Search Results

A universally correct way to act is the same as a universal standard. What is such a universally correct way to act based upon? How do we know such a moral standard?

The rules don't exist in the first place. Depending on the society, it could be 'morally' acceptable to give in to the woman, while you fight back against the man, or vis versa. There is no 'morally correct' universal standard. Morality is not an absolute law, like physics. It's subjective. Morality varies between people. There is no universal purpose of morality. Morality of one man may lead to him murdering someone else, which is not keeping more people alive.

I'm arguing that such a correct set of moral laws does not exist, and 'correct' morality is dependant upon the purpose. An objectively 'correct' choice does not exist.

Ah, this morality thing. Okay, here we go.

Morality is shorthand for a longer decision making process. Absolute laws of morality do not exist, therefore morals must be governed by something else, as it cannot be an inherent knowledge of what is right and wrong. Morality is governed by personal gain, the subject's desires and the society they live in.

We can confirm that no absolute laws of morality exist by analysing different civilisations, and seeing how they can have completely different moral beliefs, such as how some in ancient times used to eat their dead, others buried them, and others burned them. To each civilisation, their method was the morally correct one. Likewise, moral laws have evolved over time. Slavery used to be justified, while now it is not. Even among the same society today, we get people who hold opposite moral views on topics such as abortion. This sort of pattern can be observed in basic social interaction, in which two people can have a confrontation, and both believe that they were morally correct. All of these occurrences prove that laws of morality are not absolute, or if they are, we have no evidence for their existence, nor does humanity does not follow them.

Thus another source of 'morality' is required to exist. This source is one of personal gain, personal desire and personal beliefs. Where as a Christian may say "I will not kill, because it is forbidden by God, and if I do, I will go to hell," an atheist will reach the same conclusion, but for different reasons. "I will not kill, because it is forbidden by society in an attempt to preserve infrastructure, and if I am caught, i will be punished." As such, both parties have the same moral beliefs in this situation, and even without the threat of hell, the threat of prison is still in place.

One may say that morally, it is correct to help people and be nice. Without morals though, you still reach the same conclusion, because it improves others' opinion of you, meaning that it is beneficial for you to be nice, as it means others are more likely to want to communicate with you, so it is potentially beneficial for you to be nice to people. The logical reason to be nice ascends to a moral position, so people actively believe that it is 'right' to be nice, when it's just a shorter way of coming to the same conclusion. So the morality is defined by personal gain and what is beneficial.

Conflict arises in other situations, because situations adjust, while morality lags behind, which can result in flawed conclusions. For example, pre-marital sex. In the past, it was forbidden for the logical reason that a woman being burdened with a child before marriage lowered her value as a wife, et al. So it was ascended into religious and moral texts, and said to be a moral rule. This worked well enough, until reliable contraception and abortion was invented, as well as the importance of marriage decreasing, meaning logically, pre-marital sex was no longer requiring to be forbidden. However morally, it is still forbidden due to hangovers from past morals, and while we are steadily progressing away from such stigma, the belief in chastity until marriage is still strong.

Then we come to the idea of the Ring of Gyges, a ring that makes the wearer invisible, and completely immune to consequences of his actions. If a person were to wear such a ring for a prolonged amount of time, his morals would degrade over time, as there would be no reason not to steal, rape or pillage as his heart desired. It is for the same reason that power corrupts. When one does not have to be respected, or one is immune from the law, his morals will lose all meaning, because the initial basis for them is gone. The time it takes for the morals to disappear depends upon the strength of the individual's moral beliefs, and some may be strong enough to last a lifetime or longer. I am not arguing that everyone in power is amoral, but I am arguing that their reasons for remaining moral is due to moral beliefs that have not yet correctly come into line with their current situation.

So I disagree with Keyblade Spirit's statement, because absolute moral laws do not exist. Atheists are merely closer to the initial logic, which ultimately evolved into the morality preached by the religion. This also means that atheists' morals are more 'evolved' than those of theists, because they do not take their morality from religious beliefs, which take longer to 'update' to the present situation.

Actually, telling him what Akanji did is probably worse. I change my vote to telling him.

Now the butler will have to kill Kumatora to silence her.

-sigh- Give me the images you want, and I'll set up a rotator for you.

...True?

Xero didn't ask a question, True or False?

Put it in the loop with a bunch of other stuff! Why choose, when you can have them all?

Also, the resulting song will be so bad, it'll come out the other side of complete atrocity, and be the best thing since MBDTF and itAotS.

WE WE WE SO EXCITED

WE SO EXCITEDa

Ah, at last our beloved reporter returns.

There's been a fair bit of minor info released for you to catch up on, but apart from that, it's been uneventful.

You're planning on using it too? 8D

If it happens, it will be glorious. All the rage of the interwebs, focused on a single point.

Aha! So someone finally noticed. I use this website to host and randomise the images. Sadly, I don't believe it works with signatures, as...

Friday is a work of art, of course. I eagerly await her fabled duet with Justin Bieber.

One could say that, yes. While you have an affinity for accordions?

I am cautiously optimistic. Higurashi is already over, with everything wrapped up. At best, they can make an interesting spin-off with some backstory. At worst, they'll create an atrocious sequel that shames the series.

Odd that they're focusing on this, rather than a Chiru anime. I suppose I'm grateful though. Higurashi adapts to anime form significantly better than Umineko.

Refresh my signature a few times. They're still there.

Oh yeah. I changed my name from Pika_power a while back to to name-colour shenanigans.