Moral Realitivism

Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of education is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires. And under the semblance of freedom it becomes a prison for each one, for it separates people from one another, locking each person into his or her own ego.

morals are just a way to control someone?
yea we already knew that

Knights of the Templar! The Warrior Monks of Christ!

Morals can be determinned scientifically, if you are intelligent enough.

For instance if you are below a certain level of intelligence you will lack the foresight to see that certain traditions are necessary in the long run. People below this level of intelligence are called liberals.

>>4

define intellegence.

I see no morals in natural phenomena

>>4

People below this only see things in black and white and group people into large generalizing groups

Like yourself.

>>5
Dont fall for the troll

DAFEIN ANTALIJANS

Nature has no morals

>>4
Morals are not a part of logic because they are subjective, therefore that is impossible

>>10
Does this mean killing a baby isn't always immoral?

Response: "NO CUZ DAT BABY MIHGT GRO UP TO B HITLAR LOLZ!11"

>>11
.....
You obviously don't understand moral relativism.
Moral relativism are them basic idea that morals are agreed on, and are different for everyone and every group, therfore are just a concept.
Killing a baby, according to moral relativism, is neither moral or immoral. Its just someone thought it was okay, he figured to himself that its okay to kill a baby for a variance of reasons.
troll harder 

>>11

You stupid fuck, just because morals are not absolute doesn't mean we shouldn't have them

>>5
The person's ability to calculate complex logical problems within a period of time. Through a person's life they are given the facts needed to come to the conclusion that certain traditions are necessary, some understand why and some do not. Some make a conscious effort not to think about it, but eventually as they get older they decide to think and cease being liberals.

>>7
Wrong, I never divided anything into 2 over simplified abstract categories. I merely stated that liberals are people who do not have the intelligence to understand certain things.

>>10
Some morals are objectively formed from self-evident philosophical principles. They are logical. >>11 has given an example that contradicts what you have said. If you are of low intelligence (or experience, but this is unlikely if you are over 18 which you should be to browse 4chan) you will question the morals which encourage you not to intentionally murder babies. The law of nature is no law whatsoever, you do whatever feels right at the time. However apon achieving sentience and a certain level of intelligence one questions the possibility of the existence of sentience in others. This recognition of sentience in others contradicts actions which may harm others giving some impetus not to commit them. This is the golden rule found in even the most isolated of cultures, of course it isn't always followed but it is a factor. A moral formed objectively and logically which has an effect on people's decisions beyond animal instincts.

This recognition of sentience in others contradicts actions which may harm others giving some impetus not to commit them.
Why?

>>14
the only golden rule is the one with the most gold rules.
The other rule is bullshit, people are treated like shit,lied to, and exploited and still live their lives like the government and the industry are on their side. The people who think logical see this and then exploit the stupid.

>>16
You're merely trying to rationalize your various immoralities through nihilistic justifications.

>>1

Thats why I'm a Nationalist.

>>15
Why do we value gaining pleasure/avoiding pain?

I find it disturbing that some people go through life never asking these questions. Liberals perecute christians and call them stupid for believing in god and having a religion, yet christians are more likely to ask these questions that are inconvenient to hedonism than they are.

Also liberals always go on about helping the poor, yet their philosophy is one of absolute selfishness and ignorance of the importance of the soul, spirit or sentience or whatever you call yourself and others as beings. I guess this explains why liberals enjoy claiming that they or their supporters are all oppressed victims, or much more so than they really are if they happen to be victims. To them the label "victim" is just a way of getting people to give them free stuff, they don't care if they are shifting attention away from people who are actually victims.

Liberals only help the poor in the amount which is convenient to them.

>>20
>>21

Eh, it's very easy to pass the blame among "libs" or "conservatives". But the truth lies in objective blame divided equally among those that deny the truth.

Basically: Your entire premise is off. Do Liberals really persecute Christians for believing in god or having religion or do they persecute them because they don't truly follow their beliefs? Or do they persecute them because Christians persecute "libs" by forcing their beliefs on them?

Could it be that Christians are hypocrites? With all their talk of loving their fellow man and helping the weak, they sure going about it in a fucked up way, don't you think? Or are you so bubbled into your own little world that you can't see that both sides have their pros and cons? Christians are currently claiming that they're victims of an ultra liberal society, but is that really the case?

