[CommanderSock]

andyt andyt:

But there are some common threads throughout cultures as well. As Unsound wrote - don't murder is one. Do unto others - a version of that has been taught in many cultures. Don't steal, don't lie as well. They just get interpreted differently in different cultures.

So it's not to say that there's some ambiguity of morality between cultures means that anything goes.

Common threads of morality are as common as uncommon threads.

[BartSimpson]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Life is much easier under absolutes, eh?

In some respects, yes, it can be.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

That's not bad as an absolute moral.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Life is much easier under absolutes, eh?

In some respects, yes, it can be.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

That's not bad as an absolute moral.

And sad how we mostly ignore that rule.

$1:

The Golden Rule has a long history, and a great number of prominent religious figures and philosophers have restated its reciprocal, bilateral nature in various ways (not limited to the above forms).[2] As a concept, the Golden Rule has a history that long predates the term "Golden Rule" (or "Golden law", as it was called from the 1670s).[2][6] The ethic of reciprocity was present in certain forms in the philosophies of ancient Babylon, Egypt, Persia, India, Greece, Judea, and China.[citation needed]

[Proculation]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

Proculation Proculation:

Morality should be based on philosophy and philosophy is the study of rationality and truth. There's no grey zone in that.

Morality is highly subjective. It is not based on rationality at all, but rather cultural norms.

70 years ago it was considered morally repugnant for a black man to marry a white woman in most western countries. Today it's completely normal. 100 years ago it was immoral for women to hold certain occupational positions, today it's morally wrong to hold her back.

Lest we talk of cross cultural morality. What's morally accepted in Canada, may not be morally accepted in India.

Morality is tied to our current cultural standards and it shifts and changes as we change our beliefs or are infused with new ones.

That's why I said morality SHOULD be based on philosophy, not on culture and other subjective principles.

[andyt]

Proculation Proculation:

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

Proculation Proculation:

Morality should be based on philosophy and philosophy is the study of rationality and truth. There's no grey zone in that.

Morality is highly subjective. It is not based on rationality at all, but rather cultural norms.

70 years ago it was considered morally repugnant for a black man to marry a white woman in most western countries. Today it's completely normal. 100 years ago it was immoral for women to hold certain occupational positions, today it's morally wrong to hold her back.

Lest we talk of cross cultural morality. What's morally accepted in Canada, may not be morally accepted in India.

Morality is tied to our current cultural standards and it shifts and changes as we change our beliefs or are infused with new ones.

That's why I said morality SHOULD be based on philosophy, not on culture and other subjective principles.

Proculation Proculation:

Morality should be based on philosophy and philosophy is the study of rationality and truth. There's no grey zone in that.

Ah, yes, the rule of the philosopher king.

If there's no grey zone on philosophy, what the the hell are all the philosophers still yammering about? You'd think they would have nailed down the truth long ago and all taken up boxing or something instead.

[CommanderSock]

Proculation Proculation:

That's why I said morality SHOULD be based on philosophy, not on culture and other subjective principles.

Should is idealism.

[BartSimpson]

So in the past few posts we have examples of people railing against common moral values which makes my point that such people who argue against morality should not be surprised when they encounter amoral people. It also reinforces my point that, to some degree, Norway is reaping what it has sowed by advancing the same amoral arguments as we're seeing in this thread.

Yes, I know my comment will upset some people. Kindly attack the argument, if you will, and lay off the personal attacks that won't add to the discussion at hand.

[andyt]

I don't see anybody arguing against common values. In fact we all said that some values, like don't murder, are universal. I don't see Norway reaping murder that it sowed. And in fact this guy seems to see it as you do - that Christianity should be providing the moral framework. He might not be a devout Christian as regards his ideas on Jesus, but he's trying to defend Christianity from what he sees as an attack. So if you want to talk about reaping, maybe it was Christianity that did the sowing.

Personally I think it's just nutbarism that did the sowing. We've seen guys like this come from many different world views.

