No way it is coincidence that morality is not taught in schools, Universities

With cultural (and moral) relativism being taught, few students would probably accept that idea that there are absolute moral values that humanity should follow, even if they were taught such an idea. When you boil things down and compare it with other cultures there is no absolute truth, beauty, or even reality.

No body can be sure about anything at that point but what is made law, then again, with moral relativity, you can pick and choose what laws are worth obeying, likely none unless they suit your purpose. Control by the PTB seems to be a likely scenario at the point, so, to me, no surprise there.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: LesterJust

And here is me thinking morals were taught at home .

They are, but shouldn't they be reinforced in school too?

there is a fine line there for me
my moral compass is certainly different than others. i dont want someone teaching their moral values to my daughter.
there are some universal donts you know...
a lot of # is negotiable though......
i dont need my daughters 1st grade teacher in charge of that stuff

a reply to: LesterJust

They teach the Whore of Babylon's version of morality: Liberal Arts.

Whatever name you want to give her throughout the ages, she always rises up and rides the empire into the ground.

1.Convince them that Liberty is good and sacred and to lust after her (all liberties are good and sacred).
2.Convince them that sin is a liberty (various sins / fornications / infidelities / unfaithfulness to God).
3.Watch them fall.

She repeats with every empire.

a reply to: ketsuko

They are, but shouldn't they be reinforced in school too?

Good question and i really dont have a definitive answer . In many schools you have different cultures religions etc , pretty much impossible to have moral reinforcement that fits all .

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
2.Convince them that sin is a liberty (various sins / fornications / infidelities / unfaithfulness to God).

Sex is bad?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
2.Convince them that sin is a liberty (various sins / fornications / infidelities / unfaithfulness to God).

Sex is bad?

dude its the worst
dont ever do it

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Jefferton

It's actually a huge problem in liberal states. They want the school (controlled by the government) to teach right and wrong and remove that ability from the parents.

It's sad we live in a world where people think this is not the parents job.

It shouldn't be removed at all, it should be taught elsewhere [without religious reasons] as well. I personally can't see anything bad to learn about dignity, honesty, empathy etc.

I don't think about those kids that learn this at home - that's all good. I'm thinking of is the large amount of kids that don't get this at home, but for the good of all of us should learn it somewhere.
A kid is a blank slate, if nobody ever plants the 'good thoughts', the kids can't even contemplate about them. Yet, were it taught at school, they have the relevant info and may choose to behave in a civilised way.

But they need to hear about it from somewhere first.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Is that all that you took from that post?

originally posted by: LesterJust

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: LesterJust

If you need school, particularly college, to teach you right from wrong you are pretty much royally effed to begin with.

And that is the system is taking over complete schooling of kids, relying less and less on parents

And if system refuses to teach morality

Over generations morality become extinct

Wouldn't that more or less be a parenting problem than, let me guess, the result of some liberal agenda? Whether they're willing or convinced, parents seem happy to offload their responsibilities to the system, considering how demanding everyone has allowed their schedules to become.

a reply to: ketsuko

They are.

There may not be a subject called "morals", but we learn it in social environments like schools.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Jefferton

"Good" is relative. At one time it was "good" for grown men to have sex with boys. If we decide by majority what is "good" then slavery was good.

No. Just because something in the past was wrong does not mean we get to call everything relativist.

Desecartes theory of gravity was wrong, the stress theory of uclers was wrong, this does not mean bleed into other areas muddying them.

Those were moral theories of those times that were overturned for better ones.

2 easy ways without looking for a philosopher to get close at good and evil
1. Non-aggression principle. Do not commit aggression against others
2. Hitler was evil

You are more than welcome to argue hitler was not evil using relativism. I don't think you can be a relativist and not be someone who also frequently uses ad hitlerum.

Worst of all Relativism is limp wristed, It will bend over and cower to a group who wants to install their moral rules a la Sharia law. Relativism allows evil to flourish.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
With cultural (and moral) relativism being taught, few students would probably accept that idea that there are absolute moral values that humanity should follow, even if they were taught such an idea. When you boil things down and compare it with other cultures there is no absolute truth, beauty, or even reality.

No body can be sure about anything at that point but what is made law, then again, with moral relativity, you can pick and choose what laws are worth obeying, likely none unless they suit your purpose. Control by the PTB seems to be a likely scenario at the point, so, to me, no surprise there.

But that's the biggest problem with "relativism." It doesn't take much to figure out that if you must allow that some things are all right for some people, then they must be OK things. And that means eventually, you realize that everything is pretty much OK.

Moral relativism is, therefore, really no morals at all.

a reply to: eisegesis

parents seem happy to offload their responsibilities to the system

This is true, I wouldn't necessarily blame the system for this though, although it probably has changed over the years to adapt to it..

a reply to: LesterJust

I disagree with the premise of your post. Most Universities have classes in the field of ethics. There are many people who devote their whole lives to studying every facet and aspect of ethics through history. It's a very well thought out and well researched field:

www.philosophy.rutgers.edu...

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
Is that all that you took from that post?

No, I think Liberty is a good thing and I avoided the 'unfaithfulness to God' comment since it is way too Old Testament for me so I decided to ask you about sex ('fornication') which you did not answer.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
dude its the worst
dont ever do it

I will refrain, I don't want Jesus putting a hex on my weenus.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: LesterJust

I disagree with the premise of your post. Most Universities have classes in the field of ethics. There are many people who devote their whole lives to studying every facet and aspect of ethics through history. It's a very well thought out and well researched field:

www.philosophy.rutgers.edu...

So because most universities have voluntary courses in ethics that a person may opt to take after having gone through K-5 and junior high and high school ... you consider morals a subject well covered in school?

Please! Our kids get more instruction in the proper fit of condoms than they do in the Golden Rule.

Anyway, what are morals?

Are they rules that stop a person being true to themselves?
Are they a set of behaviours that benefit society as a whole?
Are they a way of stopping one suffering the mental anguish of regret?
Or, are they religious rules that you have to adhere to, to be part of a club?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
With cultural (and moral) relativism being taught, few students would probably accept that idea that there are absolute moral values that humanity should follow, even if they were taught such an idea. When you boil things down and compare it with other cultures there is no absolute truth, beauty, or even reality.

No body can be sure about anything at that point but what is made law, then again, with moral relativity, you can pick and choose what laws are worth obeying, likely none unless they suit your purpose. Control by the PTB seems to be a likely scenario at the point, so, to me, no surprise there.

But that's the biggest problem with "relativism." It doesn't take much to figure out that if you must allow that some things are all right for some people, then they must be OK things. And that means eventually, you realize that everything is pretty much OK.

Moral relativism is, therefore, really no morals at all.

The problem you have with moral relativism is a skunk can't smell his own stink. It wasn't that long ago when slavery was considered moral okay by the absolutists. Even the Bible claims slavery is morally okay. Maybe you are one of those people who think the 13th Amendment is unconstitutional. What is moral to day may be immoral tomorrow. What is moral yesterday may be immoral today. Hence, moral relativism is true and all morality is colloquial.

originally posted by: ketsuko


Please! Our kids get more instruction in the proper fit of condoms than they do in the Golden Rule.

the golden rule is put that condom on and put it on right...
now go practice on that banana