Morality in of Itself.

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 252
Topic's author
#1
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
I was just recently listening to a podcast/show by Jordan Peterson, in which he was interviewing Dr. Nigel Biggar. 
In this interview, the topic of morality came up.

Dr. Nigel explained a story in which when he was a little kid, he liked to steal toy soldiers from his "mates".
One day, when he was about to steal the toy, he realized to himself that he didn't want the toys, and that he should put the toy back. He said it wasn't fulfilling for him. 

He explains how on that day, that he himself didn't tell him to put the toy back, but something or someone else did. Some other force of nature. No one had caught him doing it before and told him it was wrong. Something else told him it was wrong, but what is this force he asked himself. 

He went on to explain that there must be a higher form of hierarchy to our lives. Just as Christians call it, "The King of Kings" using our knowledge of how a hierarchy works in general to symbolize a higher force or power. 

My question is, has anyone else experienced anything similar to that, and how would you describe that feeling? 



#2
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I've had many experiences where I suddenly found myself feeling like some activity I had engaged in many times before was wrong and decided not to do it anymore. I attribute it to personal growth and maturity as I learn to become a better person. I have no idea why anyone would claim it must have come from some other force of nature.
#3
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
He explains how on that day, that he himself didn't tell him to put the toy back, but something or someone else did. Some other force of nature. No one had caught him doing it before and told him it was wrong. Something else told him it was wrong, but what is this force he asked himself. 

He went on to explain that there must be a higher form of hierarchy to our lives. Just as Christians call it, "The King of Kings" using our knowledge of how a hierarchy works in general to symbolize a higher force or power. 

My question is, has anyone else experienced anything similar to that, and how would you describe that feeling? 
  • Dr. Sigmund Freud described this dynamic with his psychological model of id, ego, and superego, which might have been better translated as "it," "me," and "ideal me."
    • Wikipedia: In the ego psychology model of the psyche, the id is the set of uncoordinated instinctual desires; the super-ego plays the critical and moralizing role; and the ego is the organized, realistic agent that mediates between the instinctual desires of the id and the critical super-ego; Freud compared the ego (in its relation to the id) to a man on horseback: the rider must harness and direct the superior energy of his mount, and at times allow for a practicable satisfaction of its urges. The ego is thus "in the habit of transforming the id's will into action, as if it were its own.
    • Freud said we all have that nagging little voice in our heads but we are not born with it:  The super-ego reflects the internalization of cultural rules, mainly as absorbed from parents, but also other authority figures, and the general cultural ethos.
  • The notion that any British boy in 1960's England had not been told "thou shalt not steal"  thousands of times by the time he is old enough to go to other boy's houses to play unsupervised defies credibility.  Biggar says a little nagging voice told him right from wrong and because he is an Anglican Priest and wants to credit Jesus but the truth is that voice was constructed for him, first by regular repetition in his family, then church, then school, then an ever-widening circle of social acquaintance, almost entirely in agreement that stealing is bad.
  • We can tell that Biggar's internal voice did not come from a more sophisticated morality because that voice made no mention of the immorality of warfare or the inherent wrong of teaching children that murder on the State's behalf is a fun game in which all the soldier get to come back tomorrow and play again.  A more sophisticated morality would have decried the iconiziation and idealization and commercialization of murder fanstasies for children.  Biggar grew up to write A Defense of War in 2013, Jesus famously said "Blessed are the peacemakers, blessed are the merciful, turn the other cheek, forgive others as I have forgiven you, etc."  We can be confident that wasn't Jesus speaking in Biggar's head.
  • Interestingly, Biggar is an Anglican Priest currently on book tour promoting  his new book Colonialism  which re-appraises and asserts the value and moral worth of British invasions, colonializations, and slavery.  Biggar was knighted by the Queen in 2021 for his service to her Empire.  A prominent Christian making money off the promotion of murder for power.  I wonder what the little voice inside his head is telling him now.


