Is there ever a definitive situation of right and wrong?

[GhostAnime]

I'm appealing to everyone not just most people. Everyone includes experts in morals and ethics, John Locke, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes and every other philosopher that has ever lived. Expert testimony is not a fallacy ask any expert they will tell you we have a right to live. The people that wrote the bill of rights in the U.S. and England, declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in France and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights written by the U.N. All were experts in the subject and all agreed that people have a right to live. The only people who will respond any differently are the mentally ill. You cannot possibly make the claim that all those experts are wrong unless you can provide evidence. Which you have yet to come up with.

appeal to authority

You won't answer my question of whether or not you agree with the premise, because you do agree and that makes me correct, but rather than accept it or provide evidence against it you try to find anything you can, other than facts and evidence, that may make my argument appear as though it does not make sense.

but i'm not the one claiming anything. you are claiming that your premise is correct until proven wrong without providing any reason to believe it. that's shifting the burden of proof incorrectly. my opinion is irrelevant because i already stated that opinions do not equate to facts. when will you learn this?

until you accept YOUR claim and provide evidence for YOUR claim, i have no reason to believe that YOUR claim is true.

i mean, i could easily just shift this around and say:

premise 1: humans don't have the right to live
premise 2: killing is fine

conclusion: murder isn't wrong.

there's my evidence! prove that killing isn't wrong or i'm right! (just in case you don't get it, it's sarcasm; don't respond to it seriously).

 

[BFDD]

I am appealing to experts as well as the rest of the world. There is good reason for it because it is common sense. The difference between your premises and mine is that I agree with mine. I know you don't agree with yours and again only the mentally ill will agree. There is a reason they are considered mentally ill, its because their minds do not function like they should.

If I can't use the testimony of experts then I can't prove anything. All the debates on this site use scientists to provide evidence. Is that wrong too?

Philosophy is not like science it cannot do experiments to test things. There are certain things that are just known. These things are called common sense. Can you look at a dog and tell its a dog, probably, can you tell me how you know its a dog? Probably not, science can classify dogs based on teeth and DNA and other things that you cannot see just by looking. Is it the pointy ears? No cats also have pointy ears? The long slender snout? Nope lots of animals have a long slender snout. This is labeled as common sense we do not know how we know but we do know it, it is a fact. There are countless writings on the theory of natural laws, all coming to the same conclusion that we have a right to to.

My premises stand, I have the backing of experts and the entire world including yourself and yet you insist that I'm the one that needs evidence. If you disagree with it then show me the evidence. You insist repeatedly on me providing evidence, but I am presenting a theory backed by all the experts in the world, you need to provide the evidence. Not to mention I have provided reasons to support my premise. But you continue to come up with nothing. It is rather arrogant to assume you know more then people who spent their lives studying this subject, and then have no evidence to support it.

Dictionary.com says:

common sense
–noun
sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.

"People have a right to live" falls under sound practical judgment. As far as normal native intelligence children could tell you we have the right to live.

 

[GhostAnime]

I am appealing to experts as well as the rest of the world. There is good reason for it because it is common sense. The difference between your premises and mine is that I agree with mine. I know you don't agree with yours and again only the mentally ill will agree. There is a reason they are considered mentally ill, its because their minds do not function like they should.

you're still making the same fallacy here. calling it common sense doesn't make it any less of a fallacy. i can say it's common sense that 1+1=3 but it definitely isn't if you just use logic (which you have not presented).

If I can't use the testimony of experts then I can't prove anything. All the debates on this site use scientists to provide evidence. Is that wrong too?

scientists gather FACTS. you're just taking opinions from famous figures. they aren't the same thing. i realize that philosophy isn't like science but you still have to use SOME kind of logic somewhere instead of just asserting yourself. we don't declare that god exists because the majority says so, do we?

now, you have the choice whether to actually debate using facts, or a bunch of opinions that mean nothing. if you're going to continue equating opinions to facts and using fallacious arguments, there's no point in debating anymore because you're not even debating properly.

 

[BFDD]

I am presenting a THEORY THAT IS WIDELY ACCEPTED BY THE PHILOSOPHICAL COMMUNITY. 1+1=3 is not common sense it is wrong. I'm calling it common sense because thats what it is. Please take note of the example about the dog that you conveniently missed, it explains common sense.

