They're both drowning, you can save only one... (2 Viewers)

[Maurile Tremblay]

you have to say "they could believe it to be moral".

But when they're talking about genocide, wouldn't they be wrong?

They would be in disagreement with the rest of our society. There's no right or wrong.If you're defining 'wrong' as 'in disagreement with the rest of society' then sure, but then it's just a label. It's only wrong within the confines of that society.

It is quite obvious that "wrong" doesn't mean "in disagreement with the rest of society."The assertion "The whole society is wrong!" makes perfect sense. The proper response to it may be "I agree" or "I disagree," but the proper response is not, "Huh? How can the whole society be in disagreement with itself?"

 

[Psychopav]

Are you saying that your position is the right one and mine is the wrong one?

Of course I am. But that's not a moral stand, that's a philosophical stand.

So you believe in philosophical absolutes but not moral absolutes.

What is a 'philosophical absolute'?

I guess I would characterize it as a stand in which the assertion brooks no contradiction, regardless of circumstances. So in this case, it would be the philosophical position that morality is solely subjective and never objective.

I'm undecided on that. I believe it is absolutely true, but I also believe that not everything I believe is absolutely the correct belief. Hope that made sense.

If I'm reading this right, what you're saying is that not everything you believe is the absolutely correct postion, but this particular philosophical position is correct (that morality is solely subjective).

 

[Smoo]

But if you have mutually exclusive perspectives, then although neither of you may be "empirically" right or wrong, one of you is right and one of you is wrong.

Yes. From my perspective, I'm right and he's wrong. From his perspective, he's right and I'm wrong. Neither of us are independently right or wrong. Morality depends on perspective.

Do you believe there are any moral absolutes or are you comfortable in asserting that morality is self-generated due to perspective?

I do not believe there are any moral absolutes.

So raping a child is okay in some circumstances? Trust me if anyone touches any of my five children they will quickly discover whether or not I feel that they are obliged to making this moral decision of their own accord.

You're not following this very well.

How so? I am not asking you if you personally feel it is okay. I am asking you if it is okay if some people do this because it is not a moral absolute.

You're not following this because you immediately responded to my saying that I don't believe in moral absolutes by asking me if I believed in a moral absolute. Saying that 'raping a child is ok' is a statement of moral absolute, so of course I don't believe it.What I do believe is that some stranger may believe that raping a child is okay. That's their morality. It may happen. What that stranger needs to realize, though, is that their morality is in disagreement with pretty much everybody else's morality, to the point where society has enacted some pretty strict laws against raping a child. So whether that stranger believe raping a child is okay or not, they'd best not be trying it.

 

[660]

hope that makes you feel better, when some ##### decides to let your mother drown, so he can take his dog to a Korean restaurant.

I would thank him, my mom is a b***h, so technically he might be hesitent because he wouldn't know which one was the female dog...

 

[Smoo]

you have to say "they could believe it to be moral".

But when they're talking about genocide, wouldn't they be wrong?

They would be in disagreement with the rest of our society. There's no right or wrong.

Do you, personally, think that genocide is immoral?

Yes.

Do you think it's immoral just when you do it? Or do you think it would also be immoral for me to do it?

I think it's immoral when anybody does it. Others may disagree.ps - It's not as as easy as it looks to manually italicize an 'I' flawlessly.

 

[Smoo]

Are you saying that your position is the right one and mine is the wrong one?

Of course I am. But that's not a moral stand, that's a philosophical stand.

So you believe in philosophical absolutes but not moral absolutes.

What is a 'philosophical absolute'?

I guess I would characterize it as a stand in which the assertion brooks no contradiction, regardless of circumstances. So in this case, it would be the philosophical position that morality is solely subjective and never objective.

I'm undecided on that. I believe it is absolutely true, but I also believe that not everything I believe is absolutely the correct belief. Hope that made sense.

If I'm reading this right, what you're saying is that not everything you believe is the absolutely correct postion, but this particular philosophical position is correct (that morality is solely subjective).

What I'm saying is that everything I believe, I believe with certainty. One of the things I believe is that some of my beliefs are wrong. I don't know which ones, though.

