Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I think cheating is wrong in any way.If you commit to someone then break that for someone else and something trivial, then that's unbelievably low.
I agree with you though.
-AC
Well and so do I...I can't force my morals on others though....
Originally posted by PVS
so a card commemorating and glorifying an immoral act is fine?
how about a "congratulations on your first murder" card?
Yes it is....and whp are you to say its immoral..you got some "Moral-Master" Certificate from some God?
Originally posted by PVS
to secretly break a contract pertaining to an institution which is a foundation of our society is immoral. that is fact.if you agree to marrage, you push those morals on yourself.
to lie and destroy a family is immoral. nice try at being a smartass,
but next time try to have a valid point.
No its not...wrong definition of a moral.....it may or may not be against a law....moral or not is a whole different thing....
If you agree to a marriage you accept a legal contract if you agree to the morals or not is alone your business......
Originally posted by Bardock42
No its not...wrong definition of a moral.....it may or may not be against a law....moral or not is a whole different thing....If you agree to a marriage you accept a legal contract if you agree to the morals or not is alone your business......
no it is NOT your business alone. it is also the business of your spouse and family. if you agree to a commitment, then it is a moral obligation to hold to that commitment. some would say indefinately, but i believe divorce is justifiable if both parties consent. but then we get into the subjective.
and yes, adultery it is immoral, because lying and hurting others is immoral. if not, then there is no such thing as morality. by that logic, i can kill some random person for the hell of it, because my personal belief states that its ok.
We don*t get into the subjective, we are deep in it......it is morally not your business to care for anyone.....there's no absolute moral.....and it might hurt your family (most probably) but if its ok for the person then it's not immoral
Now we get to it...there is no morality.....neither lying, hurting or killing others is actually immoral....and even if you believe in a moral adultery doesn't have to be immoral in that way.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Now we get to it...there is no morality.....neither lying, hurting or killing others is actually immoral....and even if you believe in a moral adultery doesn't have to be immoral in that way.
and there it is. well, sorry if you feel that morality and virtue are but superficial illusions, but i swear that you would curse and lament every moment in a society which has neither.
Originally posted by PVS
and there it is. well, sorry if you feel that morality and virtue are but superficial illusions, but i swear that you would curse and lament every moment in a society which has neither.
Not really..I live in a society that doesn't have them ..... because they don't exist.....what exists is the Morasls ouir Government tries to impose on us (workds pretty fine, people even accept them as absolute) and a conscience that is conditioned to react on these Made up Morals...
Plus Virtue exists....everyone can decide to go by their own morals although most get fed to us....
I personally agree my set of morals is against adultery...btu I am also for freedom so they ma do as they please...and they will cause there are no morals........
Oh and if you want to kill someone, go ahead....nothing wrong withn that...I wont judge you.....I hope you won't judge society and e though when we execute you .......same rights to evetryone right?
but that logic is so flawed. so because your society imposes morals, then morallity does not exist? so i guess if your parents forced you to eat your veggies when you were little, veggies are then rendered unhealthy?
just because a government may be irrational in their enforcing of morals, that does not render morals nonexistant. it just speaks for the nature of that government. you dont have to reject morals in order to reject government policy.
This was not my loigic at all though...and you are a smart one..you know that I never said that.....
I didn't say they didn't exist because Society imposes them on us but that although they don't exist Soviety imposes the on us (which actually is a good thing because it makes it much easier to live in the Society....)
And Veggies are Healthy for the Human Body to some extend, that is easily profable and therefore a fact....Absolute orals would have to be Transcendent and are therefore not provable (or disprovable for that matter)....but if you think they are there...on what do you base them?...a god?....your own beliefs?....Societies beliefs? (two of these things would of course not make them absolute)
It's not aboot government....and I am not rejecting the Morals of tour Government...I am jsut saying that it'S everyones own business to decide if they want to stick to it....because since there are no absolute Morals Society has no right to force their morals upon one.....
And you are right...you can reject government without rejecting their morals.....but what does that prove anyways?
it proves nothing, i guess i misinterpreted you. no need to patronise me on my intelligence though...anyway...
certain morals are enforced by law and some are not. "thou shalt not kill" is enforced all over, however hypocritically in many states, such as mine. (death penalty)
morals are the glue that hold society together. a culture in which adultary is permissable promotes broken families. that doesnt necessarily destroy that family, but it forces them to struggle and to some degree suffer, and greatly increases the chances of povery and deliquency. and why? for the gratification of an individual... i believe the core of all morality is simple: "dont hurt others". religious fundamentalists like to cross that line and try to enforce what you do with your own body and mind when nobody else is effected, but i assure you i dont agree with that mentallity.
and no, you are very wrong to say i have the right to do what i please like murder someone, and then go on to say that in turn, society has the right to kill me. thats a double leap of flawed logic...impressive.
i have no right to kill another and if i do, society will punish/correct me. thats the way it is, and the way it should be.
Yeah sorry.....I guess I am one of the people that try to be Winners 🙁
The thing is those are not Morals...they are laws.....the morals are another possibility to enforce the laws.....that's what I am trying to say at least.....The Morals are not the reasons for punishment they are a way to not make it necessary to punish people.....
As for the Death penalty....I actually don't have any proble with it...I wouldn't want to argue fot or against it....
Now, now...those families are an invention of our Societies...whats wrong with big Groups living together why does it have to be exactly One Father one Mother and their Children?
But that is a flawed arguement then.....you say you are pro divorce but against adultery because it could destroy families.....is it not?
And I agree Morals are certainly very important to make Societies work smoothly...but they are not set...they can change and especially they are not something above human decision....
As for your core arguement that the core of Morals is not to hurt anyone is imo almost right, but it's actually self-preservation that creates "morals" in the first place
I am an impressive person...but its not faulty....id I said you have every right to kill another person i only meant that morally...you can chose for yourself if you think it'S moral to kill someone or not....the law is set though....and it says you are not allowed to.....and society can punish you all they want because they are stronger than you...nice as they are they let you live though as long as you don't break any rules.....isn't that great?
You have morally the right to do as you please.....you have by law no right to kill someone, if you do Society (or The Government) will punish you...and can even take your life (cause they don't have to stick to their morals or laws....its great when you are powerful) ...that's the way it is...and that's the only way it can be....
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah sorry.....I guess I am one of the people that try to be Winners 🙁The thing is those are not Morals...they are laws.....the morals are another possibility to enforce the laws.....that's what I am trying to say at least.....The Morals are not the reasons for punishment they are a way to not make it necessary to punish people.....
laws are structured primarily to enforce basic universal morals. for example, not killing and stealing.
[QUOTE=4808435]Originally posted by Bardock42
[B]
Now, now...those families are an invention of our Societies...whats wrong with big Groups living together why does it have to be exactly One Father one Mother and their Children?
but you are mixing issues. although i believe it should be 1 man and 1 woman, that is a personal, yet widely accepted moral which has nothing to do with this debate. if a woman agrees to marry a polygamous man, then she has no right to complain when he's off bangin his other wives. that was the deal, she knoew it, and she signed up for it. that is where you logic is flawed i think. you presume that i would push personal morals on others. not the case at all. i just feel that lying, cheating, stealing, and killing are punishable immoral acts.
the act of hurting another person.
Originally posted by Bardock42
But that is a flawed arguement then.....you say you are pro divorce but against adultery because it could destroy families.....is it not?
well, in many cases it is more healthy or less unhealthy for a child to grow up with one parent rather than live in a volatile houshold with 2 parents who cant stand eachother. and no, i'm not "pro-divorce". too many bad deductions today. i am pro-nothing negative. because someone belives in a woman's right to choose, doesnt make them pro-abortion. both options suck and are a shitty decision to have to make, but they sometimes need to be made.