I am debating properly and I have an A in two semesters of philosophy to prove I know what I am doing. My professor with a PhD in philosophy was the one that explained this idea to me that it is wrong to kill because there is no good reason why you should. Now I see why, when someone asked how do you know we have a right to live, he responded if you can't understand why we have the right to live you are irrational and there is no point in arguing. I gave you premises that are backed by the philosophical community and a logical conclusion. My premises are correct because if you disagree you have to accept the consequences I explained in a previous post.

And again you tell me I'm not debating properly, but I am using the agreed upon theory, I am debating in a way that my philosophy professor felt was good enough for an A. What authority do you have to tell me what proper debating is?

1. You agree with my premises and yet won't accept them. That is irrational.
2. You won't admit that people have a right to live despite the evidence, (though it is not empirical like scientific evidence, it is still evidence) this is also irrational.
3. You demand that I provide evidence, and I provide expert testimony, you respond by attacking my debating abilities. This is irrational.
4. You fail to provide anything resembling evidence that myself and entire philosophical community is wrong, but insist you know best. This is irrational.

I personally try to stay away from insulting another person during a debate, but if the shoe fits wear it. You are irrational and incapable of a logical argument so read up on some philosophy and maybe in a few years you will be able to develop some rationality. I am done trying to talk with you.

 

[GhostAnime]

get back to me when you finally prove both of your premises my friend without using fallacious arguments such as appeal to authority. i have nothing to prove to you. i've made statements based off of evidence not being given. i'm still waiting.

btw, you cannot show evidence for a negative.

 

[BFDD]

http://mises.org/story/2426
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm

Here are three sites worth of evidence. Not that it will really matter because you prefer to avoid real debate and just start screaming fallacy at anything you don't like.

 

[GhostAnime]

it is not 'screaming fallacy', it is simply pointing out the flaws in your arguments and you haven't even given a reason why your arguments weren't such.

now, what you've displayed to me (natural law) is nice. you need to think about something though: why do most humans think killing is wrong? ever thought about that?

it's easily explainable really. we live in a society that teaches us subconsciously that life is valuable. with that said, of course it's natural for us to be against the idea of cold-blooded murder. this doesn't prove that it's wrong as a fact, however. all you managed to do well tell me that it was natural for me to feel that way.

what about beings that were naturally violent thought violence was good and peace was wrong? how do we prove them wrong? how do we prove ourselves right? the thing is, there IS no way and simply going by what feels right to us isn't actually the same 'right' as logic and science.

 

[marthanoob]

An absolute - Humans are imperfect.
A human judgement on right or wrong cannot be perfect or definitive because we are flawed.
Because of this the whole concept of morality is flawed.
Morality: A code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong.
"Right" and "Wrong" are subjective therefore making them authoritative would be a twisted imposition of will.

The argument then boils down to whether "Right" and "Wrong" are subjective or objective.
I challenge anyone to show me how they are in anyway objective.

EDIT: Ghostanime explains my point well.

 

[BFDD]

Humans are flawed is an opinion...I agree that humans are flawed but you can't prove it.

Morals are not subjective, they are objective despite a few gray areas such as abortion.

Premise 1: People have a right to live
Premise 2: It is wrong to take someones rights without reason

Conclusion: Murder without a good reason is wrong

Can you honestly tell me there is a flaw in that logic? If so you either find life unimportant, which means if your friend or family member is murdered you have no right to complain because it doesn't matter anyways. Or you feel it is ok to take someone's rights without good reason which means you agree with Hitler, Stalin and every other ruthless dictator in history.

The premises have to be accepted because the consequences are unacceptable. Thus we can reasonably conclude that they are correct.

 

[GhostAnime]

Morals are not subjective, they are objective despite a few gray areas such as abortion.

you still continue to claim this without providing any evidence.

Premise 1: People have a right to live
Premise 2: It is wrong to take someones rights without reason

Conclusion: Murder without a good reason is wrong

more of the same premises that are unfounded. they are not correct just because you and everybody else agrees with them. hey, what if everybody agreed that slavery was right?

wait a minute...

