dalaman:


Murderers, rapist and racist don't go about murdering, raping and discriminating against each other in the prison. Once they get there they try to live their lives according to the laid down laws and principles of the prison.

Prisoners also live by their own codes outside the prison laws. You agree they can live their lives without discrimination and peacefully. So why then did you assume they would self destruct?

DoctorAlien:


But you already agreed that such a society could exist, just that it would be short-lived(because the members would "exterminate" each other out, according to you):



Nobody really cares if the society would exists for 1 second or for 1 trillion years before they "exterminate each other out". The fact is you agree they could exist.

You are contradicting yourself, sir.

Again, going by your assertion that the society in which 99.9% of the members see nothing qrong with racism, murder and adultery could exist at all(be it for 1 second or for 1 trillion years before the extermination occurs): if the leaders in the society are among the 99.9%, is nothing wrong with those things?

Everything will be wrong. The leaders will not even have time to do anything. They will just be murdering, raping and discriminating against each other. There will be total chaos till they end up exterminating themselves.

shaybebaby:
For OP, perhaps I should ask what it means to YOU to be human.

interesting questions.i will defined human as self conscious, ability to be self aware you are primate from planet earth..

All it really means to be human is that you are a homo sapien according to the evolutionist , , , what you choose to do with the advantages that come with the other creature is what decides if your brief existence was worth anything to other humans. And this will answer what is generally consider what is moral in the light of common sense? Can there be a general agreement...

butterflyl1on:




So far as we know, animals can't be moral or immoral because so far as we know they don't think about it that way.

That is to say that any assignments of the "morality" of their actions are based entirely upon our interpretations of, and our assignment of our values to their actions. This is called inference. We humans are exceptionally good at it.

Thinking about the actions of others (and ourselves) as "moral" or "immoral" seems to be a uniquely human trait So you can tell a story about an Evil animal or a good animal but it is only meaningful in the context of your story. The animals don't know,or care.

The question is who gave such animals their moral code ?

butterflyl1on:


Prisoners also live by their own codes outside the prison laws. You agree they can live their lives without discrimination and peacefully. So why then did you assume they would self destruct?

Because they are not killing, raping and discriminating against each other in the prisons. In the prison they know that such actions will NOT be tolerated and practiced and as such they will not practice it. They will put it aside.

chemystery:
The question is who gave such animals their moral code ?

Who says they have any? We are the ones who are crazy about morality but animals simply do not care.

vaxx:
animal like dog really distinguished good from bad? Any evidence.....I want us to keep to the topic of discussion... I will have ask you another questions relating your assumptions about dog? To keep the thread safe....what is good and bad in the light of common sense...

hehehehe, so you don't know?

vaxx:
I don't have a problems with your stand about God.... My question is what is good and what is bad in the light of common sense? OK lets take God away from it...just reply me...

Good and bad is what the society determines in most cases based on many variables.

butterflyl1on:


Who says they have any?

You mean animals can't differentiate right from wrong?
Or you mean they only do wrong?
Or they only do right?

butterflyl1on:


If God was used as an enforcing mechanism back in the day what was God used to enforce?

Morality.

dalaman:


Good and bad is what the society determines in most cases based on many variables.

What are those variables? Since society determines this good and bad, is everyone in the society good to be able to determine good? Is everyone evil to be able to determine evil?

In the same society we have rapists and murderers as mentioned by DoctorAlien and they being part of the society can say their actions are good as long as its emotionally beneficial to them.

How then can society in all fairness determine what is good and what is bad when the societal leaders can also rape, murder, steal, etc. Who holds the scale of assessment for God or bad?

chemystery:

It has to do with our instinct towards accessing and distinguishing benefit from harm.

this is also very subjective..... Swizerland consider prostitution legitimate profession simce it brings revenue to the national pulse of the coumtry ..despite the medical implications... Saudi Arabia consider it illegal despite the amount of cash it can raised to the pulse of the economy.... Have you seen its subjective? So to the questions what is good and bad in the light of common sense?

dalaman:


Morality.