#4
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@oromagi
Interestingly, Biggar is an Anglican Priest currently on book tour promoting  his new book Colonialism  which re-appraises and asserts the value and moral worth of British invasions, colonializations, and slavery
I have no idea who this guy is, but I'm calling BS. It is extremely unlikely a modern commentator defends slavery and thus extremely likely that you are peddling misinformation here.
Topic's author
#5
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@oromagi
@ADreamOfLiberty
I have no idea who this guy is, but I'm calling BS. It is extremely unlikely a modern commentator defends slavery and thus extremely likely that you are peddling misinformation here.
Your correct. 
Biggar is not defending slavery. 
He is simply stating in the book that:
Slavery does not equal Colonization. 

He talks about how slavery is and was bad, but for most people back then, was a social norm, and looked upon as socially acceptable. 
He talks about how even after certain slaves were freed, they would too go out and enslave others after power given to them. 

The notion that any British boy in 1960's England had not been told "thou shalt not steal"  thousands of times by the time he is old enough to go to other boy's houses to play unsupervised defies credibility.
Ahhhhh, but Biggar did not grow up in a religious household, and he had this experience at a very young age, before he was engulfed in Christianity. 

the truth is that voice was constructed for him, first by regular repetition in his family, then church, then school, then an ever-widening circle of social acquaintance, almost entirely in agreement that stealing is bad.
Well, his family was not religious, as he stated in the interview. At that time, he did not go to church. The school maybe incentive it but let's also put into consideration, that the fact that he was stealing this much in the first place has something to say about his character at that time. Also, his social acquaintances were most likely not going to influence this given, he was stealing from them, and they too were most likely doing the same. Kids make friends with people who are similar to them. 

Here is an open letter from a bunch of Oxford scholars publicly questioning Biggar's ethics in relation to Imperialism
Yes. He even talks about this in the interview. Even his partner stated to him, that he left the project because of personal affairs, then went on to claim to others that the "project had moved in another direction."

Biggar was suprised that all of these Oxford scholars would do such a thing, and I think it goes to show how much influence cancle culutre has. 

Biggar explains in the interview with Jordan Peterson, that in all of his writings (especially now) he lays out all of the information about the topic he is writing about. The good and the bad. In his new book, Colonialism, he explains the good part of the expansion of the British Empire, and how it affected people in a good way. He also went into detail about how badly slaves were treated by those same people, and how it was a travesty. 

I challenge you to read his book, or look up even a part of his book, that promotes slavery, and things of that manner. 
He challenges you himself in his interview with Jordan Peterson.

I also challenge you to listen to the interview. It's a good listen. 
#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
A Zedku for ADreamOfLiberty


Everything that happened did.

And we arrived at now.

And everything that will happen, will.

And we will arrive at then.

Everything now will be perfect relative to it's design.

And everything will be redesigned and continue to be perfect.

Though the perfection of ongoing reality

May never match the perfection of desire.
#7
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
@YouFound_Lxam
Biggar is not defending slavery. 
He is simply stating in the book that:
Slavery does not equal Colonization. 
He talks about how slavery is and was bad, but for most people back then, was a social norm, and looked upon as socially acceptable. 
He talks about how even after certain slaves were freed, they would too go out and enslave others after power given to them. 
  • I, too, would not go so far as to call Biggar's re-appraisal as a defense of slavery, per se.  Rather, I think he is quick to forgive the Empire of the sin and overlong on the mitigations of that sin.  For example, he paints the Empire itself as the reformers in 1807 reacting to Methodism when the fact is that the Empire was reacting to the global uprising of democratic revolution.  The King of France was dead.  Italy, Prussia, Austro-Hungarian empire, Spain, Portugal were all in various states of civil war and Napoleanic defeat.  For the first time in history, it was beginning to look like Kings and Nobles and slaves and subjects were the past and democratic citizenship was the future.  The 1804 Genocide of the white and mulattos of Haiti loomed massively in the imagination of every slave owner in the world just as European monarchies needed to pull troops from overseas security into the European conflagaration.  Biggar seems to be suggesting that the English Empire was leading in the abolition of slavery when in fact they were the panicked late-comers looking to save their asses.  I suppose every monarchy needs its apologists to justify it present relevance but giving the job to an Oxford theologian seems rather perverse.
  • All of which is quite non-sequitur to the OP:   "there must be a higher form of hierarchy to our lives."  I have offered the psychological response, pointed out that moral example provided was not particularly impressive as morality, and noted the pecuniary motivation for provocation evident in the OP's single source.  Pointing to podcasts and publications elsewhere do nothing to support any argument and let's assume that I remain unpersuaded by more fervent advertisment.   Do we have any kind of on-point reply relevant to this forum's topic or have we all come to an agreement that the scant evidence  offered  for a higher form of intelligence inserting morality into our brains can be set aside as unpersuasive?


