Conventionalism is Dead - Society does NOT determine what is moral.

in reference to: this contradicts: from his message 16.how do you live with yourself?
it's not okay to violate human life but it is?
hypocrite.

do you believe morality to be god-given?if so, why bother understanding morality through reason? you don't have a say in what is moral if it's god-give. As you yourself claim, you're not god.

you didn't answer the thrust of my post. you contradicted yourself. do you, or do you not, see this?

is it more moral to kill two or one?is one action (doing nothing) or the other (killing one, the son), more or less moral than the other?that's the question.

if no neither choice is moral (doing nothing or killing the son),then why let two die when you can save a life?remind me to put my life in your hands.

what is the difference between saying "slavery was once moral" and "slavery was once acceptable under a different moral code"?no difference that I can find--esp. if you accept that morals (what is viewed as moral) changes with time. you do: or, moral is good, immoral bad. that's the effect of your statement. what's good or bad is determined by the code of morality--thus, morality is limited by the code.that's not to say the code can't change--it obviously has, and most likely will again.oh, and one last thing: by your moral code. this moral code, however, wasn't in use by those who advocated slavery (though some did call it a necessary evil in antebellum US). To them, slavery was perfectly natural and a proper way to use non-humans (applicable only to American slavery, really. slavery in the classical era had a much different color).

that didn't really answer anything. you're saying that there is no difference in the two statements (slavery was moral; slavery was acceptable (truncated versions). and yet, you say there is a difference.also: under your moral code, slavery cannot, and is not, moral. Hence, it should not be allowed back. The problem is, it can become moral once again because moral codes change. no matter how much this burns, it's a possibility.that doesn't make slavery moral in your code, mind you.

somehow this doesn't seem quite right. we have a tendency to backslide, especially when you have extreme conservatism/nationalism and a culture/society that does not look favorably (either disliking or indifferent) on education.If we can slide back on technology, science, treatment of minorities, treatment of women, erode civil liberties, what makes you think that slavery won't happen again?(not we as in USA, but we as in humans)

by your moral code. your's. not the future's, not the past's. because these codes change, it may once again become "ok". your code will always condemn it. but your code will not always be.that's the point. what is moral changes--and what once was moral, now isn't, might be again.

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

this is really irrelavent though. what we do know is that what we view as moral changes through history. that's what's important.I'm not holding out for an "absolute morality" to be found anytime soon--we've been searching for over 4,000 years. so far, we all have a different morality.

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

the admins have power, yes. that doesn't stop some people from letting others get away with bs.hiding behind the admins is not always possible.

contradiction: if we know better now, it implies that at one point we didn't.
at that past point, it would have been okay, because "we didn't know better".

i don't know what's so hard about this.those things are wrong by your moral code.
not by the past's moral code.at one point, slavery was right. you can only say that it is now wrong, and we can consider them wrong for doing it, but you have to realize that they thought it right.you cannot say it has never been right, for it obviously has been in the past. again, only wrong by your morality, not their's.it is very difficult to make an aboslute statement that stems from a relativistic stance.as to admin actions, i wasn't calling it heroism. just letting you know that some of us don't let people hide behind admin actions.

no. no. no. it once was right. and still is by some moral codes.
it is not right by our moral code. it is by theirs. blanket statements do not work.ABE:
also, the last part of your statement doesn't work. if we can decide that it's wrong, what prevents us from regressing? you go straight from a subjective determination (we know better, and your stance that societies determine the moral code) to the absolutist (no matter what we think). again, a contradiction. a relative cannot be an absolute.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.