LordReed:


There is a difference between morality and ethics if you must know so no my ethics mean I will not do such a thing even though I do not consider it morally wrong. It is you who should acquire some sense and leave behind ancient fables.

ethics

/ˈɛθɪks/

noun

1.

moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

"medical ethics also enter into the question"

synonyms:moral code, morals, morality, moral stand, moral principles, moral values, rights and wrongs,principles, ideals, creed, credo, ethos, rules of conduct, standards (of behaviour), virtues,dictates of conscience

"the ethics of journalism"

2.

the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

"neither metaphysics nor ethics is the home of religion"

You cannot separate ethics from morality, as you can see from the definitions above. What you don't know is that you are thinking and talking like this because you have taken and imbibed the mark of the beast. The mark of the beast is the ways and thinking pattern of the beast. Daniel saw 4 beasts rising from the sea, it was a sea of human beings and the beasts rising up were the world empires, that rose up to rule the world via their ideologies. Here you are thinking like a beast because you have imbibed the ways of the present beastly system ruling the world, which SANGO Jesus is coming to overthrow very soon.

Ethics is moral principles, and you will have no qualms relating with your daughter, this you have said with your own mouth. Open your mouth and explain your rationale to your wife, or your mother, or your father, and see their reactions to you. And see if you are not reasoning like a beast.

MrPresident1:


ethics

/ˈɛθɪks/

noun

1.

moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

"medical ethics also enter into the question"

synonyms:moral code, morals, morality, moral stand, moral principles, moral values, rights and wrongs,principles, ideals, creed, credo, ethos, rules of conduct, standards (of behaviour), virtues,dictates of conscience

"the ethics of journalism"

2.

the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

"neither metaphysics nor ethics is the home of religion"

You cannot separate ethics from morality, as you can see from the definitions above. What you don't know is that you are thinking and talking like this because you have taken and imbibed the mark of the beast. The mark of the beast is the ways and thinking pattern of the beast. Daniel saw 4 beasts rising from the sea, it was a sea of human beings and the beasts rising up were the world empires, that rose up to rule the world via their ideologies. Here you are thinking like a beast because you have imbibed the ways of the present beastly system ruling the world, which SANGO Jesus is coming to overthrow very soon.

Ethics is moral principles, and you will have no qualms relating with your daughter, this you have said with your own mouth. Open your mouth and explain your rationale to your wife, or your mother, or your father, and see their reactions to you. And see if you are not reasoning like a beast.

What do you think you were before? You think because you put on clothes you are not a beast? LoL

Both morality and ethics loosely have to do with distinguishing the difference between “good and bad” or “right and wrong.” Many people think of morality as something that’s personal and normative, whereas ethics is the standards of “good and bad” distinguished by a certain community or social setting.

https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-morality-and-ethics

Ethics is about social or group context that is why is usually prefaced with community identifiers like medical, organisational, etc. Becuase morality and ethics are not the same even though there is overlap. Morality might indicate that there is nothing wrong with a particular action but ethics will dictate that a different action should be taken.

It is thinking beings that can take this kind of approach to life while enthralled animals like you are led about by the nose by ancient fables.

budaatum:


It is amusing that you chose to hold incest up to a moral light when it has nothing whatsoever to do with morality but just is the right think to do considering the intersubjective understanding of the available evidence. (Yeah! I used your word).

I don't understand this.

frank317:
Hi Johnny, u didn't respond to my to my input. Let me know what's wrong with my line of thinking... Or give it a counter point... If u chose to ignore it... Then u should have ignored all other points and close the thread

I honestly didn't pay attention or it skipped my mind. I'm sorry about this. Been on many replies, I might have skipped one or two.

johnydon22:
I don't understand this.

Incest is not frowned upon because it is immoral. Incest is considered immoral because of the harm it does to society.

Which bit don't you understand?

frank317:
I don't know if its a moral thing, but I think its a psychological thing.

Incest is wrong to me, growing up with my sisters and siblings, the love I have for them is not sexual. Over time growing up with them, I LEARNED to see them in a particular way and not in another way. This tuned my psych to think in a particular way about certain people.

