Best Video To Send To Non-Believers On Morality

[Ken-1122]

You need a reason as to why you hold a belief, otherwise you literally have no reason to be holding it.

I have a reason for holding my beliefs.

 

[Kylie]

I don't think the mugger would change his tune. It's a cliche that the worst bullies were bullied themselves.

I think you misunderstood.

The mugger who says, "It is morally acceptable for a stronger person to take things from weaker people," is not likely to say, "That guy took my money. He must be stronger than me. Therefore it is morally acceptable for him to take my things, in the same way that it is morally acceptable for me to take things from those weaker than me."

In short, the mugger who thinks that mugging someone is okay only believes that as long as he is the one doing the mugging. As soon as he is the one being mugged, he decides it is not okay.

 

[Ken-1122]

I think you misunderstood.

The mugger who says, "It is morally acceptable for a stronger person to take things from weaker people," is not likely to say, "That guy took my money. He must be stronger than me. Therefore it is morally acceptable for him to take my things, in the same way that it is morally acceptable for me to take things from those weaker than me."

In short, the mugger who thinks that mugging someone is okay only believes that as long as he is the one doing the mugging. As soon as he is the one being mugged, he decides it is not okay.

Don't assume people who do wrong are unaware what they are doing is wrong, I believe most who do wrong know it is wrong but don't care.

 

[Kylie]

Don't assume people who do wrong are unaware what they are doing is wrong, I believe most who do wrong know it is wrong but don't care.

They know other people will view it as wrong, but if they themselves thought, "It is wrong of me to do this," then they wouldn't do it. There is some part of them saying it is morally acceptable for them to mug someone.

 

[Freodin]

because its immoral ...its pretty simple...

Ah, pretty simple.

Well, I'm sorry. Imagine I am even simpler. Imagine you are talking to someone who is not used to your language or your worldview.

What is this "immoral" you are talking about? How does it differ from "wrong"? Please explain it in a "simple" way.

 

[Ken-1122]

They know other people will view it as wrong, but if they themselves thought, "It is wrong of me to do this," then they wouldn't do it.

I disagree! A lot of people who do wrong don't think if it is right or wrong before doing it, they just do it.

There is some part of them saying it is morally acceptable for them to mug someone.

Not morally acceptable, just acceptable.

 

[Astrid]

if morality is subjective child sacrifice isnt wrong when in a society that worships mo loch ...thats litteraly your position...

You are literally making things up.

Take your fantasies elsewhere.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Ken-1122]

if morality is subjective child sacrifice isnt wrong when in a society that worships mo loch ...thats litteraly your position...

No. If morality is subjective, child sacrifice isn't wrong according to the society you mentioned, but it is still wrong according to me. And this is the case regardless of whether you give morality the objective or the subjective label.

 

[Astrid]

No. If morality is subjective, child sacrifice isn't wrong according to the society you mentioned, but it is still wrong according to me. And this is the case regardless of whether you give morality the objective or the subjective label.

And did not tell Abraham, give me a son?

 

[Ken-1122]

And did not tell Abraham, give me a son?

I don't see the connection between your response and my claim.

 

[pgp_protector]

Is it moral to stone your children to death for what they say?

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[DaisyDay]

its not rude on my part that you are unable to awnser the question given which is the baisis for this whole thread...

It is rude on your part to throw unwarranted accusations.

how about asking this way...is there 1 truth or can everyone have their own truth? for if truth is fixed then morality comes from single point....if morality comes from single point it is NOT subjective....

Is there one, single Truth? I don't know. You haven't defined what you mean by "truth". In that vein, a given person's truth may be "truth" universal or it may not: it depends on what it is. Are you defining "truth" as "that which is objectively true"?

You seem to be arguing that morality is the same as truth, but you have made no case for that assumption whatsoever.

Truth is beauty; beauty truth: rooty toot toot, rooty toot toot.​

 

[DaisyDay]

Dude, do you even English?

Hey, now...we all noticed but it is impolite to say.

 

[DaisyDay]

I think you misunderstood.

