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.

 

Delusions of the far left and moral relativism....

page: 3
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




Nope. Because as we all know "If you really need that code to stop the bomb and there is limited time it's all good to torture it out of someone." According to many that is.


Does that change the rule or is that the exception?

Is that a relative truth or can that be seen as remaining within the realm of objective?


considered in relation or in proportion to something else.


Maybe we need to establish a definition for what we mean as objective morality and have a standard first.




It can even be done for their own good as the middle aged church liked to use it. If you were accused of sinning against God you had to confess your sin and ask forgiveness or be banished to hell. If you wouldn't confess however it was because you were possessed by the devil and had to be tortured until you did confess. However, confessing to sinning against God was of course death. This posed a bit of a problem for anyone falsely accused of sinning against God as you can see. But the point here is that Torture in this case was thought of as freeing the soul of that person so they wouldn't be cast into hell forever.


This is an example of conservative delusions.
edit on 6/5/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

How about equal in terms of the consciousness that resides in all humans being considered fully equal, as a starting point? Do you know there are churches that STILL preach a woman can ONLY reach GOD through a MAN - either her father, her husband or a male relative? God forbid (literally) she should be orphaned with no brother - no husband - how ever will she talk to God?

This used to be the norm, but because women have fought long and hard, they have achieved some relief from this strange insistence that they are lesser beings.

I'm not a lesser being. I'm not any less capable of being heroic. I'm not whining about anything here, either, I'm just looking at it in the face and saying - no, no one, no woman, no man, no religion gets to define me as a lesser being.

The crap I've dealt with in my own life up to this point, just for being a woman, is real, whether others (especially men) can see it or not. I choose, however, not to be a victim. No one can make me lesser without my permission.
edit on 5-6-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard




Do you know there are churches that STILL preach a woman can ONLY reach GOD through a MAN - either her father, her husband or a male relative? God forbid (literally) she should be orphaned with no brother - no husband - how ever will she talk to God?


And who's doing this right now?

Are you suffering from personal issues because the topics in my OP are not about feminism.... I get pro women feminism, women should be empowered but not at the expense of anyone else.

So what's your gripe?



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

First you need to separate "Relative" and "Subjective" as they aren't the same.

Relative is in Relation to something. Subjective means according to the Subject.

Murder is Relative in that First Degree Murder is Relatively Worse of a Crime than Accidentally dropping a piano on someone and killing them.

Murder is Subjective based upon who it is you're talking about and their understanding of when killing another person is wrong or not.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




Murder is Relative in that First Degree Murder is Relatively Worse of a Crime than Accidentally dropping a piano on someone and killing them.


I totally disagree. Indiscriminately killing someone is objectively evil and bad. Now your interpretation of evil may be relative but we can use other descriptive words for the same effect.

Now killing someone because someone is killing you... now that's relative.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: AboveBoard




Do you know there are churches that STILL preach a woman can ONLY reach GOD through a MAN - either her father, her husband or a male relative? God forbid (literally) she should be orphaned with no brother - no husband - how ever will she talk to God?


And who's doing this right now?

Are you suffering from personal issues because the topics in my OP are not about feminism.... I get pro women feminism, women should be empowered but not at the expense of anyone else.

So what's your gripe?


lol!

My "gripe" is that you are not willing to apply the SAME argument to your own predicament. HOW exactly is "the far left" oppressing you in any way? This "agenda" you speak of? How does it have any real power over you?

I have seen why feminism needs to exist from very personal experience. I don't need to go into it more than that. I don't think the "movement" of people on the far left who are, yes, being very controlling and wanting to make the world into their private happy place are correct - they are fueled by fires of self-righteousness and the passion of the extremist. I totally hear that.

What I want you to hear is that they really don't have that much power, except in the conflict that is created by them pushing other people's buttons.

And I'm not "suffering from personal issues" in regards to your topic. Good Lord, man! I'm discussing feminism merely because YOU brought it up in your OP - how we women folk are out to make you a wimp!

I



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

You'll to provide exact quote's in order for me to formulate an intelligent response or I cannot engage in this conversation with you.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Murder in the first degree is worse than dropping a piano on someone by accident. The difference is the intent. That's why we don't put someone away for life for accidents. They didn't intend for it to happen and depending on the degree of negligence they may not be charged with anything at all.

Accidents happen sometimes and it's not the persons fault that someone died. No evil.
Setting out to kill someone because you just think they should die because you're a dick is completely different. Evil.

Let's try this:
Absolute : All Killing of a person by another person is Wrong. Period.

Relative : Killing of a person by another person is Wrong but there are degrees of wrongness from cold blooded murder to accidental death of someone without any intent or negligence.

Subjective : Killing of a person by another person isn't always wrong. Sometimes it's a good thing to kill others like in War or to punish them for certain crimes.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck




If everything is relative and subjective and nothing is actually objective and universal, then nothing has any validity or real meaning.


Morally there are objective truths though right?

