RE: Which Comes First?
October 12, 2009 at 6:35 pm
(This post was last modified: October 12, 2009 at 6:37 pm by ecolox.)
(October 12, 2009 at 6:12 pm)theVOID Wrote: If the Piranha is amoral due to a lack of rationality then explain their ability to decide not to attack each other when they will instantly go after a non-piranha. If the piranha had no understanding of social morals then it would be unable to differentiate between attacking like and dislike.
The Piranha has some innate moral standard, evolved as a social animal, that tells it not to attack it's own kind.
Presumably Piranhas act instinctively.
Quote:Yes, it is considered Moral by some and Immoral by others - thus Subjective.
Not Subjective, some people are simply wrong (i.e. twisting morals).
Quote:I HAVE demonstrated a change in morals - thus showing morals are subjective, and i can demonstrate a change in morals on many more issues, from gay rights to murder to rape and torture - all of these morals have changed over time and are still disagreed upon by many people - the morals are different from place to place and time to time - that is completely subjective.
No you haven't, you've only claimed to have. If you wish to attempt it again with different issues be my guest.
Quote:Yes, it is obvious - If members of a social group begin to kill each other over their issues then the society cannot function! It may be true that selective murder is a way to a genetically superior society but the concept is so fucked up, so completely immoral, that anyone who claims such an idea is a good idea is a sick freak, also another example of subjective morality.
And we come back to a consensus from society (democracy) for your last point, the idea of being social animals is that the opinion of the majority of the society is used to determine an ultimate moral standard, so in the case of the genetically selective murderers disagreeing with me, well they also disagree with democratic consensus and social morality still works!
You believe that nothing is "so completely immoral" the second you deny objective morality. Mob rule is the way to go you think? What if the majority supports (duped if necessary by someone influential) selective murder? Is this just another example of, as you say, social morality working?
Quote:Yes they do, and we consider such corruption as what? IMMORAL... If an action is committed that goes against the moral opinion of a society then it is immoral. Society sets moral standards as law and breaking the law regarding a moral issue is covered.
That is absurd and fallacious - you are considering what is true/best/right to be determinable by what is popular alone. You would describe those in Germany who opposed the popular Nazi movement as IMMORAL?
The system you support is unstable and dangerous - and could morph into anything (like Nazi Germany).
