Jump to content
IGNORED

We ALL Have a Universal Moral Code In Us


Donibm

Recommended Posts

Guest shiloh357

You're right shiloh, in fact for the universe there is no difference. The only thing that makes us think it is bad, is because it is written in our genes like that. Why can you more easely kill a bug than a baby? They both are living beings. Or when dogs have bitten someone, they will be euthansied. Why don't we kill people if they bite someone else? Because it's our own species. It's bad for the continueing of our own kind. Like why do we eat meat of pigs and not from humans? Because it harms our own species. For every morallity you can find a survival reason. 

No, that isn't really true

 

If we are nothing more than a collection of molecules then killing others for any reason should not be immoral. 

 

We abhor the murder of another human being because we recognize the inherent value of human life.  It has nothing to do with survival of the species.  If it were a matter of survival, then our courts of law make no sense.  Our courts of law exist in part because recognize that there is an objective moral standard that has been violated and the violator needs to be punished for that violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  153
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   44
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/04/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/05/1997

You say it well. Killing other is not immoral for the universe. Only for us humans. If i kill an other human, do you really think my cat or dog will mind? He'll just sit there. And the planet will not stop spinning of i steal someone's money. Only humans care.

And why do you think the court will make the right decision? Here in Belgium, the court decided it's legal in some circumstances to do euthanasia on children. 

The court acts different in all the different countries. In some arabic countries it's justice of someone gets decapitated for stealing. Court's decision...

 

And have you ever asked yourself the question why you are eating the flesh of a pig, and not of a human? Why is it less immoral to kill a pig to eat than a human? 

 

And if the court system was right, then why do some serious criminals get free because of some faults in the procedure?

 

Besides, how do i violate the 'universal moral law' (if it exists) when i drive 140km/h on the highway? (speed limit is 120km/h) i can get a serious punishment for that. 

Or in Michigan a woman isn’t allowed to cut her own hair without her husband’s permission. When she does, she commits a crime. Seems legit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  820
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   261
  • Days Won:  7
  • Joined:  01/09/2011
  • Status:  Offline

You say it well. Killing other is not immoral for the universe. Only for us humans. If i kill an other human, do you really think my cat or dog will mind? He'll just sit there. And the planet will not stop spinning of i steal someone's money. Only humans care.

And why do you think the court will make the right decision? Here in Belgium, the court decided it's legal in some circumstances to do euthanasia on children. 

The court acts different in all the different countries. In some arabic countries it's justice of someone gets decapitated for stealing. Court's decision...

 

And have you ever asked yourself the question why you are eating the flesh of a pig, and not of a human? Why is it less immoral to kill a pig to eat than a human? 

 

And if the court system was right, then why do some serious criminals get free because of some faults in the procedure?

 

Besides, how do i violate the 'universal moral law' (if it exists) when i drive 140km/h on the highway? (speed limit is 120km/h) i can get a serious punishment for that. 

Or in Michigan a woman isn’t allowed to cut her own hair without her husband’s permission. When she does, she commits a crime. Seems legit...

 

Hi Schouwenaars,

 

Since you claim that there is no such thing as right or wrong in any real sense of the word, which is better:

To accept the truth and live as if there are no real right or wrong actions, or

To live a lie and pretend that there are real right or wrong actions?

 

I don't remember you answering this question.

 

I've also asked you: If it's possible to rape a woman in such a way that it doesn't affect the survival of mankind, would it be wrong?

You've been asserting that every moral rule has a survival element, but surely if that is the case this question should be easy to answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

You say it well. Killing other is not immoral for the universe. Only for us humans. If i kill an other human, do you really think my cat or dog will mind? He'll just sit there. And the planet will not stop spinning of i steal someone's money. Only humans care.

And why do you think the court will make the right decision? Here in Belgium, the court decided it's legal in some circumstances to do euthanasia on children. 

The court acts different in all the different countries. In some arabic countries it's justice of someone gets decapitated for stealing. Court's decision...

 

And have you ever asked yourself the question why you are eating the flesh of a pig, and not of a human? Why is it less immoral to kill a pig to eat than a human? 

 

That's the wrong question.  The question you should be asking is if it is okay or moral to kill a human being when it is not a matter of survival.  For example, if someone cuts me off in traffic and I follow that person home and kill them.  Since that was not  a matter of survival, would you say it is moral or immoral? 