We can all agree that torturing someone is wrong. Killing babies is wrong. Rape is wrong. In my mind these things are true regardless of the how and why they are happening.

But we still have to ask how far does this line of thinking go and when does it become a social objective no longer an objective moral truth?


Do morally objective truths exist? If they do, is it worthy applying ethics based on objective moral truths? I would hope so and I'd like to believe that.

A human raping, torturing, and killing another human is counter productive to species survival and because of that those are naturally moral taboos. But even those taboos are morally relativistic because humans generally believe that we are superior to "lower" life forms that we torture, kill, and even eat. A so called "higher being" that is "superior" to humans may come along do whatever they want to us based on a similar line of thinking - relativistic morality all the way down the line.

However, I believe that there must be some objectively true universal morality, we just can't get outside ourselves to be able to know what that is. That is why we have an omnipotent God as an objective reference point, too bad no one in the world seems to have an objective god.
edit on 5-6-2016 by MichiganSwampBuck because: for clarity



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




Absolute : All Killing of a person by another person is Wrong. Period.


What if we rephrase that as, "willfully indiscriminate harm to another" - Objectively immoral.


Relative : Killing of a person by another person is Wrong but there are degrees of wrongness from cold blooded murder to accidental death of someone without any intent or negligence.


Let's rephrase that as, "negligent homicide is relatively immoral depending on circumstance" - Relatively immoral.




Subjective : Killing of a person by another person isn't always wrong. Sometimes it's a good thing to kill others like in War or to punish them for certain crimes.


I disagree. Killing in self defense, ok. Relative. But any other form of war in my opinion shows the folly of man and is immoral. I believe that man has the capability to evolve past this and we are in fact going to when we have more time in a paradigm of abundance... once we get past false scarcity and technological oppression due to economic incentive.

From this conversation we can conclude that an Objective Moral Truth is that willful harm to another is bad or immoral.
edit on 6/5/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck




However, I believe that there must be some objectively true universal morality, we just can't get outside ourselves to be able to know what that is. That is why we have an omnipotent God as an objective reference point, too bad no one in the world seems to have an objective god.


I believe my last response applies to your post as well.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Kali74

Talking about the hero archetype in men and how it relates to rebellion and leadership.

Everything is hate or bigotry with you give it a rest.

Some folks thats all they know..
Crying out against the very thing they have become...



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Our conversation has evolved far past that topical level of thinking.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Exactly. So what is the most likely conclusion then??? Keep in mind the following:

1. You'd like to think there are moral Truths that are Objectively set.

2. But everywhere you look such Morals are all "Relatively Applied" or understood by those creatures who have Morals.

3. An Objective set of Morals requires some Objectively Perfect Source outside our Natural World which nobody actually has verified.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
We can all agree that torturing someone is wrong. Killing babies is wrong. Rape is wrong. In my mind these things are true regardless of the how and why they are happening.


You've just completely destroyed your own argument with this line. In your mind, but not everyone's, which makes it purely subjective.

Madelaine Albright said that killing 500,000 Iraqi kids was "worth it". Bush, ever the charlatan, redefined torture as a means of justifying it. Trump himself said he would utilize waterboarding and worse, despite the fact it has been known for centuries (if not longer) that torture accomplishes nothing.

Most people believe that the ends justifies the means, so long as it doesn't effect them. But sure, blame liberals only as per usual.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: SargonThrall

Why because I said my mind?

That doesn't destroy my argument I'm leaving room for someone to change my mind. I truly believe those things are objective truths but if someone can talk me out of it I can compromise.

There's no discussion if there's no room for compromise.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Let's try a different approach and a much more direct and even disturbing example.

(warning not PC)

Would you agree that..... let's say for example..

Teaching a child that rape is ok is objectively immoral?

In any circumstance this is not ok.
edit on 6/5/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion
Then you don't understand the meaning of the word 'subjective'. If people have different experiences, biases, perspectives that make them believe a concept is not objective, then it is not. The fact that people have disagreeing opinions means it is not objectively what you believe it to be.

As per above many people have disagreed with you about torture, killing children, and rape. What makes your opinion precede theirs? They could just as easily claim it is objectively moral to kill 500,000 children for a greater cause.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Exactly. So what is the most likely conclusion then??? Keep in mind the following:

1. You'd like to think there are moral Truths that are Objectively set.

2. But everywhere you look such Morals are all "Relatively Applied" or understood by those creatures who have Morals.

3. An Objective set of Morals requires some Objectively Perfect Source outside our Natural World which nobody actually has verified.



Very well said. Such an objectively perfect source could only be some omnipotent being (commonly known as God) that knows everything and then some. Like I said earlier, either there are objective morals or nothing in the universe has any objective meaning or truth. However that doesn't mean that if there is objective truth that any information gained from it would be at all useful or even good for humanity.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I think we can establish that there is something.. even if it's a single issue that we can get a consensus on thats seen as objectively bad in any and all circumstance.

That will be a benchmark.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join