Topic's author
#8
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@oromagi
Rather, I think he is quick to forgive the Empire of the sin and overlong on the mitigations of that sin.  For example, he paints the Empire itself as the reformers in 1807 reacting to Methodism when the fact is that the Empire was reacting to the global uprising of democratic revolution.  The King of France was dead.  Italy, Prussia, Austro-Hungarian empire, Spain, Portugal were all in various states of civil war and Napoleanic defeat.  For the first time in history, it was beginning to look like Kings and Nobles and slaves and subjects were the past and democratic citizenship was the future.  The 1804 Genocide of the white and mulattos of Haiti loomed massively in the imagination of every slave owner in the world just as European monarchies needed to pull troops from overseas security into the European conflagaration.  Biggar seems to be suggesting that the English Empire was leading in the abolition of slavery when in fact they were the panicked late-comers looking to save their asses.  I suppose every monarchy needs its apologists to justify it present relevance but giving the job to an Oxford theologian seems rather perverse.
In fact, you are incorrect. In Europe, Britian was one of the main ones, leading the prevention of slavery. Even in India, they proposed that classes of Hindu culture, should be secured and taught. Then the Indians came right back and demanded instead of being taught that, that they should be taught new European technology. 
If you really take a good look at the history, Britian after the U.S. is one of the main country's leading the end to racial slaveries and segregation. Now they did conquest and capture other places don't get me wrong, but it wasn't race based. It was greed based, and many other countries as well have done this, including still today. 
#9
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Thanks, Lxam.  I'll take that as confirmation by you that you've lost interest in your OP.  If you want to discuss the altrusim of the British Empire, you should probably start with a more relevant thesis.
#10
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
1} Some morality is learned by a belt on the butt and has to with parent inducing child to stop causing the the parent undue problems { financial or otherwise }.

2} My relative and friend broke 30 windows out of public school they attended and my brother got belt  on the butt.  If my father every got any Christian stuff he never once ever gave any notion that even one word of it sunk into his brain.

3} All children experience pain most humans have and empathy center in their brain, that, like seeing someone else yawn, it makes us want yawn.

Seeing bad stuff happen to others makes us not want that to happen to ourselves.  Did ancient humans--long before the Bible or knowing of any written biblical stuff---  have a set of morals? Of course they did because of the above 1, 2 and 3 sort of experiences, passed on from parents to children. 

On Rocky and Bullwinlke cartoon show

.." Aesop and Son was a segment on "The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle". It is similar to "Fractured Fairy Tales," except it deals with fables instead of fairy tales.
The typical structure consists of Aesop attempting to teach a lesson to his son using a fable. After hearing the story, the son subverts the fable's moral with a pun."...


#11
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,639
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ebuc
Some morality is learned by a belt on the butt
Ok, so do you support that criminals should be hit by a belt on the butt?
#12
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
I have no idea why anyone would claim it must have come from some other force of nature.
Because there’s no other logical reason to believe the activity you engaged in was even “wrong” in the first place. What does “wrong” even mean to you anyway? Because as far as I’m concerned that concept can only be understood through eternal damnation, which is what hell symbolizes.
#13
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Ive experienced something like this before . 
I remember it like yesterday. 