 

[BFDD]

The premises have to be accepted because the consequences are unacceptable. Thus we can reasonably conclude that they are correct.

please read my posts

 

[GhostAnime]

why are the consequences unacceptable? there is no 'reason'; there is only 'i feel this way'.

you don't prove premises with opinions.

1) god exists
2) he created everything

conclusion: god is the ultimate creator.

they must be accepted because it's my opinion.

seriously, debate.

 

[BFDD]

The consequences are unacceptable because it is human nature. It is not an opinion that people feel bad when loved ones die, it is a fact. Because all humans of sound mind feel bad when loved ones die, the consequences are unacceptable. I not saying everyone thinks this way so it must be true, I'm saying it is human nature, there isn't a choice there is no opinion, people don't like it when loved ones die because it is built into them as human beings.

But again we will start to get back into the same circle we were before because you won't accept that reason is in fact a valid method a forming an argument. Which makes debate impossible, not because of lack of evidence but your own ignorance.

 

[GhostAnime]

It is not an opinion that people feel bad when loved ones die, it is a fact. Because all humans of sound mind feel bad when loved ones die, the consequences are unacceptable.

they're pretty much acceptable to the ones that do it.

and don't say they don't count either. the minority disbelieves in god.. remember?

I not saying everyone thinks this way so it must be true, I'm saying it is human nature, there isn't a choice there is no opinion, people don't like it when loved ones die because it is built into them as human beings.

where's the fact part? again, you're merely telling me we naturally feel something (of course based on how we were raised).

but how, it's natural to believe in a creator when your parents tell you to as a child because you don't question authority as a child naturally. i hope you see where i'm going with this.

But again we will start to get back into the same circle we were before because you won't accept that reason is in fact a valid method a forming an argument. Which makes debate impossible, not because of lack of evidence but your own ignorance.

how is ignorance asking for evidence? you are not providing anything but how you and the human race feels. that's the EXACT same thing religious people use yet you're atheist/agnostic. what's the difference?

 

[BFDD]

No it isn't ignorant to ask for evidence, but it is ignorant to not accept valid evidence. Reasoning is a valid form of evidence in philosophy. It is not a matter of me not providing evidence it is a matter of you either not comprehending or blatantly refusing it.

People that kill are either mentally ill, or believe they have good reason.

We don't believe killing is bad because our parents told us. It is human nature it is not learned. All cultures agree that it is wrong to kill for no reason (This is not an appeal to popularity, but a way to show evidence that no matter the upbringing the result is the same).

Can you show me evidence that human nature is based on how we were raised?

 

[GhostAnime]

but it is ignorant to not accept valid evidence. Reasoning is a valid form of evidence in philosophy.

but it isn't valid evidence when it's about god?

People that kill are either mentally ill, or believe they have good reason.

so? if killing was *truly* bad, nobody would do it.

We don't believe killing is bad because our parents told us. It is human nature it is not learned.

if it was human nature inside all of us at birth, then the people who weren't 'mentally ill' wouldn't be killing now would they?

All cultures agree that it is wrong to kill for no reason (This is not an appeal to popularity, but a way to show evidence that no matter the upbringing the result is the same).

and yet it hasn't been the same for murderers.

Can you show me evidence that human nature is based on how we were raised?

this is irrelevant to the discussion. you still haven't provided evidence for your premise. answering this question doesn't further the discussion in the actual debate.

 

[BFDD]

this is irrelevant to the discussion. you still haven't provided evidence for your premise. answering this question doesn't further the discussion in the actual debate.

This is very relevant:

where's the fact part? again, you're merely telling me we naturally feel something (of course based on how we were raised).

You used the fact that human nature was based on how we were raised to try and disprove my statement about it being human nature, it is very valid that you prove that statement because you are using that to disprove me. You keep trying to question me but have yet to answer any of my questions. Doesn't that seem a bit weird to you? I have to provide evidence for my statements but you don't?

Quote:
People that kill are either mentally ill, or believe they have good reason.

so?if killing was *truly* bad, nobody would do it.

What do you mean so? thats premise two of my original argument. Taking rights without good reason is bad. The evidence for that premise is the same as the first, human nature makes the consequences unacceptable.

but it isn't valid evidence when it's about god?

