Morality: Where do you get yours?

[genkaus]

Tabgach is the word I use for the chinese. Well, they aren't, obviously, but if they were, they would be better off than what they endure over there.
Economic slavery. It requires you to work hard, and feed yourself to a bare minimum. It does not allow you to pursue any particular goals in life other than to get through the day, it kills any incentive to archive any personal or collective goals.

Wrong. Economic slavery is a condition that a person finds themselves in when the totality of their wages only allows them to pay the interest payments on their accumulated debt. Try again.

And without the community, the individual cannot survive. This is why the community is above everyone.

On the contrary, an individual can survive without the community, but not vice-versa. Thus, the individual is at the top.

Well, this is what I said. But if he acts against them, either by publicly flaunting them, or verbally abusing them in public, he certainly shows no respect to any of us.

And in a free-country, he'd be free to disrespect them. He does not owe any of you any respect.

Who said that they are objective?
Besides, I am not just a piece of flesh that eats, drinks and entertains myself. For I have values, goals and ideals that are above these. You call them "delusions", without even knowing what they are. If I'm delusional, you are judgemental.

Having values does not change the nature of your existence. And yes, I am judgmental and I hereby judge you to be delusional.

And how is it that we do not allow people to take a dump out on the street?
A very, very common value in all societies, public decency. If I deny a person to take a dump in front of everyone, am I obstructing his freedom?
I am however, coercing him to stop taking a dump in public. I am forcing him to accept public decency. Am I immortal, or corrupt?
By your words, I am.

Very true. If "public decency" is the reason you are denying someone the right to take a dump on the street, then you are obstructing his freedom, you are coercing him, you are immoral and you are corrupt. On the other hand, if the law of your country protects public property from damage and defacing, then that person cannot legally damage what he does not own without trampling on other people's rights. The difference in the two scenarios is that in my scenario I can build an outhouse of glass in full view of all passers by and take a dump in it and your "public decency" would have no say in it.

Meaning, you lack any kind of limits to anything, yes?

No, meaning that your limits are defined by the liberty that you have, not by the society that imposes it.

Like?
For example, the right to property? Yes, the bolsheviks did that, and they did so by means of violence and force.
Or, is rape not a violation of another core value of our society? But people generally go against it by using violence.
These are core values that are accepted around the globe.
Those who go against them do so by the use of force and violence.

And then the "right to property" was no longer a core value. Thereby proving that core values can change. At other places, like India, that "core-value" was changed constitutionally and without using force. Thank you for proving my point.

As I have given examples, please do give me similar examples.
You cannot change core values by debate. It's impossible.
It generally takes a revolution or two to snuff out a core value, and core values generally bind other values to themselves.
Did we, use violence to protect the core value of property, and the core value of individual honour and sexuality?
How could someone, who protects core values, use means of unjustified violence and anarchy, which also defy core values, to protect them?
But using adequate force, and law protects these values. Of course, you're obviously not a fan of law nor order.

Look around you. All of your religious core values - those that commanded loyalty or death, those that punished dissenters for dissenting, those that inexorably bound religion to state - all of them are changing. They are changing by violence, they are changing by rational debate and they are changing by law. Fundamentalists and conservatives are fighting tooth and nail (and often with teeth and nails) to keep them from changing, but they are changing nevertheless.

You're sadly ignorant about my values, obviously. I am a very secular person, actually, and see secularism as another core value of our society, one that protects other core values.
For me, secularism and nationalism, both core, and important values, are inseperable from eachother.
You do not even know what secularism is.

I'm sorry, I took you seriously when you said that your "core" values had been in your society from the beginning and had been unchanging.

Well, why? We have our laws, we have society.
Anyone who would like to destroy our core values has to do it by force. So we have to reply in self-defense.

No, going opposite to the laws does not necessarily mean using force or hurting others. Otherwise, the concept of victimless crimes would not exist. Values with no rational basis can simply be destroyed by example.