Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
ok. My point stands too: this kind of consistency across pretty much all culture and eras indicates theres more going on than just a miraculous coincidence of opinion.And my point stands. Just because most humans agree on some moral point does not mean that moral point is objectively true.
Yeah. Evolution. We evolved as a social species. Killing people in your group isn't very cooperative.this kind of consistency across pretty much all culture and eras indicates theres more going on than just a miraculous coincidence of opinion.
We do not belong to the UK. We are part of the commonwealth just like India
In February 2014, following the 2014 Ukrainian revolution that ousted the Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, Russia annexed Crimea after a military intervention by pro-Russian separatists and Russian Armed Forces.[7]
A controversial Crimea-wide referendum, unconstitutional under the Ukrainian and Crimean constitutions,[8][9][10] was held on the issue of reunification with Russia; its official results showed majority support for reunification, however, the vote was boycotted by many loyal to Ukraine[11][12] and declared illegitimate by Western governments and the United Nations.
Ahh... so you were joking? Would you mind answering the question from post #236?I was highlighting something that was very contradictory. You can't have something that is objective and yet only applies if the subject (observer) is humans.
Answer to post 236Objective facts of human living? What does that mean?
Very different.How did the UK treat Indians and native New Zealanders? I think the feelings changed towards the New Zealand after the island was populated by the Europeans, as New Zealand became more European.
The Maori and Colonial New Zealand
Same can be said about the United States.
For some reason you are deliberately forgetting that Russia used force to take Crimea.Well, your link/source also says the people voted for reunification. A majority of them. Their vote results were boycotted by the Western government. Which is very strange, if you think about it. The Western governments supported a violent revolution that 'ousted' a legitimately elected Ukrainian President but boycotted the vote of Crimeans.
So, if one uses violence against the police and forces the President to flee, then one is supported by the Western governments. But if one uses a referendum, then one is going to be boycotted. I thought the Western governments loved the will of the people? Why the inconsistency?
Anything a scientist would learn about how humans thrive (or wither) without having recourse to their subjective opinions.... using the same methods we would to study the health of, say, a caribou herd, or a pod of whales.Objective facts of human living? What does that mean?
The majority of those that voted.Well, your link/source also says the people voted for reunification. A majority of them.
Actually "declared illegitimate by Western governments and the United Nations."Their vote results were boycotted by the Western government.
Well, if so, which part? The part where the Western governments sponsored/supported the overthrow of Ukraine's president?As I understand it, many people in the US revere their constitution.
Well it seems that the Ukraine constitution is important too.
Maidan was not even a referrendum! Besides, people of Crimea can vote for whatever it is they chose to vote, no?How can an unconstitutional referendum be valid???
Do you think that during a military takeover with Russians with guns in the country, this would be a good time to have a referendum where people can freely choose what their desires are?
Actually "declared illegitimate by Western governments and the United Nations."
Very different.
The UK folk didn't come, guns blazing and conquer the natives. It wasn't cowboys and indians here and Maori aren't forced to live in reservations.
For some reason you are deliberately forgetting that Russia used force to take Crimea.
ok. My point stands too: this kind of consistency across pretty much all culture and eras indicates theres more going on than just a miraculous coincidence of opinion.
Maori fought on both sides of the New Zealand Wars. This wasn't the British taking NZ off the Maori.Hm, that's not what I read about the native New Zealanders and how they were conqured:
New Zealand Wars - Wikipedia
Maori fought on both sides of the New Zealand Wars. This wasn't the British taking NZ off the Maori.
The British signed a treaty with the Maori. There was no conquering.
Ever heard of the Treaty of Waitangi?
In the very post you responded to I was highly skeptical of a random coincidence of opinion disconnected form the objective and shared conditions of living leading to a stable morality.Why does it sound like you think that moral positions people hold are arrived at randomly? I stated very clearly in post 230 that we benefit from not having killers because we are a social species. The benefit of no killers is clear, thus it is in our interest to take action to ensure there are no killers among us.
Well "God" is just something we all (traditionally) just agree on too. There's no objective God we can show each other. Now that's a bandwagon.
At least with well being as a standard we can observe the effects of various behaviors and see how they cause health/happiness or sickness/misery.
In the very post you responded to I was highly skeptical of a random coincidence of opinion disconnected form the objective and shared conditions of living leading to a stable morality.
So I re read you post 230, and it makes me wonder why elsewhere youve been struggling so hard against my idea that enduring human morals are based on the objective conditions of human living.
I'm still struggling to grasp how the adaptations of other animal species are anything but a red herring... or red lion as it were. I'm not arguing for a pan-species morality of any sort.
Well I never said there is "an objective morality" as if its all or nothing.Gah, sorry, I misread your post.
In any case, it sounds like you are saying that since there must be more to it than a coincidence, you are suggesting that there is some objectivity to morality. Again, I will point out that such wide agreement typically only happens with the extreme issues like murder. When it comes to much milder issues, such as how to best punish a disobedient child, that almost universal agreement is nowhere to be found. If there really was an objective morality, then this would not be the case. There would be agreement in ALL aspects of morality.
One thing that really bothers is: why do religious people get to call their idea of a God-revealed or God-judged morality "objective" at all? I mean, its the very least objective of any theory of morality out there. No one can show us a shred of evidence for it....an objective morality....
Well I never said there is "an objective morality" as if its all or nothing.
For like the millionth time, Ive said that enduring morality is based on the the objective facts about human living. That leave open all sorts of other influences on morality as well, like cultural contingency and even personal opinion.
So many people here say there is no objective basis for morality at all. That all I'm fighting against.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?