 

This isn't about whether or not we can justify our actions based on what animals do.  The issue is whether or not one can pin what is right or wrong simply on survival.  I can think of many scenarios where people murder others for reasons that are not in any way connected to survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  820
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   261
  • Days Won:  7
  • Joined:  01/09/2011
  • Status:  Offline

You say it well. Killing other is not immoral for the universe. Only for us humans. If i kill an other human, do you really think my cat or dog will mind? He'll just sit there. And the planet will not stop spinning of i steal someone's money. Only humans care.

And why do you think the court will make the right decision? Here in Belgium, the court decided it's legal in some circumstances to do euthanasia on children. 

The court acts different in all the different countries. In some arabic countries it's justice of someone gets decapitated for stealing. Court's decision...

 

And have you ever asked yourself the question why you are eating the flesh of a pig, and not of a human? Why is it less immoral to kill a pig to eat than a human? 

 

And if the court system was right, then why do some serious criminals get free because of some faults in the procedure?

 

Besides, how do i violate the 'universal moral law' (if it exists) when i drive 140km/h on the highway? (speed limit is 120km/h) i can get a serious punishment for that. 

Or in Michigan a woman isn’t allowed to cut her own hair without her husband’s permission. When she does, she commits a crime. Seems legit...

 

You're completely, missing Shiloh's point. If what you're saying is true, then legal systems would need to reflect these subjective moral values that you espouse. Instead basing verdicts on guilt or innocence, verdicts should rather be based on how the action affected human survival. While we all know there's a distinction between legal and moral, it's also a fact that laws are best attempts at codifying morality.

If morality is really just another word for "good for survival of mankind" then the logical consequence (which you need to deal with) is that legislation should change to match the new morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  153
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   44
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/04/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/05/1997

 

You say it well. Killing other is not immoral for the universe. Only for us humans. If i kill an other human, do you really think my cat or dog will mind? He'll just sit there. And the planet will not stop spinning of i steal someone's money. Only humans care.

And why do you think the court will make the right decision? Here in Belgium, the court decided it's legal in some circumstances to do euthanasia on children. 

The court acts different in all the different countries. In some arabic countries it's justice of someone gets decapitated for stealing. Court's decision...

 

And have you ever asked yourself the question why you are eating the flesh of a pig, and not of a human? Why is it less immoral to kill a pig to eat than a human? 

 

And if the court system was right, then why do some serious criminals get free because of some faults in the procedure?

 

Besides, how do i violate the 'universal moral law' (if it exists) when i drive 140km/h on the highway? (speed limit is 120km/h) i can get a serious punishment for that. 

Or in Michigan a woman isn’t allowed to cut her own hair without her husband’s permission. When she does, she commits a crime. Seems legit...

 

Hi Schouwenaars,

 

Since you claim that there is no such thing as right or wrong in any real sense of the word, which is better:

To accept the truth and live as if there are no real right or wrong actions, or

To live a lie and pretend that there are real right or wrong actions?

 

I don't remember you answering this question.

 

I've also asked you: If it's possible to rape a woman in such a way that it doesn't affect the survival of mankind, would it be wrong?

You've been asserting that every moral rule has a survival element, but surely if that is the case this question should be easy to answer.

 

That question depends on each person. choose the one you will be the most happy with. And it doesn't mean that if actions might be not 'bad' from origin, that you should do them.

 

Raping is hurting other people. And hurting your own people is not very helpfull. Survival is also based on trust on each other. And i don't think you build a relation of trust if you rape that person.

For nowadays of course it doesn't really have a big infuence on the survival of the whole human rase. But not hurting people is an instinct that comes from the far away generation who survived because they had the same instinct. Because they were able to multiply, we still have the same instinct. Of course there are always people who don't have that instinct. But that's because everyone is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  153
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   44
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/04/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/05/1997

 

You say it well. Killing other is not immoral for the universe. Only for us humans. If i kill an other human, do you really think my cat or dog will mind? He'll just sit there. And the planet will not stop spinning of i steal someone's money. Only humans care.

And why do you think the court will make the right decision? Here in Belgium, the court decided it's legal in some circumstances to do euthanasia on children. 

The court acts different in all the different countries. In some arabic countries it's justice of someone gets decapitated for stealing. Court's decision...