The truth doesn't lie on one side now matter how hypocritical you think one side or the other is. When you understand that, maybe you'll stop being the persecutor of liberals and take up more of a objective stance and one that is less bogged down by MORAL RELATIVISM.

>>23
I'm not blaming anyone. It's not their fault. From when my brain first developped to a certain point in my life I was unaware of the fact that some morals can be proven from self-evident principles. Liberals either have not reached this point because they can't be botherred to think, they are incapable of doing so due to low intelligence or they have reached this point and are just lying about it in order to help manipulate stupid people.

Also I never said christians were perfect, I just said liberals were imperfect and pointed out some of their flaws. Apparently you think it is blasphemous and have suddenly become extremely apologetic in favour of liberals.

"The truth doesn't lie on one side now matter how hypocritical you think one side or the other is."

Isn't that a moral relativist stance?

>>23
Also I realise my argument isn't 100% perfect and you will undoubtedly nit pick at it anal retentively. Just to clarify, do you agree that some morals are universal?

>>24

Pointing this out with Liberals only indicates to me your low level of intelligence. You never said christians were perfect, but you imply that somehow they are better than simple-minded liberals when it is apparent that they prescribe to the same kind of stupidity and manipulations.

My stance is that there is a difference between "universal morals" and "moral relativity". I'm not sure if I believe in either. Morals can be universal, but they can also still be relative. Not adhering to "universal morals" doesn't automatically make one immoral. And the fact is, when you look at both sides objectively there's no way you can say both sides have absolutely adhered to their own moralities. If neither side is absolute or perfect, then both sides have their flaws and both sides are clearly damaging society.

I'm not nit-picking at your argument. True: It's far from 100% anything, let alone perfect. But nor am I sitting here saying that I have all the answers. But for anyone to sit here blaming and "anal retentively" nit picking either side is a little crazy, to me, sorry.

Finding flaws in the morality of one side while ignoring the flaws in your own (because clearly you've picked a side) is the definition of relative morals. You can fault me for pointing that out. Don't get haughty with me with you've decided to "join a team" - as it were.

>>26

*You can't fault me for pointing that out. Don't get haughty with me because you've decided to "join a team" - as it were.

>>26
Haha wtf. My very point was "that they prescribe to the same kind of stupidity and manipulations.". You are a good troll, but I'm too smart for you.

>>26
"Morals can be universal, but they can also still be relative."
old news is olllddd

see >>14

you are a very good troll for bringing up old news and passing it off as new

>>26
Also I never picked sides, I clearly stated that belief in god is questionable.

>>24

Or we all just catagorize many people under a broad term and then go on and on how they're "retarded" because they have different ideals. It is clear you are unamerican. Oh, the irony runs thick.

also, Underage b& for acting like your 12.

>>31
But you must be an idiot if you've been alive for 18 years and still believe all morals are relative or at least have never questionned it. At least as stupid as people who never question god's existence.

>>32

You clearly don't understand why >>31 and I take exception to your "beliefs". You sound like a fucking child. Sorry, you just DO.

why are liberals/conservatives in my discussion of moral relativism?
please take this discussion back to the topic of moral relativism rather than "lol, liberals suck" "lol, conservatives suck"

Liberals perecute christians
They do?

>Morals can be universal, but they can also still be relative.

I loled

My old girlfriend from college used to fart when ever she felt like it. Even if we were in public, she'd just let one rip and not give a damn. She was kind of a tomboy, but only in her actions.

Anyway, this one time when we were having sex she farted so loud that she pooped on the bed sheets. She was so embarrassed and ending up crying... but the reason why she cried wasn't because she pooped on the sheets, it was because I couldn't stop laughing at her. In fact, I laughed to the point where I started to fart like a machine gun. I couldn't stop myself.

So, in the end, she broke up with me because she felt I wasn't "mature" enough to handle her "mature" farts.

>>26

Lol@Morals being universal and relative at the same time, thats just terrible thinking

>>1

I'm not sure I understand the question. Morals are obviously relative, that's in the very word moral (derived from mores - customs). Even regardless of the definition morals are de facto relative since different things are, and always have been, considered moral in different places. There's no room for debate, unless you are saying that morals <i>shouldn't</i> be relative. That's a valid argument, but it's also like saying that people shouldn't kill each other.

>Anyway, this one time when we were having sex she farted so loud that she pooped on the bed sheets.

I loled hard. How does farting loud cause shitting?