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.

 

Absolute Morality: Does it exist?

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Survival is one of the contexts in which child molestation is wrong. Another context would be what you call decency or what I call humanness.

The overall point of the post was to show how in a human context, child molestation is wrong.




posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by 547000

I disagree with karma because it gives people excuses to not be humane.



The opposite is true. If I know and understand karmic law then I do only acts of kindness and respect toward others.


Look at India if you want an example of where that type of thinking leads to. Actually go there and see for yourself.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
A fascinating thread. If nothing else, this is a good place to practice hitting the 'ignore' key! Certain people on this thread have dressed up amoral waffling as intellectual rationalism. Others are simply amoral and/ or (perhaps) deliberately inflammatory.

I've been reading quite a bit about this sort of thing lately, and will have a think before coming back to make my own definitive statement on the matter.

Initial thoughts - the 'law of nature' used to mean the law of conscience, but now it tends to be used as a nod towards evolutionary theory. This whole issue (absolute morality) comes down to an understanding of the development and maintenance of the original meaning of natural law - a general system of natural ethics seen throughout all cultures the world over. In general, all peoples at all times have exhibited generally similar standards of behaviour. If anything, we tend to see (cyclic?) decay of human behaviour when someone in authority places more emphasis on one aspect of the natural law/ ethical system as superior over others. The tricky element for me is the one where someone mentioned that other species kill the offspring that are likely to be a burden on the family group/ community, or otherwise abandon them to fend for themselves. Historically, has that happened in human society? I'm thinking probably, yes - ever heard the stories of piles of baby girls (living and dead) on street corners in China?

A return to a more general understanding of what in England is termed 'common law' is (according to my limited understanding of the subject) our culture's best stab at creating a set of rules which exist according to the 'natural law'. As many will know, common law in England has been largely replaced with a set of statutes, leading to a complex set of obligations between a fictional entity 'Mr James X' (who is effectively a piece of property) and his government. Common law applies to the PERSON of James X, and is a great deal more relaxed and sensible/fair than the statute system. Interesting times indeed.

M'eh. Loads to think about, will come back to this later on.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Some issues do not even belong on it. Homosexuality is between two individuals doing it. You cannot intervene. It is their right. You can merely object to it. I simply find it gross. Bible pretty much just says it's wrong and doesn't say much else. Jesus implied once that your better off cutting off that which makes you sin. But he did not differentiate between gays, lust, free lovers, or anything. He simply taught that your either married or sinful in those acts. So from a purely religious standpoint, it simply is indifferent to many other sexual acts. But that's, again, religion. And nobody has a right to force their religion onto another.

From a purely logical standpoint, it is always wiser to refrain from sex all together until a confined relationship. Just makes everything easier. But few would follow that for their weakness to their nature. People want to have sex. To hell with reason they say. It's their right.

But logically, homosexuality, if it should be banned or not for society, is not even on the table. because reason dictates government shouldn't even be involved with marriage to begin with.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by adjensen
 


Survival is one of the contexts in which child molestation is wrong. Another context would be what you call decency or what I call humanness.

The overall point of the post was to show how in a human context, child molestation is wrong.

you nicely added my point, decadence is mostly tolerance to complete freedom of sex -- society with that way cannot have future, but Death.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 




Homosexuality is between two individuals doing it. You cannot intervene. It is their right.

homosexualism is one of Nature's methods to decrease useless human population



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SarK0Y
 


AH, most interesting. After all, we are an unnatural species. Why not? LOL. I have no idea. All I know is the word natural does not apply to mankind.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 




After all, we are an unnatural species

everything is natural in the Universum, my friend
ways to Death is no less natural than ways to Life



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SarK0Y
 


Not sure about that. Would you favor we let anything natural pass? What defined natural anyway? The very word natural implies division. What if an antimatter star went supernova and decayed all the worlds around it. By all means it is natural. Is it not our right to stop it?

Far off topic perhaps. But to say all things are natural are questionable. The very word natural must be rethought in necessity.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
The question should be does morality exist at all or is it circumstantial. And if it does exist is there such a thing a absolute morality. Second line________

Mod-Edit: Long-Underscored-line removed because it was stretching the page.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by Skyfloating]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by SarK0Y
 


Not sure about that. Would you favor we let anything natural pass? What defined natural anyway? The very word natural implies division. What if an antimatter star went supernova and decayed all the worlds around it. By all means it is natural. Is it not our right to stop it?

Far off topic perhaps. But to say all things are natural are questionable. The very word natural must be rethought in necessity.

well, my friend, if you want to
for some moments, we can Nothing to say. Natural, Infinity, Point, Matter, Space, Time are Objects w\o exact Mathematical Descriptions -- any attempts to realize it have many logical collisions, in result
so, we have just to do local definitions for those Words. through dozen years, mankind did Bounds/Rules to use Words, Rules are Wall to stop human against slip astray to Madness. thus, i go along simple way: everything in Universe is Natural



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
Look at India if you want an example of where that type of thinking leads to. Actually go there and see for yourself.


The state of India is more connected to philosophies of fatalism than philosophies of Karma. Karma is the opposite of fatalism, it is 100% responsibility and accountability. It is the same as when Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". He obviously underestood karmic law.

Even though the idea of Karma originates in India/Hinduism, today it is not understood in its original term and meaning.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SarK0Y
 


Humanity, however, does not follow logic naturally. How can something be natural within the universe if it fails to follow the logic of that very universe it is part of. It is like a cancer. Is cancer natural? It leads to death.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by SarK0Y
 


Humanity, however, does not follow logic naturally. How can something be natural within the universe if it fails to follow the logic of that very universe it is part of. It is like a cancer. Is cancer natural? It leads to death.

well, let's take Infinity, for example: we can prove existence of Infinity w\o any troubles, but despairful failed to deal with Infinity like Math Object. that's funny, grave fact: logic is too weak to comprehend Infinity per se



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SarK0Y
 


Not really. Infinity is perfectly workable with logic. It is basically the some total of all of existence both known and unknown. Logic has no problems with that.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 

well, show me, please, Math Description of Infinity w\o logical collisions.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SarK0Y
 


Look up at night. The black is infinity.

In terms of math, we use the infinity digit. It itself represents infinity, in as much as 1 represents one.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Math Description is list of operations for set of pointed objects, where results of operations have no logical troubles.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
I think the closest anyone can come to absolute morality is after experiencing ego-death (through the use of entheogens or meditation).



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by 547000
Look at India if you want an example of where that type of thinking leads to. Actually go there and see for yourself.


The state of India is more connected to philosophies of fatalism than philosophies of Karma. Karma is the opposite of fatalism, it is 100% responsibility and accountability. It is the same as when Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". He obviously underestood karmic law.

Even though the idea of Karma originates in India/Hinduism, today it is not understood in its original term and meaning.


It's easy to talk about karma when you're rich and have comforts, but when you live in continual poverty karma is an easy thing to abuse.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by 547000]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join