 

[satch]

Not sure how we got to the point, where people started confusing dogs with humans, and thinking they are there children.  But it is sad that it has come to that.

I don't think anyones is confusing dogs with humans. They are clearly 2 different species. The confusion is about what gives the human species more of a right to life over any other species, in this case a dog, and how we arrive at that conclusion without being merely selfish as a race.

Your typical human influences how many lives? Hundreds??? Hopefully most for the best, and for a long period of time. Your typical dog, one or two people may actually give a hoot about, and that is only for 10-13 years, than it is time to get a new puppy...

So a species right to life, wether it be a dog, crocodile, human, bird, etc is based on how many human lives it can influence or impact?

 

[660]

What I'm saying is that everything I believe, I believe with certainty. One of the things I believe is that some of my beliefs are wrong. I don't know which ones, though.

So the only belief you know to be correct is that some of your beleifs are wrong. I wish we could get some of the jesus-freaks to admit as much.

 

[Psychopav]

What I'm saying is that everything I believe, I believe with certainty. One of the things I believe is that some of my beliefs are wrong. I don't know which ones, though.

So the only belief you know to be correct is that some of your beleifs are wrong. I wish we could get some of the jesus-freaks to admit as much.

I don't think anybody could know with certainty that not all of their beliefs are correct. They can only guess, probably based on some perception of a law of averages.FYI, Jesus freaks are happier, more fulfilled, and live longer lives.

 

[satch]

After reading the last few pages of this, I hugged my dog and a stranger.  My dog licked me, the stranger punched me.

While quite humorous, that statement actually has relevance as it would be very true. If I hug a stranger, it could result in a violent retaliation....interesting comment on our society as well as the human race in general.

Or the dog could rip your throat out and the human could give you a $100 bill. What was your point again?

My point is that while a stranger would punch me for hugging him, my dog would show affection. Why should I save something that hates me (as proven by punching me for the hug) and lose something that loves me?

 

[Smoo]

What I'm saying is that everything I believe, I believe with certainty.  One of the things I believe is that some of my beliefs are wrong.  I don't know which ones, though.

So the only belief you know to be correct is that some of your beleifs are wrong. I wish we could get some of the jesus-freaks to admit as much.

I don't think anybody could know with certainty that not all of their beliefs are correct. They can only guess, probably based on some perception of a law of averages.FYI, Jesus freaks are happier, more fulfilled, and live longer lives.

If one of your beliefs is the not all of your beliefs are correct, that that belief cannot, by definition, be incorrect. The worst you can get is a paradoxical situation when all of your other beliefs actually are correct.

 

[Smoo]

What I'm saying is that everything I believe, I believe with certainty. One of the things I believe is that some of my beliefs are wrong. I don't know which ones, though.

So the only belief you know to be correct is that some of your beleifs are wrong. I wish we could get some of the jesus-freaks to admit as much.

I don't know that that's correct. It could be incorrect and all my beliefs actually are... okay, nevermind.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

you have to say "they could believe it to be moral".

But when they're talking about genocide, wouldn't they be wrong?

They would be in disagreement with the rest of our society. There's no right or wrong.

Do you, personally, think that genocide is immoral?

Yes.

Do you think it's immoral just when you do it? Or do you think it would also be immoral for me to do it?

I think it's immoral when anybody does it. Others may disagree.

Okay, so you appear to hold two rather distinct beliefs:1. There is no right or wrong, so "genocide is immoral" is not the kind of statement that has an objective truth value.

2. Genocide is immoral according to your own personal moral framework, so your own moral framework says that "genocide is immoral" is a true statement.

If both of those propositions are correct, then you must believe that your own moral framework is wrong. Do you?

 

[Psychopav]

What I'm saying is that everything I believe, I believe with certainty.  One of the things I believe is that some of my beliefs are wrong.  I don't know which ones, though.

So the only belief you know to be correct is that some of your beleifs are wrong. I wish we could get some of the jesus-freaks to admit as much.