Like I have always said, life is more about learning than instinct. More like unconscious learning. I am sure if we are generally trained to love and f++k our siblings we will not see an issue with it.

I have learned to see it as wrong because my mind set have been trained over time to see it as not only wrong but detestable.

Its actually quite difficult to grow up with ur siblings they way most of us did - the common interest we have growing up eliminates the sexual desire for them - and want to have sex with them. Hence most people who actually do it did not grow in a family setting like most of us.

How do I feel when I see it... I see it as wrong, I caring because my mind can only see my family setting (not theirs) and think its weird to have sex with a sibling. However I am sure if I interact with them, I will find a missing link that might shape my judgement... For now, I can only judge them through what I know and what's common.

This is very honest opinion and one that resonates with me. Even if I don't consider incest morally wrong, I still wouldn't indulge in such an act.

budaatum:

Incest is not frowned upon because it is immoral. Incest is considered immoral because of the harm it does to society.

Which bit don't you understand?

And you believe this is the basis incest has been frowned upon throughout human history? Even when this medical implications are almost certainly not put into consideration or downright weren't attributed to incest?

You sure?

johnydon22:


And you believe this is the basis incest has been frowned upon throughout human history? Even when this medical implications are almost certainly not put into consideration or downright weren't attributed to incest?

You sure?

Yes I do "believe this is the basis incest has been frowned upon throughout human history" and primate history too. Or do you want to argue that primates frown on incest because it is immoral, and not because they considered the "medical implications"?

LordReed:


What do you think you were before? You think because you put on clothes you are not a beast? LoL

Both morality and ethics loosely have to do with distinguishing the difference between “good and bad” or “right and wrong.” Many people think of morality as something that’s personal and normative, whereas ethics is the standards of “good and bad” distinguished by a certain community or social setting.

https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-morality-and-ethics

Ethics is about social or group context that is why is usually prefaced with community identifiers like medical, organisational, etc. Becuase morality and ethics are not the same even though there is overlap. Morality might indicate that there is nothing wrong with a particular action but ethics will dictate that a different action should be taken.

It is thinking beings that can take this kind of approach to life while enthralled animals like you are led about by the nose by ancient fables.

Linear one way thinking. Your immediate family is a social grouping too. Go and tell them you will have no qualms relating with your daughter because you feel it is not morally wrong, and also that their opinions does not count in the matter, and they can go to blazes with whatever they think about your morality.

If it talks like a beast reasons like a beast and makes conclusions like a beast, it is a beast.

Incest is only rationale and morally right among instinctual animals not capable of rational thought.

It's a eye itching roller-coaster reading/skimming through the opinions of immoral moralists. One even opined it's okay sleeping with his mother IF there is a condom. The devil is a very wicked fellow, thank you Jesus.

MrPresident1:


Linear one way thinking. Your immediate family is a social grouping too. Go and tell them you will have no qualms relating with your daughter because you feel it is not morally wrong, and also that their opinions does not count in the matter, and they can go to blazes with whatever they think about your morality.

If it talks like a beast reasons like a beast and makes conclusions like a beast, it is a beast.

Incest is only rationale and morally right among instinctual animals not capable of rational thought.

Yes and here you are reasoning like a beast. I told you already that I would not do such a thing but because you are a beast you can't understand simple language.

LordReed:


Yes and here you are reasoning like a beast. I told you already that I would not do such a thing but because you are a beast you can't understand simple language.

Romans 2:14
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Paul says some people do the things that are contained in the laws of God by their very nature. Your very nature rejects incest, but in order for you to sound "correct and exposed" to show that you are in tune with "modern trends" dictated by the current beast in power, you say with your own mouth that you have no qualms having relations with your own daughter. This proves the fact that you have taken eaten and imbibed the mark of this beast, it is not in your innate nature, but you have been changed into a beast.

It is in your brain (forehead) and it is in your righthand.

Chairman, you have received the mark of the beast.

