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: 9
38
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 02:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc
Anyone who actually believes in moral relativism just hasn't thought hard enough, or isn't able to think hard enough. Relativism is a self-defeating concept.

There's a reason no great philosophers have ever been relativists.


Yet here we are...slipping backwards in time while the progressives and all their "relativism" actually believe we are progressing...





posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Ok, let's give it a shot then.

I believe the following website provides a good summary on the topic of ethics/morals and would be a good read for those interested in the topic.

The topic of Morality and Ethics can be rather complex, but hopefully the above links can help those unfamiliar with the different positions to better classify their own views.


edit on 7/6/2016 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc
Anyone who actually believes in moral relativism just hasn't thought hard enough, or isn't able to think hard enough. Relativism is a self-defeating concept.

There's a reason no great philosophers have ever been relativists.


While I don't classify my own views directly under the moral relativism banner, I have put plenty of thought into the topic of morals/ethics over the years and lean more towards that school than the absolutist school.

While it's always nice to know your own views were shared by notable past philosophers, it's not always an indication that your views are the right ones.

May I ask what position your views on morality fall under?



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion




Let me start by saying that I truly believe there is an agenda to socially engineer a society of moral relativism.


Really you do.. ?

More Like Revisionism. is How this Country Called USA AKA. America Is going ...
Major Elements from Two Fictitious Books Turning Reality ..


1) 1984
2) Animal Farm

We Live by the Media ,

Historical Revisionism and the Legacy of George Orwell
www.ihr.org...

Speaking of that !! 40 years ago

Media : Who Controls the Most, Awesome God Dam Propaganda Force in the Godless World !!!
Who Know what # will be peddled for Truth.. on this Network!

Television : Is a God Dam Amusement Park! , Television is a Circus a Carnival

( yeah FOX NEWS ! they will tell you any # you want to hear )

Network
www.youtube.com...


Didn't you Know ?

Corporations are the States, Provence's and Nations of Today ..

The World is a Business Mr. onequestion

www.youtube.com...






Sorry after watching The Movie called Network so many times

and How Now, I see how the world is today and the Craziness How America has become

and the Delusional World of Politics through the Media and the Freak Side Show Campaigns
before My Eyes with , Trump and Clinton.. Running for President is Ultimate Madness !

Its a Nice Prediction, The Producers of Network ( 1976 )
must of had a Dipping Party with the TPTB Elite insiders ..
During the Oil Crisis and The Middle East Conflicts of the 70s
pretty much like today ..


The Republicans and Democrats are fine!

its these Words that Stereo Type Them, have issues


Liberal & Conservative
there is a Mesh between those two words
seeping out through the Holes ..
its just how mush pressure and BS.
it takes to seep it through from one to the Other

Always Had been..


ohh Here something to Look at ...

Which Corporations Control the World?
www.internationalbusinessguide.org...

The 147 Companies That Control Everything
www.forbes.com...

Newscientist

Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world
www.newscientist.com...


These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America
www.businessinsider.com...




edit on 22016TuesdayfAmerica/Chicago6158 by Wolfenz because: add links



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 03:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc
Anyone who actually believes in moral relativism just hasn't thought hard enough, or isn't able to think hard enough. Relativism is a self-defeating concept.

There's a reason no great philosophers have ever been relativists.


I guess the term "great" is relative. I think Spinoza was great. I think Hume was great.
I know a few other philosophers who think so too.

But also, I think anthropology coming to the same conclusions supports those philosophers well.
Because theory is great... one can come up with all kinds of philosophies and carefully structured concepts
(look at what J.R.R. Tolkien did! He created a very complex and congruent world, complete with fully formed language!)

Yet, the real testing ground is what can be observed and experienced in the physical world. Some wonderful theories don't translate into reality. This one does.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Who is the authority of morals? At one point people would have said God and religion, but most people not just on the left no longer believe in such authorities. Some pretend they do and try to install that moral authority on others, while some rebel against this authority for no other reason than they don't believe in the authority, not to piss off right wingers. So it would seem the premise of your thread is based on a delusion
edit on 7-6-2016 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
Who is the authority of morals? At one point people would have said God and religion, but most people not just on the left no longer believe in such authorities. Some pretend they do and try to install that moral authority on others, while some rebel against this authority for no other reason than they don't believe in the authority, not to piss off right wingers. So it would seem the premise of your thread is based on a delusion


This is the thorn in the side of the moral absolutist's views. If absolute morals exist, then what is the basis to determine their origin? God? The bible/quran/tanakh or some other holy text? Natural law? Some objective, universal source would need to be referenced directly to determine whether an action is objectively or absolutely moral or not.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff
Myself too. I would never have bought into such a conspiracy theory 12 months ago. But now, with all the utterly bizzarre things being pushed on the general public, you have to ask: what kind of wierd and twisted agenda do the "powers that be" have up their collective sleeves? It's very sick and wharped, and it needs to be dealt with somehow - and soon!



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimbo999
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff
Myself too. I would never have bought into such a conspiracy theory 12 months ago. But now, with all the utterly bizzarre things being pushed on the general public, you have to ask: what kind of wierd and twisted agenda do the "powers that be" have up their collective sleeves? It's very sick and wharped, and it needs to be dealt with somehow - and soon!


Bingo. The question is if this is a collective unconscious type of happening, or if someone or group is intentionally doing it.

