A personal morality

the deal with relative morality is not that their is no "right" or "wrong". you are subject to your own moral code.if you feel that it is wrong to steal, why would you steal?
if you feel that it is wrong to cheat, why would you?
lieing, why?
killing, why?
anything else, why?I find this to be the funniest objection to relative morality (not that it's not a serious problem for those like you. it's just such a misunderstanding that, well . . .).if you seriously, honestly believe that something is wrong or right, why would you change your behavior if you eliminate the "objective" part of morality? this makes no sense to me (that you would, that is).

guess what rob. in a relative morality system, if you think it right to enforce your morality onto others, then you're able to do so.i'm not driving at being accepting of other's morality. i'm driving at following your own morality.why would you change your behavior if morality was relative instead of objective? I know I wouldn't. no one's stopping you from doing it. only your own misunderstanding is. you do value your life, right? then I suggest fighting for your life. it's your morality that you have to follow. it's the other guy's morality that brought him to your door. (well, not necessarily . . .).

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John AdamsWant 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.

I do believe I asked the question first. First to nuetral, and first to you. And I already answered the question anyhow. so do the polite thing and answer my question instead of avoiding it by deflecting it back at me.

it's the ability. not the effect. not really. it's just bad to say that it is "morality" that brought the murderer to the door. what brought him there is a desire to kill you. it's just that that doesn't clash with his morality. bad writing on my part. he's wrong in my book. plus, I value my life. that gives me all the right I need to say he's wrong and to resist his attempts.all one big mess, huh?p.s. since actual invites seem to not work, i'm throwing the chat invite in here (and for a change, it's in a message that actually has something to say that's on-topic!). anywho, would love to chat if you can tonight.

that's not what "objective" means.objective implies lack of bias--there is clearly bias in my morality statements. my morality is based off of me and how and/or what I define "right" and "wrong". you will probably have different definitions or considerations. my morality is rooted in my life experience, to a degree.an objective morality would be free of bias, would be free of life experiences, there would be a single definition of "right" and "wrong" as well as what is "right" and "wrong". actually, he really is. he really is wrong (imo). and at that point, that's all that's of concern to me.(well, aside from surviving the ordeal).i think it's right to infringe on other people when they are directly interfering with me in a way I don't approve of.

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John AdamsWant 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.

bullshit. you can't hold yourself accountable? or do you not trust yourself? when I do something I know is wrong, I don't shrug it off. I feel bad over it. I hold myself accountable for my actions. can't you? [qs]Furthermore, if morality is relative, then so is justice and mercy. The whole idea that life is meaningful, would very quickly devolve into meaningless chaos.[qs] non sequiter. why is life meaningless if justice and mercy are relative? just stating doesn't make it so, and I'd argue that one does not follow the other. you give life meaning. if you can only find meaning by having god, fine. but that's your choice. what does meaning and order have to do with each other? order is the opposite of chaos, not meaningfulness. I will grant you, though, that some people find order in their lives by having meaning, but that does not mean that meaningfulness = order.

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John AdamsWant 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.

as you love to say, we're only human. i've never claimed to be superman over here.

why would it be? I'm holding myself accountable. it does a pretty good job right now.never claimed it was perfect either.I don't see where you're going with this, unless you're trying to somehow prove that having God hold you accountable is a better system. Here's a hint--your system fails just like mine does. Granted, you can stay a child with your system, which is easier. Always easier having someone else tell you what to do than yourself.

I didn't fail the moral system. The moral system is not separate from me. It is my morality. Hence, I fail me.And the system I was referring to was my conscience, my sense of right and wrong, that voice that says "don't do this", or makes me feel bad (or good) after I've done wrong (or right).My system is not your set of god-given rules. Don't confuse them.

that's not my answer to your question. If you'll read carefully, you'll see that it is a response to your statement that "we failed it[the moral system].I've told you why I do break my own morality.
I've told you what my system is.the last half of your last question is irrelevant. The whole question also requires an incredibly massive post if I'm going to list what I feel is right/wrong and why I feel such (and then I will still miss many many items).

dude. since when did breaking a single moral make one depraved? you make it out to be that a man is always breaking the rules.throw out Hobbes, man. this same nature includes love, friendship, helping people, being good. it also includes planning for the future (yes, some of us do it because we can see the big picture--we don't live for today, but for tomorrow.Human nature is not solely bad. We can do good without the "Fear of consequence". We're not all out to rape and pillage. In fact, most of us aren't. really? try me.sorry I don't fit your misconcieved stereotype of mankind. Actually, I'm not sorry.

so why did you mention that people don't do bad things because of the "fear of consequences"? seems to me you've got two separate answers for the same question.(unless, of course, you want to argue that there are indeed "nuetral" actions. granted, I don't think such an argument exists, but hey, give it a shot).

i bolded the false part. a relative morality is still true--but only for you.

brilliant man. absolutely confounding.you come back here as "ignatius". when he gets banned, you start "ethics", claiming to not be "prophex". "ethics" get's banned. you post as MOO (a second time), referring crash to a post by "ethics" by saying "I wrote".why not just use your real account? And why try to hide who you are?foolish.