No it isn't valid because there is no reasoning for a belief in god just faith. And I can already see you asking "well your belief is faith you have no evidence for it" Don't bother we are currently arguing about the evidence. Your god analogy has no relevance in this debate.

and yet it hasn't been the same for murderers.

because they are either mentally ill or believe they have a good reason. I have already said that.

if it was human nature inside all of us at birth, then the people who weren't 'mentally ill' wouldn't be killing now would they?

People who are mentally ill do not have the mental capacity of a normal human. Do you even know what mentally ill means? They aren't going to act on human nature because they aren't normal.

Again your arguments make absolutely no sense, you seem to be searching for anything that appears to be a hole and posting irrelevant nonsense trying to refute it despite the fact that I have already given a reason for it. You bring up the fact that people kill as evidence that killing isn't bad? Or refute human nature by saying the mentally handicapped at differently? Do you see the problem here, you refuse to listen to reason, I don't know if you lack the capacity(seems likely) to reason or you are just trying to be obnoxious. You comment on my debate skills and yet your entire last post and most of your other posts fail to provide any relevant discussion towards the debate. On several occasions you have ignored what I have written and asked questions that I have already answered. You continue to treat philosophy like science, but you can't there is no tangible evidence only reasonable conclusions. Which I have provided numerous times.

 

[marthanoob]

Humans are flawed is an opinion...I agree that humans are flawed but you can't prove it.

By agreeing that all humans are imperfect, it is inferred that all humans are flawed.

Morals are not subjective, they are objective despite a few gray areas such as abortion.

Show me where they are objective.

Premise 1: People have a right to live

What about people who commit a perceptively "wrong" act?

Premise 2: It is wrong to take someones rights without reason

Describe "without reason".

Conclusion: Murder without a good reason is wrong

Who are you to decide what a good reason is?

Or you feel it is ok to take someone's rights without good reason which means you agree with Hitler, Stalin and every other ruthless dictator in history.

What they did was not 100% wrong or 100% bad.

The premises have to be accepted because the consequences are unacceptable.

To you.

 

[BFDD]

All of your questions have been explained in my previous posts.

Humans are flawed is an opinion...I agree that humans are flawed but you can't prove it.
By agreeing that all humans are imperfect, it is inferred that all humans are flawed.

The reason behind my comment about calling humans imperfect an opinion is to make a point, I was using the same response that Ghostanime likes to use and because you agree that the response was stupid you should see that point. Obviously humans are flawed its common sense, but is impossible to prove with tangible evidence, you could always argue that mistakes are subjective or that not all humans are flawed, but that is unreasonable to believe. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone accepts that is because all humans are flawed even though you can't possibly know about every human on the planet. Everyone agrees that people have a right to live, as I have explained previously, you can't disagree. The consequences are unacceptable for anyone in their right mind, anyone that has ever gotten upset over the lose of a life has already unconsciously admitted it.

my conclusion that murder without reason is wrong is based off the premises

Premise 1: People have a right to live
What about people who commit a perceptively "wrong" act?

It doesn't matter what they have done they have a right to live, but if you see my second premise people can be killed for good reason. Such as self defense. However good reason is the gray area I talked about. But in a situation a a guy walking down the street and stabbing a random person that is wrong, or even stabbing someone in order to steal from them, these are definitive situations of right and wrong.
Murder of an innocent person is always wrong because there is no good reason why the murderers want to kill is more important than their victims right to live.

Quote:
Premise 2: It is wrong to take someones rights without reason
Describe "without reason".

It really should say good reason, because anything could be a reason. "I felt like it" is a reason, but it isn't a good one.

Or you feel it is ok to take someone's rights without good reason which means you agree with Hitler, Stalin and every other ruthless dictator in history.
What they did was not 100% wrong or 100% bad.

So you disagree with the second premise or you just don't like my example? Let me clarify, if you disagree then you have no right to question your government, nor do you have a right to complain about anything anyone does, because disagreeing that it is wrong to take another's rights without good reason means that it is ok for anyone to do anything they want to anyone.

One example my professor used was:
Say there were helpless 1 month old babies lying on a table and you saw someone pouring lighter fluid on them and then the person lit a match. Would you do something about it?
If people don't have a right to live, why does it matter if he sets them on fire? If you can take away rights for any purpose what does it matter?

