTman @ 01 June 2002,11:03)

But then why would og be supporting you with food? what's in it for him?

For whatever reason og must not want you to starve.

That, IMO, would be a sort of instinctive thing..

about time someone made that point.

It is an instinctive thing.

Ok, maybe i am the only one that can make fire 100% of the time and Og likes his mamoth hot. Since he wants his mamoth hot every day Og will not kill me.

The point is all ethics come from such things. You expand on such things and make them laws. To make them stick someone back in the days of Og decided that since this idea is so grand that i could not come from man and it had to come from someplace else. That some place else became God and through some good PR it stuck.

Just goes to show that god(s) came straight out of ignorance. "Anything i can not explain on my own must be the act of god." These people were not stupid but they just did not know anything beyond what they could see.

Posted by hannibal on Jun. 03 2002,02:39

i think Teachers / Parents and God / Higher Power should be included as the same source of morals. it is our parents who are the first to teach us about right and wrong (hopefull) and they are also the first to teach us about God. We adapt their beliefs about God during the early years of our lives but as we grow older we may question/drop them for other ideals which come from Society or Teachers/Ministers. But even if we completely adopt the beliefs of strangers we are still ingrained with the original morals set in place by our parents.

Personally i agree with dustpan in that we get our morals from our parents and nature. you can all see my point about our parents but what i mean by nature is when you are of age to make decisions for yourself you can reason/modify the beliefs that you have due to your intelligience. i also believe that nature gives us all the ability to clearly differentiate between right and wrong.

Posted by Wiley on Jun. 03 2002,04:06

Quote (hannibal @ 02 June 2002,18:39)

i think Teachers / Parents and God / Higher Power should be included as the same source of morals.

Um ....no. Parents and teachers give you knowledge you were not born with and was reasoned out by man. God implies that a higher power instilled the beliefs in us.

Posted by demonk on Jun. 03 2002,04:24

But god doesn't come down and tell you what is right and wrong. In all the religions out there, he came down once and told one person what is right and wrong and told that person to tell others. So, even if the beliefs did come from a higher power, they are still taught to you by your parents/teachers/ministers/etc.

Posted by editor on Jun. 03 2002,04:32

I would think that
"having morals"
is what's fun.
Or necessary.

Posted by hannibal on Jun. 03 2002,07:57

Quote (demonk @ 02 June 2002,20:24)

thanks

unless you have personally had an experience in which God came down from the heavens and told you how things were you learn about God through others. Not fromt he almighty himself.

Posted by hannibal on Jun. 03 2002,07:58

letme clarify a little, in my first post i stated that i think its a part of nature which instills into us all the difference between right and wrong, but i also believe that God and nature are two totally different things.