MrPresident1:


Romans 2:14
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Paul says some people do the things that are contained in the laws of God by their very nature. Your very nature rejects incest, but in order for you to sound "correct and exposed" to show that you are in tune with "modern trends" dictated by the current beast in power, you say with your own mouth that you have no qualms having relations with your own daughter. This proves the fact that you have taken eaten and imbibed the mark of this beast, it is not in your innate nature, but you have been changed into a beast.

It is in your brain (forehead) and it is in your righthand.

Chairman, you have received the mark of the beast.

Your bible then has the mark of the beast because the father of your faith was an incestuous bigot, he was so incestuous he wanted a close family member to marry his son. If he had a daughter from a concubine I am sure he'd have given her to his son to marry. Plus all the susposed progeny of Adam and Eve were all incestuous. So your dundi book is just a dummy ouroboros.

budaatum:

Yes I do "believe this is the basis incest has been frowned upon throughout human history" and primate history too.

- Even societies that didn't know or recognize of the medical implications of incest?


- Do you know incest as frowned upon in most cultures include Step- parent relationship, step sibling relationship, adoptive parent or sibling relationship - These were all due to the medical implication of incest?

Lol.

Or do you want to argue that primates frown on incest because it is immoral, and not because they considered the "medical implications"?

You do know there is a difference between instinctively avoiding something and contemplatively avoiding that thing right?

LordReed:


Your bible then has the mark of the beast because the father of your faith was an incestuous bigot, he was so incestuous he wanted a close family member to marry his son. If he had a daughter from a concubine I am sure he'd have given her to his son to marry. Plus all the susposed progeny of Adam and Eve were all incestuous. So your dundi book is just a dummy ouroboros.

I was becoming an atheist, but I realized that I did not know all the physics in the world, I did not know all the chemistry, and I did not know all the biology, and then I realized that many new discoveries are being made everyday. So I said in my mind, even though I am disappointed that some things I prayed for did not come as I wanted, there was still a lot for me to learn about God, and his strange ways. So I acknowledged God and asked for understanding.

There are many things you do not understand, and I have just made a mincemeat of you showing you with evidence that you are reasoning like a beast. Pipe down and backtrack from the path of foolishness. Acknowledge that you do not know anything and ask for wisdom from God. Humble yourself!

Ps.

Who are all these people in the Bible you are refering to, could you provide names and references, so we can help you understand what is being said?

MrPresident1:


I was becoming an atheist, but I realized that I did not know all the physics in the world, I did not know all the chemistry, and I did not know all the biology, and then I realized that many new discoveries are being made everyday. So I said in my mind, even though I am disappointed that some things I prayed for did not come as I wanted, there was still a lot for me to learn about God, and his strange ways. So I acknowledged God and asked for understanding.

There are many things you do not understand, and I have just made a mincemeat of you showing you with evidence that you are reasoning like a beast. Pipe down and backtrack from the path of foolishness. Acknowledge that you do not know anything and ask for wisdom from God. Humble yourself!

Ps.

Who are all these people in the Bible you are refering to, could you provide names and references, so we can help you understand what is being said?

Dummy, you pipe up and learn to reason like a sophisticated human being not a dumb enthralled beast mesmerized by ancient fables. The incest you are denying now was approved by your dumbass god when it supposedly served your dumbass god's purposes but beast like you comes to pretend your god provides you enlightenment. I won't be surprised you have more twisted sexual kinks than incest.

MrPresident1:


I was becoming an atheist, but I realized that I did not know all the physics in the world, I did not know all the chemistry, and I did not know all the biology, and then I realized that many new discoveries are being made everyday. So I said in my mind, even though I am disappointed that some things I prayed for did not come as I wanted, there was still a lot for me to learn about God, and his strange ways. So I acknowledged God and asked for understanding.

There are many things you do not understand, and I have just made a mincemeat of you showing you with evidence that you are reasoning like a beast. Pipe down and backtrack from the path of foolishness. Acknowledge that you do not know anything and ask for wisdom from God. Humble yourself!

Ps.