Is it still just me that finds the consequences unacceptable? Or is it anyone in their right mind that finds these consequences unacceptable?

 

[GhostAnime]

we'll be waiting for you to prove your premises anytime soon.

 

[BFDD]

I already did, you just won't accept it, like I said reasoning is a valid form of evidence.

 

[GhostAnime]

giving your subjective opinion isn't reasoning. it's just giving your opinion.

i've already demonstrated how it was invalid because it's simply religion all over again; yet, you remain agnostic/non-religious.

yet with morals it's somehow 'common sense'.

quit being a hypocrite.

 

[BFDD]

It isn't religion in religion you are not given any reason to believe, you are simply told this is how it is and are asked to take it on faith.

My argument is that it is true because no one in their right mind will accept the consequences of disagreeing. I'm sure you yourself have complained about something someone did to you at some point in your life. Because you are complaining you feel that they have wronged you, in order to wrong you, you have to have right. You even agree with my premises.

There is a big difference between agreeing because of faith (religion) and agreeing because you can't disagree (right to life).

Again it comes down to your own ignorance.

 

[GhostAnime]

It isn't religion in religion you are not given any reason to believe, you are simply told this is how it is and are asked to take it on faith.

this isn't morals because in morals you have not given any reason to believe; you simply told me that that's how it is because everybody says so.

My argument is that it is true because no one in their right mind will accept the consequences of disagreeing.

yeah, no one but the actual murderers. just like no one in their right mind would reject christianity... except the actual non-religious! please, stop being hypocritical.

disagree/agree, WHAT THE HELL DOES IT MATTER?

i want facts.

 

[marthanoob]

The reason behind my comment about calling humans imperfect an opinion is to make a point, I was using the same response that Ghostanime likes to use and because you agree that the response was stupid you should see that point. Obviously humans are flawed its common sense, but is impossible to prove with tangible evidence, you could always argue that mistakes are subjective or that not all humans are flawed, but that is unreasonable to believe. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone accepts that is because all humans are flawed even though you can't possibly know about every human on the planet. Everyone agrees that people have a right to live, as I have explained previously, you can't disagree. The consequences are unacceptable for anyone in their right mind, anyone that has ever gotten upset over the lose of a life has already unconsciously admitted it.

There is no discovered evidence of a "perfect" human. It remains a valid axiom.
The supposed axioms you use do not have evidence.

It doesn't matter what they have done they have a right to live, but if you see my second premise people can be killed for good reason. Such as self defense. However good reason is the gray area I talked about.

Are you going to define exactly where the boundaries of the gray area stretch?

But in a situation a a guy walking down the street and stabbing a random person that is wrong, or even stabbing someone in order to steal from them, these are definitive situations of right and wrong.

That's subjective.

Murder of an innocent person is always wrong because there is no good reason why the murderer's want to kill is more important than their victims right to live.

"Good" is subjective, relative, and personal (in other words, culturally conditioned).
How do you know that person is innocent? How do you know that murderer wanted to kill the victim? There are so many unknown variables that making a definitive judgement is impossible. A practical judgement is what goes on in today's society.

So you disagree with the second premise or you just don't like my example?

Just the example.

One example my professor used was:
Say there were helpless 1 month old babies lying on a table and you saw someone pouring lighter fluid on them and then the person lit a match. Would you do something about it?
If people don't have a right to live, why does it matter if he sets them on fire? If you can take away rights for any purpose what does it matter?

There would be too many variables to make a definitive decision. Example: Overpopulation may come into consideration, the baby's history, the person's intent, etc.
Anyway, the decision I take would be personal, without proper reasoning or enough information, and subjective.

Is it still just me that finds the consequences unacceptable? Or is it anyone in their right mind that finds these consequences unacceptable?

Describe how "unacceptable" is not subjective.

 

[BFDD]

Even murders agree, haven't you been paying attention, agree that people have a right to live does not mean you can't kill people, murderers are either sociopaths in which case they don't function like a normal human, or they feel they have good reason. A soldier's job is to kill and yet they still get upset if their comrade dies.

The only ones who are willing to accept the consequences of disagreeing are not normal functioning humans.