I was once told a story about some bloke named   ummmmm 
(  Nigel Bigger )   

Well In Seeing  ( Mr Nigel  Biggers )  name,
i instantly wanted to point out to all.  that his name cotains the word.  
○○○○○○ " NlGGER "  ○○○○○○○○ 
in it. 
I wanted to achieve this inconspicuously. 
I started thinking . How can i point out to others that 
NIGEL BIGGER has the word nigger in his name 

So i was just about to commence  this
<<<<  "dropping   ( N bomb ) " >>>>

HOWEVER.   It was at this time ......  (☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ my  conscious kicks in ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ ) 

I refrained. 
I held back from making any racist remarks what so ever.  
I held back from bringing to anyone's   attention that 
》》》》》》》   (  Dr NIGEL BIGGER  )   has NlGGER in it.  《《《《《《《《 
Nope.
I wasn't gonna do it. 















#14
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
I believe a person's inner voice comes down to what they feel is right. For one person it may be the present, for another it may be the future, for another it may be the greater mass, and yet another the best thing for the lest well off. These feelings are very dependent on your culture and upbringing. For instance, if your a successful business person you'll most certainly value hierarchical benefit, where you believe everyone should receive how much they put in. If your not successful, or even below average, you'll believe it's important that everyone benefits based on the effort they put into it and not base it on their actual contribution. This is because fundamentally everyone deep down only cares for themselves, even those who say care about others. This is why their is no fixed set of moral values but rather they are formed by cultural upbringing, and by social status and success levels of the individual.
#15
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
Here is a past article I wrote on the motivations of the abolition of slavery, being that many people labeled this as the act of modern progression to a less archaic form of morals and that it was the age of progress as we reveal morals we just weren't aware of in the past.

  When considering the Civil War and the debate over slave abolition, it is notable that most people in the Southern states supported slavery while most people in the Northern states were abolitionists, despite not owning slaves themselves. This is a complex issue with many factors at play, but one possible explanation is the tension and competition that arose during colonization, as many people hoped to become wealthy slave owners but failed. This could have led to resentment and frustration, which may have contributed to the "if I can't be a rich slaveholder, then no one can" mentality. In other words, since they could not achieve wealth through owning slaves, some may have sought to tear down the hierarchy of the rich in a vengeful manner, rather than from a moral standpoint. It's important to note that people can have multiple motives for their actions. It's possible that some individuals sought the destruction of wealthy slave owners from both a moral standpoint and a vengeful one. My point is that abolitionists have often been portrayed as having superior moral standards when in reality, there are many reasons why someone might support the abolition of slavery, some of which have nothing to do with morality. I'm not trying to dismiss or deny the existence of moral motivations for abolition, but rather to emphasize that there are various perspectives and reasons behind the push for slave abolition beyond just morality, and that just because someone wanted to abolish slavery didn't make them a person of higher moral standards. Furthermore, I believe that the majority of people who supported the abolition of slavery did so not for moral reasons. This is evidenced by the fact that wealthy slave owners were not advocating for abolition. History has shown that people often prioritize money over morals. However, when individuals lack wealth, they may claim to have moral values therefore justifying their deficiency, and some may even attempt to seek revenge against the wealthy. Alexander Solzhenitsyn's book, "The Gulag Archipelago," echoes this sentiment, demonstrating that individuals will compromise their morals when motivated by financial gain. In summary, if all Americans during the time of slavery were wealthy slave owners, there would have been no abolition for
the sake of morality. This is evidenced by the fact that it was only non-cash crop states that sought abolition, suggesting that the desire for abolition was driven not by a newfound conscience, but rather by a desire to dismantle the wealthy. If you doubt that people aren't aiming to destroy the rich, which they've desired since colonization, for the sake of their morals, let me clarify. The biblical story of Cain and Abel illustrates how Cain becomes envious and resentful of Abel, his younger brother, because God favored Abel's offerings over his own. This favor implies success, blessings, and wealth - the traits of the rich and slaveholders. The northern settlers couldn't obtain plantations with slaves and wealth due to climatic differences. The story of Cain
shows that when one can't live up to their ideal, they may feel inferior and envious of those who embody it. In Cain's case, this led to him killing Abel and destroying his ideal. Similarly, the northern states wanted to abolish slavery and destroy their ideal of being like the rich since colonization. I am arguing that the mindset of the individuals who were involved in the abolition of slavery was not characterized by righteousness or higher morals but an envious mentality, and the morals of the choice was a side effect, not a reason for the abolishing of slavery.

