UnrelentingHorror wrote:
HelloHello wrote:
calandale wrote:
HelloHello wrote:
Having a blood relative from 7 generations ago is different from choosing a faith based on oppression and murder..
I'm not quite sure how this got here
(ah, I've been following but my brain
doesn't hold too much lately), but
why is there a problem with oppression
and murder again? Is there some reason
people recoil from these things?
How are they
right?
I think it was a joke lol.
Not at all. I don't see where morals come from.
Following the school of anthropologist Dr. Marvin
Harris, I would argue that standards of morality
are really a matter of preservation for societies.
But, that doesn't point to any absolute right or
wrong. The preservation of some Nazi society
might not be 'right' at all. Nor might the preservation
of say the Aztecs, with their ritual sacrifice. Even
though these societies would have had their own
views of the matter.
Quote:
But if you want to take the new fangled moral relativety route....
Calandale could easily turn around and say "how are they wrong? the only reason you question me is because it is based on your societal values.
Please do. These decisions are subjective in nature.
Quote:
I posit this possibility, in a vacuum outside of cultural influence the opression and murder of other 'packs' or tribes of humans, especially for ones own benefit.
Is actually in keeping with the natural order of things, predator and prey. Certainly ur predations may take forms different than others in the animal kingdom but that doesn't mean its wrong or unnatural plus it weeds out the week."
A way to put it. Still, humanity seems to have a pack
mentality. One which has been transformed into something
too large to really be applicable. Murder, when taken as a
killing without cause, is pretty clear. But, murder WITH cause
may actually be doing society a favor.
Oppression, on the other hand, has been a norm throughout
most of humanity's history. It's not clear to me that this is
a 'wrong' at all. Ah, my own feelings are a guide in another
direction, but I'd not allow them to do more than direct my
own actions.
Quote:
Thats simply a devil's advocate view though
No, I don't think so. I really fear people who seem to just
KNOW what is right and wrong, and impose it on others.
Now, making an argument of why something is valuable
to society, and that such a conglomerate should defend
itself, regardless of the underlying good, might not be
a bad choice. Since action OR inaction should be equally
culpable, IMHO, it might even be necessary to accede
to this imperative, in light of no better guidence.
Quote:
I went waaay off topic didnt I? Sorry about that.
It happens in conversations.
Makes them more interesting.