I don't think anybody could know with certainty that not all of their beliefs are correct. They can only guess, probably based on some perception of a law of averages.FYI, Jesus freaks are happier, more fulfilled, and live longer lives.

If one of your beliefs is the not all of your beliefs are correct, that that belief cannot, by definition, be incorrect. The worst you can get is a paradoxical situation when all of your other beliefs actually are correct.

I don't think that would classify as a paradox. Fine. One of your beliefs is that not all of your other beliefs are correct, but you can't really logically know that with any certainty.

 

[Psychopav]

you have to say "they could believe it to be moral".

But when they're talking about genocide, wouldn't they be wrong?

They would be in disagreement with the rest of our society. There's no right or wrong.

Do you, personally, think that genocide is immoral?

Yes.

Do you think it's immoral just when you do it? Or do you think it would also be immoral for me to do it?

I think it's immoral when anybody does it. Others may disagree.

Okay, so you appear to hold two rather distinct beliefs:1. There is no right or wrong, so "genocide is immoral" is not the kind of statement that has an objective truth value.

2. Genocide is immoral according to your own personal moral framework, so your own moral framework says that "genocide is immoral" is a true statement.

If both of those propositions are correct, then you must believe that your own moral framework is wrong. Do you?

Hmmm...the Smoo morality stars seem to be aligning here...scary stuff...

 

[Smoo]

If both of the above propositions are correct, then you must believe that your own moral framework is wrong. Is that so?

Your logic does not resemble our earth logic.I believe that what I believe is right and wrong is right and wrong for all situations I observe. I also believe that other people can observe the same situations and come to a different conclusion on whather what they observe is right or wrong. I do not believe that one of us actually is absolutely right or wrong.

That is all consistent and non-contradictory and in no way implies that my moral framework is right or wrong. In fact, it states quite explicitly that it is definitely neither. So whatever you're doing, you're doing it with some kind of fla\/\/ed premise.

 

[Smoo]

One of your beliefs is that not all of your other beliefs are correct, but you can't really logically know that with any certainty.

Yes, that's a better belief because it's paradox-free. That's the believe I hold.Now I can say with absolute certainty that I have at least one incorrect belief.

 

[Psychopav]

One of your beliefs is that not all of your other beliefs are correct, but you can't really logically know that with any certainty.

Yes, that's a better belief because it's paradox-free. That's the believe I hold.Now I can say with absolute certainty that I have at least one incorrect belief.

Not only that, but you can even pinpoint the incorrect belief, right? It's the one that says that not all of your other beliefs are wrong.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

After reading the last few pages of this, I hugged my dog and a stranger.  My dog licked me, the stranger punched me.

While quite humorous, that statement actually has relevance as it would be very true. If I hug a stranger, it could result in a violent retaliation....interesting comment on our society as well as the human race in general.

Or the dog could rip your throat out and the human could give you a $100 bill. What was your point again?

My point is that while a stranger would punch me for hugging him, my dog would show affection. Why should I save something that hates me (as proven by punching me for the hug) and lose something that loves me?

If you saved the stranger's life, he'd probably appreciate it. He might even hug you, if that's what you're looking for.

 

[Thorn]

After reading the last few pages of this, I hugged my dog and a stranger.  My dog licked me, the stranger punched me.

While quite humorous, that statement actually has relevance as it would be very true. If I hug a stranger, it could result in a violent retaliation....interesting comment on our society as well as the human race in general.

Or the dog could rip your throat out and the human could give you a $100 bill. What was your point again?

My point is that while a stranger would punch me for hugging him, my dog would show affection. Why should I save something that hates me (as proven by punching me for the hug) and lose something that loves me?

Come on now, that's not proof of anything other than the fact that you scared a stranger who reacted reasonably. Plus the hypo is that the stranger is drowning, not standing on shore and "you can only hug one."You should save the human stranger bc human life is inherently more valuable than a dog's, and you shouldn't be tripped up by the fact that you actually are familiar with the dog and not the stranger (not saying you believe this; just answering your question "why should I save something that hates me?).