Agree/disagree matter because that is the entire point if you can't disagree unless you are mentally ill or lying then it must be true. There is nothing hypocritical in that.

You can disagree with Christianity with out being mentally ill.

Again you insist on facts and I'm telling you the only facts there are is a reasonable conclusion which I have repeated over and over and over again.

If you see an animal you can reasonably conclude it is (or is not) a dog just by looking at it, but you can't tell me why it looks like a dog, just that is does. Similarly I can not hand you any facts other than a reasonable conclusion as to why it is true.

@marthanoob

the limit of the gray areas are irrelevant. It does not matter in the described situations.
Yes when it comes to a court of law all these need to be taken into account, but again I am simply stating reasons why there is a definitive situation of right and wrong. Good is sometimes a subjective term and depends on the person thats why I said there are some gray areas. If someone murdered someone else because they felt like it, that is a bad reason, a good reason needs to be rational. If I think it is going to rain outside because I like cake, that is not a good reason. A reason has to be rational for it to be good.

You are really looking way to deep into the situations, you would let someone set babies on fire because of over population, I think you are stretching things a bit to far. Take the examples for what they are not the chance of hidden variables. Personally it is sounding like you are running out of excuses when you start questioning every detail in a simple example like that.

 

[GhostAnime]

you're just giving off dumb excuses to disregard anybody that disagrees. that's not how we handle subjective opinions my friend.

You can disagree with Christianity with out being mentally ill.

the christians sure don't think so. they dismiss you as mentally ill!

Again you insist on facts and I'm telling you the only facts there are is a reasonable conclusion which I have repeated over and over and over again.

and i keep telling you that it isn't a fact; it is merely your opinion and you've yet to go further than just stating your opinion. we haven't even debated the actual topic yet.

 

[BFDD]

Professionals decide that the person is mentally ill, mentally ill is not subjective, Christians may believe anyone who disagree are mentally ill but that doesn't make it true. People who study the human mind have scientifically shown that those who do not believe others have a right to live, have a mind functionally different from that of a normal human.

I don't care if you keep telling me it isn't fact, you are not an authority on the subject. I need facts to prove it isn't a fact not just your opinion.

If morals are subjective, then moral relativity(the belief that all moral views are equal) is correct. But to believe that moral relativity is correct you have to believe that moral relativity is better than all other moral beliefs and it contradicts itself. All logical contradictions are false. You can then conclude that morals are in fact objective because they can't be subjective, unless there is another option that I'm not aware of.

 

[Dark Hart]

I'm going to put my two cents here.

Right and wrong are, for the most part, a matter of personal opinion. There are definitly certain situations where there is a right and wrong decision i.e. "Should I kill someone?" No, of coarse not. "Should I help my get off of drugs" Yes. But for the most part, it's extremly subjective. The reason people even post on the Debate Hall, the reason the Debate Hall is even here, is to discuss and debate what's "right and wrong" because of it objectivity.

@GhostAnime - I don't think that a majority of the Christians think I'm mentally ill for being Jewish.

 

[GhostAnime]

Professionals decide that the person is mentally ill, mentally ill is not subjective, Christians may believe anyone who disagree are mentally ill but that doesn't make it true. People who study the human mind have scientifically shown that those who do not believe others have a right to live, have a mind functionally different from that of a normal human.

the human mind changed throughout the years. we used to think we didn't really need a good reason to kill anybody. now we do. it is not some kind of 'gene' but rather how one grew up.

I don't care if you keep telling me it isn't fact, you are not an authority on the subject. I need facts to prove it isn't a fact not just your opinion.

i don't have to have authority to tell you 3rd grade terms.

If morals are subjective, then moral relativity(the belief that all moral views are equal) is correct. But to believe that moral relativity is correct you have to believe that moral relativity is better than all other moral beliefs and it contradicts itself.

no, moral relativists just say they're relative; nothing more.

 

[BFDD]

the human mind changed throughout the years. we used to think we didn't really need a good reason to kill anybody. now we do. it is not some kind of 'gene' but rather how one grew up.

Um... what?

Quote:
I don't care if you keep telling me it isn't fact, you are not an authority on the subject. I need facts to prove it isn't a fact not just your opinion.
i don't have to have authority to tell you 3rd grade terms.

