Morality: Where do you get yours?

[genkaus]

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.

I know so. The definition I gave is the definition of economic slavery. Poverty is not the same thing as slavery.

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.

Yes, yes, yes and yes, I can. Community makes survival much easier, but its absence doesn't make it impossible. You have it the other way around. It is the community that is useful to help the individual to grow and prosper. If it wasn't individuals wouldn't be a part of it and then no community would exist.

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

He doesn't.

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?

A rational person who sees this statement as an example of delusion of grandeur.

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.

They can't. The front of my door is my private property.

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.

Yes, advocates of freedom and liberty are often charged with being destructive. Good thing that I don't have to be important since there are so many of us now.

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.

Wrong. My limits are determined by my fierce individuality, the same thing that is the source of my pride and my honor. My ego is the source and the root of my morals.

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.

Dead? Yeah, right. Talk to China.

Besides, your initial point was that core values cannot be changed. Now you are just moving the goalposts.

Second, if "private property" is one of your core values, notice that most of the countries have something called "eminent domain" - which completely negates that concept.

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

See eminent domain theory. That'll show you how weak and easily disposable your core value of "private property" is.

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.

Fundamentalists all over the world disagree most vehemently. In fact, the very existence of countries where religious laws are applicable disagree.

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.

There are no public values. Public is just a collection of individuals. Thus there are only shared personal values and exclusive personal values.

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, actually, a lot of these values contradict each other and have not been considered values in the past. Pride, for example, is a sin. Loyalty to family over that to god or country is not advocated. Secularism is a new concept. And you cannot be a soldier and be merciful at the same time.

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.

Just because it was done that way does not mean that there was no other way. Are you simply going to ignore all peacefully executed revolutions and social changes?