 

[Smoo]

One of your beliefs is that not all of your other beliefs are correct, but you can't really logically know that with any certainty.

Yes, that's a better belief because it's paradox-free. That's the believe I hold.Now I can say with absolute certainty that I have at least one incorrect belief.

Not only that, but you can even pinpoint the incorrect belief, right? It's the one that says that not all of your other beliefs are wrong.

No, I can't pinpoint it. Either my belief that one or more of my other beliefs is wrong is a correct belief, making one or more of my other beliefs incorrect, or my belif that one of my other beliefs is wrong is an incorrect belief, making all of my other beliefs correct.But this is a tangent. What were you on about with this whole 'philosophical absolute' thing?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If both of the above propositions are correct, then you must believe that your own moral framework is wrong. Is that so?

Your logic does not resemble our earth logic.I believe that what I believe is right and wrong is right and wrong for all situations I observe. I also believe that other people can observe the same situations and come to a different conclusion on whather what they observe is right or wrong. I do not believe that one of us actually is absolutely right or wrong.

That is all consistent and non-contradictory and in no way implies that my moral framework is right or wrong. In fact, it states quite explicitly that it is definitely neither. So whatever you're doing, you're doing it with some kind of fla\/\/ed premise.

The logic is actually quite good, if I may say so myself.I'll rephrase.

Your brain appears to contain two proposition evaluators which disagree with each other. One, which we'll call "Smoo," says "If I say genocide is immoral, I am wrong (since 'genocide is immoral' isn't the kind of statement that can be true)." The other, which we'll call "Smoo's personal moral framework," says "Genocide is immoral." So evidently, Smoo believes that Smoo's personal moral framework is wrong.

 

[Kleck.]

37 pages? Might need the cliff notes for this one.I'll let them both drown since they were dumb enough to go into the water without knowing how to swim.

 

[Smoo]

One, which we'll call "Smoo," says "If I say genocide is immoral, I am wrong (since 'genocide is immoral' isn't the kind of statement that can be true)."

Here's your fla\/\/ed premise. I am wrong if I say (or imply in context) that genocide is absolutely wrong and everybody who doesn't believe so is in error. I am not wrong if I say (or imply in context) that I personally believe genocide is wrong (and make no statement on what other people believe).

 

[satch]

After reading the last few pages of this, I hugged my dog and a stranger.  My dog licked me, the stranger punched me.

While quite humorous, that statement actually has relevance as it would be very true. If I hug a stranger, it could result in a violent retaliation....interesting comment on our society as well as the human race in general.

Or the dog could rip your throat out and the human could give you a $100 bill. What was your point again?

My point is that while a stranger would punch me for hugging him, my dog would show affection. Why should I save something that hates me (as proven by punching me for the hug) and lose something that loves me?

If you saved the stranger's life, he'd probably appreciate it. He might even hug you, if that's what you're looking for.

I agree. The same stranger that would punch me for hugging him before, would probably hug me for saving his life. That's a typical selfish human reaction. On the other hand, my dog would love me just as much before I save his life as he would after.

 

[Psychopav]

One, which we'll call "Smoo," says "If I say genocide is immoral, I am wrong (since 'genocide is immoral' isn't the kind of statement that can be true)."

Here's your fla\/\/ed premise. I am wrong if I say (or imply in context) that genocide is absolutely wrong and everybody who doesn't believe so is in error. I am not wrong if I say (or imply in context) that I personally believe genocide is wrong (and make no statement on what other people believe).

This goes directly to the "philosophical absolute" line of thought. You can profess to believe someting (like genocide) to be wrong personally, for everyone, but it has no meaning to profess it because you think you might be wrong.Here's where I stand: genocide is wrong in all situations, but it may not be an immoral act from an individual's standpoint, depending on the reason he commits it. For example, if he's insane then he would not be morally culpable for the inherent immorality of the act. That doesn't make it less wrong objectively.

 

[rolyaTy]

It seems that all smoo would have to do to make the two ideas compatible was to say he doesn't believe genocide is wrong for anyone other than himself.

 

[Thorn]

After reading the last few pages of this, I hugged my dog and a stranger.  My dog licked me, the stranger punched me.