I'm hoping this article emphasizes my position of moral relativism.
#16
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Nice self control Deb.


Dr Nigel Biggar

AKA

G.R. Bigdangler.

Geoffrey Robert Bigdangler.

Doctor of Philosoffy and a Angular Priest.

Geoffrey Robert Erectangular Bigdanglar Priest.


Coincidentally I took a look and listen  at a Jordan Peterson discussion just the other day.

And his nauseating whining eventually got me down.

I came to the conclusion that he was an institutionalised academic with a persecution complex.
#17
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Thanks man thanks. 
 
I did well to not bring it to the board hey Zed ? 
I know you know i used great ummm ,  " something " to stop a  "race rant" 

Im guessing 
That would  be  them  "moraly"  things these guys sometimes  talk about.  
Or Zed .

That could of been  me  " conscience. "
Or a combo of both. 
We will call that 
" Moral conscience "  
No thats not right ? 

Look I am really not quite sure what it was that " come over me " and  stopped me dropping the N bomb  after N bomb.  

Whatever it was. It was was for the good   
It would have to of been. Something good. 
For the better. 
Maybe it  might be my maturity levels 
I mean my maturing. ,   I might be maturing. 


ACTUALLY. 
ZED? 
Hey Zed.
When it comes  to  bad shitty things to say.  (  I FEEL )  that the N word for some reason  is like the pinical if you will.
Its rude , its disrespectful and not in the slightest bit smart. 


Darn it . 
That above sentence is something my old man would say. 

Deb snap out of it man. 
Your a harden crook. 

The old saying goes. ( your going soft in your old age. )  
Your thoughts on this saying Zed. ? 

Actually saying that to you just then got something flowing. 

I felt like asking  you this you might offend you or something.  
Just because  You are a few years older then i. 
And you might "assume "  i think of you as old .
(  this i promise you zed i  never thoughg for a second about in our conversations. ) 
Look this post is getting a little stupid girly like now. 
Awkward. 
Awkward.  


Zed ? 
' stands with opens arms ' 
Bring it in big fella . 
If i could   I'll  just grab a quick hug and take off.  

mmmmmmmm. 
Nice .     
Have a great day man. 
'  slaps zed on the arse '
This OP topic has got to me. 
Maybe i could
 
Unfortunately i have to end this post with . 

Ok Now fuck off. 


.

#18
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Because there’s no other logical reason to believe the activity you engaged in was even “wrong” in the first place
So... Proving the supernatural via argument from ignorance. Ok.

What does “wrong” even mean to you anyway?
It means in violation of basic moral principals that are used to form a moral standard, namely fairness and harm.

Some might disagree on the of a moral standard but the overwhelming majority of people see it mostly the same way because these are really basic elements of human nature and what is conducive to the nature of life.

When some cannot agree we end up with opposing moral systems which lead us to a situation where we cannot find amicable resolutions, that's when we tend to turn to violence.

#19
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
"Going soft"

Refers to a softening of both muscular tissue and brain tissue.

Which leads to sentimentality and someone else having to organise......the toilet tissue.
#20
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
It means in violation of basic moral principals that are used to form a moral standard, namely fairness and harm.
So if wrong is violating a moral standard then what is a moral standard? What one deems as right or wrong? That’s circular reasoning at its finest yet you wanna call me out for arguments from ignorance 🥱 
#21
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
If one was to  use these bloody MASSIVE,  old  , dusty ,  warn out , pre digital pieces of shit 
●●   SCALES OF MORAL LESS NESS NESS NESS NESS  6000r.    ●● 
To ummmm,  weigh peoples up, thennnnnn, we will end up with, ( " moral pedophiles " ) 
When i say "moral pedophiles"  i mean , " moral to the naked eye." 
When i say naked eye i mean to all apart from their  (  " victums." ) dare i say ?  You know what imean.   Peoples.  
Yeah peoples. 

