It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are morality and ethics dead in the US?

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: grandmakdw



Therefore, I still posit that
there really is no longer any true morality or ethics in the US any longer.


I am genuinely curious as to when you think there WAS true morality and ethics in the US.


When people agreed to use the (non-religious)
portions of the 10 commandments as a basis not
only for morality and ethics but for law.

These:
6 “You shall not murder.
7 “You shall not commit adultery.
8 “You shall not steal.
9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”

But people in the US have literally torn down
and rejected these because they appear in
the Talmud and the Old Testament

And at one time in the US, everyone agreed with this:
From the Talmud/Old Testament
Leviticus 19:18
18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself.
And:
From the New Testament
Mark 12:31
31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[a] There is no commandment greater than these.”

However, there are many many people in the US
who say that anything, anything at all that comes
from religion is inherently oppressive and should
be dismissed from public discourse and the public
arena.

There are people who become enraged and
hostile at even the mention of looking at the last
4 Ten Commandments or a saying of Jesus or a saying
from the Talmud as a basis for ethics or morals.

The final end to being allowed to use these
thousands of years old and widely agreed upon
values in the US was when people insisted
that they be removed from all public view
and from all consideration in the court system.
And a huge number of people came to the
consensus that anything that emanates from
religions inherently evil, bad, and oppressive.


We also held the constitution of the US
as a moral and ethical guideline;
that too has been rejected and even
the President has expressed interest
in abandoning and revising the
constitution.

So yes when people said that these "non-religous"
ideals were corrupt and oppressive, and could
no longer be used as a standard for even a
discussion of right and wrong and for morality;
that was the day morality and ethics died in the US.




posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: grandmakdw

Your argument is NAMBLA?
NO reasonable person accepts that. Wanna keep this in the realm of non-fiction?



ISIS is in the realm of reality. Their morality is the same as yours?

I hope not for your sake and mine?

However, they feel as strongly about their ideas being moral
as you feel about your ideas being moral,
rendering the idea that we all know right from wrong as moot.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

I think boys are punished for behaving like the boys they are
and taught that being feminized is the highest goal
a man can achieve. That goes against the hormones
raging through the male body and penalizes the male
for being male.


Wow, I don't even know what you are talking about here. You think that boys should be able to rape girls if they are horny or something??



Bringing a focus on what someone feels is an injustice is wonderful
and good. But it is again subjective morality, what they feel is an
injustice and what they convince others is an injustice. It may or
may not be an injustice, who are we to judge? Are we to accept
that an injustice has been done to people who truly feel they
are another race and then when it is proven they are not
(ie Elizabeth Warren, Doezel, Shaun) we should treat them as
fairly as we are fighting to treat transsexuals who believe they
are different from what they were biologically born? Must we
accept this as an equal injustice that we question the race of
Doezel, Shaun, and Warren? I think that soon it will become a
cause and be seen as an injustice to question the identity they
feel they hold.
Is this moral? Is this ethical? It is all completely subjective and
will change as fast as the wind blows.
But this is my subjective morality, with absolutely
no moral foundation and really therefore worthless in this discussion.


So now you are comparing people who may have falsified their backgrounds so they could take advantage of special benefits (which is against the law, by the way) to people who just want to live their lives in peace without getting beaten up or killed or refused housing or refused employment?
edit on 23-8-2015 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

You mean back in the day when slavery was A-okay? When women were not allowed to have the same rights as men? When children were forced into working long hours in dangerous environments in factories? So that's when our country had morals and ethics?



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: grandmakdw

How about this: we do a public exchange of opinions with me presenting simply "yes" or "no" questions.

I'll go first:

Do you think that all citizens should be cared for and ensured a decent standard of living?

Give that one a "yes" or "no", and then I'll make a longer set of questions. Of course, it's fine if you don't want to play. That way I won't understand what you really mean and you can continue to cry wolf.....I'd hate to steal your "persecution thunder" if it makes you so very happy, you know. That wouldn't be moral at ALL. First, I need to know that you need that "persecuted" feeling to get you out of bed every morning.

Deal?



You are so funny, I don't feel persecuted. I just take firm stances and say what I see as the truth. You hold polar opposite views, morals and ethics from mine and therefore assume I feel persecuted because you disagree.

Your list of questions and my answers would simply be subjective and worthless to this discussion of morality.

What is a decent standard of living? The definition varies by country and culture, and varies so widely within the US that we would first have to agree on what is a decent standard of living. This is quite subjective and subject to a variety of interpretations, each of which can be twisted to make worthless points when it comes to morality because there is no real standard or foundation on which we can say: This is a decent standard of living. I think, but it is my opinion, and therefore worthless in this discussion; that everyone deserves enough to eat, clothes to wear and a safe place to sleep, but I feel that would not meet your standard of what is a decent standard of living and we will get into a round of worthless discussion on the matter. So there is no point at all in playing your little game, sorry.

