stuey rulz!!
Is God mute?
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
stuey rulz!!
This began with your statement about moral relativity amd I pointed out a few issues i had with the relative side and defined morality correctly to try and get a better understanding of the words and what it actually means.(post #584)
Even Stu finally caught up and agreed (in his own precious egotistical way) with my defintion I made 5 or so weeks ago (post#584) that morality is the distinction between right and wrong behavior.
Do you also agree that morality is the distinction between right and wrong behavior ?
and if you do could you define your right and wrong behavior ?
Last edited:
"
Piptaker
100
Posts
21
Likes
There’s a few issues iv'e got regarding moral relativity that’s being peddled these days and the way it distorts and clouds true right and wrong but to understand morality and moral relativism I think it helps to define them properly first.Morality is the distinction between right and wrong behavior, and the definition of moral relativism is the notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation. Right behavior (morality) is defined as actions based in truth and not causing harm to others and wrong action being the opposite, so if right action is based in truth and is absolute by definition with the definition of relative being absence of standards of absolute and universal application, thus making making moral relativity subjective to ones personnel preferences, a dangerous road for us to go down don't you think....
#584 "
#584 was your post. Not mine.
Anyway, I think I am still learning this topic:
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.
Not all descriptive relativists adopt meta-ethical relativism, and moreover, not all meta-ethical relativists adopt normative relativism. Richard Rorty, for example, argued that relativist philosophers believe "that the grounds for choosing between such opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought", but not that any belief is equally as valid as any other.[1]
Moral relativism has been debated for thousands of years, from ancient Greece and India to the present day, in diverse fields including philosophy, science, and religion.
... ...
Meta-ethical
Meta-ethical moral relativists believe not only that people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good", "bad", "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all; rather, they are relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people.[3]
"
Last edited:
I was pointing out post #584 was mine lol. Fair enough it's an interesting subject and has to be deeply understood. Words and meanings are important and specific.
You really should start with defining morality correctly first before you even get into the relative side,that means defining right behavior and wrong behavior.
For goodness sake. That IS what relativistic morality means. The defining of what is right and wrong behavior to affirm morality and what is to be accepted as a moral standard.
That's relative NOT absolute.
Last edited:
For goodness sake. That IS what relativistic morality means. The defining of what is right and wrong behavior to affirm morality and what is to be accepted as a moral standard.
That's relative NOT absolute.
1. I can only guess that his real question very lately was actually to ask How to define/evaluate good and bad moral (acts), rather than the definition of morality, nor good morality (i.e. good principle of defining morality).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
2. It seems to me his objective and the ways/words of asking the questions about morality was a bit confusing (even to himself). (Why didn't he simply quote his own post #584 below, if he can? )
3. I think a separate thread should have been really started, if he is serious wanting to talk/discuss about this (off)topic in this thread again.
Last edited:
Make America White Again:
What did Jesus really look like?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35120965
What did Jesus really look like?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35120965
Last edited:
That is a pretty white looking Jesus.
The Shroud of Turing is probably are best guess.
I note that recent studies have made it seem even more likely to be authentic.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html
The Shroud of Turing is probably are best guess.
I note that recent studies have made it seem even more likely to be authentic.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html
Your knowledge of biblical archaeology matches your scientific understanding of HFGW:
That is a pretty white looking Jesus.
The Shroud of Turing is probably are best guess.
I note that recent studies have made it seem even more likely to be authentic.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html