Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostAnd yet at one time they did. And they could again. So don't avoid my question. If Australia (your society) decided to outlaw abortion, would you then agree that abortions are immoral?“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYou’re missing the argument, repeated several times, that “if the majority of society want a law changed then, in our society, it will be changed, including the abortion laws. If one disagrees with a Law then one lobbies to change it. It’s not as if Laws are objective and unchangeable, they merely reflect current social values.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou still are not answering my question. If the majority of society thinks abortion is immoral then they will change the law to say abortion is immoral, right? So if they did that in your society would you then believe that abortions is immoral? Would abortion be immoral?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostMorals, what is right and what is wrong behavior, are dependent on the best interests of society regardless of what any one individual believes. In a sense you could argue that what is in the best interests of a society is objective, because it either is or isn't in its best interests, but it isn't set down in stone.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou still are not answering my question. If the majority of society thinks abortion is immoral then they will change the law to say abortion is immoral, right? So if they did that in your society would you then believe that abortions is immoral? Would abortion be immoral?
You seem to be assuming that if there is a “majority” that it becomes Objective Law. It doesn’t, ANY law is subject to possible change and can be lobbied for or against.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post"best" assumes an objective standard of "good" that society is striving towards. And if there is an objective standard of "good" then morality is objective.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostNo.
Morals exist despite what a society says. When the US had slavery, even though most of the society believed it was OK, it was still immoral and wrong. When the Nazi's gassed millions of Jews, even though they thought it was moral, it wasn't. It was wrong. There is a right and wrong that transcends what a society claims. Even you recognize that despite your protestations.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post"best" assumes an objective standard of "good" that society is striving towards. And if there is an objective standard of "good" then morality is objective.Last edited by JimL; 06-24-2019, 09:28 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostEven should the above be true, it need have nothing to do with an objective source. That's the part that I think you are not grasping. Moral or immoral behaviors are only objective in the sense that they are either in the best interests of community, or they are not. They don't need come from and objective source for that to be the case. If god doesn't exist, moral rules would still be in the best interest of society. Don't you agree?
The Nazi's thought that what was "best" for their society was to kill all of the Jews. Does that mean that genocide is moral?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThe concept of there being a "best" indicates an objective goal that everyone agrees on.
The Nazi's thought that what was "best" for their society was to kill all of the Jews. Does that mean that genocide is moral?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Postif god didn't exist, moral rules regulating behavior would still be in the best interests of community, don't you agree?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAnd Nazi Germany thought that exterminating the Jews and other genetically "undesirable" people was in the best interests of the community
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostWithout going through the whole thread I'll assume that the Nazis were brought up as an example already. They thought that they were doing a great service for not just Germany but all of Europe in their campaign to exterminate the Jews. The Nazis claimed that they were eradicating a "racial tuberculosis" and a "bacillus" as they slaughtered them.
Hitler cites Louis Pasteur, as well as Robert Koch (the father of microbiology who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his tuberculosis findings in 1905), as inspirations for the Holocaust.
During one of his Table Talks on February 22, 1942 Hitler remarked that:
It is one of the greatest revolutions there has ever been in the world. The Jew will be identified! The same fight that Pasteur and Koch had to fight must be led by us today. Innumerable sicknesses have their origin in one bacillus: the Jew! Japan would also have got them if it had remained open any longer to the Jew. We will get well when we eliminate the Jew.
Similarly on July 10, 1942, Hitler stated:
I feel I am like Robert Koch in politics. He discovered the bacillus and thereby ushered medical science onto new paths. I discovered the Jew as the bacillus and the fermenting agent of all social decomposition.
In a speech before the Reichstag on January 30, 1937, Hitler explained that the anti-Jewish policy he had inaugurated reflected his endeavor to make the German people "immune against this infection." Measures enacted by the Nazis, Hitler claimed, were designed to enable the German people to avoid "close relationship with the carriers of this poisonous bacillus." For as Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:
Could anyone believe that Germany alone was not subject to exactly the same laws as all other human organisms?
It's from a speech in Salzburg in the August of 1920 where Hitler we can see he compared the Jews to a disease – the aforementioned "racial tuberculosis" – in need of eradication:
For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst.
And it wasn't just Hitler.
In an infamous speech delivered to SS leaders and army generals on October 6, 1943, Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler defended the radical policy he had instituted by declaring that Germany had the "moral right, the duty towards our people to destroy this people that wanted to destroy us." We do not want, he said, to be "infected by this bacillus and to die."
In his 1935-6 propaganda booklet about the SS as an anti-Bolshevik battle organization, Himmler presented his theory that struggles between Jews and nations had occurred throughout history. The "battle against peoples conducted by Jews," Himmler proclaimed, "has belonged, so far as we can look back, to the natural course of life on our planet." One could calmly reach the conviction, therefore, that the struggle of life and death—between nations and Jews—is as much a law of nature as "man's struggle against some epidemic;" as the struggle of a healthy body against "plague bacillus."
Therefore, according to Himmler’s deranged reasoning, just as human beings throughout history always had been attacked by bacteria, so nations throughout history always had been attacked by Jews. The "life and death struggle" between nations and Jews, therefore, could not be avoided. This struggle represented a "law of nature" that was part of the "natural course of life on our planet."
So, for the Nazis it was their moral right, duty even, to eliminate the Jews.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThey would be all over the map and nobody would know or care about what is "best" because it would just be what they prefer.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 03:46 PM
|
0 responses
2 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 03:46 PM
|
||
Started by Ronson, Today, 01:52 PM
|
1 response
9 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 03:09 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:08 AM
|
6 responses
44 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by RumTumTugger
Today, 10:30 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 07:44 AM
|
0 responses
17 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 07:44 AM | ||
Started by seer, Today, 07:04 AM
|
29 responses
142 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Today, 02:59 PM
|
Comment