But what on earth does any of this have to do
with the topic at hand, nothing, nothing at all.




edit on 4Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:28:21 -0500pm82308pmk230 by grandmakdw because: addition



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: grandmakdw

You mean back in the day when slavery was A-okay? When women were not allowed to have the same rights as men? When children were forced into working long hours in dangerous environments in factories? So that's when our country had morals and ethics?


I am talking about back in the day as way back when the dinosaurs roamed, the 1980's and 1990's.
You are hilarious!



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: grandmakdw

I think boys are punished for behaving like the boys they are
and taught that being feminized is the highest goal
a man can achieve. That goes against the hormones
raging through the male body and penalizes the male
for being male.


Wow, I don't even know what you are talking about here. You think that boys should be able to rape girls if they are horny or something??



Bringing a focus on what someone feels is an injustice is wonderful
and good. But it is again subjective morality, what they feel is an
injustice and what they convince others is an injustice. It may or
may not be an injustice, who are we to judge? Are we to accept
that an injustice has been done to people who truly feel they
are another race and then when it is proven they are not
(ie Elizabeth Warren, Doezel, Shaun) we should treat them as
fairly as we are fighting to treat transsexuals who believe they
are different from what they were biologically born? Must we
accept this as an equal injustice that we question the race of
Doezel, Shaun, and Warren? I think that soon it will become a
cause and be seen as an injustice to question the identity they
feel they hold.
Is this moral? Is this ethical? It is all completely subjective and
will change as fast as the wind blows.
But this is my subjective morality, with absolutely
no moral foundation and really therefore worthless in this discussion.


So now you are comparing people who may have falsified their backgrounds so they could take advantage of special benefits (which is against the law, by the way) to people who just want to live their lives in peace without getting beaten up or killed or refused housing or refused employment?


Really, you are being so absurdest as to make me roll on the floor with laughter. Loved your little responses that contribute zero to the discussion if the US has any societal morals or ethics anymore. Try to stay on topic, LOL.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

I think, but it is my opinion, and therefore worthless in this discussion; that everyone deserves enough to eat, clothes to wear and a safe place to sleep,
So you DO AGREE with me.


but I feel that would not meet your standard of what is a decent standard of living and we will get into a round of worthless discussion on the matter. So there is no point at all in playing your little game, sorry.

But what on earth does any of this have to do
with the topic at hand, nothing, nothing at all.




WHAT THE.....WTF????

You started the thread, and asked if morals and ethics IN THE US are dead.

Little game? LOL!! Oh! Well excuse me for attempting yet again to establish some sort of bridge for us to walk across to meet somewhere in the middle. You refuse to believe I'm a decent human being. You refuse to believe that I am a reasonable, intelligent, compassionate, well-meaning person.
Fine. I get it.




Your loss.

edit on 8/23/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: grandmakdw

You mean back in the day when slavery was A-okay? When women were not allowed to have the same rights as men? When children were forced into working long hours in dangerous environments in factories? So that's when our country had morals and ethics?


I am talking about back in the day as way back when the dinosaurs roamed, the 1980's and 1990's.
You are hilarious!


Oh, so we didn't have morals and ethics in the 18th or 19th century (or most of the 20th apparently) here in America. Good to know. But all of a sudden, we got them in the 1980's and 1990's? What, in your opinion, happened between 1979 and the 1980's to make us all of a sudden have morals and ethics?



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Looks to me like right now the people responding
are playing a little game with me.

Let's try and make her look as immoral as possible

Because we can't come up with a single worthwhile
and intelligent argument at this point defending the
position that there is a societal consensus in the US
as to the standards that make one able to say that
the US does have moral and ethical standards.

So, I go play with the grandkids and check back
when the game is over.


edit on 4Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:32:03 -0500pm82308pmk230 by grandmakdw because: spelling



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: grandmakdw

Your argument is NAMBLA?
NO reasonable person accepts that. Wanna keep this in the realm of non-fiction?



ISIS is in the realm of reality. Their morality is the same as yours?

I hope not for your sake and mine?

However, they feel as strongly about their ideas being moral
as you feel about your ideas being moral,
rendering the idea that we all know right from wrong as moot.


Again....no. YOUR topic is about the US. Not ISIS, Al Queda, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Why the obfuscation? You KNOW this is done like dinner. Just let... it... go.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

You're the one who brought these things up. I'm just responding.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: grandmakdw

Your argument is NAMBLA?
NO reasonable person accepts that. Wanna keep this in the realm of non-fiction?



ISIS is in the realm of reality. Their morality is the same as yours?

