Moral relativism

copy it, put to search engine, with "jesus"
This is what follows your drivel

Matt 12:50

For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother, and sister, and mother.”

Hes not turning on anyone you dimwitted ignoramus.
 
This is what follows your drivel

Matt 12:50

For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother, and sister, and mother.”

Hes not turning on anyone you dimwitted ignoramus.
This is why everyone calls you stupid.


"When someone told Jesus that his mother and brothers were outside wanting to speak to him, Jesus replied, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" He then pointed to his disciples and said that whoever does the will of God is his true brother, sister, and mother
 
And?

First off, the Constitution was ratified in 1789, after it cleared the New Hampshire signing in 1788. Regardless, I never said the BoR provides or confers rights.

I merely stated the fact that the BoR was "baked in" on the Constitution from the start. A guarantee of a BoR was a prerequisite to Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, and New Hampshire agreeing to the Union.
Revisionism.

The Bill of Rights was not part of the original Constitution of the United States.
They are AMENDMENTS.

The Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1788.
The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.
 
This is why everyone calls you stupid.


"When someone told Jesus that his mother and brothers were outside wanting to speak to him, Jesus replied, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" He then pointed to his disciples and said that whoever does the will of God is his true brother, sister, and mother
Id rather be stupid than retarded like you. Stupid can be fixed. Yours is permanent dumbass

And none of that is about him turning on his family except in that pea you call a brain that rattles around in your head
 
Id rather be stupid than retarded like you. Stupid can be fixed. Yours is permanent dumbass

And none of that is about him turning on his family except in that pea you call a brain that rattles around in your head
back to ignore
 
When Oskar Schindler risked his life for complete strangers, he wasn't thinking about how he wanted to "stabilize the social network". He was thinking about how his conscience was shocked at witnessing absolute evil.

Many animals who live in social networks will kill members of other troops and packs. Being a social animal does not mean you will refrain from killing, stealing, violence and brutality.

That's not morality, that's self-interest and reciprocity.

You are not morally praise worthy for cooperating with your kin group. That is hard wired into Darwinian evolution. Slapping the label "morality " on it is just a delusion. Nothing is easier than helping your family, your friends, your kin group. That's not praiseworthy.

You are morally praise worthy when you have exercised a universal moral duty to refrain from killing, lying, cheating, insulting, demeaning, disparaging anyone, even if they are strangers, rivals, people outside your kin group or tribe.

That's not morality. That's Darwinian self interest and reciprocity.

Chimps are vicious and brutal to anyone outside their kin group.

I am satisfied that you have conceded there is no such thing as morality or moral duty, outside of preserving your life and the lives of your kin group and tribe.

Your belief that we should emulate chimpanzee society is revealing.

That is an extremely cynical worldview.
.
You creationists are all TERRIFIED of the fact that humans are just animals.

Grow up. We ain’t that special
 
You creationists are all TERRIFIED of the fact that humans are just animals.

Grow up. We ain’t that special
If you had a heart problem im sure you're monkey doctor would figure out what the problem and save your life. The only thing is it might take as long as a monkey randomly typing out the great American novel. Hope spring eternal though
 
No Im not trying to declare my morals as absolute Im saying there are moral absolutes.
None.

As evidence of that I point to slave owners who thought it was fine to own slaves
According to their morals.
would not have wanted to be salves themselves.
Also according to their morals.
Thats hardly irrelevant to the discussion of moral absolutes.
There aren't any absolute morals.
If slavery was a good thing why didnt they want to be slaves themselves. Oh right, because slavery sucks and is nhumane.
RQAA. According to your morals.
Slavery isnt sentient but being slave is.
A slave has different morals.
The chicken was an analogy and the reasoning is exactly the same.
A chicken is not a human being. Do you think a chicken has morals?
The nature of a chicken doesnt change even if you think its something else.
A chicken is not a moral.
Telling me slave owners thought slavery was moral is nonsensical
Why? Slave owners obviously thought owning slaves was moral. A lot of his neighbors didn't think any of it either. It was just normal. They also thought owning slaves was moral.
and it didnt make slavery moral.
According to your morals.
There is an absolute reality.
No such thing. You cannot impose your reality on anybody else. Your reality is yours, and yours alone.
Go learn phenomenology (a branch of philosophy). Omniscience fallacy.

You will one day cease to be.
How do you know this? Omniscience fallacy.
Sharing is not cheating. I said cheating.
Unknown reference for this phrase. Care to elucidate?
 
The Articles of Confederation. Correct.



It was never intended to continue past the war for independence.

The Articles of Confederation did the job they were intended for. They were never intended to establish a lasting union.
Most of the time the Confederation of America was in force was during peacetime.

The War of Independence ended before the Confederation of America was ratified in 1781. The British surrendered later that year. The Confederation of America was the founding document that united the colonies.

The Confederation lasted until the Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1788.
The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791
 
Justification is the impact of actions, like FGM, on the person. That is what makes something immoral. It's the basis for making slavery, rape, child abuse, etc illegal - it's immoral because of what the action does the the victim.
...according to your morals.
 
Nope. That's not an explanation.

Under scientific Darwinian evolution,
Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.

rendering assistance and sacrificing your resources to aid strangers and rivals outside your kin group, tribe, or pack is a waste of time.
...according to who?
You never see lions bringing meat charitably to a rival pride.
Perhaps it's too far to walk. The local pride is closer.
The only thing that matters in Darwinian evolution
Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution, Cyborg.
is the protection and propagation of the genetic information of you and your kin group.
It is said that all men are brothers.
When Oskar Schindler decided to risk his money and his life to save thousands of strangers, he was not thinking about how to make a 'productive society'. He was thinking about the absolute evil he was witnessing and felt compelled to do something.
...according to his morals.
 
No, moral relativism ignores that actual impact on the victim.
Correct. Morals are not an impact on any 'victim'.
So, no matter how horrible, painful, mentally destructive an act is, you can label it as 'moral' if enough people say it's ok.
Morals are not a conensus.
So, "moral" has no true meaning to you and most leftists.
In the case of Hugo and many Democrats, this is true. They tend to be amoral. Their 'morals' almost literally shift with the wind.
 
There is no scientific basis for that explanation.
Why would there be? An explanation is not science. ALL theories are explanatory arguments, even nonscientific ones.
It's just vague conjecture.
It's not even that.
Fifty thousand years of human violence, warfare, greed, chaos, strife defy your claim that humans somehow just naturally cooperate for the preservation of peaceful productive societies.
This part is correct.
 
Back
Top