The free will of the immoral.

a reply to: Peeple

If you want to talk examples:
You and your family ended up on the streets be it through some natural disaster or whatever it doesn't matter. One more day without food and your wife and youngest are going to starve.
Across the street is a bakery who put out their unsold goods at night, taking it from their property is still stealing.
Is it the moral thing to do to let your family starve, because the simple minded average in society tells you stealing is morally wrong?

Depending on what country you live in, that's a pretty weak example in today's world, isn't it? In America, with all of it's charitable resources, the only way your kids are going to starve is if you're too lazy or prideful to seek them out while you're looking for a job or offering a service to someone in exchange for a meal (like the bakery). In all cases, stealing, being lazy, and prideful are all morally wrong. The only people who can escape that moral clause are the ones who were maimed or incapacitated to a point of not being able to work...or steal for that matter.

a reply to: Untun

If morality is based on the human emotional system (I suspect it is) then morality is just a bunch of feels.

On that basis alone I'd say that quite a few here a missing the point. But who am I to say morality isn't a religious thing, I'd also say it isn't even an individualistic thing either...

My morality doesn't exist if I don't share it and neither does yours. Our morality may exist if we express and delve into just what right and wrong is within relation to each other, then we'll get codes and ethics, rights and crimes etc etc.

In the wrong hands a concept such as morality is absolutely devastating. I guess when it's boiled down it's a lot like bias since evidently we all have preferred flavours.

originally posted by: Cwantas
a reply to: Untun

Some quality angry hateful comments already, lol, how can one not know the difference between the moral and immoral?

Lets see..

Narcissistic tendencies.
Complete short-sightedness.
The inability to see past themselves, like a wanton selfish child.
A heart filled with hate.
Wickedness.
Sociopathic tendencies.
Low intelligence.
I will stop there.

How do you explain the difference between the moral and the immoral to people who display the above? You can't, but it's entertaining reading there comments none the less.

Without religion it is called integrity. Do do the right thing when nobody is looking.
This is for very few natural laws which everyone should feel intrinsically.
Such as not hurting or killing someone else outside self defense.
Not taking what belongs to others.
Not betraying anyone.


Good people know this without written laws. It's things they don't want to have done to themselves.

The rest however complicates things.
Manmade specific laws that make no sense can land you in jail.

Manmade religious laws are the same. Instead of prison it's a made up horrible place where you apparently get tortured forever for minor discressions.

Both are there for assholes. Both seem to be needed by said asshats in order to behave.
However ot is sad that all normally good people are often treated like criminals in both scenarios.

a reply to: Cwantas

Intelligence has nothing to do with morality, psychopaths are often highly intelligent. A key trait that defines psychopaths is the inability to feel any empathy.

Empathy is the foundation of morality, it gives us our sense of right and wrong, it’s surprising how many people don’t feel it.

a reply to: Deetermined

awww look who doesn't know what an example is...

bless you

you could have gone many ways with my example. Like discussing the hierarchy of responsibilities. Because it is immoral to kill but to defend your family/country things change.

My whole point was that there are no absolute morals.

a reply to: Peeple

awww look who doesn't know what an example is...

I recognized it. That's why I said it was a "weak example". People who justify stealing are just making excuses for themselves.

you could have gone many ways with my example. Like discussing the hierarchy of responsibilities. Because it is immoral to kill but to defend your family/country things change.

My whole point was that there are no absolute morals.

That's a much better example and one that can be debated depending on the detailed circumstances of the situation.

a reply to: Untun

The premise of you argument is fundamentally flawed because it lacks definition. What is "the law"? Where is this law, who created it, and who accepts it? A society would accept an agreed upon law depending on the nature of it's governance, but another society may disagree by its history and survival needs.

To be honest, I'm unclear of your conclusion on the topic. Are you saying surveillance is righteous or trust in the pursuit of betterment is righteous? The use of drugs and alcohol are considered bad in excess, but are you saying that's okay for some and not others?

What is the point of this thread?

Of course people are already bickering but I fail to see what they are really bickering about other than their inserted ideals, which is expected here.

Literally nobody has addressed why you haven't replied in your own thread. None of this is coherent.

a reply to: Deetermined

In America, with all of it's charitable resources, the only way your kids are going to starve is if you're too lazy or prideful to seek them out while you're looking for a job or offering a service to someone in exchange for a meal (like the bakery).

If charity is only for beggars, then it's only offered by the greedy and proud.

How many times have you hired and paid the homeless guy in the parking lot offering to wash your car's windows?

In America, a bakery can leave day-old baked goods outside of their backdoor on the far side of the parking lot. But it could very well be illegal to give food to homeless people, and/or it may very well be illegal for them to cross the private property parking lot to access the day-old bread.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If charity is only for beggars, then it's only offered by the greedy and proud.

