Anyone can be source of morality. You think it grows on trees?
Again with the “so.” Which you then follow with something I didn’t say. It is rather juvenile.
That regime imposed its morality.
If a person has the natural right to life, if he is eaten by a grizzy in the forest, did that bear violate his rights? If yes, does that bear, since he is part of nature, also have a right to life?
So you recognize they aren’t wrong because they successfully imposed morality.
So, personal preference.
Then you can’t claim the rights of slaves are violated. Look, if you don’t believe morality actually exists, fine. You’re ammoral. But stop coming up with back-tracking, self-contradicting arguments about how you can have morality you don’t believe exists. About how it isn’t personal preference…Yet, then, the person is a a source of morality.
And, toughen up, butter cup. If you can crack pedophilia jokes at my expense, you can deal with “so.”
Then entire post is a declaration that morality doesn’t actually exist. That good/evil doesn’t exist. Just in the way you end it screams it. Society could be saying saying very different things about those camps. So then society can’t be the source of morality, unless you’re saying you would defer to such a society, had Germany won.
So, I do think they were wrong. What would lead you to believe I would think murdering people is right?
We do have that right, no?
Because you recognize that it’s just a matter of personal preference or societal preference.
I never said their rights were violated. I’m not amoral. Morality obviously exists since we have a word to symbolize it. You’re obviously trying to trap me but have limited tools to work with.
If you think there is a natural moral code for humans, prove it. It’s that simple, right?
Society is or sin’t the source of morality? If so, you would have to defer to them. If you wouldn’t, you must actually believe society is the source of morality.
If it’s personal preference, and you have concluded that is all murder, enslavement, etc., boils down to, then you must conclude right and wrong is a fallacy. There is no wrong favorite color, after all. Personal preference.
We have a word for God. Holy. And untold numbers have felt religious/spiritual experiences.
That isn’t true, it’s a matter of necessity.
Society codifies morality. I believe the sense of morality, maybe even the need for it, is natural.
God. Holy. Spiritual experiences.
As concepts, they all exist. As interpretations of sensory experience they exist.
A necessity for what? Human societies can differ dramatically on morality. Or own had slavery.
But you don’t believe it actually exists as a thing. In other words, you are no more right or wrong than the Nazi or the plantation owner. You simply have a different preference.
Going gray to me is something some people would find morally ok and others not. I mean, some people find it immoral to have closed borders…
Can’t speak for everyone but I would agree but my point still stands.
The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive. That is their choice to break our laws. If I worried about all the atrocities in this world, I’d be a very depressed person, (as we all would be.) At the same time, I don’t agree with having a minefield and to kill people who try to enter illegally. Again, why would they not just try and come here legally?
I don’t want to turn this thread into an immigration debate. I really don’t have much else to say here, tbh and I think we agree on what should NOT be a policy.
Huh? Libertarians don’t believe in a social contract.
1 Like