If God was first used to enforce morality back in the day (according to you) and now we no longer need God (according to you) , can you then say society determines morality?

dalaman:


Good and bad is what the society determines in most cases based on many variables.

just give me 1 indications to determine it...only 1 example

chemystery:
You mean animals can't differentiate right from wrong?
Or you mean they only do wrong?
Or they only do right?

Animals do not know right from wrong. We are the ones who see it that way. They simply act based on their nature.

There is no morality or immorality among animals.

butterflyl1on:


You do not seem to understand my OP. In a nutshell is what the law terms as criminal what it is?

If the law says there is nothing wrong with consensual sex between adults who are not married or who are married to different spouses does it make the act of adultery or fornication right?

If not, why should I then view it as wrong when societal laws do not declare them so. Are my own moral positions on the matter greater or more respectable than what the law of the land interpreted? If so, why?

Criminality and morality run side by side. Or is criminality now no longer immoral? Is criminality now also moral?

If the criminal law says adultery which is consensual is not wrong why then do we say it is?

Adultery= you are in a contract (written one) which you agreed to willingly and declared you would keep yourself for the other party. You break that particular term, you render the agreement void.

Just like you take out a mortgage and do not make your repayment which you agreed make at the onset, you are in breach. No morality, right or wrongs. FYI, that wouldn't fall under the remit of criminal law. The former is civil, the latter property law.

Criminal law=punishes offences against individuals and the society. Different societies have differences in what would be deemed punishable but those laws are usually codified into state laws. eg Islamic countries would have elements of their faith codified into their laws which would not be the same as a secular nation.

Civil Law= regulates relationships between individuals, and between individuals and organisations such as the state.

In response to your question about your own laws, as long as it is not depriving another their basic rights, wilfully causing another distress, harm or causing you to act with reckless negligence towards another, you are generally good to go.

For you to bring a claim against another based on your beliefs, you will have to show that their actions have the above mentioned on you.

chemystery:
hehehehe, so you don't know?

yes because my common sense assume there is notting like good or bad so far I am getting the benefit...

butterflyl1on:


What are those variables? Since society determines this good and bad, is everyone in the society good to be able to determine good? Is everyone evil to be able to determine evil?

In the same society we have rapists and murderers as mentioned by DoctorAlien and they being part of the society can say their actions are good as long as its emotionally beneficial to them.

How then can society in all fairness determine what is good and what is bad when the societal leaders can also rape, murder, steal, etc. Who holds the scale of assessment for God or bad?

The society through its leaders ALWAYS determine what is good and what is bad. The leaders who also double as law makers make laws that affects everybody themselves inclusive. Once the leaders label an act as bad the feelings of those that it affects(Those who engage in the acts like rapist for example doesn't matter.

shaybebaby:

Adultery= you are in a contract (written one) which you agreed to willingly and declared you would keep yourself for the other party. You break that particular term, you render the agreement void.

Just like you take out a mortgage and do not make your repayment which you agreed make at the onset, you are in breach. No morality, right or wrongs. FYI, that wouldn't fall under the remit of criminal law. The former is civil, the latter property law.

Criminal law=punishes offences against individuals and the society. Different societies have differences in what would be deemed punishable but those laws are usually codified into state laws. eg Islamic countries would have elements of their faith codified into their laws which would not be the same as a secular nation.

Civil Law= regulates relationships between individuals, and between individuals and organisations such as the state.

In response to your question about your own laws, as long as it is not depriving another their basic rights, wilfully causing another distress, harm or causing you to act with reckless negligence towards another, you are generally good to go.

For you to bring a claim against another based on your beliefs, you will have to show that their actions have the above mentioned on you.

You are going off.

If criminal law does not frown at consensual adultery why do we see it as wrong?

Is morality or a lack of no longer based on societal laws?

dalaman:


The society through its leaders ALWAYS determine what is good and what is bad. The leaders who also double as law makers make laws that affects everybody themselves inclusive. Once the leaders label an act as bad the feelings of those that it affects(Those who engage in the acts like rapist for example doesn't matter.

