21 Apr 16
Originally posted by divegeesterHe gave the circumstances, he needed a steak in order to survive. So if he had no family, and would die without Ghost of a Duke's dinosaur steak, would it be wrong to club him over the head for it? Most people would say it would be morally wrong, but nevertheless understandable behaviour. Morality does not always intersect with 'oughts'.
The act of clubbing someone over the head is not "absolutely wrong". If you were attacking me and me family and the only obvious way to defend outselves was to bask your head in, then that would be considered acceptable defensive force. It's circumstantial.
Forget for a moment that dinosoar steaks are made of stone and wont make good nourishment.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
21 Apr 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am deeply offended sir that you are besmudging the quality of my dinosaur steaks. Why may I ask would the new guy be contemplating clubbing me over the head if the quality were poor? Perhaps I own an island where I have cloned a colony of triceratops. Have you considered that?
He gave the circumstances, he needed a steak in order to survive. So if he had no family, and would die without Ghost of a Duke's dinosaur steak, would it be wrong to club him over the head for it? Most people would say it would be morally wrong, but nevertheless understandable behaviour. Morality does not always intersect with 'oughts'.
Forget for a moment that dinosoar steaks are made of stone and wont make good nourishment.
21 Apr 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeSo if I clubbed you over the head to partake of your divine steak so as to feed my hungry belly would I be doing something wrong? Yes or no?
As I say, 'survival of the fittest' still 'lurks' in humanity, so your right to club me over the head for my steak has be superseded by the progress of our intellectually derived morality that has allowed us to empathize and put ourselves in the place of the person being clubbed. We are now more likely to buy or share the steak.
As an atheist, I don't deal in absolutes.
21 Apr 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt would be wrong our social universe as we have social coping strategies for the 'dino-steakless' in our society. However I don't think killing is absolutely wrong and therefore to kill in order to survive would be acceptable. In my opinion.
He gave the circumstances, he needed a steak in order to survive. So if he had no family, and would die without Ghost of a Duke's dinosaur steak, would it be wrong to club him over the head for it? Most people would say it would be morally wrong, but nevertheless understandable behaviour. Morality does not always intersect with 'oughts'.
Forget for a moment that dinosoar steaks are made of stone and wont make good nourishment.
21 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterExcept those coping strategies are ineffective and some people still dies of starvation.
It would be wrong our social universe as we have social coping strategies for the 'dino-steakless' in our society.
However I don't think killing is absolutely wrong and therefore to kill in order to survive would be acceptable. In my opinion.
But would you call it 'morally correct' or 'morally good' to do so?
I would phrase it as you did 'acceptable' rather than 'moral'. There is a distinction between 'moral' and 'ought' and 'acceptable'.
21 Apr 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd interestingly enough, the less religious are more charitable.
Charity as a virtuous concept existed long before Christ. How ignorant can you be?
[b]Of course, people continue to destroy the poor but at least the general morality within society sees this as "wrong" even if they are not religious.
And interestingly enough, the less religions are more charitable.[/b]
You sure are the master of generalisations and sweeping statements. 😀
21 Apr 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkBut am I wrong? Or are you just amazed by my abilities?
You sure are the master of generalisations and sweeping statements. 😀
I suspect that in reality, in a country like the US, theists give more to charity than do atheists, but that countries with less theism such as the northern European countries have embedded charity into the political system. I suspect that in the US too, that atheists are more likely to be socialist.
So, are my sweeping statements still impressing you?
21 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadOh so you just suspect it? Here I was thinking you were stating it as a fact. Silly me.
But am I wrong? Or are you just amazed by my abilities?
I suspect that in reality, in a country like the US, theists give more to charity than do atheists, but that countries with less theism such as the northern European countries have embedded charity into the political system. I suspect that in the US too, that atheists are more likely to be socialist.
So, are my sweeping statements still impressing you?
21 Apr 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, you are confused about what morality is.
No, you are confused about what morality is. What we feel we ought to do, is instinctual rather than preference, and or what we actually do, might be a matter of personal preference, but both those are is distinct from morality. Morality is the concept of how we treat others, and as such is as absolute as the concept of love or the concept of happiness. W ...[text shortened]... fferent things may make us happy, but the concept itself is not a matter of personal preference.
That my friend is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. Saying someone else is confused doesn't generally win an argument now does it?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
21 Apr 16
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunka combination of the individual and society define what is right and wrong, there is no absolute right and wrong.
[b]'Survival of the fittest' still lurks in humanity, but it no longer has most of us clubbing a neighbour over the head to steal his dinosaur steak.
If I clubbed you over the head for your steak, why would it be absolutely wrong if I am exercising my right to survival of the fittest?[/b]
if you clubbed him over the head, you may justify your actions by your own moral code, but you would also be infringing on the moral code of the society you live in...resulting in you being put in prison in must societies and being given a death sentence in others.
the massive variation in moral codes around the globe is proof enough that there is no absolute right and wrong.
21 Apr 16
Originally posted by stellspalfieAnd you are absolutely sure about this? Because if there is no absolute right and wrong it means there is no absolute truth. Yet it sounds like the statement you are making is implying an absolute truth, i.e. that there is no right and wrong...
there is no absolute right and wrong.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
21 Apr 16
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunkmy statements were directed at the topic currently being discussed 'morality'. it is my opinion that there is no absolute 'moral' right or wrong.
And you are absolutely sure about this? Because if there is no absolute right and wrong it means there is no absolute truth. Yet it sounds like the statement you are making is implying an absolute truth, i.e. that there is no right and wrong...