The mugger who says, "It is morally acceptable for a stronger person to take things from weaker people," is not likely to say, "That guy took my money. He must be stronger than me. Therefore it is morally acceptable for him to take my things, in the same way that it is morally acceptable for me to take things from those weaker than me."

In short, the mugger who thinks that mugging someone is okay only believes that as long as he is the one doing the mugging. As soon as he is the one being mugged, he decides it is not okay.

No, I did not misunderstand- I disagree with your point. A mugger who lives in a society of muggers, may very well not see mugging as a question of morality, but of survival and simply the way of the world.

This has been somewhat in the fore of my thoughts because my husband and I have been watching a historical fiction series (448 episodes!). The heroes are strong, handsome/beautiful, virtuous. They are fighting for their God and their people and to "end cruelty". It is all well and good until you step back and consider who these heroes are: they are the warlords of the steppes. This is a modern retelling.

I got the book that many of the stories are based upon, the Book of Dede Korkut. The warriors petition their lord for permission to go raiding and get raided in turn. This is mugging but on a grander scale with greater returns. There was no morality attached to it. There was glory or inglory depending on whether you won or lost.

 

[Kylie]

No, I did not misunderstand- I disagree with your point. A mugger who lives in a society of muggers, may very well not see mugging as a question of morality, but of survival and simply the way of the world.

And such a society is not likely to last very long, is it? Such a society will either drive itself to extinction as people act preemptively to stop themselves from being mugged (after all, if someone approaches you, you're going to assume they are planning on mugging you, since that's what this society is built on), or people will leave the society, finding it safer to live a solitary life.

So, societies where mugging is accepted aren't going to last, and societies where mugging is not accepted are likely to continue. This is a basic evolutionary idea. Thus, evolution can explain morality.

This has been somewhat in the fore of my thoughts because my husband and I have been watching a historical fiction series (448 episodes!). The heroes are strong, handsome/beautiful, virtuous. They are fighting for their God and their people and to "end cruelty". It is all well and good until you step back and consider who these heroes are: they are the warlords of the steppes. This is a modern retelling.

I got the book that many of the stories are based upon, the Book of Dede Korkut. The warriors petition their lord for permission to go raiding and get raided in turn. This is mugging but on a grander scale with greater returns. There was no morality attached to it. There was glory or inglory depending on whether you won or lost.

Ah, but the fact that those they are mugging are NOT part of the society is an important point, isn't it?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

It is rude on your part to throw unwarranted accusations.

Is there one, single Truth? I don't know. You haven't defined what you mean by "truth". In that vein, a given person's truth may be "truth" universal or it may not: it depends on what it is. Are you defining "truth" as "that which is objectively true"?

You seem to be arguing that morality is the same as truth, but you have made no case for that assumption whatsoever.

Truth is beauty; beauty truth: rooty toot toot, rooty toot toot.​

I've been trying to abstain from this as I know there's not going to be reconciliation between our views but, if it's true that you can't know truth, wouldn't that mean you know truth? (the truth being that you can't know it) I know you see it as semantics but I want you to try and see it as logic, the same kind of logic you use to reason your way into a nebulous form of truth

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

You are literally making things up.

Take your fantasies elsewhere.

I don't think he's making things up, I think he's saying that if the acceptability of your moral actions is determined by the society around you then you can't say that child sacrifice is wrong. Only that it is wrong for our current society, according to our arbitrary preferences. He's pointing out that you can't universally condemn child sacrifice as wrong, you can only approach it as different. Whereas somebody who holds to the view that there is correct/true morality could universally condemn child sacrifice.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

If I create a computer program, do I get to objectively decide what is moral within that program?

Yeah the designer decides the parts that make the computer up. This quote is why I stopped responding, it's such obvious logic that if you couldn't see it I didn't know what the point of continuing was.

Yes, I believe my "don't mug people" morality is correct, and the mugger believes their "it's okay to mug people" view is correct. But I'm sure the mugger would quickly change his tune if he was the victim of the mugging.

If morality is based upon your personal belief then the mugger is just as correct as you if his personal belief is mugging people is alright.