It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

If the average human is immoral, why should average individuals try to be moral?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 03:58 AM

originally posted by: Profusion
It's simple logic, an immoral person is generally worthless in most respects. What's the point of living a worthless existence? I see none.

I have some questions for you:
  • How do you define an "immoral person"?
  • To what extent does a person need to conform to your version of morality before they are considered moral?
  • If you believe morality is objective, can you cite your source for objective morals?
  • What makes an immoral person worthless?
  • What makes righteousness the most important virtue to you?

edit on 13/10/2015 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 07:34 AM

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: grandmakdw

It all depends on your definition of what is moral.
That definition changes faster than the wind blows.
It is highly relative and the most vocal group normally sets the morality for the rest of the human group.

I hear that a lot but there is quite literally almost no validity to what you are saying.

Children are born attached to understanding that getting what they want satisfies them. The first time they are hungry and are satisfied by the breast they form an attachment to the physical world of wants and needs.

However, as the adolescent mind matures the law of do unto others as you would have them do unto you becomes understandable.

No one is pleased when someone lies to them or steals from them.

The 10 commandments are 3500 years old. Plato and the Buddhist text are at least 2500 years old. Morality hasn't changed much in 3500 years.

There are people who are so extremely selfish that they justify immorality for personal gain, but you won't find the thief arguing in court that stealing is moral.

There are religious zealots, racial zealots, and other elitists mentalities that teach one ideology is better than another and they use this to instigate wars imagining that they are fighting for self preservation.

But none of these exceptions to morality are new. Since they have existed at least as long as organized religion.

The only moral goalposts that have moved in the minds of the majority seem to be in the realm of sexual morality.

Religious morality which can be called ritualistic morality has changed, but the morality of the 10 commandments has not.

I actually agree with you about the moral compass'
you talked about.
However, the 10 Commandments are no longer
part of the moral compass of the USA,
they have been torn down and taken away
in the dead of the night, as irrelevant
and useless. Gone like a puff of smoke into the wind.

<< 1   >>

log in