- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 9/16/21 at 11:12 am to Salmon
quote:
kind of hard for me to view periods where humans had less rights based off their race and sex and our justification for murder was far lower as times of higher morals
very true. just like religion, it’s hard to avoid hypocrisy of pointing to one timeframe as “more” moral with those factors.
This post was edited on 9/16/21 at 11:15 am
Posted on 9/16/21 at 11:13 am to carhartt
quote:I'm saying why should I or the state care how closely related two individuals are when entering a contract? I'm saying that whether it's "ok" or not is morally subjective, and that maybe government should be more objective than subjective.
You saying it should be ok for 2 adult siblings to get married?
Posted on 9/16/21 at 11:20 am to Loup
quote:I understand, and I appreciate the honesty.
I haven't given it enough thought to decide on that one yet. It's a little more complicated IMO.
It is tough because on the one hand the life being snuffed is completely innocent, but on the other if allowed to proceed would be the living embodiment of the worst thing that ever happened to another person.
Posted on 9/16/21 at 11:20 am to DestrehanTiger
quote:so we all agree a man crushing a baby skull is just as painful
guy raping a child hurts the child.
Posted on 9/16/21 at 11:21 am to Korkstand
quote:
I'm saying why should I or the state care how closely related two individuals are when entering a contract? I'm saying that whether it's "ok" or not is morally subjective, and that maybe government should be more objective than subjective.
I see your point.
Posted on 9/16/21 at 11:22 am to Loup
quote:
I haven't given it enough thought to decide on that one yet. It's a little more complicated IMO.
I think its perfectly ok to rationalize abortion in cases of rape and/or the life of the mother scenarios
just like most of us can rationalize an 18 year old going to another country and killing another 18 year old because their governments told them to and not call them murderers
Posted on 9/16/21 at 11:24 am to Tigers2010a
quote:
Morality is an inherent quality of humanity.
Interestingly, this has yet to be proven. I posed this question to my brother a while back, as he and his wife are neuroscientists for NIH, and he did let me know that there are ongoing studies looking at the genetic aspect of morality but, as of now, there's been no successful study showing that genetics play any role whatsoever. There's just as much of a chance that our senses of morality come from the people and environments around us as we age.
Posted on 9/16/21 at 11:29 am to carhartt
quote:Great, now let me argue against my own point.
I see your point.
I still think that incest should be illegal. If government has a duty to protect/serve its citizens, then objectively it should prevent the typical result of incestuous relations as these individuals are often a burden on society. Does that follow or am I going off track?
Posted on 9/16/21 at 11:32 am to Korkstand
quote:Fair enough. I can’t give you a full explanation because I have a lot of work going on that requires attention.
Yeah you keep saying that, but I'm asking why.
Human society can not progress if no one owns anything. That been seen historically from communist endeavors to American Indians. Without property being privately owned, no one gives a shite about stuff and it all goes to hell.
Everything tangible in existence, flowed from ideas. Therefore ideas are a higher class of property.
Intellectual property is more valuable than tangible property because it is the source of it all.
But without being alive, you have nothing. And that’s where the bucks starts. To own anything, it all hinges on you being the only owner of your life. By corollary, you can’t own any one else’s.
From there, you can have a rational society by protecting property in all its forms.
Posted on 9/16/21 at 11:34 am to extremetigerfanatic
quote:
The only variable is WHO’S morality?
Yes, who is morality anyway?
Posted on 9/16/21 at 11:34 am to Korkstand
quote:
then objectively it should prevent the typical result of incestuous relations as these individuals are often a burden on society.
That’s why I said non related.
But what if they can’t have kids?
This post was edited on 9/16/21 at 11:39 am
Posted on 9/16/21 at 11:44 am to Bullfrog
quote:That's a good rationalization, but it doesn't address the fact that many societies have functioned well even when humans were treated as property (at least it functioned well for the ones who weren't property). It's all based on the moral decision that we shouldn't treat others as property. I'm not sure I buy the volitional beings argument because other animals have volition yet we can own them.
Human society can not progress if no one owns anything. That been seen historically from communist endeavors to American Indians. Without property being privately owned, no one gives a shite about stuff and it all goes to hell.
Everything tangible in existence, flowed from ideas. Therefore ideas are a higher class of property.
Intellectual property is more valuable than tangible property because it is the source of it all.
But without being alive, you have nothing. And that’s where the bucks starts. To own anything, it all hinges on you being the only owner of your life. By corollary, you can’t own any one else’s.
From there, you can have a rational society by protecting property in all its forms.
Your argument also focuses on private ownership, yet societies function just fine with some things being publicly owned. What proportion of public ownership do you think is acceptable before society goes to hell?
Posted on 9/16/21 at 11:47 am to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
Interestingly, this has yet to be proven.
My basic argument would postulate human consciousness has a sense of right and wrong as an inherent quality. That inherent quality defines morality. Thus to be human mandates the existence of morality.
Posted on 9/16/21 at 11:55 am to Tigers2010a
quote:There are many examples throughout history of cultures that had no problem with murder, rape, etc. Most animals are better about not killing their own kind than humans are.
My basic argument would postulate human consciousness has a sense of right and wrong as an inherent quality. That inherent quality defines morality. Thus to be human mandates the existence of morality.
Posted on 9/16/21 at 11:58 am to Odysseus32
quote:
There is no morality. Never has been, never will be.
There is how you personally feel about things and that's it.
The world and universe as a whole is incredibly indifferent about murder, rape, abortion, and anything else you find abhorrent.
Yours is one of the more eloquent and cogent comments.
Eloquent, yes. Cogent, yes. But ultimately wrong I believe. And dangerous in the long haul.
This topic has been dealt with very effectively in the 1940s.
Everyone adopting this nihilistic philosophy and everyone rejecting it would benefit greatly from reading C. S. Lewis-The Abolition of Man.
It’s linked in its entirety and discusses the topic under consideration.
Posted on 9/16/21 at 12:05 pm to Salmon
quote:
there are plenty of animals that exhibit their own morality FWIW
Undoubtedly morality is a feature of many types of consciousness.
PS: I said "type" of consciousness. Probably incorrect. I imagine all consciousness are simply different levels or directions of development using the same basic source or fundamental quality of consciousness.
This post was edited on 9/16/21 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 9/16/21 at 12:06 pm to Korkstand
quote:Anything above zero gets us to the mess we are in.
What proportion of public ownership do you think is acceptable before society goes to hell?
And you shouldn’t try to blend in societal evolution as technological solutions of private enterprise have wiped out the past economic need for slavery.
Stand on the shoulders of giants. Don’t climb back down to the feet.
Posted on 9/16/21 at 12:08 pm to BayouBengal23
quote:
Pedophilia is trying to be passed right now...
?????? no it's not
This post was edited on 9/16/21 at 12:08 pm
Posted on 9/16/21 at 12:10 pm to Korkstand
quote:
There are many examples throughout history of cultures that had no problem with murder, rape, etc. Most animals are better about not killing their own kind than humans are.
Can you give me a specific example of a culture lacking any sense of morality? PS And bear in mind, my argument is based on humans rather than cultures.
This post was edited on 9/16/21 at 12:14 pm
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News