Acceptable is not a good word in the context. Acceptable means acceptable to someone. Pretty much every moral position is acceptable to some and unacceptable to others. But otherwise I agree with what I think you are trying to say.
In fact, even the morals presented in the media, that you were complaining about, cannot be called wrong by someone who thinks morals are subjective.
We’ll he can deny it on the grounds that it is merely a subjective position whoever it is decided has. He or she can fight against it, but he or she cannot declare it is objectively wrong.
He or she could oppose it with dirty nuclear devices in cities or huge campaigns or advertizing. There is no limit to how they could oppose this.
Here’s the thing, once you, for example, say that morals are subjective, you cannot then tell people they are wrong. You cannot label things like that any more. You can only say you dislike it.
Morals aren’t entirely subjective if that was the case there would be no laws at all that are universal amongst nations.
Ok say I was to bring in a law that all women who were unfaithful to their husbands should be tortured to death, would it be ethical to refrain from judgement on this, just because it’s a differing cultures laws?
Say I journeyed to another country and openly flouted all their laws, because well it’s all subjective and they don’t exist in my country, would I be right to do so?
Say I have a choice to kill my son or 1000 people, if I chose to save my son would this be morally acceptable because of my personal attachment to the subject?
I’ll say it again who makes the argument that morals are entirely subjective? This is a strawman. Moral subjectivism is inherently hard to follow to the extreme, it therefore does not work in ethical terms. People do not therefore espouse it ardently as an a priori argument. Which is exactly what you appear to be doing, assuming that moral subjectivism is a given.
Does God exist because there are many nations that hold it to be true?
Tell me, is human thought subjective or objective?
What is common in human thinking?
So, you are claiming that there is something naturally “wrong” with torture or could it be a construct meant to improve human social stability?
No, but you might be dead.
Ask Abraham.
In what sense are 1000 = to your own blood?
Ah, so now whomever is against your naive views is using a strawman, and we can add this to entropy being a pseudo-scientific bullshit idea.
Nice little box you’ve crawled into…a socially acceptable one. It was given to you.
Given that you’ve offered no argument, except for some rhetorical questions and declarations, I would say the strawman is the one where your myths are given credence by the fact that they are popular.
Playing upon emotions, aren’t ya?
How deplorable it would be to kill your own son, but then you wish to be liked and accepted by the majority, so here you are telling them that you would rather kill your own than kill a thousand of theirs.
Morality, my dreamy, doe eyed, idealist, hiding a real motive, is the social application of a natural survival adaptation, making cooperative unities and social interactions possible.
It’s like gender…another red-flag for you bleeding hearts and moral spirits of goodness.
I suspect that the first to contradict their own bullshit goodness are those that so brilliantly construct lies and pretenses to wear a socially acceptable uniform wanting to be seen as some kind of superhero fighting off injustice and suffering and hunger and blah, blah, blah…
Look into a church and you’ve find the most degenerate and immoral ones; the ones who declare Love as their God.
They need it to be some mystical force to remain loyal to it, because without it they return to what comes more natural to them.
Change something must only include self, and those closest to you: your blood your kind.
Changing the world is what a nihilistic idealist wishes to do…instead of changing himself in relation to the world (adaptation) he wishes to change the world in relation to himself (naive, idealism, and nihilism)
My point was Lollipop no moral system is completely subjective, without running up against extremes where you can disprove the validity of them, that doesn’t mean I think that all systems are objective either nor that therefore God exists.
I don’t believe in God nor divine command theory btw.
Let me give you an example, murder is universally wrong/illegal in all countries by definition, but is it objectively? Either extreme is pointless. I’m sure you could rattle off a half dozen reasons to commit murder in your head in the time it took me to type this. And no doubt most people would agree in those extraordinary circumstances murder is not wrong: justifiable homicide, where a murder charge has been overturned on the grounds it was not wrong given the extenuating circumstances for example. I would make a case for moral pragmatism, ie for basing each case on its intrinsic merit, but it’s not really the subject of the thread.
