People condemn Mohammad for having a child bride -but that was normal then.
Slavery was accepted practice and only started to be challenged in the second half of the 18th century.
I think such condemnations are pointless.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
houndred wrote:I think such condemnations are pointless.
But imo "lots of pepole do it" does not excuse a crime.
Morality is a social construct - in fact, it's what makes human society itself possible - and as such it tends to change as society itself changes.
This means that the behaviour of people from the past often strikes us now as having been thoroughly immoral, despite the fact that their contemporaries may have regarded that same behaviour as decent and laudable.
suppose I would define my position as moral evolutionism,
The same thing works in reverse of course - if an average contemporary person were to travel back in time several hundred years, and behave then as they behave now, they would likely be regarded as cynical, depraved bastards and would probably end up in the stocks or with their neck on the executioner's chopping block.
Yes it is, the laws of morality stay the same no matter what cultural values exist in your society at the time and you should be judged according to these rules
houndred wrote:What laws of morality are these? I studied Philosophy at university to Bachelor level and never once came accross anyone who claimed that there were 'laws of morality'. Please link to where these 'laws of morality' are enshrined.
Kman wrote:Well I am not surprised since most university philosophers suck dick at their profession, the laws of morality are figured out by thinking for yourself and figuring out whether your actions are hurting others.
Well I am not surprised since most university philosophers suck dick at their profession, the laws of morality are figured out by thinking for yourself and figuring out whether your actions are hurting others.
houndred wrote:'Crimes' are illegal actions. If there is no law to make something illegal in a particular time and place then such acions are not 'crimes'.
Yes and no animals dont have the same rights as human beings.
I disagree. I consider many legal actions to be crimes too.
houndred wrote:Says who? Is it your 'universal moral law' again or just your subjective opinion.
I think such condemnations are pointless.
Purely utilitarian thinking, killing humans can backfire on you, killing animals doesnt however since they are not smart enough to harm the master race IE humans.
I think it can be fairly easy to identify certain moral standards ("it is wrong to murder innocents") that can be broadly applied across both space and time.
immediately see problems with your above example, for instance.
When an action is immoral, it is immoral, regardless of:
houndred wrote:So let me get this right. It is OK to kill sentient beings who are not smart enough to harm you?
houndred wrote:I thought you believed in moral laws and yet you have now become 'utilitarian'(by your defintion)
Then please demonstrate these moral standards that have applied to all places and at all times.
Except you haven't demonstrated what that morality is, there is no objective definition of an immoral act.
I have my own moral standards based on primary axioms
Only if they are not human beings.
The two things are not mutually exclusive.
I am advocating a moral standard that views murder of innocents as wrong. That moral standard inherently applies to all times and places. In other words, the standard is "it is always wrong to murder innocents", rather than "it is wrong to murder innocents when such murder is considered wrong by prevailing society".
You can logically reject my standard. Most human societies have indeed done just that. In practice, most human societies (selectively) reject that standard even today.
But just because some people (here and elsewhere, now or in the past) fail to acknowledge that standard doesn't exempt them (in my eyes, or the eyes of people who share my moral sentiments) from compliance with it.
I'd be happy to articulate what I consider to be the minimal standards of morality (namely to avoidance, with the possible exception of emergencies, of aggression against others).
I fully acknowledge my inability to "demonstrate" that my standards must apply universally at the standard of mathematical or scientific proof
Here in PoFo, byw, my record of success has been abysmal.
I'd be interested to learn more about them (both the standards and the axioms).
So essentially you refute your own claim that there is a universal moral standard.
All you are really claiming is that YOU have a baseline moral standard.
But this moral standard of yours is entirely subjective.
I am not subject to your moral whims as you ,no doubt, reject the moral whims of a Marxist or a Salafist Islamist.
No one has ever been able to do that because morality is utterly subjective.
Essentially that means that you only have a duty to respect the boundaries of others, not steal from them, attack them, defraud them.
If anything, they justify their fanatical view be[…]
Yeah, the death count has been wildly inflated, t[…]
synagogue discipline? One can see you are not a […]
You and I don't agree here. Putin is making the […]