Now, very commonly, debates on this forum dip into the ocean of morality. One may claim that one thing is immoral, or the other may claim it's very moral, or this and that. Let me put it simply: morality does not exist at all. Not even in the slightest. It is entirely subjective. There is no such thing as right or wrong or good or evil. It's entirely subjective. A saint might be evil and a rapist might be the kindest man in the world, if I were to view it that way. Of course, I don't. My morality is likely like most peoples', but ultimately, it's entirely subjective. So there is no right and wrong. Even if one said "there is no morality but so long as you don't hurt others you can be free to do as you please", that in itself is a morality. You are saying that hurting others is immoral. Now, of course, I think it is, but it's still subjective. But if we don't have an established morality that we all agree upon, society falls apart. Law becomes moot. After all, how can we prosecute murderers if they're doing the right thing (according to them)? That is why it's essential that we have a greater, social morality, and some people (especially liberals), don't understand this. Morality does exist, and it's the one that still exists that has existed for ages. We need it, we can't make it entirely individual otherwise everything is acceptable. Therefore, we need a greater social morality. And sometimes, compromises need to be made. Yes, sometimes it's upsetting, but it's necessary. We need some sort of regulation, in order to maintain the social function of society. Society is society, it's not economy.
this "need" of yours you find us lacking in our efforts? where? gay rights? racial discrimination? husband battering? what do you propose? what is a "greater social morality"? are you saying liberals are immoral? in what way? i think the best we can hope for is a general consensus. society might appear frayed at the edges but it perseveres rather than fall apart as you imagine. dissenters can be granted a special disposition if reasonable and feasible. if not, they are on their own. agitate. fight if the cause is just
i would love to take at your word but this is sci do expand with citations would you know what they recognize? yes of course could you talk about something specific i mean .... we need more regulation? big brother in our bedrooms? strange that. you sound like a interfering left wing loon. a self righteous liberal do say it aint so
Based off of arguments with liberals, I almost always get the same "it's only immoral to you" and "everyone should do whatever they want" typical argument. Understand what I mean by regulation: I do not mean security cameras in our homes. It's simply a matter of preserving the current social expectations, norms, and niches, relating to all sorts of matters, including family and social issues, marriage, etc
society tends to be in a state of flux and change there are advocates for many differing lifestyles some of which could change society as we know it quite radically the status quo of yesterday is not quite todays i can then extrapolate and say that the current status quo might not be so tomorrow what would you like to see preserved? surely you have an opinion on issues currently on the table? any issues of your own? ok, fine i see however you want more regulation in what form? pertaining to what?
Of course, society is flexible. Since there are many different generations, it makes it difficult for everyone to be accomodated. However, across every advancing generation, there are certain things, like family and marriage, which should remain the same. If you want to bring something specific to the table, there are a multitude of things: abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization, etc
Anti, but it's not because some book tells me to be. I use logics and reasoning, and decided that they were all wrong.
First of all, I'm surprised a religious person like you would admit such a universal truth. They usually say things like morality is absolute and God is the absolute judge. Secondly, "liberals" act out of a strong moral sense, so you couldn't be more wrong there. Acts involving censenting adults that don't hurt anyone cannot be immoral. Standing up for labor rights, feeding and educating the poor, providing health care, and mitigating the power of the rich are all moral positions. I really don't understand conservatives who think they are more moral. They talk about the right to life, but support our adventure in Iraq, which killed hundreds of thousands.
Wow. How odd. I notice liberals taking moral stances on all sorts of activities. We must not be reading the same posts and threads. Preseving norms? Slavery. Was it good when this norm was left in the past in certain countries? Women not being allow to vote. Was it good when this norm was changed? Etc.
I'm agnostic Everything can be immoral or moral. The morality which has been established throughout history proclaims that things such as abortion and homosexuality are wrong, therefore they can be immoral. So my point was, we have this morality, why destroy it?
We must not be, because liberals ALWAYS use the same "everyone should do whatever the hell they want" argument. But how are we to distinguish between what should be preserved and what should be changed?
REallly? They never for example speak out against rape or racist behavior? They never consider certain military actions ill conceived? As a couple of example. That is a good question, but I think it is more your responsibility in this thread to answer that. It seems like you were saying that traditions and norms we good, per se. I disagree. How do you Norsefire determine what traditions and norms are good ones to keep? Have you ever decided that a norm was not a good thing? How did you do this?
You keep posting this supposed trait of liberals, but it's just not correct. If liberals believed that, why support affirmative action? Whi support any antidiscrimination laws applicable to the public? If there are no standards in a liberal's mind, then there's nothing wrong with an employer only hires white men, and never minorities or women. If there's no morality at all then "All we are saying is give peace a chance," "save the whales," and "no blood for oil" should be qualified by "if that's okay with you." Liberals definitely do have a morality, what they disagree with you on is likely the sexual morality, as opposed to social conduct of a less intimate sort. In matters of sexual morality most liberals are okay with an "anything goes" atmosphere so long as all the involved parties consent, but that is a very limited sphere. In areas of what is more widely accepted to be public concern, they tend to be very moralistic. Why is it the government's job to help the poor with welfare? It seem clear to me the reason is a moral obligation. As for morality itself, it seems patently obvious to me that it is entirely subjective, but that doesn't make it any less real to the individual.
If they do, they're hypocrites. The mechanics of liberalism, I'm afraid. Well, it's a matter of balancing individual liberty with cultural conformity. I understand the importance of both, whereas liberals only emphasize individualism rather than social conformity. Therefore, I would say that as long as a specific culture or peoples are being discriminated, that's immoral. But then I must also define this. Culture, that's obvious, but by "peoples", it's purely ethnic or nationalistic. Not behaviorial. Therefore, there is no reason to allow abortion OR homosexual marriage.