Thats still an opinion. I need facts stop avoiding my questions learn how to debate.

no, moral relativists just say they're relative; nothing more.

So morals are relative to each individuals society, but some societies beliefs are less than others?

 

[Vro]

So morals are relative to each individuals society, but some societies beliefs are less than others?

No. They're all invalid, including your own society's. However, you must remain to the "norm" in your own society. That is moral relativism. There is no such thing as a universal or standard moral in moral relativism.

 

[GhostAnime]

Um... what?

in other words.. our morals are not set inside our brains the moment we're born.. -_-

Thats still an opinion. I need facts stop avoiding my questions learn how to debate.

what are you talking about here? i'm merely mentioning your confusion between fact and opinion.

 

[BFDD]

You have yet to show me evidence that my statement is opinion and not a fact. You show no authority on determining fact and opinion, but you seem to deny deductive reasoning as a way to prove the evidence. Why can't I use deductive reasoning to prove my point, actually the specific term is reductio ad absurdum. The consequences to disagreeing are absurd and cannot be accepted, even by murderers. The only exception is people who aren't normal functioning human beings. Now tell me why that is wrong without out just blowing off as an opinion. Tell me why, prove your statements, you insist I provide evidence for every comment I make and yet you merely accept everything that you say as truth without evidence this goes both ways. Opinion or not it is impossible to disagree without being mentally ill.

Quote:
the human mind changed throughout the years. we used to think we didn't really need a good reason to kill anybody. now we do. it is not some kind of 'gene' but rather how one grew up.

Can you prove that we didn't think we needed a reason to kill someone back in the old days, again you say something that has absolutely no basis and take it as fact. Some morals may be based on how we grew up but there is a basic set of morals that are objective and these have been shown in all cultures, murder and theft have all had laws against it in all cultures, in all time periods, cultures that are completely separated and have not had contact agree. You still have yet to prove that it is how we grew up and don't try to dodge that question as irrelevant because that is the statement you are using to try to disprove me, it is very relevant.

The point I am trying to make is not that everything is cut and dry right or wrong, especially in real life situations when there are many factors involved, however there are certain things that are objective again murder and theft, because it comes down to the offender believing their wants are more important than the victim for no good reason.

 

[GhostAnime]

you want evidence that your statement is an opinion?

because you can't provide any logical facts.

Can you prove that we didn't think we needed a reason to kill someone back in the old days, again you say something that has absolutely no basis and take it as fact

people used to kill others because they believed in different gods. today, that isn't all too common.

people used to kill over racial reasons. again, not too common anymore (at least where it used to be in america).

really, it isn't just killing either. there are a bunch of moral situations that used to be right but is now wrong today. the fact that they changed over time just implies that it depends on the society.

thus, it is not some kind of thing implanted into your brain at birth. you're going to have to show evidence for that, too.

 

[BFDD]

People used to believe killing over gods was a good reason (Many still do)

People used to believe race was a good reason to kill

The only thing that changed was that people changed what they thought was a good reason. They still thought it was bad to kill those that agreed with their religion, and those of the same race. They changed what form of killing they thought was ok. (though that still doesn't make it right, but that is not the point)

Some morals are objective some can be thought of as subjective. The question asked by the original poster was is there a definitive situation of right and wrong, I am saying yes, but not all the time.

If it wasn't built into our brain at birth humans would not have developed into communities. They would have lived alone and fought and killed each individual over territory and lived as solitary creatures. Instead humans formed tribes that fought and killed other tribes over territory. The human mind is genetically built to allow humans to work in communities. If it wasn't we couldn't have formed communities. If it wasn't built into our brains that killing is bad communities could never have formed. That and we would have homicidal toddlers running around.

 

[GhostAnime]

The only thing that changed was that people changed what they thought was a good reason. They still thought it was bad to kill those that agreed with their religion, and those of the same race. They changed what form of killing they thought was ok. (though that still doesn't make it right, but that is not the point)

you're ignoring the point. the fact is that they CHANGED. if they change and vary, that means that it isn't 'implanted at birth'.