While quite humorous, that statement actually has relevance as it would be very true. If I hug a stranger, it could result in a violent retaliation....interesting comment on our society as well as the human race in general.

Or the dog could rip your throat out and the human could give you a $100 bill. What was your point again?

My point is that while a stranger would punch me for hugging him, my dog would show affection. Why should I save something that hates me (as proven by punching me for the hug) and lose something that loves me?

If you saved the stranger's life, he'd probably appreciate it. He might even hug you, if that's what you're looking for.

I agree. The same stranger that would punch me for hugging him before, would probably hug me for saving his life. That's a typical selfish human reaction. On the other hand, my dog would love me just as much before I save his life as he would after.

I bet your dog would love me more than you if I had a raw steak and he had just crapped on the carpet and knew you had just gotten home.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I bet your dog would love me more than you if I had a raw steak and he had just crapped on the carpet and knew you had just gotten home.

That's probably true of the stranger too, though.

 

[rolyaTy]

If both of the above propositions are correct, then you must believe that your own moral framework is wrong. Is that so?

Your logic does not resemble our earth logic.I believe that what I believe is right and wrong is right and wrong for all situations I observe. I also believe that other people can observe the same situations and come to a different conclusion on whather what they observe is right or wrong. I do not believe that one of us actually is absolutely right or wrong.

That is all consistent and non-contradictory and in no way implies that my moral framework is right or wrong. In fact, it states quite explicitly that it is definitely neither. So whatever you're doing, you're doing it with some kind of fla\/\/ed premise.

The logic is actually quite good, if I may say so myself.I'll rephrase.

Your brain appears to contain two proposition evaluators which disagree with each other. One, which we'll call "Smoo," says "If I say genocide is immoral, I am wrong (since 'genocide is immoral' isn't the kind of statement that can be true)." The other, which we'll call "Smoo's personal moral framework," says "Genocide is immoral." So evidently, Smoo believes that Smoo's personal moral framework is wrong.

I dont know if I understand what you're saying correctly, but i'll try to summarize my idea of what he's saying.1. I think genocide is wrong for everyone, according to my morality. - In this case you're assuming that right/wrong translates further than just simply yourself. In doing this, you're saying that your belief that genocide is wrong applies to ALL people, and judging them against your framework is valid.

2. You think that morality is totally relative. What one person thinks is right and wrong in no way matters regarding what another person thinks. In this system, you can think that you're right on something, and wrong on another...whereas someone else could think just the opposite. Using this system, there is no purpose in saying someone else is "wrong" for doing ANYTHING, unless you know their moral code and it's in disagreement with it.

The moment you start to judge other peoples actions based on your moral code, you're assuming that all morality isn't relative.

 

[rolyaTy]

How about some logical information, or factual evidence, or anything other than subjective opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not a fact.

It's all going to be subjective arguing anyways because it's based upon VALUE. What one person values isn't necessarily what another does. That being said, this was talked about quite a few pages ago and it was discussed about how much of an impact the dog and the human had on society. The human generally has more of an impact. Also, the human is less replacable than the dog. You can look back and try to find this argument to see what people said...wasn't further back than page 30 I dont think.

 

[satch]

You should save the human stranger bc human life is inherently more valuable than a dog's

This is the biggest sticking point in the entire thread. I've yet to read a logical explanation as to why human life is more valuable than a dogs. Please, somebody convince me with more than "it's that simple", or "becuase it is" or "if you disagree your a disgrace". How about some logical information, or factual evidence, or anything other than subjective opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not a fact.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It seems that all smoo would have to do to make the two ideas compatible was to say he doesn't believe genocide is wrong for anyone other than himself.

I had already asked him if it was wrong just when he does it, or if it's wrong when others do it as well.

 

[rolyaTy]

You should save the human stranger bc human life is inherently more valuable than a dog's

This is the biggest sticking point in the entire thread. I've yet to read a logical explanation as to why human life is more valuable than a dogs. Please, somebody convince me with more than "it's that simple", or "becuase it is" or "if you disagree your a disgrace". How about some logical information, or factual evidence, or anything other than subjective opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not a fact.