Thats quite a fun word to say actually.   (  PEOPLES ) 
( PEOPLES PEOPLES )
( PEOPLES )  

deb. 
Hey deb ?   STOP IT. 
Where were you?  

Picture the most immoral istickel  sickest fuck thats ever existed . 
Yep.

Hey I'm not sure about you buttttt,  I take what we all love and what we all do seriously.  
Im Deb.    ♡♡♡♡♡♡♡♡♡♡♡    Professional character judge.   ♡♡♡♡♡♡♡♡♡♡♡♡♡ judger  
A character judger 
No its judge is right ?
Yeah judge. 
Why Howdy ' tilts hat '   cues cracking whip sound. 
'Whip '

' wispers under breath and from behind a newspaper with dark sunnies on ' 

Soooo Im guessing you guys are like " pros  " also right  ? 


You know? 
At  the JUDGEN and shit. ?
You guys are Pro right ?  
Nice nice. 


If we "give" or " take"   anything  away from someone because we , we being i , i being you. 
And consider  them "morall"   or "immoral"  thennnnnn ,  it wouldn't realy  work that good right? 
Its not that helpful is it. 
No its not. .
I fucking said its not alright.  

When ever in your life have you known or unknowingly assigned someone with a big shiny MORAL sticker. ?
Never have you. 
Get the fuck out of town . 
No you haven't. 
Nope. 

And Then theres 
Assigning  and  attaching  this bloody  ( "moral " score percentage label )   
A level of moran ality to peops is just shit .   
( im thinking A BIG  sticker on people's backs 


If a person " believes " in   their star signs is more informative then moral perception .   
Its more  " telling "

MUMS ARE MADE OUT OF 100% PURE MORALS .
And That shits is  near on impossible to see through.  

Levels of  Moral less ness ness ness are a very very small part of. 
" Character judging "

Picture using facebook for character judging 
Bloody horrible right ? 
A single   "Moral pecipion"   is wayyyyyyy worse. 
UNLESS. 
Thats UNLESS.  YOU HAVE SEEN THIS ,  SOMEONE PERFORM A   " NIGHT  IN SHINING ARMOR DEED " 
so they could nevvvvvererereree be immoral. 
NEVERRRRRRRRRRR.

ITS.
Well
Its a fucked up unit of measurement.  
That being . 
Moral less ness ness ness nesss. 

PS.
 I specialises in knowing  " freaky girls "  thats freaky in a sexual way. 

Guys....??
Have ya ever seen a chick and thoughf .
Yeah she would root.  ???

Ill get that.
Let me answer that for you 
 
HELL FUCKING YES.

' holds hand up for hi 5 ' 
#22
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Ok so i admit  I " acted "  immoral  15 mins ago. 
But guys .
Im acting totally moral now. 

Hey do you reckon a immoral person can act moral ? 

No get this. 

Do you think a immoral person can do a moral ummm " act " or like a moral deed.?

Moral fucking shmorals.

Do not start rant deb 
Dont do it .
' deep breaths ' 

Ok im done now.,

Good game.
Good game.


#23
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
I think it is important to recognize morals are not valued because they have value, but because someone values them.

I accept morals to be subjective and relative to the individual and culture, but I also recognize morals are a necessary component of a society. Without them, we would not be living in as civil a society as we do today. While I recognize the importance of a moral standard, I also recognize there is no moral standard that is set in stone, rather it is constructed by society. This will change and morph over cultures and generations, and not one standard is more right than the other, but rather we can measure the utility of a moral standard based upon how it affects society.

Ultimately, I see the necessity of a moral standard, but recognize there is not an inherent moral standard, rather it is created by society, which is relative to the culture and generation.

#24
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I just tested positive for morals.

No but.
I can't for the life of me remeber the last i ummm,  adopted and or took in a good moral. 