BTW - saying you're blaming the victim is attacking your argument. You should consider yourself lucky how little blowback you got on that. Like I said, if the roles were reversed, the howling on the website would be deafening.

[BartSimpson]

I am not blaming the victims and I am getting rather sick to death of that *&%$#@*&! accusation.

Bottom line on what I said is that when no one can agree on what constitutes morality then it no longer exists.

[andyt]

Your insistence that the Norwegian left wrought this is blaming the victim. They did no such thing. If this had been an Islamist attack, you would have a point, since the left is for more immigration and taking in of refugees.

[Gunnair]

Proculation Proculation:

In my head, there's no such thing that can be right and wrong. 2+2 cannot equal to 3 and 4 at the same time. There can be an argument about the absolute answer but there is only one true answer.

Morality is not math. Morality is based on human understanding. Math is not.

[CommanderSock]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

So in the past few posts we have examples of people railing against common moral values which makes my point that such people who argue against morality should not be surprised when they encounter amoral people. It also reinforces my point that, to some degree, Norway is reaping what it has sowed by advancing the same amoral arguments as we're seeing in this thread.

Yes, I know my comment will upset some people. Kindly attack the argument, if you will, and lay off the personal attacks that won't add to the discussion at hand.

I'm never surprised to meet amoral people. In fact I find most of them the norm. In one way or another. To believe otherwise is just idealistic.

[andyt]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

I'm never surprised to meet amoral people. In fact I find most of them the norm. In one way or another. To believe otherwise is just idealistic.

To what extent, tho? Certainly not to murder. Lots of people cheat on their spouses or steal supplies from the office or what have you. But most of us live within our culture's moral norms pretty much, don't you think?

What would happen if our society collapsed would be another matter. But for Bart to claim the left in Norway deserves this because they threw the moral order to the wind is just nuts.

In fact in some ways we are much more moral now. Most whites at one time thought lynching was an OK thing to do and did it under guise of Christianity. Same with slavery. Child sexual abuse seems to have been just as rampant, but swept under the rug more. At least now we are less tolerant of that. Attacks on gays are less frequent and much less tolerated. Discrimination has laws against it.

I don't really see what moral breakdown Bart is talking about.

[CommanderSock]

andyt andyt:

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

I'm never surprised to meet amoral people. In fact I find most of them the norm. In one way or another. To believe otherwise is just idealistic.

To what extent, tho? Certainly not to murder. Lots of people cheat on their spouses or steal supplies from the office or what have you. But most of us live within our culture's moral norms pretty much, don't you think?

What would happen if our society collapsed would be another matter. But for Bart to claim the left in Norway deserves this because they threw the moral order to the wind is just nuts.

In fact in some ways we are much more moral now. Most whites at one time thought lynching was an OK thing to do and did it under guise of Christianity. Same with slavery. Child sexual abuse seems to have been just as rampant, but swept under the rug more. At least now we are less tolerant of that. Attacks on gays are less frequent and much less tolerated. Discrimination has laws against it.

I don't really see what moral breakdown Bart is talking about.

I don't either.

When I say immoral, basically, outside of mainstream norms.

I know hard working businessmen here who will openly flout that they had sex with hookers both in Canada and abroad. Execs snorting coke lines on a weekend or after a meeting like it's nothing. Spending bonuses on gambling. I know men who have never done a 9-5 because they make more playing poker online. Apparently if you're good you can make $70,000 annually, a pretty decent wage, and all the while putting in half the effort as someone in accounting, or another normal equivalent paying job. Illegal and immoral? Depending on the state/province, but for the most part not particularly harmful IMO.

Immorality is the norm for otherwise good people.

As for the serious stuff, murder/theft and whatnot, obviously these crimes are more serious and people won't mention them if they really did commit, in my company anyways.

[andyt]

The ridiculous laws against drugs actually lead to a breakdown of order as people start disobeying laws they see as useless. Men have been using hookers since time immemorial. Possibly more so at one time, when adultery was less available.