I quoted you as saying this 5 minutes before you actually did. Am I good or what?

 

[satch]

You should save the human stranger bc human life is inherently more valuable than a dog's

This is the biggest sticking point in the entire thread. I've yet to read a logical explanation as to why human life is more valuable than a dogs. Please, somebody convince me with more than "it's that simple", or "becuase it is" or "if you disagree your a disgrace". How about some logical information, or factual evidence, or anything other than subjective opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not a fact.

I quoted you as saying this 5 minutes before you actually did. Am I good or what?

very impressive!

 

[zdaddy]

Not sure how we got to the point, where people started confusing dogs with humans, and thinking they are there children.  But it is sad that it has come to that.

I don't think anyones is confusing dogs with humans. They are clearly 2 different species. The confusion is about what gives the human species more of a right to life over any other species, in this case a dog, and how we arrive at that conclusion without being merely selfish as a race.

Your typical human influences how many lives? Hundreds??? Hopefully most for the best, and for a long period of time. Your typical dog, one or two people may actually give a hoot about, and that is only for 10-13 years, than it is time to get a new puppy...

So a species right to life, wether it be a dog, crocodile, human, bird, etc is based on how many human lives it can influence or impact?

who said anything about right to life. I didn't make this thread, but the rules of the thread are that one must die. So whoose life has the most potential value?

 

[zdaddy]

Not sure how we got to the point, where people started confusing dogs with humans, and thinking they are there children.  But it is sad that it has come to that.

I don't think anyones is confusing dogs with humans. They are clearly 2 different species. The confusion is about what gives the human species more of a right to life over any other species, in this case a dog, and how we arrive at that conclusion without being merely selfish as a race.

Your typical human influences how many lives? Hundreds??? Hopefully most for the best, and for a long period of time. Your typical dog, one or two people may actually give a hoot about, and that is only for 10-13 years, than it is time to get a new puppy...

So a species right to life, wether it be a dog, crocodile, human, bird, etc is based on how many human lives it can influence or impact?

Oh, and I said nothing of impacting human lives. I said lives. Dosen't matter.

 

[zdaddy]

hope that makes you feel better, when some ##### decides to let your mother drown, so he can take his dog to a Korean restaurant.

I would thank him, my mom is a b***h, so technically he might be hesitent because he wouldn't know which one was the female dog...

LOLso odviously you are either a sychopath hoping for the death of his mother..or are just arguing to argue at this point. So either way, I am done with you.

 

[TheIronSheik]

If a Hindu was walking by and saw a cow and a stranger drowning, which would he save?Is it immoral for him to save a god-like creature over a stranger?

Yes.

What you don't realize is, just because you don't answer the question right, it still proves my point.Knowing that you are bull headed enough to think that only your religion can pave the way to acceptable morality takes you from a person debating an issue, and moves you to a person preaching and pushing his belief system on others.

I disagree with this statement. He isn't pushing his beliefs on anyone. He isn't forcing his beliefs on you, nor is he trying to enact a law to force you to act in accord with his beliefs. His opinion was solicited in this thread, and he is providing it.

If this is true, then that's all I've been saying. That a choice that one person makes is not the absolute correct one. In each person's mind, their own morals and beliefs dictate how they should and will act upon any given situation. Just because one person believes on thing doesn't mean that he is any more right than another person. He can be right in his eyes and wrong in many others. But there is no absolute right and wrong.And I know that we all don't agree on the above statement, because in the last two pages, at least 1/5th of the world's relious beliefs have been denounced.I'm not saying my choice is right or wrong. And I'm certainly not telling anyone else that their choice is moral or immoral. My whole point is that depending on who you are, what religion you are, what you believe in, and many other factors, there is not absolute right answer to a question based on moral beliefs. We can agree that not everyone has the same moral beliefs. And we can agree that no one's moral beliefs are perfect over another person's. So why should this question call for such black and white answers?

