Originally posted by @stellspalfie 1- All morality is subjective. Morality can change for the better or worse and is measured against the subjective standards of the individual and the collective.
2- see above
3-Look at the different moralities around the globe, in different cultures. It's possible for something to be immoral and moral at the same time. It depends on perspective. ...[text shortened]... t self-contradictory because it does not assert any fixed position as ultimately right or wrong.
If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then should anyone adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong?
Originally posted by @dj2becker If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then should anyone adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong?
You should get that printed out on little leaflets and hand them out to people randomly on the bus.
Originally posted by @dj2becker No surprise you've dodged the question again.
'Again' is the pertinent word.
Why would I have any interest in repeating an answer I've already given, more than once, over many months. I genuinely don't get why you do that. Unless you cut and paste the question, surely it's tiresome for you also to keep typing it out.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke 'Again' is the pertinent word.
Why would I have any interest in repeating an answer I've already given, more than once, over many months. I genuinely don't get why you do that. Unless you cut and paste the question, surely it's tiresome for you also to keep typing it out.
If the answer was worth repeating you would. If in fact you have answered it as you claim.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke The answer actually is quite simple, though you probably wont like it.
Early man realised that his chances of survival were enhanced if he worked with other people. (Cooperation). It was this initial cooperation that benefited individuals and the group at large that was the foundation for common morality. (I won't kill you if you don't kill me. L ...[text shortened]... and protect each others property etc). This in turn grew into mutual respect and value of life.
Originally posted by @dj2becker If the answer was worth repeating you would. If in fact you have answered it as you claim.
Yes, that is your normal response, and I guess it gives you a little ripple of pleasure to win an argument by irritation.
I will explain to you clearly for the last time. It is not a matter of a previous answer from me being worth repeating. it's a question of you having the common decency to read and absorb the previous times I have provided the answer. That's how dialogue works. You ask me a question, I provide and answer. You ask me a follow up question, based on my answer. I may then ask you a question. (And so on). A good and enjoyable dialogue does not involve asking a question and then ignoring the answer,....only to repeat the same question at a later date. (And then telling the person if the answer was worth repeating they would do so).
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke Yes, that is your normal response, and I guess it gives you a little ripple of pleasure to win an argument by irritation.
I will explain to you clearly for the last time. It is not a matter of a previous answer from me being worth repeating. it's a question of you having the common decency to read and absorb the previous times I have provided the ...[text shortened]... a later date. (And then telling the person if the answer was worth repeating they would do so).
So which answer exactly have I ignored? The one where you suggested I hand the question out at a bus stop? Or is there another answer you can refer me to?
Originally posted by @dj2becker So which answer exactly have I ignored? The one where you suggested I hand the question out at a bus stop? Or is there another answer you can refer me to?
If your memory goes no further back than the last few posts then heaven help you.
You may enjoy (or need) repetition. I don't. It's boring and pointless.
Originally posted by @dj2becker Seems you have adopted FMFs tactic. Good for you.
The only tactic on display sir is you asking questions that have already been answered, and then claiming victory when you bore people to death. It renders you the most tedious poster in these forums.
Originally posted by @dj2becker If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then should anyone adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong?
They have no obligation to adhere to my moral standard and most people don't. Look at the world around you, people (to one degree or another) already have a different set of moral standards to each other. As a collective we try to agree on a set of standards that ensures society works cohesively (to one degree or another).
16 Oct '17 18:00
The evolution of morality
Back to Top