Incidentally I am also perfectly willing to accept that black people are mentally inferior inherently, but I have not seen good evidence to back this up. Hence I remain neutral.
Wrong…you jump straight for the modern, the current.
If you delve deeper you will find that what is common in human thinking is also common in all life, for thinking is a tool evolved to do a job. What happened to it afterward is another issue.
The common factor is need.
Later when more higher cognitive abilities evolve this need turns to anxiety/fear.
Well true I was talking about modern humans. I can’t disagree that more primitive times lead to something other than reason, but at least irrational fears then were the product of ignorance.
Modern man is much more vulnerable to fears for many reasons.
Here are a few:
Sheltering, making moderns inexperienced with the emotion and so easily manipulated and affected with the slightest increase in it.
Modern obsessions with slasher films and this intoxication of adrenaline junkies along with this popular trend of computer games portraying environments none have experienced and would probably be unable to function within if they ever were.
Order…all social systems provide a predictable consistency which eventually turns to ennui.
Modern man believes that courage is the absence of fear whereas it is ignorance and obliviousness which describes this absence…if not some brain dysfunction.
Fear is a positive in that it increases the probability for survival within harsh and dangerous environments…natural ones.
Many moderns use the “fear” aspect defensively, not realizing that fear is present in all healthy human minds, but how one deals with it is what differentiates the brave one the objective one from the subjective, idealistic naive coward.
Here are a couple of other favorite modernistic defensive terms where the one using them has no clue about what the hell they are talking about:
1-Projecting.
A favorite term used by those who have no argument and do not even realize that projecting is what all minds do and must do…with varying degrees of success.
2-Baggage.
Another favorite term, trying to imply that the other is burdened by a past, which is, of course, the case with everyone.
We can even say that one basic characteristic of post-modernism, modernity, is this obsession with eradicating, denouncing, “overcoming” the past.
But, the past is what experience is and what identity is built upon.
Know Thyself means: know and accept your past.
Denouncing the past, to be “reborn”, like a Christian, is a denouncement of one’s own self.
I only use projecting on people who are trolling, it’s the old psychological game thing. Trolling trolls. Well it’s funny to me what can I say.
That said I agree with your post, not just because modern man should know better, but because we are weak as well, we don’t have the excuse of ignorance. But then we are supposedly not in environments that involve fear any more, which is ironic because there has never been a better time to shit yourself.
Morality would be relative to that society. As in any human community, one goes with the flow, or gets punished/chastised.
Human nature is as is, is it not?
Morals are whatever a society determines them as.
I personally believe in subjectivism, since nothing is truly absolute. Whilst most would condemn murder, rape, etc., one cannot prove these objectively wrong. Under moral subjectivism, any societal norm is permissible, it simply logically follows. I would further state that moral subjectivism is the modern Western moral paradigm. Religion does not play a role in our societies as it once did, and extensive studies in many scientific disciplines show no evidence of absolute morals or even human values.
Just kick back, and enjoy the unbalanced rationalizations the new crop of shitheads will add to this precious shitheap Magsj has been nurturing for years, as its her precious child. Its her favorite thread, she got so excited and nostalgic last time I bumped it. Said she thought she would never see it again. I reunited her with it. And now again.
Its like, the sum of all troll posts wrapped in a bacon enigma. So fuck up… I can’t turn away. What will they say next?
Oh God… is that Satyr under the nickname Lollipop King?
How did that happen?
At first I assumed it was a joke by the moderators, after they banned him.
But it seems that he posted while under that nickname, so it’s also possible that he is being facetious, and making fun of himself, or, more likely, ILP?
Either way, I laughed a little too hard at that one. Notice the status, ‘feminized’, location: ‘Sugar factory’
May be so… but I find it better off not to be under the cast of an possessed shadow of a Assinnum, so pay his posts little attention. Pretty much every other post of his is “my dick, my dick, everyone look at my dick”. I got my own dick to worry about, and it ain’t interested in his.