 

[Thorn]

You should save the human stranger bc human life is inherently more valuable than a dog's

This is the biggest sticking point in the entire thread. I've yet to read a logical explanation as to why human life is more valuable than a dogs. Please, somebody convince me with more than "it's that simple", or "becuase it is" or "if you disagree your a disgrace". How about some logical information, or factual evidence, or anything other than subjective opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not a fact.

It is tempting for me to say - you should just know this. But it seems like an honest question, so I'll resist that urge and give an answer.Because humans are conscious on a level that animals aren't. I don't think that dogs can have complex emotion, or reason, or raise a family, or organize into societies. I know that they are capable of simpler versions of each.

 

[rolyaTy]

We can agree that not everyone has the same moral beliefs. And we can agree that no one's moral beliefs are perfect over another person's. So why should this question call for such black and white answers?

Because most people have this strange idea that their morals CAN be translated to others...and that generally if others do things an individual thinks is wrong, they will likely believe that person did something wrong. This means that most people dont think that morality is WHOLLY relative, but carries with it some form of application to others.

 

[Smoo]

It seems that all smoo would have to do to make the two ideas compatible was to say he doesn't believe genocide is wrong for anyone other than himself.

I had already asked him if it was wrong just when he does it, or if it's wrong when others do it as well.

Yes, and I didn't lie. I do believe it's wrong when others do it. That doesn't mean they have to believe that.

 

[TheIronSheik]

We can agree that not everyone has the same moral beliefs. And we can agree that no one's moral beliefs are perfect over another person's. So why should this question call for such black and white answers?

Because most people have this strange idea that their morals CAN be translated to others...and that generally if others do things an individual thinks is wrong, they will likely believe that person did something wrong. This means that most people dont think that morality is WHOLLY relative, but carries with it some form of application to others.

Wait. Are you using the Bugs Bunny trick on me?I thought you were arguing against me a couple pages back.

 

[rolyaTy]

It seems that all smoo would have to do to make the two ideas compatible was to say he doesn't believe genocide is wrong for anyone other than himself.

I had already asked him if it was wrong just when he does it, or if it's wrong when others do it as well.

Yes, and I didn't lie. I do believe it's wrong when others do it. That doesn't mean they have to believe that.

But how can they be doing something wrong, when relative morality only applies to you? In relative morality, the only way someone can be wrong is if they do something against their own moral code. For you to say someone did something wrong in your opinion, you are supplanting THEIR moral code with your own, therefore yours is no longer relative but takes on an objective role.

 

[Psychopav]

But there is no absolute right and wrong....I'm not saying my choice is right or wrong. And I'm certainly not telling anyone else that their choice is moral or immoral. My whole point is that depending on who you are, what religion you are, what you believe in, and many other factors, there is not absolute right answer to a question based on moral beliefs. We can agree that not everyone has the same moral beliefs. And we can agree that no one's moral beliefs are perfect over another person's. So why should this question call for such black and white answers?

I disagree with you that there is no absolute right and wrong. That's why some moral questions require black and white answers.A Christian can bellieve Hinduism is wrong. A Hindu might believe that Christianity is wrong. One of them might be right, or both of them might be wrong, but THEY CAN'T BOTH BE RIGHT.Therefore, they can discuss in black and white terms which of them is incorrect. Neither probably believes that both are wrong, since they wouldn't profess the belief system if they thought it was an incorrect belief system.Either morality is absolute or it isn't. That's what we're really arguing about in this thread (since I and a few others have managed a pretty solid hijacking here ).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I am wrong if I say (or imply in context) that genocide is absolutely wrong and everybody who doesn't believe so is in error.  I am not wrong if I say (or imply in context) that I personally believe genocide is wrong (and make no statement on what other people believe).

You would be correct if you were talking about a statement like "ice cream is yummy." If Mark says "ice cream is yummy" and Jenny says "ice cream is gross," they can both be right. There's no contradiction since "yummy" is a binary predicate -- a function that maps an ordered pair <taster, entity> to a truth value. If you have different tasters, you can get different truth values.But "immoral" isn't like "yummy." If you say genocide is immoral and Hitler says it isn't, at least one of you is wrong. "Immoral" is like "schmuckiness" (or "purple" or "spherical"): it's a unary predicate. That's how people use it in everyday speech.

