burbz8
01/13/13 10:58 pm
Voting has hardly any power. It's just a political trick to make the population think their in control. But their not
steelcity Pittsburgh
01/10/13 2:04 pm
Other is what makes the moral an objective measure. The Romans enslaved people who they conquered and they did not care who they conquered aka without prejudice. Americans and Europeans enslaved Africans because they were different skin color.
steelcity Pittsburgh
01/10/13 2:02 pm
I'm going to try to start over. Every action has an inherent moral or immoral characteristic. War, murder, theft, pornography. Even things like dancing, lust and procrastination had moral implications. Whether you accept them as moral or immoral is subjective, but the fact that they are one or the
cherubrial San Francisco
01/10/13 1:47 pm
Also: side note, the Romans also enslaved other races of people. The Spanish. Celts. Gauls. et al.
They also punished people who were indebted to the wealthy with forced slavery. They would also brand them to mark them as such.
cherubrial San Francisco
01/10/13 1:42 pm
You validated everything I am trying to say, when you said that you adopted them as your own. You didn't make them up. You chose them. For yourself. You. They are a collection of beliefs and rights and wrongs that you adhere to.
Your exact moral make-up is yours alone. Therefore it is subjective.
steelcity Pittsburgh
01/10/13 12:53 pm
The thing about the objectivity of morals is that they aren't MY morals. I have adopted them from a standard outside of myself. That is what makes them objective. If I created morals, and them called them objective I would be the arrogant fool you describe, but I didn't make any of the morals.
steelcity Pittsburgh
01/10/13 12:50 pm
Were the romans wrong to own slaves? Is slavery immoral? American slavery was the imprisonment of one people or ethnicity whereas the Romans enslaved people based upon their inability to pay off debts or or crimes etc.
cherubrial San Francisco
01/10/13 12:46 pm
Your belief that your morals--the only correct morals--are to be accepted by all is arrogant, uninformed, and prideful.
I'm not saying that you are those things. Please don't read my comment wrong. I'm saying your understanding of morality isn't as open minded or informed as it should be.
cherubrial San Francisco
01/10/13 12:43 pm
Only our society now views it is "morally wrong." because we have changed our cultural values.
Do I personally find it morally wrong? Yes. I would never have slaves. Support slavery. Or accept other's that did.
That is only my moral belief, however. There are still cultures today that have slaves.
cherubrial San Francisco
01/10/13 12:42 pm
I think you are fundamentally wrong. Universal morality isn't possible. Look at history. Real history. Were the Romans morally reprehensible because their society approved of slavery? No. In their culture at that time it was social an ethically accepted. They wouldn't have viewed it as wrong.
steelcity Pittsburgh
01/10/13 11:23 am
If I say it is immoral to dance at a club, and you say it is NOT immoral to dance at a club. One of us has to be wrong. The same act cannot be both moral and immoral.
steelcity Pittsburgh
01/10/13 11:20 am
There has to be an absolute moral right! Without those absolutes we wouldn't have laws! If morals are subjective, and I dont think it is morally wrong to murder, who is anyone else to say don't murder! Rather, we have an absolute moral code that says murder is wrong.
smacc DunningKruger
01/09/13 10:34 pm
You know you are likely right. A third party is not likely to win now but if we stopped thinking that way and voted our conscience the tally would rise and people might take notice. Better yet no parties.
stos46
01/09/13 9:31 pm
I cannot, with good conscience, vote for anybody stupid enough to run for public office and either do nothing or screw over their fellow citizens.
argenyle
01/09/13 5:22 pm
Morality has naught to do with it. There's no associated prescribed dogma built on mindlessly shaky foundations, so it has nothing in common with"morals." It's a civic duty, based on the ethics of democratic philosophy, for voters to inform themselves and vote or not vote accordingly.
taximom Boise
01/09/13 4:30 pm
An uninformed voter can do more harm than good. Remember when the convict Al Green (or whatever his name was) was elected?
cherubrial San Francisco
01/08/13 10:26 pm
The idea that morality is universal is absurd. What like-minded people have differing opinions on are beliefs, values, ethics, and process'. Those vary from person to person and culture to culture, but can be defined by rules, religions, and social agreements. Those things are worth discussing.
cherubrial San Francisco
01/08/13 10:23 pm
Your argument is the exact thing that I am talking about. Morality is not a universal answer to all of the worlds questions. Your belief system. Your values. Your morals are, most likely, not mine. We may share some and may agree from time to time... but that doesn't make our way(s) right for all.
peacefullife Land of Moss
01/08/13 7:05 pm
, 'Gee, there were lots of passionate people against water fluoridation in XYZ County, even though more people voted in favor of it, let's stick with the passionate ones.' They are going to see a 55% voter approval, end of story.
The 'powers that be' hear the votes, not the voices.
peacefullife Land of Moss
01/08/13 7:05 pm
votes against. If you lived here and were passionate one way or another, the only way to officially make your voice heard is to vote. The dozen letters I wrote to the editor of the paper, the frequent conversations with citizens,
peacefullife Land of Moss
01/08/13 7:04 pm
(a recent issue both socially & on the local ballot) but when it is up to the people, it doesn't matter who has the loudest voice or the most money (in principle anyway), the determining factor as to how our county commissioners proceed is the number of votes for fluoridation and the number of...
peacefullife Land of Moss
01/08/13 7:02 pm
In this country, unless you happen to be someone with lots of money & friends in the right places, the only EFFECTIVE voice you have, nationally for sure, locally not as much, is your vote. I can scream, preach, and pass out leaflets in support of my stance on something, e.g. water fluoridation,
Comments: Add Comment