(October 23, 2009 at 6:41 pm)AngelaRachnid Wrote:

(October 23, 2009 at 4:22 pm)rjh4 Wrote: Because honestly, if I think from a pack survival view point, I could care less what happens on the other side of the world as long as my "pack" will survive. Why would I care if they destroyed themselves as long as my "pack" was ok (again, if I thought from a pack survival viewpoint)?

So you are saying that when the 2006? tsunami struck that athiests didnt give a dam but fundis did?

What if that pack was the same cult as yours? would you care then?

A

No I am not saying that. I do not think from a "pack survival" point of view. I cared about that regardless of whether or not the people were Christians. Given this, I think if you go back and reread my previous post it might make more sense. If not, please ask and I will try to clarify.

(October 23, 2009 at 4:22 pm)rjh4 Wrote:

(October 23, 2009 at 2:30 pm)Meatball Wrote: Morals don't exist in the sense that there is a universal right and wrong.

Morals do exist in the way that the average human, at the neurological level, recognized where an action is good or bad. This is extremely consistent.

Morals do exist in the way that society, as a whole and in subpartitions, has drafted a very rough outline of what is and isn't acceptable.

They are definitely subjective and have no underlying meaning to them, aside from pack survival and whatnot.

I'm a bit confused by this. Are you saying that while right and wrong are not universal, good and bad are somehow at least extremely consistent "at the neurological level"? This seems somewhat contradictory. Also what is the standard you are using for "good" and "bad" such that you know it when you see it at a neurological level? And what do you mean by "at the neurological level" to begin with?

I see why this is confusing. At some level, actions, events, and ideas can be considered "favourable" or "unfavourable".

(October 23, 2009 at 4:22 pm)rjh4 Wrote: Because honestly, if I think from a pack survival view point, I could care less what happens on the other side of the world as long as my "pack" will survive. Why would I care if they destroyed themselves as long as my "pack" was ok (again, if I thought from a pack survival viewpoint)?

This is true. Obviously some people (For example, the ones behind the genocide) couldn't care less.

Look at the news. A lot of people don't care about international human rights issues. How do reactions vary between reports of insurgent deaths in Iraq and reports of American deaths? The whole issue of global information and media makes this issue complex.

(October 23, 2009 at 2:49 pm)theVOID Wrote: There are some things that have never been right, for example murder, in the structure of a society.

Hmmmm...

Yet 'murder' as we would call it, is another man's 'Honor'. In some societies today 'honor killing' is the moral thing to do. You would be considered 'Immoral', in these societies, if you did not carry out murder.

In some societies today it is considered 'immoral' not to sell your daughter when she is between 8-14 years old. Modern day primitive societies true, but still human societies.

Moral constructs are highly subjective.

That is very true, Dotard... if sobering.

There is evidence that morals exist in a subjective sense. But no evidence for objective morality.

Now if some people think that subjective morality "Not true morality", then that's just their own subjective feeling on the matter

EvF

(October 24, 2009 at 2:06 am)Meatball Wrote:

(October 23, 2009 at 4:22 pm)rjh4 Wrote:

(October 23, 2009 at 2:30 pm)Meatball Wrote: Morals don't exist in the sense that there is a universal right and wrong.

Morals do exist in the way that the average human, at the neurological level, recognized where an action is good or bad. This is extremely consistent.

Morals do exist in the way that society, as a whole and in subpartitions, has drafted a very rough outline of what is and isn't acceptable.

They are definitely subjective and have no underlying meaning to them, aside from pack survival and whatnot.

I'm a bit confused by this. Are you saying that while right and wrong are not universal, good and bad are somehow at least extremely consistent "at the neurological level"? This seems somewhat contradictory. Also what is the standard you are using for "good" and "bad" such that you know it when you see it at a neurological level? And what do you mean by "at the neurological level" to begin with?

I see why this is confusing. At some level, actions, events, and ideas can be considered "favourable" or "unfavourable".

(October 23, 2009 at 4:22 pm)rjh4 Wrote: Because honestly, if I think from a pack survival view point, I could care less what happens on the other side of the world as long as my "pack" will survive. Why would I care if they destroyed themselves as long as my "pack" was ok (again, if I thought from a pack survival viewpoint)?

This is true. Obviously some people (For example, the ones behind the genocide) couldn't care less.

Look at the news. A lot of people don't care about international human rights issues. How do reactions vary between reports of insurgent deaths in Iraq and reports of American deaths? The whole issue of global information and media makes this issue complex.

So are you saying that the ones who commit the genocide are merely doing something that is "unfavorable" to some (the ones being killed) and are still acting in a moral manner because what they are doing is "favorable" to them? Are you suggesting that genocide, therfore, can be morally acceptable depending on ones point of view (the killer as compared to the killed)?

(October 26, 2009 at 8:31 am)rjh4 Wrote: So are you saying that the ones who commit the genocide are merely doing something that is "unfavorable" to some (the ones being killed) and are still acting in a moral manner because what they are doing is "favorable" to them? Are you suggesting that genocide, therfore, can be morally acceptable depending on ones point of view (the killer as compared to the killed)?

Slavery was considered pretty damn moral to the ones who were owning the slaves.

Morality is not "easy". The human race itself has worked extremely hard to develop the morals we currently accept. This is obvious when you look at the moral standards of the past and where we are now. (P.S. The Bible loves genocide)

(October 26, 2009 at 8:42 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: Slavery was considered pretty damn moral to the ones who were owning the slaves.

Morality is not "easy". The human race itself has worked extremely hard to develop the morals we currently accept. This is obvious when you look at the moral standards of the past and where we are now. (P.S. The Bible loves genocide)

So would you agree then with the proposition that anything is morally acceptable as long as it is accepted by the particular "society" with which one is associated?

Within that society, sure. An outside observer can only apply his own moral standards to it, though.

Because morals are subjective, I have a hard time applying a label of "morally acceptable" in a broad sense. Moral 'acceptability' can only be expressed from a specific moral standpoint.

I would go further and say that the very definition of "morally acceptable" is what is accepted by the particular society with which on is associated.