Who are all these people in the Bible you are refering to, could you provide names and references, so we can help you understand what is being said?

so he should ask for wisdom from god who doesn’t have wisdom . How can you give what you don’t have. How will you claim to be the all knowing god and yet you do not know any better way to forgive people’s sin rather than to kill your own son

Wonder if people realize environments and ways people live can breed incest, isn't really something one has to be groomed for or think about, there's actually basically nothing wrong with incest aside fact its offsprings could be prone to birth defects depending on the generation committing the incest.

johnydon22:
So, let's see how this moral question can be effectively treated.

Is incest morally wrong?

If Yes.

Why is it morally wrong?

If, No.

Why?

I don't have any moral stands base on this(there's nothing wrong with it actually), anybody can practice incest if they want as long as it's consensual and no one is hurt here.

But where there will problem is having kids in an incest relationship.

johnydon22:

- Even societies that didn't know or recognize of the medical implications of incest?

According to who, did they not recognise the "medical implications" that are rather very glaring?

johnydon22:
- Do you know incest as frowned upon in most cultures include Step- parent relationship, step sibling relationship, adoptive parent or sibling relationship - These were all due to the medical implication of incest?

Did you know incest is frowned upon by primates too, and due to "medical implications"? The fact that primates see it should point to how glaring it is by the way. Its must be very high on the glaring scale for primates to see it.

johnydon22:
You do know there is a difference between instinctively avoiding something and contemplatively avoiding that thing right?

Your "instinctively knowing" sounds like "an angel told them", or your understanding of "medical implications", which for incest is in the offspring of the incestuous union, is narrow. And you disregard the "medical evidence" published in "scientist journals" of the day - the stories told about the tribe and the family who perform incest and how they give birth to more idiots who we see amongst them but not amongst us.

The stories the ancients (and primates) passed down in "scientific journals" of the day (story telling) about the danger of incest gained from observation of the "medical outcomes" of their own neighbours who were incestuous is sufficient enough to educate on the medical implications of incest.

frank317:

I have learned to see it as wrong because my mind set have been trained over time to see it as not only wrong but detestable.

So if you grew up in an incestuous family you wouldn't have seen it as wrong then since your seeing it as wrong arose from "Training"?

hopefulLandlord:


So if you grew up in an incestuous family you wouldn't have seen it as wrong then since your seeing it as wrong arose from "Training"?

The answer to ur question is capital yes.

If I had been trained to see it as normal, I wouldn't be capable to see it as wrong. Just as I see it as abnormal because I have been trained to see it that way.

frank317:


The answer to ur question is capital yes.

If I had been trained to see it as normal, I wouldn't be capable to see it as wrong. Just as I see it as abnormal because I have been trained to see it that way.

In a nutshell, you're saying something is right or wrong based on how you're trained?

hopefulLandlord:


In a nutshell, you're saying something is right or wrong based on how you're trained?

Yes... Plus a couple of other things. But training, learning is one of them

frank317:


Yes... Plus a couple of other things. But training, learning is one of them

Yes? What sort of double standards is this? Is something also right or wrong based on the training of Christians, Muslims and terrorists?

Image123:


Yes? What sort of double standards is this? Is something also right or wrong based on the training of Christians, Muslims and terrorists?

Isn't it why we argue here day and night to change the mindset of some people?
Our problem is that we refuse to see the reality.

Meanwhile I said plus a couple of things. Each individual think what they know is right, but through interaction and relearning they change their mind. While learning is one of what determines what us right or wrong...it is not the only thing. There is pain, there is empathy, there is authority, there is self presentation... I can't go breaking all these and all must not apply at the same time for a particular subject of interest.

But yes learning determines what we see as right or wrong. This is obvious except u want to deny it.. The terrorist see his act of terrorism as right - learning to see this act as right took place somewhere. The Christian think hell is real and think burning people forever is justified - learning that this wicked act is right took place somewhere.
However apart from what u learned, different interactions are taking place in ur life time... Empathy can make u evaluate what u have learned... Its just a simpu sturv

frank317:


Isn't it why we argue here day and night to change the mindset of some people?
Our problem is that we refuse to see the reality.