I hope not for your sake and mine?

However, they feel as strongly about their ideas being moral
as you feel about your ideas being moral,
rendering the idea that we all know right from wrong as moot.


Again....no. YOUR topic is about the US. Not ISIS, Al Queda, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Why the obfuscation? You KNOW this is done like dinner. Just let... it... go.


But you said EVERYONE really knows right from wrong.

I gave a clear example that EVERYONE does not know right from wrong,
at least from our point of view.

ISIS is a clear example that EVERYONE does not know what we consider right and from wrong
and that they would strongly disagree
that your morals are superior to theirs.

ISIS is a part of EVERYONE, as in all human beings, universally.
Therefore showing that not all human beings,
in or outside the US really know what your
superior morals say are right and wrong.

There is no "natural" and knowing of right and wrong.
As long as there is no set standard by which to debate the topic
of right and wrong.
Morality and ethics become strictly subjective.
Making your morals no more superior to those of anyone else in reality,
just because you and I may agree your morals are superior, does not
in reality make them superior.




edit on 4Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:37:03 -0500pm82308pmk230 by grandmakdw because: addition spelling



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

So you either discovered that the premise of the thread doesn't hold water or you won't accept that.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
ISIS is a part of EVERYONE, as in all human beings, universally.


Really? I'm out. I can't argue with that type of TRUTH.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw


Looks to me like right now the people responding
are playing a little game with me.

Let's try and make her look as immoral as possible

More delusion born of persecution complex issues.

No. The people responding are attempting to get you to realize that we have morals and ethics, and that your 'assessment' of us as "repugnant" is .... well....asinine.

We are attempting to show you how we DO HAVE ethics and morals.
But you go ahead and stick those fingers in your ears and cry "la la la la progressives hate us all and are immoral!"



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid


So you either discovered that the premise of the thread doesn't hold water or you won't accept that.

Bigtime backfire, right?

Oh well.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: grandmakdw

So you either discovered that the premise of the thread doesn't hold water or you won't accept that.



Not at all.

I hold that what has been proven is:

there is no consensus of what is moral or ethical in the US.

Literally everyone here has a different interpretation of
what is or isn't moral, what is or isn't right,

based on their
own subjective lives and subjective experiences,

and
without a standard which we can all agree upon as a
basis for discussion,

there is nothing left but subjectivity;
subjectivity is an every changing and ever morphing
set of ideas of what is wrong and what is right and varies

from person to person, group to group and therefore
has no consensus by which to say that the US
has a moral or ethical consensus as a society.

In order for a society to have morals and ethics by definition
there must be a shared consensus, without that shared
consensus, there are no morals or ethics in reality.
Making morality for all practical purposes dead in the US.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: grandmakdw


Looks to me like right now the people responding
are playing a little game with me.

Let's try and make her look as immoral as possible

More delusion born of persecution complex issues.

No. The people responding are attempting to get you to realize that we have morals and ethics, and that your 'assessment' of us as "repugnant" is .... well....asinine.

We are attempting to show you how we DO HAVE ethics and morals.
But you go ahead and stick those fingers in your ears and cry "la la la la progressives hate us all and are immoral!"


Ok, why do you think I find you repugnant, that is utterly ridiculous.

You and I disagree many times over, but I do not find you repugnant?
Not at all, I find many of your ideas distasteful
and I disagree with your ideas,
but your personhood is quite a separate issue.

You are not repugnant,
I can separate you
the person with family
and a person with past hurts
and a person who loves people
from your ideas and what you write on ATS.

I do not find you immoral at all,
you have extremely strong morals,
they just happen to be different from mine, that's all.

It is not a reflection of your personhood,
just that we have differing morals and differing opinions.
In my eyes that does not make you a bad person at all,
it simply makes you different from me.

Different is not bad,
it is different without a personal judgement attached to it.

I hear that you say you have ethics and morals,

I am saying that the US no longer has what is
defined as ethics and morals;

because society can no longer agree on what
is and is not ethical and moral.
Our exchanges online quite clearly prove that.


This has nothing to do with my personal opinion of you

or Kay or Heretic or others.


You all hold quite different opinions than I do, that's all.
Your personhood is not your online persona

or your online ideas or expressions of your ideas,

those are quite separate and apart from
each other as far as I am concerned.

What makes you,
the person you are with other people
with the people you love and care for
in the personal life you lead
is quite separate and apart from your
opinions, and what you argue for and against
on ATS.




edit on 5Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:00:06 -0500pm82308pmk230 by grandmakdw because: addition format



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

It's been proven in this tread again and again that morality doesn't need ONE source. You seem to not want to accept that. OK. What standard is needed to make everyone's morality valid in YOUR eyes?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join