If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
well noones obligated to do anything we have free will. its just a guideline for a fair society.
There's no reason why a person should 'treat others as they want to be treated'.
well what do you suggest is a better alternative as a basis for morality?
well thats possibly true in terms of the moral conclusions that people draw but couldnt it be argued that there are certain fundamental principals of morality that are everpresent no matter what stance you take. whether or not you come to the same conclusions as others by following these principals, the fundamental principals are there none the less.
Such as? OK, most might think killing is wrong, but is homicide really wrong in every instance?
I disagree. These 'principles' denote an absolute morality.
well the principal that it is wrong to take an innocent life is one that i think everyone can agree on. the extent you take it too depends on your point of view for example abortion etc. however that principal is universally agreed on. it is only the implimentation that differs.
perhaps there is no absolute morality in terms of something that would exist independent of human society. but i think that we have evolved a morality that is inate in us and we know that it is not good for society for example to go about killing innocents.
without this inate sense of right and wrong wherever it came from whether it is existent independent or whether it is a human construction, society would be unable to function, and we wouldnt have for example a legal system.
Is it? Tell that to suicide bombers in Palestine.
There is no 'absolute morality' because no evidence of it exists in nature.
Suicide bombers must logically think it moral to do what they do.
That disproves an 'inate absolute morality'. In my opinion, morality is learnt and everybody has a different moral code.
well im not disagreeing with that i did say within human society, im not talking about the natural world, morality is a human construction as a means to protect society. we are advanced pack animals and morality is what makes us do whats best for the pack, as it were.
of course morality differs and as i said, the difference in moral behavior is through implimentation rather than the morals that we have evolved as humans. suicide bombers for example dont consider the people they kill to be innocents. this is the difference in interpretation that i am talking about. however the principal remains.
But you said ALL people know that killing innocents is 'wrong'. I gave an example which destroys that theory.
as i said, the difference is in the interpretation. suicide bombers for example dont believe that they are killing innocents, so they consider what they are doing morally right. however they would consider their own people innocents so think its wrong to kill them.