Here is the problem - Your posts implies that whatever you are taught as right is right.

How then are you trying to change people's mind?

Since they are right.
You are right?

Unless you recognize a form of right than is more right than the right these folks were taught and that then means, they are wrong.

Which consequently leads the conclusion that something isn't right because you are taught it is - and it contradicts your own stance.

Your position here is self refuting

Meanwhile I said plus a couple of things. Each individual think what they know is right, but through interaction and relearning they change their mind.

Meaning some things are righter than the others?

While learning is one of what determines what us right or wrong..
it is not the only thing. There is pain, there is empathy, there is authority, there is self presentation... I can't go breaking all these and all must not apply at the same time for a particular subject of interest.

You'd be surprised how these things wouldn't hold up much.

But yes learning determines what we see as right or wrong.

To be sure, Is what we See as right and wrong same thing as "What is right and wrong

The usage of the word " See" puts a whole new meaning to your argument.

This is obvious except u want to deny it.. The terrorist see his act of terrorism as right - learning to see this act as right took place somewhere.

The question is, But Is he right?

If No, why?

The Christian think hell is real and think burning people forever is justified - learning that this wicked act is right took place somewhere.

You call it "wicked" meaning you understand it is not right.

Why is it not right?

However apart from what u learned, different interactions are taking place in ur life time... Empathy can make u evaluate what u have learned... Its just a simpu sturv

It's far more intricate than you make it out to be.

I have another question;
You learn about physics
Does this mean this act of learning determines what Physics is, or is this already established before it was impacted to you?

For you to learn right and wrong, it must first be derived, how this derivation is made is the actual philosophical problem of morality

frank317:


Isn't it why we argue here day and night to change the mindset of some people?
Our problem is that we refuse to see the reality.

Here is the problem - Your posts implies that whatever you are taught as right is right.

How then are you trying to change people's mind?

Since they are right.
You are right?

Unless you recognize a form of right than is more right than the right these folks were taught and that then means, they are wrong.

Which consequently leads the conclusion that something isn't right because you are taught it is - and it contradicts your own stance.

Your position here is self refuting

Meanwhile I said plus a couple of things. Each individual think what they know is right, but through interaction and relearning they change their mind.

Meaning some things are righter than the others?

While learning is one of what determines what us right or wrong..
it is not the only thing. There is pain, there is empathy, there is authority, there is self presentation... I can't go breaking all these and all must not apply at the same time for a particular subject of interest.

You'd be surprised how these things wouldn't hold up much.

But yes learning determines what we see as right or wrong.

To be sure, Is what we See as right and wrong same thing as "What is right and wrong

The usage of the word " See" puts a whole new meaning to your argument.

This is obvious except u want to deny it.. The terrorist see his act of terrorism as right - learning to see this act as right took place somewhere.

The question is, But Is he right?

If No, why?

The Christian think hell is real and think burning people forever is justified - learning that this wicked act is right took place somewhere.

You call it "wicked" meaning you understand it is not right.

Why is it not right?

But if what you are taught is right is right as you argue, then this Christian is right.

And your own thought that it is wrong isn't any more valid than theirs.

However apart from what u learned, different interactions are taking place in ur life time... Empathy can make u evaluate what u have learned... Its just a simpu sturv

It's far more intricate than you make it out to be.

I have another question;
You learn about physics
Does this mean this act of learning determines what Physics is, or is this already established before it was impacted to you?

For you to learn right and wrong, it must first be derived, how this derivation is made is the actual philosophical problem of morality.

johnydon22:
Here is the problem - Your posts implies that whatever you are taught as right is right.

How then are you trying to change people's mind?

Since they are right.
You are right?

Unless you recognize a form of right than is more right than the right these folks were taught and that then means, they are wrong.

Which consequently leads the conclusion that something isn't right because you are taught it is - and it contradicts your own stance.

Your position here is self refuting

No sir.. My post does not imply that whatever u are thought is right. My post actually implies the reality u and I face every day - people view what is right from what they know!. This is a simple fact. The reason why we argue is because each individual already have a 'right' in his mind based on what he has learned and other factors.

