Quote:
|
The point is this. Whether something is right or wrong is not an inherent quality. There will always be an argument for both sides of a particular topic, action, decision, or 'moral'. So as I said earlier, it really just comes down to what you believe to be right; to be the best choice.
|
I agree with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mewithYou
Lighting a mouse on fire is quite small compared to lighting a person on fire. As I've said, smaller things are relative, but the larger are not. Again, imagine if morality truly were relative to find a culture where murder was completely moral, and if you did not murder people, you were immoral.
|
The term murder is quite relative. When the ancient Mayans sacrificed a virgin girl to a pit of quicksand, is that murder? Or is it sacrifice?
Okay, new example. You arrive at the scene of a homicide, and see a person lying on the ground with bullet holes in them. Can you actually see the wrongness in this? Or do you just see the blood, the bullet holes, and the body?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyeto-X
Considering that when you have more then two humans in the same general location with a common goal of some sort you have a society, It is impossible to have a culture without humans. Thus, anytime you have two+ humans in the room , you have a society, and where you have a soceity, you have commonly held beliefs and morals. Thus, when ever you have humans, you have commonly held beleifs and morals.
And again, I have yet to see anyone besides madmen do things that speciifcally go against a base code of morallity WITHOUT a justifiing motive. If you can find me a person that can murder someone without feeling the need to justify it in anyway, I will show you a lunatic.
|
There is enormous dissent among individuals about what is right and wrong. And if you suppose two people with similar goals as a society, couldn't a handful of murderers be considered a society that claims killing is okay?