Originally posted by Bardock42
but they are not set...they can change and especially they are not something above human decision....
i believe that the only times such morals are altered are in the case of a hypocritical government, once again, the death penalty. "tough shalt not kill...unless we say so" i think that is an erosion of morals rather than a true change.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I am an impressive person...but its not faulty....id I said you have every right to kill another person i only meant that morally...you can chose for yourself if you think it'S moral to kill someone or not....the law is set though....and it says you are not allowed to.....and society can punish you all they want because they are stronger than you...nice as they are they let you live though as long as you don't break any rules.....isn't that great?
no, morally you dont have the right to kill another person. at least not in a random fashion. lets not debate revenge and death penalty, please.
you have the FREE WILL and capability to kill, but not the right.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You have morally the right to do as you please.....you have by law no right to kill someone, if you do Society (or The Government) will punish you...and can even take your life (cause they don't have to stick to their morals or laws....its great when you are powerful) ...that's the way it is...and that's the only way it can be....
not the way it should be imho. but those with such power are usually corrupt and the laws reflect that. but as i said, we cant allow the, to be the ambassadors to the cause. societies decide what is moral, not them. they are there to set laws accordingly...so it should be anyway
>>laws are structured primarily to enforce basic universal morals. for example, not killing and stealing.
No, Laws are structured primatily to enforve basic universal needs of humans. for example, not being killed, not losing their properties.....
Originally posted by PVS
but you are mixing issues. although i believe it should be 1 man and 1 woman, that is a personal, yet widely accepted moral which has nothing to do with this debate. if a woman agrees to marry a polygamous man, then she has no right to complain when he's off bangin his other wives. that was the deal, she knoew it, and she signed up for it. that is where you logic is flawed i think. you presume that i would push personal morals on others. not the case at all. i just feel that lying, cheating, stealing, and killing are punishable immoral acts.
the act of hurting another person.
I agree, I mixed up something but not everything...it is true that she/he broke a contract but you can't break morals cause you either have them or not.......
Originally posted by PVS
well, in many cases it is more healthy or less unhealthy for a child to grow up with one parent rather than live in a volatile houshold with 2 parents who cant stand eachother. and no, i'm not "pro-divorce". too many bad deductions today. i am pro-nothing negative. because someone belives in a woman's right to choose, doesnt make them pro-abortion. both options suck and are a shitty decision to have to make, but they sometimes need to be made.
I meant you are pro-divorce-being-a-decision-everyone-has-to-make-for-themselves.....to long to type everytime...let's just call it pro-divorce.....
Now, yes it is sometimes better for the people to be separated.(but now, to be honest, can you say that adultery is always bad for the people involved...it might make their lifes much easier....who knows)
Originally posted by PVS
i believe that the only times such morals are altered are in the case of a hypocritical government, once again, the death penalty. "tough shalt not kill...unless we say so" i think that is an erosion of morals rather than a true change.
That's not a change, it just shows that the people that make the Morals don't have to stick to them...cause they are subjective.....
But there are changes in Morals: Slavery is Moral - Slavery is Abolished, An Eye for an Eye - Turn the other cheek, Women are Property - Women have equal rights, Homosexuality is despicable - Homosexuality is ok, Abortion is against Morals - Abortion should be the choice os the Woman. .......it happens all the time...and although I personally believe some morals to be right and some to be wrong I know that none are bette than others...cause there is no Absolute goal to achieve....
Originally posted by PVS
no, morally you dont have the right to kill another person. at least not in a random fashion. lets not debate revenge and death penalty, please.
you have the FREE WILL and capability to kill, but not the right.
Well its not a right, but you are free to do as you please...take the consequences into consideration...but its your own choice....yes, it's not a right......but neither is it wrong....it is neutral as every other actuion too
Originally posted by PVS
not the way it should be imho. but those with such power are usually corrupt and the laws reflect that. but as i said, we cant allow the, to be the ambassadors to the cause. societies decide what is moral, not them. they are there to set laws accordingly...so it should be anyway
You can't change it...it is a natural state...not changeable in any way....Well and Society does....Society lends their power to them ...cause most people are sheep....it's the way it is...they are not powerful because of their own abilities...they are powerful because of money, charisma and other things that make people follow their beliefs....