Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

51. Re: This Dec 16, 2012, 17:23 yuastnav
 
DNForever wrote on Dec 16, 2012, 14:31:
I'm either not understanding or not thinking enough then. How can you deny those concepts while accepting the existence of morals?

Morals exist, most people acquire them while growing up. But morals are different for everybody. They are influenced by the environment, school, parents, media etc. so, for a society, or part of it, there is a set of morals that these people try to abide by.
If you would talk about, say, moral superiority, you would need an entity which would decide that one set of morals is superior to another an. If people claim their morals are superior to the morals of either people this is, in my opinion, delusional, since morals are just different.
You could argue that one person has a stronger connection to their morals than another person (if they have the same set of morals) and say that this is moral superiority but in my opinion the flaw is that one argues that they have the same set of morals. If one person has a stronger connection to their morals it means, to me, that their morals are different from another person, with a weaker connection, because they are willing to give up or sacrifice more - or something like that.

For me immorality only exists in the case where you compare a person with a set of morals to a person with no morals at all - the person without morals would be immoral then.
But you cannot say that a thief is immoral because it might be that it is well within his set of morals to steal while the majority of a society would frown upon that. The only time when this could be immoral is when the thief would steal and with that act would go against his own set of morals but this poses two difficulties: a) would a person really go against their set of morals, i.e. is it possible, by definition, to do something like that or is a certain act already an indication that the particular person does not have morals that are connected to that act; b) you would have to know beforehand what kind of morals the thief have to call him immoral.
You could say that he is immoral towards your own set of morals when he steals but that would be kind of redundant, would it not?

[edit]
My problem may very well be a semantic one. I have not really thought about it yet.
 
 
Subject
  
Optional
Message
 
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.
 




footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo