Moral relativism: open discussion

[Into the Night]

Once again, some idiot decides that censorship is going to work. It doesn't.

Starting an open discussion thread of moral relativism.

 

[Into the Night]

You think it's immoral while at exactly the same time some else thinks it's okie dokie. I'll ask you again how can an action be both moral and immoral at the exact same time?[/QUOTE

@Yakuda , An action is not a moral. The opinion of that action is the moral. One person has one set of morals, another person has another set of morals.

Some people consider FGM moral. Some people, you and me included, consider it immoral.
I do not agree with Islamic fucks that think FGM is moral. You don't either. But to them it IS moral.

To you and me, it is immoral.

This is each according to our own personal set of morals.

You are trying to build a paradox by attempting to equate a personal moral being two things at the same time. That is not the case.
Your set of morals are unique to you. My set of morals are unique to me. An Islamic fuck's morals are unique to him.

Can a person change their set of morals? Certainly. It often happens, for example, when one accepts a different religion as their own (converts).

 

[Into the Night]

First there is a word missing in my post.

There are definitely immoral acts

What I feel bad about has nothing to do with anything

Yes, there are acts that you consider immoral, just as some terrorist considers your acts as immoral.

 

[Yakuda]

@Yakuda , An action is not a moral. The opinion of that action is the moral. One person has one set of morals, another person has another set of morals.

Some people consider FGM moral. Some people, you and me included, consider it immoral.
I do not agree with Islamic fucks that think FGM is moral. You don't either. But to them it IS moral.

To you and me, it is immoral.

This is each according to our own personal set of morals.

You are trying to build a paradox by attempting to equate a personal moral being two things at the same time. That is not the case.
Your set of morals are unique to you. My set of morals are unique to me. An Islamic fuck's morals are unique to him.

Can a person change their set of morals? Certainly. It often happens, for example, when one accepts a different religion as their own (converts).

I never claimed an action is a moral I said an action is either moral or immoral. Pay attention to what I write not what you think I wrote.

 

[Into the Night]

I was responding to a poster who believes morals area personal choice. I was making a point.

Your morals are your personal choice. No other can force them upon you.

 

[Into the Night]

I never claimed an action is a moral I said an action is either moral or immoral. Pay attention to what I write not what you think I wrote.

Welcome to the open discussion.

An action is nor a moral.
Only the opinion of that action is a moral.

 

[Into the Night]

Right I told you when you first posted it there is as a word missing. It should have read.

"No AN act is either moral or immoral. FGM is either moral or immoral. It can't be immoral at the exact same moment it's immoral. That's lazy and leftist gum clapping bullshit"

This is a false dichotomy (a fallacy).

FGM is an action.

It is not a moral.
The OPINION of that act is a moral, and part of your personal set of morals.
It is your morals that you use to declare the act 'immoral'.
I have the same opinion here. I consider the act of FGM to be immoral.

Others, however, consider it moral. It is their opinion, based on their personal set of morals, just as you base your opinion here on your personal set of morals.

It goes both ways, too.

You support the United States and honor its constitution. To you, that is moral.
To some terrorist Islamic fuck, they consider supporting the United States to be immoral.

 

[Yakuda]

Welcome to the open discussion.

An action is nor a moral.
Only the opinion of that action is a moral.

repeating something I never said is a waste of time. If you keep doing it I wont waste anymore time with you.

No opinion is not a moral either and an opinion doesnt take from another huamn being something that doesnt belong to them. Opinion are fucking useless. Actions are what effect people. Taking what doesnt belong to you is immoral, I dont give a fuck what your opinion about it is. Opinion is just another way to say justification. People can justify anything doing so doesnt make an immoral thing moral. Im sure Hitler thought killing Jews was just and moral but others didnt. So according to you genocide of the jews was both moral and immoral at the same time because while hitlers opinion (justification) was that killing jews by the millions was okie dokie, others at the very same time thought it wasnt. Thats your argument in a nutshell.

 

[Yakuda]

This is a false dichotomy (a fallacy).

FGM is an action.

It is not a moral.
The OPINION of that act is a moral, and part of your personal set of morals.
It is your morals that you use to declare the act 'immoral'.
I have the same opinion here. I consider the act of FGM to be immoral.

Others, however, consider it moral. It is their opinion, based on their personal set of morals, just as you base your opinion here on your personal set of morals.

It goes both ways, too.

You support the United States and honor its constitution. To you, that is moral.
To some terrorist Islamic fuck, they consider supporting the United States to be immoral.

Yes FGM is an action and its immoral regardless of anyones "opinion"(justification)

 

[Into the Night]

repeating something I never said is a waste of time. If you keep doing it I wont waste anymore time with you.

No opinion is not a moral either

A moral is an opinion.

and an opinion doesnt take from another huamn being something that doesnt belong to them.

An action is not a moral.

Opinion are fucking useless.

Opinions are rather important to the person making the opinion.

Actions are what effect people.

Okay.

Taking what doesnt belong to you is immoral,

So if I pick a daisy in an open field, you consider that immoral?

I dont give a fuck what your opinion about it is.

Obviously.

Opinion is just another way to say justification.

Nope. Opinion is just that...an opinion. An opinion is used to justify. People DO use their own set of morals as justification.

People can justify anything

Very true. I have provided numerous examples.

doing so doesnt make an immoral thing moral.

It certainly can.

Im sure Hitler thought killing Jews was just and moral

That he did. So did several other Germans.

but others didnt.

Also true, particularly the Allied forces when they discovered what Hitler was doing.

So according to you genocide of the jews was both moral and immoral at the same time

It was immoral to the Allied soldiers. It was moral to Hitler and several Germans.
You are still trying to build a contradiction that does not exist.

because while hitlers opinion (justification) was that killing jews by the millions was okie dokie,

Because it was part of his set of morals. To Hitler, killing Jews was moral.

others at the very same time thought it wasnt.

Also true. Different people, different morals.

Thats your argument in a nutshell.

Correct.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes FGM is an action and its immoral regardless of anyones "opinion"(justification)

...which is nothing more than your opinion and your own set of morals.
To some Islamic believers, it is moral. That too is their opinion.

 

[Yakuda]

...which is nothing more than your opinion and your own set of morals.
To some Islamic believers, it is moral. That too is their opinion.

But the act in and of itself is intrinsically immoral. You claim its my opinion that its immoral, you might be right but my "opinion" coincides with reality. My "opinion" doesnt make the act immoral the act is immoral.

 

[serenity]

Once again, some idiot decides that censorship is going to work. It doesn't.

Starting an open discussion thread of moral relativism.

You talking about mutual time evolving as ancestrally displaced or situational ethics by people pretending genetic outcomes cannot exist in plain sight as specificially eternally separated by their own heartbeats daily here since conception?

Just trying to clarify if all you want to debate is theories and theologies 7 days a week until extinction arrives or have an honest discussion about ancestral lineages existing in series parallel proportions daily here.

Humanity has this dream state of mind of creating a perpetual balancing universe when it is already happening throughout history of people rejecting genetic outcomes are physically eternally separated daily here.

 

[Into the Night]

But the act in and of itself is intrinsically immoral.

Back to that again, eh?
It is your opinion that the act is immoral.
The act itself is not a moral.

You claim its my opinion that its immoral,

It is.

you might be right but my "opinion" coincides with reality.

Your reality is unique to you as well. My reality is different from your reality.
Reality is nothing more than your interpretation of your own experiences in the world.

So to say that your opinion coincides with your own reality is just being redundant.

As an example: Let's take the event of a sunrise.

To one, it is a god rising above the horizon to bring light to his subjects.
To another, it is a vehicle carrying such a god.
To another, is the Sun orbiting a stationary Earth.
To another, it isn't moving at all. Just the Earth's rotation makes appear to move.

One event, four different realities. To each, what they see is completely different, even though it is the same event.

My "opinion" doesnt make the act immoral the act is immoral.

An act is not a moral.
Your opinion of that act is part of your set of morals.

You continue to insist that an act in and of itself is a moral. It is not. You use the word 'intrinsic'. That means you consider the act itself to be a moral. It is not.

There is no such thing as an 'absolute moral'.
There is no such thing as an 'absolute reality'.

You cannot declare your set of morals 'universal' or 'absolute'.

 

[Into the Night]

You talking about mutual time evolving as ancestrally displaced or situational ethics by people pretending genetic outcomes cannot exist in plain sight as specificially eternally separated by their own heartbeats daily here since conception?

I am trying to unwind this, but the sentence is too mangled.

Just trying to clarify if all you want to debate is theories and theologies 7 days a week until extinction arrives or have an honest discussion about ancestral lineages existing in series parallel proportions daily here.

Humanity has this dream state of mind of creating a perpetual balancing universe when it is already happening throughout history of people rejecting genetic outcomes are physically eternally separated daily here.

I can only assume that your random words somehow mean something to you, but language is a method of communication. You must use English to communicate with English speaking people here.

 

[Yakuda]

Back to that again, eh?
It is your opinion that the act is immoral.
The act itself is not a moral.

It is.

Your reality is unique to you as well. My reality is different from your reality.
Reality is nothing more than your interpretation of your own experiences in the world.

So to say that your opinion coincides with your own reality is just being redundant.

As an example: Let's take the event of a sunrise.

To one, it is a god rising above the horizon to bring light to his subjects.
To another, it is a vehicle carrying such a god.
To another, is the Sun orbiting a stationary Earth.
To another, it isn't moving at all. Just the Earth's rotation makes appear to move.

One event, four different realities. To each, what they see is completely different, even though it is the same event.


An act is not a moral.
Your opinion of that act is part of your set of morals.

You continue to insist that an act in and of itself is a moral. It is not. You use the word 'intrinsic'. That means you consider the act itself to be a moral. It is not.

There is no such thing as an 'absolute moral'.
There is no such thing as an 'absolute reality'.

You cannot declare your set of morals 'universal' or 'absolute'.

You repeat yourself. Copy and paste where I said an act is a moral.

First, intrinsic is an adjective. An adjective is:

1. a word naming an attribute of a noun

in this case naming an attribute of FGM is, that its immoral. Its nonsensical to claim the act is a moral.

 

[Into the Night]

You repeat yourself. Copy and paste where I said an act is a moral.

First, intrinsic is an adjective. An adjective is:

1. a word naming an attribute of a noun

in this case naming an attribute of FGM is, that its immoral. Its nonsensical to claim the act is a moral.

"But the act in and of itself is intrinsically immoral. "

Normally I don't do this. Don't try to deny your own posts. Anyone can read them.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

Your morals are your personal choice. No other can force them upon you.

but many choose Immorals as their morals. like behaviors that do not lead to trust and cooperation.

 

[Yakuda]

"But the act in and of itself is intrinsically immoral. "

Normally I don't do this. Don't try to deny your own posts. Anyone can read them.

Yes an intrinsic attribute of FGM is that its immoral.

I havent denied a thing. You want to insist an act is a moral. Thats nonsensical.

 

[Into the Night]

but many choose Immorals as their morals.

Nonsensical statement.

like behaviors that do not lead to trust and cooperation.

Random phrase.

Try paying attention to the conversation.