If you want to express the idea that genocide may be unpleasant-to-you, but pleasant-to-others, that's fine. But find some different words to express that concept. "Immoral" is already taken, and it doesn't mean unpleasant-to-you. It has objective, normative connotations.

If you want to claim that there's no such thing as right or wrong, and that morality is all a load of crap, don't follow it up by saying you think genocide is wrong. Say that it sucks, or that it's a total bummer. But "wrong" already has a definition, and it doesn't mean anything that's compatible with moral relativism.

 

[Thorn]

If a Hindu was walking by and saw a cow and a stranger drowning, which would he save?Is it immoral for him to save a god-like creature over a stranger?

Yes.

What you don't realize is, just because you don't answer the question right, it still proves my point.Knowing that you are bull headed enough to think that only your religion can pave the way to acceptable morality takes you from a person debating an issue, and moves you to a person preaching and pushing his belief system on others.

I disagree with this statement. He isn't pushing his beliefs on anyone. He isn't forcing his beliefs on you, nor is he trying to enact a law to force you to act in accord with his beliefs. His opinion was solicited in this thread, and he is providing it.

If this is true, then that's all I've been saying. That a choice that one person makes is not the absolute correct one. In each person's mind, their own morals and beliefs dictate how they should and will act upon any given situation. Just because one person believes on thing doesn't mean that he is any more right than another person. He can be right in his eyes and wrong in many others. But there is no absolute right and wrong.And I know that we all don't agree on the above statement, because in the last two pages, at least 1/5th of the world's relious beliefs have been denounced.I'm not saying my choice is right or wrong. And I'm certainly not telling anyone else that their choice is moral or immoral. My whole point is that depending on who you are, what religion you are, what you believe in, and many other factors, there is not absolute right answer to a question based on moral beliefs. We can agree that not everyone has the same moral beliefs. And we can agree that no one's moral beliefs are perfect over another person's. So why should this question call for such black and white answers?

Right, but just bc some moral questions are difficult, or because usually there are multiple acceptable answers, does not mean that there are NO questions with one right answer.

 

[rolyaTy]

We can agree that not everyone has the same moral beliefs.  And we can agree that no one's moral beliefs are perfect over another person's.  So why should this question call for such black and white answers?

Because most people have this strange idea that their morals CAN be translated to others...and that generally if others do things an individual thinks is wrong, they will likely believe that person did something wrong. This means that most people dont think that morality is WHOLLY relative, but carries with it some form of application to others.

Wait. Are you using the Bugs Bunny trick on me?I thought you were arguing against me a couple pages back.

I'm one of those strange people who thinks morality is universal and what's right and wrong for one person, is right or wrong for EVERYONE. Therefore if people do something I disagree with or think is wrong, I believe that having a discussion to have them "Come to their senses" actually is worthwhile. Whereas if I believed that there is no objective sense to come to, this would be pointless.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

Wait. Are you using the Bugs Bunny trick on me?

Duck season.

 

[satch]

Not sure how we got to the point, where people started confusing dogs with humans, and thinking they are there children.  But it is sad that it has come to that.

I don't think anyones is confusing dogs with humans. They are clearly 2 different species. The confusion is about what gives the human species more of a right to life over any other species, in this case a dog, and how we arrive at that conclusion without being merely selfish as a race.

Your typical human influences how many lives? Hundreds??? Hopefully most for the best, and for a long period of time. Your typical dog, one or two people may actually give a hoot about, and that is only for 10-13 years, than it is time to get a new puppy...

So a species right to life, wether it be a dog, crocodile, human, bird, etc is based on how many human lives it can influence or impact?

who said anything about right to life. I didn't make this thread, but the rules of the thread are that one must die. So whoose life has the most potential value?

Maybe I misunderstood. What did you mean in the original part of this post: "Not sure how we got to the point, where people started confusing dogs with humans, and thinking they are there children. But it is sad that it has come to that."