Knight's Pick 12-07-2008

[Nathon Detroit]

Wow! Great post, holding all the feet to the fire with the goods to back it up!

=/ I think it's really only punisher I've seen do that to the full extent.

I would disagree. Each of the following links provides evidence of people either stating or implying that right and wrong is determined by the majority or simply "humans".

SUTG

Humans are natural processes. Humans define right and wrong.

Rusha

Why wouldn't you use the "do unto others" standard for making such determinations? The majority of ppl would agree stealing, abusing, raping, molesting, killing etc. are things they would not want done to them.

For those that don't agree, who cares what they think? They are nutters and with the exception of theft, all of those violators should receive the DP.

There is no need for laws that control human actions that do not victimize other ppl or animals.

atrasicarius

Because rape isnt right for the victim or for the society, and they're the ones who decide what is right and wrong in any given place or time. In some cultures, rape was an accepted and unpunished part of society. Now, by my standards, this is about as wrong as it gets, but there's nothing inherent about the universe that labels anything humans do as "right" or "wrong." These are purely subjective concepts.

Alright, I think that was my last post for the night. I'll be on again tomorrow.

alltruism

This kind of morality evolves along with the society, as some of the causes of happiness / suffering are cultural and change over time.

DoogieTalons

This also concludes that any morals we do have we choose to have and therefor cannot credit god with that either.

billwald (here and here)

Moral standards are set by the local social contract.

Pragmatically, laws and morals are based on the group's social contract.

skeptech

To me, this doesn't mean that morality is necessarily absolute, but simply what is considered to be right by those involved.

I think morality should be based on respecting the rights of individuals to live their own lives, without allowing them to infringe on the rights of others to live theirs.

As for legislating it, I think the representative democracy is by far the best way -- those involved should decide. A few people are elected to make the decisions as to what is (hopefully) best. Note that this is not "majority rules"...

The above quote was odd don't you think?

This last one is from one who claims to be a Christian. Imagine that.

justchristian

But it can't be just someones, it has to be a ovewrwhelming [sic] majorities.

I really wish someone that I have quoted above would respond to Knights original question.

:first:

 

[chatmaggot]

Oh come on! Twice in three days?

Is that a new record?

I write because I want to know...not to win awards. However, I will place this new one on my mantle with the other one.

Thank you again.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Oh come on! Twice in three days?

Is that a new record?

I write because I want to know...not to win awards. However, I will place this new one on my mantle with the other one.

Thank you again.

Great stuff... keep 'em comin'!

 

[Psalmist]

Knight :thumb:

Chatmaggot :wave2:​

 

[assuranceagent]

Beautiful, Chatmaggot!

Both have been well-deserved :thumb: