Morality: Where do you get yours?

[kılıç_mehmet]

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.

You think so? Even without debt, you still have to buy your bare minimal living conditions, yes?
And if you are not given a fair wage by your employer(that only allows for you to pay the bare minimum), or if you cannot switch to another if you do not want to work for one, you are in the same position.

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

An individual can survive without the community?
Can you survive without going to your local grocery?
Can you survive without the water that is pumped in your house by your waterworks?
You cannot survive without the community.
The individual is there to help the community grow and prosper. If the community grows, the individual grows. Not the other way.

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

Then he should not expect me to show him the same respect.

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

My existence has a greater value than yours, however. I am here as a member of the great Turkish race, and serve it accordingly. Who are you, friend to make judgements about me?

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.

Wow, I hope someone takes a dump in front of your door some day.
I'll see how you will react. I bet you will call the police.

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.

Assume that he takes this dump on a piece of paper.
He does not deface any public property by doing this.
I guess you're still okay with it.
People like you are really destructive. Good that you never make it to places of high importance.

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

Yes, you have no limits.
You have no morals, no sense of honour, nor a sense of pride. You are not even there. You take up space, true, but that's just what you do.

And then the "right to property" was no longer a core value. Thereby proving that core values can change.

But they do not. As you see, communism is now dead, and people have once against reinstated the core value of right to property.
Besides, my point was that core values can only be challenged by force and violence.

At other places, like India, that "core-value" was changed constitutionally and without using force. Thank you for proving my point.

India was never ruled by communism though. People can still own things.

Look around you. All of your religious core values - 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.

Religion is not a core value. If it was, we would not be muslims, nor would you be christians.
Religion is a value, true, but not really a core value.

those that commanded loyalty or death, those that punished dissenters for dissenting, those that inexorably bound religion to state

Those can be commanded without religion. Religion is not really relevant to them.
As I said, religion is at best, a very personalized value.
I'm talking of public values.

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.

No, they are, though. These core values, such as loyalty to blood, country and soldiery, secularism, honour, pride, mercy, sharing and family have always been core values of our society.
The context under how these were applied changed, but the ideal behind it remained the same.

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.

Not necessarily, surely, but if you look at the past, it requires you to do so.
For example, the french revolution. I'm sure that you could force the monarchy to step down with just signing petitions, yes?
Or the russian revolution. They could have let poor Anastasia live. They riddled her body with bullets instead.
For there were still people loyal to them.