 

And have you ever asked yourself the question why you are eating the flesh of a pig, and not of a human? Why is it less immoral to kill a pig to eat than a human? 

 

That's the wrong question.  The question you should be asking is if it is okay or moral to kill a human being when it is not a matter of survival.  For example, if someone cuts me off in traffic and I follow that person home and kill them.  Since that was not  a matter of survival, would you say it is moral or immoral? 

 

This isn't about whether or not we can justify our actions based on what animals do.  The issue is whether or not one can pin what is right or wrong simply on survival.  I can think of many scenarios where people murder others for reasons that are not in any way connected to survival.

 

Same response as Luftwaffle: it doesn't has the be a matter of survival now (on small scale). It was because our forfathers survived with this instince or 'moral rule', they multiplied and spreaded that instinct. It was once a matter of survival, that we still have in us. And of course, this exemple will not make the difference of the survival of mankind. But if everyone would think like that, we would not survive. 

So on large scale it is a matter of survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

Same response as Luftwaffle: it doesn't has the be a matter of survival now (on small scale). It was because our forfathers survived with this instince or 'moral rule', they multiplied and spreaded that instinct. It was once a matter of survival, that we still have in us. And of course, this exemple will not make the difference of the survival of mankind. But if everyone would think like that, we would not survive. 

So on large scale it is a matter of survival.

 

Maybe it is because your english isn't your mother tongue, but that response makes absolutely no sense, but I will try to respond to what it appears you're saying.

 

So if there are cases where murder doesn't have to be based on survival, the question remains, why is murder bad or good?  It was good for our forefathers, but not good now?   When did murder become immoral?  And why would it make a difference if you murder one person or 100?  Why is it  not a matter of survival on small scale but is a matter of survival on a big scale?  Again, that makes no sense.

 

Sorry, but you seem to trying to hold on to an argument you can't support ard are  just making up the rules about morality as you go.  You really can't make a case for your position and nothing I feel any thinking person needs to take seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  35
  • Topic Count:  99
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  40,789
  • Content Per Day:  7.95
  • Reputation:   21,262
  • Days Won:  76
  • Joined:  03/13/2010
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/27/1957

Continuance in a closed system that is ending is a vanity of a fool...

Deliverance from such must be from some outside source! Else why in

science, the basic building block of all that is known, energy testifies

of non destructive essence without end YET continuance is not life as

we know it by that same essence? Simply put by God through Paul:

Rom 1:20-22

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the

world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that

are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they

are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not

as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their

imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

KJV

How wonderfully clear the witness of the created thing to that of The Creator...

Love, Steven

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  153
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   44
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/04/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/05/1997

 

Same response as Luftwaffle: it doesn't has the be a matter of survival now (on small scale). It was because our forfathers survived with this instince or 'moral rule', they multiplied and spreaded that instinct. It was once a matter of survival, that we still have in us. And of course, this exemple will not make the difference of the survival of mankind. But if everyone would think like that, we would not survive. 

So on large scale it is a matter of survival.

 

Maybe it is because your english isn't your mother tongue, but that response makes absolutely no sense, but I will try to respond to what it appears you're saying.

 

So if there are cases where murder doesn't have to be based on survival, the question remains, why is murder bad or good?  It was good for our forefathers, but not good now?   When did murder become immoral?  And why would it make a difference if you murder one person or 100?  Why is it  not a matter of survival on small scale but is a matter of survival on a big scale?  Again, that makes no sense.

 

Sorry, but you seem to trying to hold on to an argument you can't support ard are  just making up the rules about morality as you go.  You really can't make a case for your position and nothing I feel any thinking person needs to take seriously.

 

It appears indeed that i'm not quite good at making my point clear in english.

Murder was morally 'bad' for our forfathers, SO it is still now.

And with forfathers i mean really really long ago. Not just some generations. 

But of course, that it comes from our forfathers is related with evolution theory. 

So if you don't accept evolution theory, it is impossible to agree with this concept. (wich i don't obligate anybody to)

 

the large-small scale is also not meant the way you took it.

It was an answer to when you said murder isn't always about survival.

On small scale (some persons) it is indeed not.

but on larger scale (millions or billions of people) it becomes a treath.

And if it is a treath to the continue of mankind, it is a matter of survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...