So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[Sparko]

That's where the "do unto others as you would have them do to you" comes in. The above kind of thinking can go both ways and everyone would be killing everyone.

and that's where you try to argue for universal morality again.

Using your logic we would not arrest criminals because we wouldn't want to be arrested. You don't understand the Golden Rule at all, do you?

In the society that kills homosexuals, they don't want homosexuals, and think they are deviants. So they remove them from society. Just like we remove criminals from society. Sometimes by execution. If morals are just societal mores like Tassman argues then there is nothing wrong with executing homosexuals.

[Tassman]

So what? "barbaric" is just your opinion of them.

No, it’s the opinion of the society's to which you and I belong, namely signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This reflects our community social values, not those which are grounded in the values of 1,500 years ago when Islam was founded. We’ve moved on from there. Even modern Muslims interpret these things more in keeping with current social values, just as do modern Christians.

[seer]

No, it’s the opinion of the society's to which you and I belong, namely signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This reflects our community social values, not those which are grounded in the values of 1,500 years ago when Islam was founded. We’ve moved on from there. Even modern Muslims interpret these things more in keeping with current social values, just as do modern Christians.

Nonsense Tass, only a minority of countries signed this, and many who did like Iran, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, etc... don't even follow the principles. And again there is no moving on, that suggests that there are better objective morals that we are moving towards. There are no objectively better or worse ethics in relativism.

[tabibito]

Nonsense Tass, only a minority of countries signed this, and many who did like Iran, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, etc... don't even follow the principles. And again there is no moving on, that suggests that there are better objective morals that we are moving towards. There are no objectively better or worse ethics in relativism.

Pretty much. People get pilloried just as much now as they ever did. It's only the badges worn by the perpetrators and victims that change.

[JimL]

and that's where you try to argue for universal morality again.

Using your logic we would not arrest criminals because we wouldn't want to be arrested. You don't understand the Golden Rule at all, do you?

In the society that kills homosexuals, they don't want homosexuals, and think they are deviants. So they remove them from society. Just like we remove criminals from society. Sometimes by execution. If morals are just societal mores like Tassman argues then there is nothing wrong with executing homosexuals.

Well I'm arguing for universal sound reason upon which we base our morality. There is no universal sound reason, and nor is there any universal, objective morality.

[Sparko]

No, it’s the opinion of the society's to which you and I belong, namely signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This reflects our community social values, not those which are grounded in the values of 1,500 years ago when Islam was founded. We’ve moved on from there. Even modern Muslims interpret these things more in keeping with current social values, just as do modern Christians.

So who cares what OUR society thinks of them? You said each society determines their own morality, not some other society. I am sure they think we are a bunch of immoral infidels.

You said:

It is the community in which I reside which decides on the moral values of the community.

Or did you mean that literally that the society in which YOU Tassman resides determines the morals of all communities?

[Sparko]

Well I'm arguing for universal sound reason upon which we base our morality. There is no universal sound reason, and nor is there any universal, objective morality.

your "sound reasoning" is just your own biased rationalization for your own morals, Jim. Other people will have their own rationalizations for their own morals. What makes your rationalization more correct than theirs? Are you the objective judge of morals in the universe?

[One Bad Pig]

Well I'm arguing for universal sound reason.... There is no universal sound reason....

[Sparko]

Typical JimL contradicting himself.

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, only a minority of countries signed this, and many who did like Iran, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, etc... don't even follow the principles. And again there is no moving on, that suggests that there are better objective morals that we are moving towards. There are no objectively better or worse ethics in relativism.

The rules of cooperative social behavior arose and evolve as a survival mechanism for humanity. All indications are that the developed countries, with their emphasis on equal rights for all, are more stable than places where religion dominates and where the so-called “objective morality of God” dominates.

[Tassman]

So who cares what OUR society thinks of them? You said each society determines their own morality, not some other society.

Of course, societies determine their own morality, where else would it come from? Our moral values can’t come from a deity because there's no evidence that deities exist outside of the minds of our species. Therefore, God’s moral values are just our moral values. And they apply to communities rather than individuals, because we have evolved as a 'social species' which must live in community to survive.

[MaxVel]

Of course, societies determine their own morality, where else would it come from? Our moral values can’t come from a deity because there's no evidence that deities exist outside of the minds of our species. Therefore, God’s moral values are just our moral values. And they apply to communities rather than individuals, because we have evolved as a 'social species' which must live in community to survive.

Doesn't answer the question. Try again, without dodging or trying to divert from the question.

[Tassman]

Doesn't answer the question. Try again, without dodging or trying to divert from the question.

Well it does answer the question; you just missed the point.

Rules of behavior (i.e. morality) evolved to enable a social species such as us to live cooperatively in community in order to survive. Although, they have changed and adapted over the millennia to meet the requirements of a given community.

Hence, the moral code developed by a nomadic tribal society, such as that from which Judeo/Christian or Islamic morality derives, can conflict with the behavioral code of the more humanist, non-theist societies of much of the developed world. But the underlying reason for their existence remains the same, the survival of the species.

[MaxVel]

Well it does answer the question; you just missed the point.

Rules of behavior (i.e. morality) evolved to enable a social species such as us to live cooperatively in community in order to survive. Although, they have changed and adapted over the millennia to meet the requirements of a given community.

Hence, the moral code developed by a nomadic tribal society, such as that from which Judeo/Christian or Islamic morality derives, can conflict with the behavioral code of the more humanist, non-theist societies of much of the developed world. But the underlying reason for their existence remains the same, the survival of the species.

Still haven't answered the question.

You called Muslim societies moral codes "barbaric". Sparko asked you why they should care what you think.

You replied that it wasn't just you, but your society that thought that. Sparko asked why Muslims should care what our society thought of them.

You replied with an irrelevancy - your assertion that morals developed to allow humans to live in co-operative societies. And that different societies can have different codes.

That doesn't answer the question, why should Muslims care that their moral code is different to ours?



You don't want to answer that question, because there isn't a good answer you can give. You can't say that our code is right, and theirs wrong, since both (according to you) evolved to allow people to live in societies, and theirs works just fine for that.

You can't say that they should care because they should want to live happily with us - because that is a moral claim, and if they don't subscribe to it in their society, they're right to do so.

You can't say that they should care, because we have lots of weapons and we'll make them care, because that's not an appeal to reason, or a moral code, just a threat of violence. Plus Muslims seem to be considerably better at getting their moral code imposed by violence that we are at getting ours imposed that way.


You have no answer. Your moral opinions are just that - opinions - intrinsically no more valid than your opinions on what colours are masculine and what feminine, or what foods taste good, or whether Aussie Rules or Football is the greatest sport in the world. Worse than that, you're willing to get what are simply your moral opinions imposed on others by the use of force - through the power of the state and legislation. That's downright evil and insane.

[tabibito]

You don't want to answer that question, because there isn't a good answer you can give. You can't say that our code is right, and theirs wrong, since both (according to you) evolved to allow people to live in societies, and theirs works just fine for that.

At a guess, declaring their codes "barbaric" did in fact make that declaration.

Your moral opinions are just that - opinions - ... you're willing to get what are simply your moral opinions imposed on others by the use of force - through the power of the state and legislation. That's downright evil and insane.

And given that those who disagree are deemed wrong to pursue that same course for their own ends, hypocritical.