Comments | jessiac: Moral Relativity/societal/abortion

jessiac

Moral Relativity/societal/abortion

Jan 06, 2004 19:59

Heya....

This is my journal. I have got into one helluva long debate over ad, so I asked the person I was debating with over to my journal.

If you want to join in the argument, feel free. But be nice. And courteous. Cos it's my journal.

Gotta go, will update/edit tomm, since mum is yelling at me to get off the comp.

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

jessiac January 8 2004, 00:27:54 UTC

Everything does. I can't satisfy myself sexually on a whim by raping someone even if I think it's right (which I don't, just want to float the disclaimer). Why not? It hurts someone else. Why is that wrong? Because we ... shouldn't hurt others. That's right, but that's moral claim.

Actually if you were strong enough you could, though there are laws to punish you if you do. Why shouldn't we hurt others (I agree with that sentiment, but some may not)? What will make this claim withstand in times of deperation? Humans create moral laws, and therfore they are infinitely fallible/changeable. (actually they aren't, there are only so many things that they could be, so it's finite)

Still, the possibility exists that you could be wrong. So could I for that matter. We can easily make mistakes by trying to figure out something that is immaterial (morals, truths) by what is material (experiments, quantifications).Of course I could be wrong. But so could you, and so could anyone who made up moral laws. That's the point. I simply look at the ( ... )

magicalyak January 20 2004, 17:28:05 UTC

Actually if you were strong enough you could, though there are laws to punish you if you do. Why shouldn't we hurt others (I agree with that sentiment, but some may not)? What will make this claim withstand in times of deperation? Humans create moral laws, and therfore they are infinitely fallible/changeable. (actually they aren't, there are only so many things that they could be, so it's finite)I think you are a believer in moral absolutes but you're just not admitting it. What I mean by this (and it is not an insult) is that you realize that one can't say there are no absolutes (for that is an absolute). It's a catch-22. I've heard quite a few people tell me that this is just rhetorics (yes, it is words, but that doesn't refute it) and I even had one guy call this an axiom and say that all philosophy is built upon it. I have yet to hear a good explanation of why a moral absolute rule cannot exist. Raping others for fun is wrong, not subjectively (like a flavor of ice cream) but objectively (like a medicine). Humans do create ( ... )

jessiac January 21 2004, 10:19:32 UTC

It has been seen to be wrong throughout the ages because it physically and mentally scars women, however in some times it was not seen as wrong ( ... )

magicalyak January 23 2004, 07:14:48 UTC

This shows me that our moral laws are as changeable as we are. At the moment I believe that to do something that hurts another person is wrong. That is because I don't like to hurt people, or to see their distress. I want to limit it. It's not because I believe that it is morally wrong.
I don't like coconut, this doesn't mean I have the right to force coconut lovers to abstain from the fruit. There is a big difference between not liking something and claiming it's a moral wrong. Hurting women isn't wrong because you don't like it, it's wrong because it violates basic tenets of morality (a woman has a right to live without unnecessary physical harm). Furthermore, just because most people like or don't like something, doesn't make it morally acceptable or unacceptable. With this reasoning, you would have to conclude abortion is immoral because before Roe v. Wade, most people felt it was wrong to have an abortion. You can't even claim a woman has a right to by pregnancy-free, since this wasn't a popular opinion at the time.

There ( ... )

magicalyak January 20 2004, 17:28:17 UTC

If everyone diobeys the rules all the time, even those that are supposed to enforce them, the the rules are meaningless and pointless.
Not if the "scorekeeper" is not in the equation (as in God with us). Furthermore, this is just like a class scoring 0% on a test. Just because everyone got the question wrong, doesn't make the question wrong itself.

I believe in evolution because a) Stephen Jay Gould has written a whacking great book that we have at home called 'evolutionary theroy' b) it makes sense c)we are still refining the theory d)we are still evolving and e) the alternative is stupid. I could be wrong, but I very much doubt it.See, this is where I find you have taken a different tact and we are on the opposite sides of the field. Arguing for evolution is arguing that randomness created order. It's making sense of what is so complicated and elegant. On the other side, we have intelligent design, which always seems to be INCORRECTLY attached to Christianity. While it is true that most ID proponents are Christians, the ID ( ... )

jessiac January 21 2004, 10:23:53 UTC

I'll give you a hypothetical example:

There is a rule in a specific country that states that you must not, ever, never, drink orange juice. Problem is that everyone does it, the whole time. Even the people who enforce the law do it. Since it causes no lasting damage to people, and is only to gratify some onicient invisible superpower, people just don't care. They do it the whole time.

What's the point of the law? Why keep it? (I'm referring to the 'don't take the lord's name in vain' commandment).

No, it's arguing that genetic mutations over millions of years caused the different species on the planet. Here to.

If an atheist thinks that an ID created the planet, then they're not atheist.

magicalyak January 23 2004, 07:34:49 UTC

There is a rule in a specific country that states that you must not, ever, never, drink orange juice. Problem is that everyone does it, the whole time. Even the people who enforce the law do it. Since it causes no lasting damage to people, and is only to gratify some onicient invisible superpower, people just don't care. They do it the whole time.
Well, if you go to hell for it, that would be a good reason not to do it. You're arguing that an because a law is unpopular, it should not be a law. The slavery laws were unpopular, apartheid was unpopular, women's rights were unpopular and abortion was unpopular. This is the jumping off the bridge example, isn't it? If everyone else is doing it, shouldn't I? The problem is that everyone else is not a good measure of where you need to be. You're living by a higher being laws, not other people's.

What's the point of the law? Why keep it? (I'm referring to the 'don't take the lord's name in vain' commandment).To respect the sanctity of the Lord's name. Demanding full explanation for ( ... )

Back to all threads