Originally posted by gordomuchacho
thats totally it and I think my point was totally bypassed by the arguments between the thinker, bardock, and leonheartmm. Judeochristian beliefs teach its wrong and society teaches its wrong, however nothign is wrong only actiosn with consequences.
Dude, that's exactly what we are arguing here.
Originally posted by gordomuchacho
thats totally it and I think my point was totally bypassed by the arguments between the thinker, bardock, and leonheartmm. Judeochristian beliefs teach its wrong and society teaches its wrong, however nothign is wrong only actiosn with consequences.
i beg to differ if u were beyond all concepts including creatin than u could say that and look at all without giving preferance of one over the other but ur NOT, u SPRING from the very idea of creation which is why it is logical to have a bias against destruction.
bardock u should understand that all views ARE subjective but they are subjective to HUMANITY and fundamental human nature which is UNCHANGING fundamentally. ur confusing subjectivity. subjectivity doesnt mean that these rules can CHANGE at any time{as it is taken in most contexts} it merely means that they are subject to a medium and are baseless WITHOUT the medium. and since fundamentally all humans are an UNCHANGING medium, we can take these SUBJECTIVE views as absoluyte as we OURSELVES are the medium and not the supreme being to whome such concepts would mean nothing as he can create things from nothing. we ARE sumthing from the beginning which isnt neutral or unbiased. we were CREATED and with creation comes the fundamental bias towards existance. if we were BEYOND the idea of creation than yes we could be neutral about creation and destruction but we ARENT and thats what u shud understand.
reposted as an answer to what u two just said.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. Well, one could say that but they should realize that a subjective view that the advancement of society is desirable is hardly absolute.
I think "Don't kill" is the most fundamental moral there is....but just not absolute. It's the first moral that would be developed when a group gets together, but it wouldn't be there before, see what I mean?
Yes, I do. And I would agree that morals may well require the presence of an intelligence to have meaning. But then--in that context--and taken from an evolutionary POV, some morals may be considered "absolute."
Perhaps it's best that we operationally define what we mean by absolute in the context of this thread.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
it is unchangeable even in animals. anything LIVING
Yes. And. So. What?
It is still only the urge to survive. What if the very urge to survive makes you kill people? The urge to survive is neutral just like anything else. It does not become an absolute moral standard and especially it is not the same as a value of everything living.
You put life on a pedestal it does not belong on. Nothing makes alive things better than dead things. Nothing.
^ if u really belived that u would not value your own life and kill urself or even if alive never had done a thing like eat or breathing to stay alive, that obviously isnt true. i think ur a little confused and in denial of the fact that you ARENT beyond the idea of existance and life and the bias that comes with it.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
^ if u really belived that u would not value your own life and kill urself or even if alive never had done a thing like eat or breathing to stay alive, that obviously isnt true. i think ur a little confused and in denial of the fact that you ARENT beyond the idea of existance and life and the bias that comes with it.
See, you don't understand the difference between valuing your own life and valuing other people's lives....it is an essential one though.
No, I see the bias. But it is not an absolute. Don't you get it. just because every living thing values itÄ''S own life doesn't make it immoral to take the life of another one.
You think because people all believe something subjectively it must be absolute and objective. It isn't.
i have already given u a very credible answer on the subjective matter if u dont plan on reading it without the ultimate thought of dismissing it no matter what its logic than i see no point in debating. ur dismissing already explained points with mere statements lacking counterargument. if u wish to debate please bring forward a credible new point to back ur case. im not playing with words here like u, just tired of writing long logical answers that u merely dismiss with a sentence and go onto call it proof against me when it lacks logic and is a mere statement giving your view.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
the common values are made up of the values of the individuals inside it. if the individuals desire different thing than it become ambiguous but if all desire the same thing than personal and common values become the same if a little more dynamic.
Common values and absolute morals are a different thing.
And life is not a common value. Self preservation is. The jump from "I value my own life" to "therefore everyone has to value the life of any other being" is not logical.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
actually no, i made the argument u simply dismissed it. i can say that i have the better argument as i was the only one arguing u were just being subborn. alas most people wont actually go through the trouble of seeing the whole argument.
That's not true, I pointed out your mistakes. I showed you the real logic. And you just repeated saying your same opinion (that I already proved wrong) again and again and again.