Everything that is going on right now is very clearly on purpose. I know this with a certainty of about 100%

However, don't give up hope and think we're screwed. Human civilization is going through growing pains and we are essentially honing the blade, so to speak. May i remind that patience is a virtue afterall.
edit on 7-6-2016 by OneGoal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: OneGoal

How can anyone claim that "they" are trying to suppress the hero archetype within "us"

When almost every fricken film coming out of the US these days is a superhero movie??

Maybe we need to ascertain who "they" and "us" are, exactly?

Is the mainstream media and film industry on OUR side then? Trying to oppose and block "their" attempts to do this?



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 06:10 AM
link   
My views:

I think Moral relativism is insanity and objective morality should be though out at every point.

We could probably need a way to measure suffering in each individual so that we can create social models that maximizes happiness.

Tolerating subjective insane cultural ideas is not the way to go be it western ideas or Islamic ideas.


I think Homosexuality is objective moral and would like objective argument if any of you think otherwise. Allow it if it is between consenting adults and there is no manipulation.

Transgender is also objective moral from my point of view if the person/soul is sure of what it wants. No manipulation to try to hinder or pressure a soul to become transgender.

When you do not have a penis you are allowed into the women:s bathroom so that predatory souls do not use transgender as an excuse to prey on female. You should of course always inform your partner that you are biologically what you are so that the other soul can make a choice of preference if that is something it accepts in a mate. But then I also assume a woman who cannot have any babies are direct in that information to the partner so that he can make a choice on how to continue if he wants a biological child.

I think many SJW are over emotional and have problem with logical arguments and bully with emotion instead of stating facts. That emotion manipulation I see on both the right side and left side.
edit on 7-6-2016 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
Who is the authority of morals? At one point people would have said God and religion, but most people not just on the left no longer believe in such authorities. Some pretend they do and try to install that moral authority on others, while some rebel against this authority for no other reason than they don't believe in the authority, not to piss off right wingers. So it would seem the premise of your thread is based on a delusion


This is the thorn in the side of the moral absolutist's views. If absolute morals exist, then what is the basis to determine their origin? God? The bible/quran/tanakh or some other holy text? Natural law? Some objective, universal source would need to be referenced directly to determine whether an action is objectively or absolutely moral or not.


From my point of view it is a formula that seem to have not been quantified by humanity yet (or if it has been someone is not sharing it). The ideas of karma is the search for this formula. The problem is that many holy texts fail to achieve objectivity.
edit on 7-6-2016 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
Is male and female an idea and how much of a roll does biology play and where do we draw the line with reality and delusion?


It all depends on your definitions of "male" and "female" - and on the urge you feel to fit reality to your model.

As a fortean I'm well aware of the need for models - we need them to create a simplified universe that we can understand with our limited intellectual capacites. But don't confuse your model with reality: fact is that humans wildly differ and most individual don't fit the models well - and that is IMO quite beautiful!

We differ physically: some of us arelarge, some small, some fat, some skinny, with various skin colours, eye colours, with or without hair in various places of various colours, some with breasts, some without, and with various forms and sizes of sex-organs. Some even have double sets, none or different sets of these. some choose to change sets later on in life.

We differ mentally: some people are softer, sweeter, others more harsh. Some are aggressive, some kind, some weak. Smart, stupid, caring, heartless, brutal, cheerful, happy, grumpy .. you name it, and there are specimen available (regardless their physical appearance) that fit the bill.

This large diversity creates a lot of opportunity for loving and caring relationships in all possible ways. I really can't see what's wrong with that. So, by all means: enjoy the diversity!

(And if you feel comfortable in being what is know as a "real man" or "real woman", I dont' mind, as long as I can have the right to be what I am).



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: LittleByLittle
This is the point we have been continuously rehashing: YOU think it is an objective moral. Try asking the religious right whether they think homosexuality between consenting adults is objectively moral or not. This makes it subjective.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: SargonThrall

No there are clearly the things that are wrong and bad regardless of what your culture represents



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: SargonThrall

No there are clearly the things that are wrong and bad regardless of what your culture represents


And apparently nobody agrees on what those are.

Yet each claim to be the representative of God on these matters.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: LittleByLittle

We could probably need a way to measure suffering in each individual so that we can create social models that maximizes happiness.


I watched a documentary on pedophiles once. Those that were working very hard abstaining from acting upon that impulse (staying away from children) described a terrible suffering from that.

There are problems with the measure of happiness and suffering.





Tolerating subjective insane cultural ideas is not the way to go be it western ideas or Islamic ideas.


I agree. Though for each culture, what they consider insane and intolerable differs, so they should each come up with clear rules on what they shall tolerate and not, and enforce that within their own borders.
But that is not Gods word, it is mine and no one is obligated to do what I say. They are free to consider the logic in it, and try to separate their emotional reactions from that.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

if someone tortures your little girl because they are a serial killer is that objectively wrong or does it depend on what your culture is?



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

When asking that question you are literally asking for a response about Subjective Morality. You can't escape it. You are asking Bluesma for her personal opinion on the matter. There is no other answer they can give other than a subjective opinion on the subject. You also can't give any other opinion on the subject because you too are limited to your own subjective experience and judgement.

Regardless of the answer you get back and whether or not you agree or disagree with that answer proves nothing toward there being an objective moral code. All it shows is that two subjective moral codes from two different people agree with each other.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

no its wrong regardless of what anyone thinks

it violates someones individual sovereignty just because you have to ask them what they think doesnt make it more or less wrong or right its wrong regardless

"ahhh it depends on what they think"

no it doesnt its wrong period
edit on 6/7/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join