I wish u read my first response to ur OP, u would have seen where I said if I interacted with people who grew in a family setting that encourages incest, perhaps I might have a different opinion about them.

Meaning some things are righter than the others?

Of course... When we allow pain, empathy and evaluation plays their role in our perception.

You'd be surprised how these things wouldn't hold up much.

How?

To be sure, Is what we See as right and wrong same thing as "What is right and wrong

The usage of the word " See" puts a whole new meaning to your argument.

What is right or wrong is first an individual thing before it becomes accepted based on popular opinion and then it becomes what is right or wrong.

The question is, But Is he right?

If No, why?

To him its right, to u it's wrong... Then the argument begins... Then opinions are formed and decisions are taken.

Its hard to determine what's right without taking individual opinions into account then judge by number of acceptance.

You call it "wicked" meaning you understand it is not right.

Why is it not right?

Yea, I understand its wicked based on my learning. But another person does not understand based on his learning... The argument and relearning begins and I might show him based on empathy and popular opinion that it is wicked, but then he might still chose to think he is right and the behavior is repeated.

It's far more intricate than you make it out to be.

It is intricate.

I have another question;
You learn about physics
Does this mean this act of learning determines what Physics is, or is this already established before it was impacted to you?

No it mean what u learn about physics and come to accept is ur own truth. Whatever opinion does not matter to u. Except u are convinced otherwise.

For you to learn right and wrong, it must first be derived, how this derivation is made is the actual philosophical problem of morality

Right and Wrong is derived from other people's learning.

frank317:

No sir.. My post does not imply that whatever u are thought is right. My post actually implies the reality u and I face every day - people view what is right from what they know!. This is a simple fact. The reason why we argue is because each individual already have a 'right' in his mind based on what he has learned and other factors.

I wish u read my first response to ur OP, u would have seen where I said if I interacted with people who grew in a family setting that encourages incest, perhaps I might have a different opinion about them.

Let me refer to a question by Hopefullandlord


Hopefullandlord: In a nutshell, you're saying something is right or wrong based on how you're trained?

Frank: Yes... Plus a couple of other things. But training, learning is one of them

Your answer implies something is right or wrong because you learnt it to be so as I said in my previous reply.

Which is self refuting to the idea that you can change people's mind - consequently a superior form of morality.

Therefore, something isn't necessarily right because you are taught it was right.

Something isn't true because you are taught it is, you only believe it to be true.

Of course... When we allow pain, empathy and evaluation plays their role in our perception.

If things can be righter than the other, then morality is objective.

If morality is subjective, then nothing can be more right than the other.

Think about this dilema your answer brings.

How?

A subjective morality has no moral facts.

What is right or wrong is first an individual thing before it becomes accepted based on popular opinion and then it becomes what is right or wrong.

Disagree. No moral action is ever in isolation.

There is either a mundane factor - Human, animals etc
Or a transcendental factor - God

To him its right, to u it's wrong... Then the argument begins... Then opinions are formed and decisions are taken.

If what you think is right is right then the arguments are useless since none is righter than the other

The only way for the argument to be necessary is if there is a way morality is derived that transcends personal opinion.

Then, believing you are right doesn't necessarily mean so.

Its hard to determine what's right without taking individual opinions into account then judge by number of acceptance.

Morality is a mob rule then?

If everyone agrees that murdering someone in the ally and taking their money is good then it is good?

What about the empathy and stuff? What roles do they play on such instance?

Yea, I understand its wicked based on my learning. But another person does not understand based on his learning...
The argument and relearning begins and I might show him based on empathy and popular opinion that it is wicked, but then he might still chose to think he is right and the behavior is repeated.

So, If the popular opinion is that it isn't wicked then you are the wrong one?

It is intricate.
No it mean what u learn about physics and come to accept is ur own truth. Whatever opinion does not matter to u. Except u are convinced otherwise.

There is no such a thing as Your own truth.

Anyway, my question is; Isn't the matetials you are taught already determined and derived before being impacted to you?

