Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Originally posted by Strong Bad For a society to function properly, morality cannot be subjective. Morality changes but only when the society agrees. If morality was subjective there is no possible way to convict anyone of a any crime because people could simply claim that their actions are founded in their genetic, socio-economic, educational and enviroment background and level. Morality is agree upon by the group, not the individual.
For the love of god, it is like talking to a door.
Yes their is a group morality as well as a individual morality. But one does not exclude the existance of the other.
I am serious, go take a psych class before continuing this debate. You simply aren't correct.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Originally posted by Chris_Sanders For the love of god, it is like talking to a door.
Yes their is a group morality as well as a individual morality. But one does not exclude the existance of the other.
I am serious, go take a psych class before continuing this debate. You simply aren't correct.
That's it - take a psych class. Very nice rebuttal, that really makes me stop and think...
What is the difference and definition of group v. individual morality? Also, I don't believe I claimed that one excludes the existence of the other. However, would be a different animal than objective morality - but I think I've already stated as much. Are you classifing group morality as Objective?
Shawn
__________________
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics... Even if
you win, you are still retarded..."
"I can't trust a woman who would marry me." ~ AzCards21
"I don't care what you believe, keep your religion out of my peanut butter!" ~ Assface
Originally posted by Strong Bad And now you have lied about calling my judging my comments. All you are doing is playing a word game as you have done what the christian rules tell you shouldn't.
lol, I would respond, but I can barely understand what you wrote...
Originally posted by FischerKing That's it - take a psych class. Very nice rebuttal, that really makes me stop and think...
What is the difference and definition of group v. individual morality? Also, I don't believe I claimed that one excludes the existence of the other. However, would be a different animal than objective morality - but I think I've already stated as much. Are you classifing group morality as Objective?
Shawn
Actually Fischerking, this all stems back to (Smells) Strong Bad flat dismissing that I can have my own, personal morals which is rediculous.
I have given him the definition of Ethics, which is a personal morality standard.
Social Morality constantly changes based on personal morality and ethics. These shifts are subtle and take time, but they do occur. For instance, look at how young girls dress now.
20 years ago, it would have been completely immoral for a girl to where a mid-drift in public. However, personal morality has caused a shift in public morality that now basically makes it socially acceptable to wear jeans that barely cover your vagina.
Despite all this, many people find it personally immoral to see young women dress as provactive as they do.
(Smells) Strong Bad has insisted that I can not find President Bush to be personally immoral because he does not.
However, I consider many of the things that Bush does to be unethical, and thereby immoral by my personal standards.
I am not begrudging anyone's rights to disagree with my moral standards, but I do think it is asinine to say that I can't have my own moral standards. That I can only have 1 moral standard, and that is the moral majority standard.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here is the definition of ethics
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris_Sanders Actually Fischerking, this all stems back to (Smells) Strong Bad flat dismissing that I can have my own, personal morals which is rediculous.
I have given him the definition of Ethics, which is a personal morality standard.
Social Morality constantly changes based on personal morality and ethics. These shifts are subtle and take time, but they do occur. For instance, look at how young girls dress now.
20 years ago, it would have been completely immoral for a girl to where a mid-drift in public. However, personal morality has caused a shift in public morality that now basically makes it socially acceptable to wear jeans that barely cover your vagina.
Despite all this, many people find it personally immoral to see young women dress as provactive as they do.
(Smells) Strong Bad has insisted that I can not find President Bush to be personally immoral because he does not.
However, I consider many of the things that Bush does to be unethical, and thereby immoral by my personal standards.
I am not begrudging anyone's rights to disagree with my moral standards, but I do think it is asinine to say that I can't have my own moral standards. That I can only have 1 moral standard, and that is the moral majority standard.
Is that clearer for you now?
That's very clear now and I don't disagree with you on that.
I was just making the statement that there is such a thing as an overriding objective morality as well as personal moral standards that we hold ourselves to. I believe those are the ones that change over time as society evolves - but there are other "higher" standards where somethings are constantly immoral regardless of time and the society that it occurs in.
Something like the act of commiting murder is immoral - always has been. Even in a time or place where a specific society or government may have embraced such a standard. Typically the surrounding societies would "punish" the offending society for being reprehensible. Isn't that why we have international laws for things like Crimes Against Humanity for leaders of other governments?
Otherwise, yes, we do have personal and societal morals but I don't think that those morals ever rise above objective morals.
Shawn
__________________
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics... Even if
you win, you are still retarded..."
"I can't trust a woman who would marry me." ~ AzCards21
"I don't care what you believe, keep your religion out of my peanut butter!" ~ Assface
It is too early to objectively judge the presidents of the past 25-30 years.
i was wondering when someone was going to mention washington and jefferson, these were two great presidents but i really think that there needs to be a distinction between presidents before FDR and after FDR because FDR created so many more powers for the president that the job is much different than it was after the constitution was originally different.
so pre FDR
washington
jefferson
lincoln
teddy roosevelt
woodrow
post FDR
FDR
Kennedy
Eisenhower
Reagan
Clinton
*had bobby kennedy not been assasinated i like to think that he would have been on this list
The thing that gets me regarding Clinton and his affair with Monica Lewinsky is this: The Democrats defended him and the Republicans attacked him on it.
Had Clinton been a Republican, the Democrats and the Republicans would have both attacked him on it.
Obviously there have been cheaters on both sides of the political coin, but the Republicans, as a Party, would not condone a President doing what Bill Clinton did in the White House.
Heck, Presidential candidates get booted out of the Rep race at the hint of infidelities, but Clinton went to the top of the Dem's list, even with his womanizing ways being well known at the time.
Now we have grade school kids giving blowjobs and saying "The President said it isn't really sex."
And, no to you perverts out there...that last statement isn't meant to be taken as "Don't you wish you could be that young again?"
__________________
"If Chuck is Solo, Larkin is his Fett!" - Morgan
Interesting post BM. Gary Hart was removed from running for his Monkey Business.
The problem I have with Clinton's affair with Lewinsky is that any other CEO of a company would have been arrested, charged and sued for sexual harassment.
presidents:
Eisenhower - one of the best for attempting to warn us about a permanent war economy and the "military-industrial complex".
A. Jackson - one of the worst for his goal of total extermination of the Native Americans - Hitler wrote that he got his idea for the Final Solution from Jackson.
morals: an artificial and arbitrary system - as a nihilist my morals are determined by 2 things: what provides the greatest chance for my survival and what does not contradict my simple empathy for other living things. As such, religion is complete horseshit to me, but i don't begrudge you your programmed delusions as long as you stay out of my bedroom and my psychochemistry. As Mark Twain wrote: "Yes, there is a hell, but only religious people go there."
Originally posted by Strong Bad Interesting post BM. Gary Hart was removed from running for his Monkey Business.
The problem I have with Clinton's affair with Lewinsky is that any other CEO of a company would have been arrested, charged and sued for sexual harassment.
Reality check.
#1 You don't get arrested for sleeping with a subordinate. It isn't against the law.
#2 He would only be sued for sexual harrassment if Miss Lewinsky was harassed AND was willing to press charges. Having consentual sexual relations with someone is not sexual harassment.
Tetris Champion!
Linear Mode