When do ya reckon the last time was that you like ummm, gained a good moral. 

Orrrrr
Or

When was The last time you " lost "  one of these  morals you had previously.

If you loes a moral do you gain a immoral. 

Dunno.


Hey guys ?
Now don't tell others this right. 
buttttttttt. 
I heard that if  you do a odd number of immoral acts at once.  
Like 3 or 5.   ,  (  THEY DO NOT REGISTER ) 
1 , 2 , 4, 6 and so on alll count acts of moralness. 
And Boy ars they expensive. 

But GOD,  for reasons unknown,  does not witness them . 
ERGOOOOOO. 
it doesn't effect your (  AFTER LIFE ACCOMMODATION STATUS )

PS.    THAT STAYS BETWEEN US.. 

#25
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
So if wrong is violating a moral standard then what is a moral standard? What one deems as right or wrong? That’s circular reasoning at its finest
It's not circular reasoning. A moral standard is the starting point, all moral judgements are derived from it. That's why moral standards cannot themselves be evaluated on moral grounds. For example, if God is your moral standard then "God is good" is nothing more than a taughtology. That's circular reasoning.

What I'm talking about when I talk about morality is whether the actions of one cause harm or are unfair to others. And like I said, we aren't always going to agree on those basics. If you don't believe there is something wrong with harming others or treating others unfairly, then you and I are going to clash and there likely won't be any peaceful or amicable resolution to that. This is why people often get into physical altercations and why wars are fought.

So what are you talking about when you talk about morality? How do you make moral judgements? From where are those judgements derived? Do tell.
#26
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
1} Some morality is learned by a belt on the butt and has to with parent inducing child to stop causing the the parent undue problems { financial or otherwise }.

.......and that is  two ways, 1} by beaten til you believe that this or that is wrong thing to do, and 2} that beating in anger blame is a wrong way to instill those morals.....

2} My relative and friend broke 30 windows out of public school they attended and my brother got belt  on the butt.  If my father neery got any Christian stuff or he never once ever gave any notion that even one word of any Christian stuff t sunk into his brain.

3} All children experience pain most humans have an empathy center in their brain, that, like seeing someone else yawn, it makes us want yawn.

Seeing bad stuff happen to others makes us not want that to happen to ourselves.  Did ancient humans--long before the Bible or knowing of any written biblical stuff---  have a set of morals? Of course they did because of the above 1, 2 and 3 sort of experiences, passed on from parents to children and learned from our own experience. I dont want to do onto others what some others elsewhere do onto me, cause it brings more uneccessary suffering into the world/Universe

On Rocky and Bullwinlke cartoon show

.." Aesop and Son was a segment on "The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle". It is similar to "Fractured Fairy Tales," except it deals with fables instead of fairy tales.
The typical structure consists of Aesop attempting to teach a lesson to his son using a fable. After hearing the story, the son subverts the fable's moral with a pun."...

I think about what i see and experience ergo, I consider the resultants of my actions or others upon self or others.  We learn from our errors or were doomed to make the same errors over and over and over.

Others see our errors and learn with out having to make the same mistakes.

Is there a moral too my story?


#27
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@ebuc
I agree, it is necessary to conceive an idea before it is created, written down, and then transmitted to others. I believe it's also important to acknowledge that morals vary between culture and timeline.
#28
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
For example, if God is your moral standard then "God is good" is nothing more than a taughtology. That's circular reasoning.
How is that any different from what I said?
#29
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Because you're accusing me of doing that to which I'm not.

Circular reasoning is when the individual points supporting a proposition all rely on each other to be affirmed. I'm explaining why morality begins with it's foundational principals, which can be disagreed with. That's why there is no such thing as objective morality.
#30
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Circular reasoning is when the individual points supporting a proposition all rely on each other to be affirmed.
Yes, and in this case

So if wrong is violating a moral standard then what is a moral standard? What one deems as right or wrong?
the proposition relies on the word “wrong” because it starts and ends with it, creating a circle, hence the name.