Right and Wrong is derived from other people's learning.

This other people's learning how are they derived?

johnydon22:


Let me refer to a question by Hopefullandlord


Hopefullandlord: In a nutshell, you're saying something is right or wrong based on how you're trained?

Frank: Yes... Plus a couple of other things. But training, learning is one of them

Your answer implies something is right or wrong because you learnt it to be so as I said in my previous reply.

Which is self refuting to the idea that you can change people's mind - consequently a superior form of morality.

Therefore, something isn't necessarily right because you are taught it was right.

Something isn't true because you are taught it is, you only believe it to be true.

What do u mean by necessarily right? Can anything be right or wrong out of the blues? Does it not take human evaluation to know if its right or wrong? Its humans that determines what is right or wrong and and for this to take place we require each individual learning, empathy, feeling and reaction to come to a conclusion.

Pls how can one just believe something is right or wrong without learning? Can a Christian just believe that hell is real and justified if he is not thought so?

If things can be righter than the other, then morality is objective.

What/who made morality objective?

If morality is subjective, then nothing can be more right than the other.

Things are actually more right than the other because morality is subjective. That's why there is constant improvement on what is right or wrong as humans progress. Its all about what we feel.
The reality is that u see this everyday and want to deny it... Is a Christian's right the same thing with a Muslims right... Of morality is objective why do Christians and Muslims have different rights and wrongs?

A subjective morality has no moral facts.

Is there anything like moral fact? Pls tell mention on moral fact.

Disagree. No moral action is ever in isolation.

There is either a mundane factor - Human, animals etc
Or a transcendental factor - God

Here I am arguing that whatever is right or wrong solely is a human factor... Johnny is telling no moral action happens in isolation? Isn't this what I am saying all along.
How can it even ever be a transcendental factor.... Can u show this?

If what you think is right is right then the arguments are useless since none is righter than the other

Unfortunately this would been true if people don't feel pain or don't react to what another does to them. Oga everybody has a right... Otherwise people will not even argue.

The only way for the argument to be necessary is if there is a way morality is derived that transcends personal opinion.

Then show me how morality that transcends personal opinion can be derived? Who issues the morality that transcends personal opinion?

Then, believing you are right doesn't necessarily mean so.

Of course, believing u are right does not necessarily mean so. This does not stop different people from having their own right.

Morality is a mob rule then?

If everyone agrees that murdering someone in the ally and taking their money is good then it is good?

What about the empathy and stuff? What roles do they play on such instance?

People have been deciding what is right or wrong... U know this yet u want to argue. Empathy and the rest has all been playing its role in determining what's right.

So, If the popular opinion is that it isn't wicked then you are the wrong one?

I could be the wrong one and still decide I am right.

There is no such a thing as Your own truth. [quote]
Then why are ur believes on exactly the same with everyone else?

[quote]
Anyway, my question is; Isn't the matetials you are taught already determined and derived before being impacted to you?

This other people's learning how are they derived?

Experience, empathy, mistakes, outcomes etc

johnydon22:
Here is the problem - Your posts implies that whatever you are taught as right is right.

How then are you trying to change people's mind?

Since they are right.
You are right?

Unless you recognize a form of right than is more right than the right these folks were taught and that then means, they are wrong.

Which consequently leads the conclusion that something isn't right because you are taught it is - and it contradicts your own stance.

Your position here is self refuting

Meaning some things are righter than the others?

You'd be surprised how these things wouldn't hold up much.

To be sure, Is what we See as right and wrong same thing as "What is right and wrong

The usage of the word " See" puts a whole new meaning to your argument.

The question is, But Is he right?

If No, why?

You call it "wicked" meaning you understand it is not right.

Why is it not right?

It's far more intricate than you make it out to be.

I have another question;
You learn about physics
Does this mean this act of learning determines what Physics is, or is this already established before it was impacted to you?

For you to learn right and wrong, it must first be derived, how this derivation is made is the actual philosophical problem of morality

Bros you just dey stress yourself... I have one question for you;can you fvck your sister? The anwser to that question is the answer to your post