Bless your heart.
If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book
- Thread starter domer76
- Start date
Ants, aardvarks, and antelope don't have any sense of absolute right and wrong. They have instinct.
Humans appear to have a moral conscience imprinted on us that doesn't have anything to do with Darwinism evolution, whim, or opinion. Anytime you point to something being absolutely right or wrong you are pointing to a standard of moral law that is universal among human conscience.
Otherwise, objective morality and absolute right and wrong is just a delusion, and we are all just moral relativists acting on opinion, social convention, or whim.
If there is no objective universal absolute right and wrong let's just admit it and dispense with the delusion.
Into the Night
Verified User
Morals can certainly be that, selfish as it is.
It certainly is.
Buzzword fallacies. Morality is not an objective word. There is no 'absolute' morality.
It certainly can.
It certainly can. Remember the Golden Rule?
Morality is not an objective word. It has no value associated with it. It is a subjective word.
Why help another? They very well might help you when you are out of luck.
It is to mutual advantage.
This also happens to be your morality. There is no such thing as an absolute morality.
Into the Night
Verified User
Morality can easily be connected to worshiping a god, Hugo.
Into the Night
Verified User
Morality is not an insult.
Into the Night
Verified User
There is no 'absolute' right and wrong. YOU are imposing YOUR concept of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' on everyone. You are not a dictator.
That said, there ARE such things as laws, which people have agreed to upholding (and some decide to ignore and break them). There are also penalties for breaking a law.
Is this morals? No. It is simply a set of laws, upheld by the people (yes...even in dictatorships).
Circular argument. Not yet a fallacy. True by definition.
Conscience isn't 'imprinted'. It is simply a model of your own determining what is 'moral'. YOU don't get to declare to everyone else what is 'moral'. Omniscience fallacy.
Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution. The ancient Greeks did.
Law is not morals. It is simply the law.
There is no objective universal absolute right and wrong. What is 'right' and what is 'wrong' is according to your own personal model that you have built for yourself, and NOTHING ELSE.
There is no such thing as an objective morality. You can't measure it. Morality is subjective.
Into the Night
Verified User
'Morality' first came into the English lexicon around the mid 1400's, stemming from the Latin 'moralis'. It means 'manners', as in the proper way of behaving in society.
Therefore, it is closely aligned with philosophy (which defines words like 'science' and 'religion', and phenomenology (which defines words like 'real'). 'Morality' is related to what is 'real'. It is a model that one goes by that they perceive is 'correct' or the 'proper way of behaving in society', including defining what 'society' they are behaving in!
Thus, even a gang member has a 'morality' model that he goes by. You don't steal from the gang, or rat out on the gang; for example.
Even an ant has a 'proper way of behaving in society', which is the ant nest. Go against that morality, and that ant will be kicked out of the next and now allowed to return. It will be perceived by the other ants as an enemy.
Ants attack each other rather commonly, one species raiding another for resources.
It is 'moral' for a wasp to attack a beehive. It is 'moral' for the bees to defend the hive from attack.
It is 'moral' to support the gang. It is 'moral' to try to follow the teaching of Jesus Christ. It is 'moral' fight a war and kill people.
Personally, I choose to support the teachings of Jesus Christ, to uphold the laws of the United States and support those that do, and to warn against those willing to subvert either. These are part of my morals.
They are different from anybody else's morals. They are as unique to me as my fingerprints.
Therefore, it is closely aligned with philosophy (which defines words like 'science' and 'religion', and phenomenology (which defines words like 'real'). 'Morality' is related to what is 'real'. It is a model that one goes by that they perceive is 'correct' or the 'proper way of behaving in society', including defining what 'society' they are behaving in!
Thus, even a gang member has a 'morality' model that he goes by. You don't steal from the gang, or rat out on the gang; for example.
Even an ant has a 'proper way of behaving in society', which is the ant nest. Go against that morality, and that ant will be kicked out of the next and now allowed to return. It will be perceived by the other ants as an enemy.
Ants attack each other rather commonly, one species raiding another for resources.
It is 'moral' for a wasp to attack a beehive. It is 'moral' for the bees to defend the hive from attack.
It is 'moral' to support the gang. It is 'moral' to try to follow the teaching of Jesus Christ. It is 'moral' fight a war and kill people.
Personally, I choose to support the teachings of Jesus Christ, to uphold the laws of the United States and support those that do, and to warn against those willing to subvert either. These are part of my morals.
They are different from anybody else's morals. They are as unique to me as my fingerprints.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
it can be part of one when somebody is dumb about it.
open your mind, she-fool.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
yes. and the gang members are more moral toward those also in the gang.
the definition still stands.
the golden rule is basic morality and still the core teaching of Christ.
reciprocity is the key to the definition, despite your bullshittery.
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
There are no standards without scripture, Gomer.
No men agree on a perfect moral code such as God established in this world he created.
His way is the standard all others are measured by.
Last edited:
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
the golden rule is nearly literally the definition of reciprocity.
why do you anti-christ chucklefucks hate Jesus?
why do you anti-christ chucklefucks hate Jesus?
10,000 kinds of horseshit. Man had moral standards long before your stupid fucking scriptures were written.
His way included incest, rape, slavery and the slaughter of innocents.
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
Oskar Schindker and Georgio Perlasca did not risk their lives saving thousands of complete strangers because they might get paid back in kind - and they weren't sitting there thinking about about how to make society more stable and mutually beneficial.
They saved thousands of strangers because they could comprehend absolute right from absolute wrong.
Your moral relativism is hard to defend and justify.
Gassing six million Jews was objectively wrong and absolutely evil. For all time and all place. Even if the Nazis had conquered the world and their propaganda machine convinced almost everyone the Jews were an existential threat to humanity, what they did would still be objectively evil and wrong in an absolute sense.
No, I do not agree at all.
My argument. Morality is just social conventions. I do not think god cares who is responsible for a car accident and whose insurance pays.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
is sniping Gaza babies in the head objectively wrong and absolutely evil for all time and all places?
your mind is actually a corrupt cesspool of degenerate evil, despite you blowing smoke up you own ass and arguing poorly all day long.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
cypress is a demon worshipping Zionist shill.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
well that's not a real moral issue is it?
how about sniping Gaza babies in the head.
would god care about that?
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
there is.
morality is a set of attitudes and behaviors that facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.
Jesus called It the golden rule.
but of course, deep state murder freaks love evil and so refuse to acknowledge or define shitty behavior.
Last edited: