Why do liberals insist on subjective morality being laws?

Damocles said:
Most in Nazi Germany also knew they were doing wrong. Thus the reason, "I was just following orders!" is not acceptable as an excuse in courts... It also is well beyond the question asked.

This too is not a good example.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that...

Do you think had America been engulfed in that kind of furor a normal citizen could be expected not to fall sway to it? Social pressure is another form of twisting the mind into something else... to execute someone for something any normal person would do is just as wrong as what they did under the circumstances.
 
Damocles said:
No, those who cannot understand when they are doing "wrong" are insane. Attempting to say that there is no universal wrong because of the insane is also not a valid example.
Click to expand...

That is merely if you define insanity as not believing the social consensus... or, under your definition, the consensus you happen to believe in.
 
Damocles said:
There is no "suck more" when the issue is that a law does not get changed. Can you understand where I am coming from here. Voting Dems in won't change this, voting Rs in won't change this. Saying "you suck more" when the exact same result is evident is just blowing hot air.
Click to expand...

Please make sure the Conservatives like threedee, immanuel, dixie, zewaazir, klaatu, brent etc understand that there is no such thing as a party that "sucks more'' at an issue like abortion....if neither party has changed anything.

they don't believe in "your theory" about one party NOT sucking more than another party if neither party had done a thing about it...they still think the repubs hold the higher ground and THEY, the repubs, have been in charge of the law making for the last 12 years...

ahhhhhhhh, but they still PRETEND "they" hold the high ground....
 
Care4all said:
Please make sure the Conservatives like threedee, immanuel, dixie, zewaazir, klaatu, brent etc understand that there is no such thing as a party that "sucks more'' at an issue like abortion....if neither party has changed anything.

they don't believe in "your theory" about one party NOT sucking more than another party if neither party had done a thing about it...they still think the repubs hold the higher ground and THEY, the repubs, have been in charge of the law making for the last 12 years...

ahhhhhhhh, but they still PRETEND "they" hold the high ground....
Click to expand...
First we'll see how the new SCOTUS Justices vote on that issue before I can judge whether the Rs have "done nothing"...
 
Watermark said:
I disagree with that...

Do you think had America been engulfed in that kind of furor a normal citizen could be expected not to fall sway to it? Social pressure is another form of twisting the mind into something else... to execute someone for something any normal person would do is just as wrong as what they did under the circumstances.
Click to expand...
However, it is well outside the question at hand regardless. However, the regular citizen was not "executed" for that, it was the most heinous who were even tried. They did still know they were doing wrong though.
 
Watermark said:
That is merely if you define insanity as not believing the social consensus... or, under your definition, the consensus you happen to believe in.
Click to expand...
No, not understanding society is a type of insanity. Pretending otherwise is simply pretense for a cause.
 
Damocles said:
tell me where it was okay and we'll see if we can take it apart.
Click to expand...

It's ALWAYS neither ok nor wrong.

Universal morality does not exist - because I am one person that disagrees with you, therefore, it's not universal.

It's simple.

QED.
 
You have no argument. I think the jungle bunny tribes of the amazon don't have the same morals as you damo. And neither do I. I don't think it's wrong to kill people.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
It depends entirely on "Universal", first of all we have already removed from the list the insane. Now we are looking for other exceptions. Instead of telling me how impossible it is, work with the question and answer it. What I am looking at are mores that are so close to "universal" as to have no real difference. Simple and direct cold-blooded murder is one such thing, instead of telling me how impossible it is, tell me where it was okay and we'll see if we can take it apart.
Click to expand...

It depends entirely on "Universal", first of all we have already removed from the list the insane. Now we are looking for other exceptions.

Plenty of exceptions.

State-sanctioned mass murder has a long and dubious history. These are cases where murder was tolerated at best, and encourged at worst.

Until the late 19th century, a white man could easily kill as many indians as he wanted. And he'd never see the inside of a court room. He might even get paid for bringing in some scalps.

Until the mid-1960s, I don't believe there was ever a case in the american South, of a white man being convicted in a court of law, for killing a black man. That's 300 years of state-tolerated or state-sanctioned murder.

And of course, we have the Nazi German, Soviet empire, and the Balkans wars: where murder was a state policy, and enthusiastically engaged in by many citizens of the countries.

Its simply not credible to write off all those people as clinically "insane".

Like I said: there's a broad international consensus against murder - but, it is not universal. Especially when murder promotes some social or political interest
 
Last edited:
Once again, you believe universality must be objective and that is incorrect. There are a few moral rules prevalent in every human society.

Not answering the question is not a profundity, it is weakness. When, among society, would it be "right" to do such a thing? As we go along we'll eliminate such items as "The man is a monster who predates children" until we have a simple code that is prevalent in every human society.

Thus stripping it of its facade to its central core... It is what we are working on right now. Cypress found some, can you?

So, with Cannabalism and "others" we find that the "morality" tends to limit itself to an "us them" mentality, as society grows ever "smaller" by communications and speedy travel we find that that includes more daily. Only isolated groups consider it an "us and them"...

However, even in those groups, if they have contact with the outside, we find that they hide and commit the acts rather than openly work their nefarious deeds thus evincing that even among those there is that fundamental inside belief that what they are doing is "wrong"...

Even terrorists wear masks to hide their identities knowing what they are doing is "wrong"..

Lets work with Cypress' Native American example. As we grew in society and learned through communication and because of quick travel we now view those Natives as "us" and believe it was wrong and is wrong to allow such action...

So, now we know the rule pretty much covers "us", So now we need to reword the question...

When would it be okay for somebody considered to be "us" to be murdered in cold blood?
 
Damocles said:
When, among society, would it be "right" to do such a thing?
Click to expand...

Who cares about what society thinks? Within society there will be individuals who do not subscribe to all of societies standards and beliefs. Society does not have the claim to morality.

To answer your question, for about the billionth time:

IT IS NEITHER OK, NOR NOT OK, AT ANY GIVEN TIME.

It is not right or wrong to kill a innocent child.
It is not right or wrong to stab somebody to death.
It is not right or wrong to burn a baby and throw it in the trash.


However, even in those groups, if they have contact with the outside, we find that they hide and commit the acts rather than openly work their nefarious deeds thus evincing that even among those there is that fundamental inside belief that what they are doing is "wrong"...
Click to expand...

Says fucking who? They may know that society CONSIDERS their actions wrong but that doesn't mean they morally condemn themselves. They are just as likely, if not more so, acting out of self-interest to ensure that they wont be captured and sent to prison. This has nothing to do with morality damo.

Even terrorists wear masks to hide their identities knowing what they are doing is "wrong"..
Click to expand...

Again, says who? They may not want to get caught, they may not want to endanger their families. Just because they hide their identity does not mean that they are morally condemning themselves.

There is no universal, OR objective morality. It doesn't exist, you are pulling it out of your ass. Sorry, game over. It's not real.

- Grind
 
and when I say ok I am not saying it would be 'right', ... because that too is a moral determination. Instead, I am implying that it is not 'wrong'
 
Grind said:
Who cares about what society thinks? Within society there will be individuals who do not subscribe to all of societies standards and beliefs. Society does not have the claim to morality.

To answer your question, for about the billionth time:

IT IS NEITHER OK, NOR NOT OK, AT ANY GIVEN TIME.

It is not right or wrong to kill a innocent child.
It is not right or wrong to stab somebody to death.
It is not right or wrong to burn a baby and throw it in the trash.




Says fucking who? They may know that society CONSIDERS their actions wrong but that doesn't mean they morally condemn themselves. They are just as likely, if not more so, acting out of self-interest to ensure that they wont be captured and sent to prison. This has nothing to do with morality damo.



Again, says who? They may not want to get caught, they may not want to endanger their families. Just because they hide their identity does not mean that they are morally condemning themselves.

There is no universal, OR objective morality. It doesn't exist, you are pulling it out of your ass. Sorry, game over. It's not real.

- Grind
Click to expand...
No, but it does mean that they know what they are doing is wrong, otherwise they would not fear getting caught. They fear because they know what they are doing is wrong. That others will work to stop them is just one of the consequences of that action.

You keep repeating "Who cares what society thinks?" Well, that is where subjective morality comes from. I am working within that framework to see if we can answer a specific question and by stripping away exceptions come upon something that is as close to "Universal" as to have no real difference...

I believe that we will be able to do this.

Refusing to "play" isn't profound, it's just silly objection because I didn't play the "objectivity" game you prefer.
 
Grind said:
and when I say ok I am not saying it would be 'right', ... because that too is a moral determination. Instead, I am implying that it is not 'wrong'
Click to expand...
By what subjective standard is that "not wrong"? Here is the fundamental question that I have asked, that you simply pretend has no bearing in reality. You could keep on pretending that, but there are millions in prisons around the world for "murder"...

In every case they murdered somebody considered to be "us" in their society. As evinced by such cases as terrorists blowing up children on buses and getting rewarded, and say that same guy killing somebody in their own nation... How they are handled is answered by an us/them equation. Says who, logic and evidence before us.
 
In all cases we must work with reality surrounding us, in that reality subjective morality is used to place laws to ensure "correct" behavior, are there universal rules among the different groups that can show that there is such a thing as universal morality, or something so close to it that no real difference exists? I believe that there is, and by asking and answering these questions we can get to that universal rule in this one case...
 
Even terrorists wear masks to hide their identities knowing what they are doing is "wrong"..
//

Wrong or just hiding their identity so they don't get caught and killed by those who think it is wrong ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top