What are the many variables they use to determine what is good and bad?

vaxx:
interesting questions.i will defined human as self conscious, ability to be self aware you are primate from planet earth..

All it really means to be human is that you are a homo sapien according to the evolutionist , , , what you choose to do with the advantages that come with the other creature is what decides if your brief existence was worth anything to other humans. And this will answer what is generally consider what is moral in the light of common sense? Can there be a general agreement...

You misunderstand my question, I am not asking for a definition of being human.
I am asking you what it means to you(vaxx) to be human. What makes vaxx human, what does vaxx want as a human?

shaybebaby:

You misunderstand my question, I am not asking for a definition of being human.
I am asking you what it means to you(vaxx) to be human. What makes vaxx human, what does vaxx want as a human?

What Vaxx or myself want as humans will not always be what you want as a human. Where then do we agree on what is morally right when my perception of morality may vary from yours?

A homosexual sees nothing wrong with it. That's their morality. I see everything wrong with it. Where then is the role of common sense in morality?

Where is the meeting point?

dalaman:


Everything will be wrong. The leaders will not even have time to do anything. They will just be murdering, raping and discriminating against each other. There will be total chaos till they end up exterminating themselves.

You said that the leaders determine what is beneficial to the society. Why then would racism, murder and adultery be wrong in a society where 99.9% of the members see nothing wrong with racism, murder and adultery, and in which the leaders are among the 99.9%?

Sir, what do the leaders need time to do?

butterflyl1on:


Animals do not know right from wrong. We are the ones who see it that way. They simply act based on their nature.

There is no morality or immorality among animals.

Who else want to see it?
It is like saying animal poo is not poo. It is we humans that see it as poo 'cause we poo!

Even if we see it that way, we can only define it with respect to our own perspective. Which implies animals exhibits behaviours that can be distinguished as either right or wrong.

butterflyl1on:


You are going off.

If criminal law does not frown at consensual adultery why do we see it as wrong?

Is morality or a lack of no longer based on societal laws?

When you say consensual, who are the parties involved?
Do you mean married couples who agree to be in an open marriage?

Or do you mean married to another but sneaking behind them to be with others?

chemystery:

Who else want to see it?
It is like saying animal poo is not poo. It is we humans that see it as poo 'cause we poo!

Even if we see it that way, we can only define it with respect to our own perspective. Which implies animals exhibits behaviours that can be distinguished as either right or wrong.

You cannot speak for an animal as your perception is all you have.

You cannot say an animal knows right from wrong when your idea of this right or wrong is solely from your human perspective.

That would be you imposing your own perspective on one who does not subscribe to it.

Animals have no morals because they simply do not care. Domesticated animals can borrow from our perspective because we teach them based on our idea of morality. Animals on their own do not have the capacity for right or wrong. All they know is their natural behavior.

butterflyl1on:


You are going off.

If criminal law does not frown at consensual adultery why do we see it as wrong?

Is morality or a lack of no longer based on societal laws?

...because we are individually selfish.

When a man decides to have sex with a lady secretly to satisfy his sexual urges, how does that affect anyone else?

shaybebaby:

When you say consensual, who are the parties involved?
Do you mean married couples who agree to be in an open marriage?

Or do you mean married to another but sneaking behind them to be with others?

Sneaking.

butterflyl1on:


What Vaxx or myself want as humans will not always be what you want as a human. Where then do we agree on what is morally right when my perception of morality may vary from yours?

A homosexual sees nothing wrong with it. That's their morality. I see everything wrong with it. Where then is the role of common sense in morality?

Where is the meeting point?

Still, I'd like you tell me.

DeSepiero:


...because we are individually selfish.

When a man decides to have sex with a lady secretly to satisfy his sexual urges, how does that affect anyone else?

We are not all selfish

shaybebaby:

Still, I'd like you tell me.

I already did

butterflyl1on:


We are not all selfish

When we want a woman (our wife) to have sex with no one else than us, we are being selfish.