I never said charity was only for beggars, so I don't know what you're talking about or what your point is.

How many times have you hired and paid the homeless guy in the parking lot offering to wash your car's windows?

Zero. I've never seen one of the homeless in my area offer to do anything for a buck, but that's not to say they don't exist. Here, they just stand on the street corners holding up signs asking for handouts from every passerby.

In America, a bakery can leave day-old baked goods outside of their backdoor on the far side of the parking lot. But it could very well be illegal to give food to homeless people, and/or it may very well be illegal for them to cross the private property parking lot to access the day-old bread.

In today's crazy world, that doesn't seem too far fetched, but do you really knw of any state that ACTUALLY does or would do that? I don't. There are always food banks, soup kitchens, shelters, etc.

a reply to: Deetermined

I never said charity was only for beggars, so I don't know what you're talking about or what your point is.

You said:

...with all of it's charitable resources, the only way your kids are going to starve is if you're too lazy or prideful to seek them out

People who seek out charity are beggars, are they not?

I've never seen one of the homeless in my area offer to do anything for a buck,

Where I am, you have to dodge them in just about every major shopping center's parking lot....washing window, fixing scratches and dents in your car...
I see homeless people dumpster diving all the time. They're looking for recyclables, that they'll take to a recycling center for a little bit of money. That's work, but it can get you arrested.

In today's crazy world, that doesn't seem too far fetched, but do you really knw of any state that ACTUALLY does or would do that?

Not states, cities. Fair Or Too Far? 33 U.S. Cities Make It Officially Illegal To Feed Homeless People

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You said:


"...with all of it's charitable resources, the only way your kids are going to starve is if you're too lazy or prideful to seek them out"

I see, you chose to leave out the two previous words that I typed previous to that statement, where I said, "In America". And no, once again, charitable resources are not only for beggars. In my community, the churches schedule work days for volunteers to help people fix their homes or clean them if they are not physically able. The people who receive this help, don't ask for it. I believe other members of the community nominate them for this help.

As for the article on the 33 cities making it illegal to feed the homeless, the one example in the story did say that authorities chose not to press charges after the couple refused to pay their fines for having done so. It's definitely a double edged sword. I understand both sides. The example city doesn't want crowds being drawn to a particular park every week for the homeless to tear it up or scare other people. Unfortunately, many of them suffer from mental illness. I can see where the city wants to draw them to their own food programs so that they can also place them in job training programs and other learning programs to help them become more independent. It has been, and will always be, a vicious cycle that will never be completely cured. Especially when you're dealing with people who want food or money, but don't want to work for it.

a reply to: Deetermined

The OP asserts that laws are for immoral people. But, in America some laws themselves are immoral and the charity Americans offer often comes from a place of greed and pride. In many cases, the reason why people are in poverty and needy are the very laws protecting the greedy and proud.

You've been given a few simple examples that you've used to make excuses for why the greedy and the proud need immoral laws.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

This is just one more exercise and proof from God that the world is made up of imperfect people and imperfect laws, where we're not capable of governing ourselves out of the mess we are and the mess we are in.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Cwantas

Intelligence has nothing to do with morality, psychopaths are often highly intelligent. A key trait that defines psychopaths is the inability to feel any empathy.

Empathy is the foundation of morality, it gives us our sense of right and wrong, it’s surprising how many people don’t feel it.

People with a high sense of Empathy are much more intelligent than psychopaths being that a much deeper understand is need where as a psychopaths intelligence is short sighted because it's purely self.

originally posted by: Hecate666

originally posted by: Cwantas
a reply to: Untun

Some quality angry hateful comments already, lol, how can one not know the difference between the moral and immoral?

Lets see..

Narcissistic tendencies.
Complete short-sightedness.
The inability to see past themselves, like a wanton selfish child.
A heart filled with hate.
Wickedness.
Sociopathic tendencies.
Low intelligence.
I will stop there.

How do you explain the difference between the moral and the immoral to people who display the above? You can't, but it's entertaining reading there comments none the less.

Without religion it is called integrity. Do do the right thing when nobody is looking.
This is for very few natural laws which everyone should feel intrinsically.
Such as not hurting or killing someone else outside self defense.
Not taking what belongs to others.
Not betraying anyone.


Good people know this without written laws. It's things they don't want to have done to themselves.

The rest however complicates things.
Manmade specific laws that make no sense can land you in jail.

Manmade religious laws are the same. Instead of prison it's a made up horrible place where you apparently get tortured forever for minor discressions.

Both are there for assholes. Both seem to be needed by said asshats in order to behave.
However ot is sad that all normally good people are often treated like criminals in both scenarios.

I agree, religion does not hold the monopoly on moral values, in fact throughout history religion has displayed the opposite being that religion is man made. I'm not religious.

Man made laws are for punishment only.

I bet that surprised you. Spirituality is the key.