Some morals are objective some can be thought of as subjective. The question asked by the original poster was is there a definitive situation of right and wrong, I am saying yes, but not all the time.

if they aren't all of the time then they can't be objective. it's either one or the other. you've yet to prove your premises for ones you feel that ARE objective, anyway.

If it wasn't built into our brain at birth humans would not have developed into communities. They would have lived alone and fought and killed each individual over territory and lived as solitary creatures. Instead humans formed tribes that fought and killed other tribes over territory.

'killed other tribes'? you do realize that that's murder in today's society, right?

The human mind is genetically built to allow humans to work in communities. If it wasn't we couldn't have formed communities. If it wasn't built into our brains that killing is bad communities could never have formed. That and we would have homicidal toddlers running around.

this is irrelevant. we've already been over this. opinions don't change even if you naturally have an opinion. it is still an opinion.

 

[BFDD]

Originally Posted by BFDD View Post
The only thing that changed was that people changed what they thought was a good reason. They still thought it was bad to kill those that agreed with their religion, and those of the same race. They changed what form of killing they thought was ok. (though that still doesn't make it right, but that is not the point)
you're ignoring the point. the fact is that they CHANGED. if they change and vary, that means that it isn't 'implanted at birth'.

I'm ignoring the point? People continued to believe that murder without reason was bad. The reasons murder can be accepted changed, but at the core they still all agreed murder without reason is bad

if they aren't all of the time then they can't be objective. it's either one or the other. you've yet to prove your premises for ones you feel that ARE objective, anyway.

Again I have to repeat myself, at the core MURDER WITHOUT REASON IS WRONG that is objective no matter the culture no matter the upbringing. The subjective part comes when people give reasons for their murder, at some point race was seen as good reason, or religion, but at no point "because I felt like it" was ever considered a good reason.

'killed other tribes'? you do realize that that's murder in today's society, right?

What is your point? Laws have changed yes you have that one correctly. I'm not arguing laws here. I am arguing morals. At the time territory was a good reason accepted by society. Killing someone in your own tribe was considered a bad thing.

this is irrelevant. we've already been over this. opinions don't change even if you naturally have an opinion. it is still an opinion.

It is relevant because I am telling you that it isn't an opinion. If it is naturally occurring it falls under instinct. Not to mention the fact that you fail to recognize my point. I was refuting your idea that morals are learned. You have committed a fallacy by misinterpreting my point. You keep telling me to debate properly but you continue to misinterpret my arguments and in some cases completely ignore my previous points. I honestly can't tell if you are doing it on purpose or not but there is no winning a argument against someone who can't argue properly. I'm not going to post anymore in this topic because everything I need to prove my point has already been stated at least twice. Unless someone else joins in the debate with some valid point that I have yet to answer this is just going to go in circles.

 

[GhostAnime]

I'm ignoring the point? People continued to believe that murder without reason was bad. The reasons murder can be accepted changed, but at the core they still all agreed murder without reason is bad

but the reasons changed and varied. it is irrelevant. non-sophisticated societies killed for no real reason. sophisticated societies killed for varied reasons.

the point is, there is nothing implanted in us that keeps us from not killing people for any/no reason.

Again I have to repeat myself, at the core MURDER WITHOUT REASON IS WRONG that is objective no matter the culture no matter the upbringing. The subjective part comes when people give reasons for their murder, at some point race was seen as good reason, or religion, but at no point "because I felt like it" was ever considered a good reason.

still repeating your opinion. when will you learn to actually know HOW to prove something? giving me everybody's opinion does not prove a fact.

What is your point? Laws have changed yes you have that one correctly. I'm not arguing laws here. I am arguing morals. At the time territory was a good reason accepted by society. Killing someone in your own tribe was considered a bad thing.

'considered'.

think about that word for a moment. why do so many different people consider different values? some didn't have any period. why is that?

It is relevant because I am telling you that it isn't an opinion. If it is naturally occurring it falls under instinct.

so if somebody kills, then how is that not their instinct?

and that still doesn't make it a fact that killing is 'wrong'. the only fact you've presented is that most sophisticated humans grow up to think killing is wrong. well, most americans grow up loving pizza. if i hated pizza, am i wrong for not liking it?

 

[BFDD]

All of those questions I have either already answered or are completely missing my point, please read my posts.