Ed and Shadow debate morality.

[Shadow]

Of course there is value to life. Your genes value your life. They also value the lives of those closest to you genetically. The further removed you are genetically from another person the less interest you're genes have in their survival. And then of course there is the business of short term sacrifice for long term gain. Killing another member of the tribe for your own benefit would backfire later because you've lost a valuable hunting partner. And then we invented morality and the concept of right and wrong to enforce such things. Morality is subjective and dominated by social doctrine. There is no objective basis for morality.

Okay, so if morality is subjective, can I stomp your foot into oblivion?

[Kirby]

There is an interesting arguement to the value of life. See back in the day before labor unions if you lost you are they said screw you we have thousands more to replace you and you are not fitting to the "survial of the fittest." During that period of time America was the strongest country on earth.

[Shadow]

Shut up, I am about to have a discussion with ed about morality.

[Kirby]

That is about morality ding dong so how about YOU shut up

[Shadow]

1) I was asking ed a question and this debate is between me an ed ONLY.
2) Your first post isn't exactly something I'd call legible.

[Kirby]

actually yes it was and if you wanted to do that you could of just said that nicely

fine I will leave

[The Editor]

You can if you want to. Of course there will be consequences since society and indeed myself frown on such things.

[Shadow]

But why? Morality is subjective and to me, stomping on your foot it a good thing and therefore doesn't deserve negative consequences.

[God]

there is an objective morality throughout human history, mainly that one should not cause undue harm to people associated with their "group". what defines "group" is what has been subjective about morality throughout history.

[leo33wii]

Shadow you're being an idiot. Just because you percieve it to a good thing, it's all based on the majority. How they percieve it (wrong or right) will effect you.

Let's say someone kicked you and you said "Fucking Asshole!"
If that was shown on Comedy central, people would possibly find that amusing.
But if you were at church... it wouldn't be as much amusing.
It's all subjective.

[The Editor]

That's not objective, God. Early humans worked out that the group shouldn't have infighting as this had negative consequences to every member in the group. They then made that social doctrine and now we call it morality.

[Shadow]

Could my point really be that hard to find? I'm trying to make the point that if there's no moral standard then who's to say what's right or wrong. And in that case who's to say hitler was bad, because in his eyes and the eyes of his followers they were right.

[Kirby]

Right is determined by the population of earth shadow. By no means did 51% of the population of the planet believe that the mass murder of jew was ok so it was wrong.

[leo33wii]

But that's exactly it Shadow. Who says what is right or wrong? How do you know what you do is right or wrong...

It's all subjective. What you don't like will be wrong. If enough people agree with you, than it wont be right. That's why nations conflict so damn much because our morals.

[The Editor]

What is moral is whatever the majority believe to be right at that time. If we all believed murder was right then it would be and there would be no laws against it.

[Shadow]

And somehow I've managed to lose my original point in this mess. I'm going to go get some tylenol or something...

[leo33wii]

Could my point really be that hard to find? I'm trying to make the point that if there's no moral standard then who's to say what's right or wrong. And in that case who's to say hitler was bad, because in his eyes and the eyes of his followers they were right.

"trying to make the point that if there's no moral standard then who's to say what's right or wrong."

We're saying that morals are subjective, a group of people all agree upon what is right or wrong. That is what make morals subjective.

Erhem:

(Time: 1700's) Let's say a guy found his wife cheating. Should he...
A) Forgive the man she cheated with
B) Kill the man she cheated with

If you chose A I can guess your ancestry came from Potato farmers.
If you chose B I can guess your ancestry came from Cattle ranchers of some sort.

Why does this matter? Because this will determine what you do. If someone has stolen some of your potato's... what does it matter? You have a crop. No one's going to steal an entire crop of potato's.
But if you had a cow stolen, which happens to be your lively hood, then it can mean life or death for you and your family.

What these two families view as right or wrong is totally subjective. Of course they both know that killing another person is wrong, but it comes too, which action will allow certain other actions to bypass.
Or rather... this changes the subject to what is morally permissible?

[Kirby]

Leo did you make that up or is it someone elses becuase that is quite profound.

[leo33wii]

nope, not my idea... nor am I claiming it as mine, but I do have to say it's the question of what's morally permissible.