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.
a reply to: SystemResistor
You can only define evil for yourself IMHO
What a Christian calls evil, I might well hold dear.
To one person Hitler was evil, to others a visionary, it's all very subjective.
The only evil that needs addressing is robbing children of their innocence, the rest of us are big enough to deal with our own evils.
But then again that is only my opinion
- See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: DeadSeraph
The point I was failing to make to you is that morality is subjective and cultural and lives within time-frames. Those features make it relative.
Abuse is currently part of 'extraordinary rendition' and seen as justifiable in the face of terrorism. Slavery was once the cultural norm. In Northern Ireland, it was (until recently) morally okay to murder civilians for political ends. Same back in Pinochet's Argentina. Starving people was deemed morally justifiable during WW2/Cold War by Soviets and Germans as it served a propaganda purpose and saved on resources. Sure, morally despicable in our view, but none of those involved in the above actively decided to 'do evil.' They all believed what they were doing was for a greater good and a brighter future - acceptable in other words.
Allow me to paint a rather terrible picture for you: If we take people from all tribes and all societies, and we subtract religion or spiritual beliefs from them completely, and rely solely on a darwinist outlook, and then present them with the concept of raping babies, they will still be naturally horrified. Why is that?
You have no logical grounds for moral relativism. Nobody has yet provided grounds for it, even amongst far greater minds than our own. The notion that morality is an evolutionary trait that is completely subjective to cultural factors crumbles under the light of reason every time.
You'd prefer to use the above scenario rather than simply accepting that morality is clearly relative. Dictating the terms of discussion to validate an erroneous contention isn't accepted in healthy debates.
You haven't refuted any of the examples provided so there hasn't been any 'crumbling' and the 'light' is fairly dim. I have to admit to being bemused that anyone could take the position you've chosen to take. That we share the same sense of moral values and can still argue that others have different moral values makes it crystal clear that it's all relative.
As an example, You claim that we share the same sense of moral values yet still argue about others as some sort of proof of moral relativism without considering your initial premise: "We share the same sense of moral values".
These moral values are inherent in all of us, regardless of culture, creed, race, sexuality, etc. As a species we find certain acts universally revolting. The fact you continue to deny this because... well... because why?
These moral values are inherent in all of us, regardless of culture, creed, race, sexuality, etc. As a species we find certain acts universally revolting. The fact you continue to deny this because... well... because why?
originally posted by: cody599
a reply to: DeadSeraph
Your choice my friend
Please continue I need a laugh
Cody
Worthwhile imo. Not sure what's funnier, your inability to see the self-contradictions in your arguments or the threat of a posting ban if I continue disagreeing with you on an ancient philosophical issue.
originally posted by: cody599
a reply to: DeadSeraph
You changed you avatar because I made your old one ?
LMAO
Now show me definitive proof of of me contradicting myself in this thread
I'm getting bored with asking now
Cody