butterflyl1on:


The one murdered was he not also part of the greater good of a society?

Like seriously?

butterflyl1on:


The issue is not solely about you but about what is generally acceptable as a standard for morality.
We have about 30 countries today who have legalised marijuana. Why did they legalise it even when other countries have not.

Bear in mind drugs doesn't mean just marijuana. And it has nothing to do with morality.

It is more about cost to the society and to individuals as opposed to "you are bad if you do drugs".
When I say cost, I mean the cost to the society due to addiction to these substances, loss of life due to overdose, rehabilitation costs, increased criminality to feed the habit. Those are direct consequences to the people who use drugs and increased costs to the state as well as a drain to the society. Hardly a moral choice to restrict or outright bar it.
Its not banned because it is wrong, it is wrong because it harms people hence banned.

DeSepiero:


Like seriously?

Yes seriously! Everyone is from one society or another and each can be said to be a representation of the greater good of that society.

Should there be wars? But each nation and her individuals are fighting for their greater good probably due to greed or selfishness. Take away these vices, would such wars exist?

If I take the life of one I am taking the life of a greater good to another society. Surely you do not think your society is alone so you?

shaybebaby:

Bear in mind drugs doesn't mean just marijuana. And it has nothing to do with morality.

It is more about cost to the society and to individuals as opposed to "you are bad if you do drugs".
When I say cost, I mean the cost to the society due to addiction to these substances, loss of life due to overdose, rehabilitation costs, increased criminality to feed the habit. Those are direct consequences to the people who use drugs and increased costs to the state as well as a drain to the society. Hardly a moral choice to restrict or outright bar it.
Its not banned because it is wrong, it is wrong because it harms people hence banned.

Still back to the selfish benefit to the society talk. Do you get it now? That in itself is a moral choice.

As long as interest to the society is there then morality is inherent! I cannot say it enough.

shaybebaby:

I'm indifferent. I have no use for morality.

Is this a way of saying 'I don't judge persons / ideas / actions based on objective or widely accepted moral codes?'

vaxx:
when you are talking about west. USA is a power house .that can not be downsized... Netherlands is another strong force again

USA is a continent as well as a country. With 50 states, all with their own state laws, how many of them have legalised weed(in this example)? And how are states representative of the entire country.
The Netherlands is not even one of the G7. So what are we on about?

DeSepiero:


Is this a way of saying 'I don't judge persons / ideas / actions based on objective or widely accepted moral codes?'

I judge based on reason.

shaybebaby:

USA is a continent as well as a country. With 50 states, all with their own state laws, how many of them have legalised weed(in this example)? And how are states representative of the entire country.
The Netherlands is not even one of the G7. So what are we on about?

you ask for evidence I provide it...what are you arguing against now?

butterflyl1on:


Execute and criminals are just words.

Human societal laws simply evolve as our interests pique or wane in those directions and how then can this make anything stable when today we even have people getting married to objects like cars, chairs, shoes. Where then do societal laws find its limits .

They are words that carry weight.

It is the same human societal laws that have evolved over time that has allowed us to create many mordern societies.

There are always crazy people in every society.

Marrying cars and shoes are not recognized in any society that I know even though some crazies might do it.

butterflyl1on:


Yes seriously! Everyone is from one society or another and [s]each can be said to be a representation of the greater good of that society.[/s]

Should there be wars? But each nation and her individuals are fighting for their greater good probably due to greed or selfishness. Take away these vices, would such wars exist?

If I take the life of one I am taking the life of a greater good to another society. Surely you do not think your society is alone so you?

If something brings happiness to a larger population of a society, I can be considered a greater good of such society. That something is a good in that society...further stresses the subjectivity of morality.

butterflyl1on:


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.

And their natural behaviour such as that of humans can be categorised into normal or abnormal, right or wrong, good or bad, etc.

Who taught animals in the wild how to help fellow animals in distress?

Who also taught them how to express emotions?

Just as in humans, the moral variances amongst a particular animal group will be different from another, but they are undeniably there.

shaybebaby:

Bear in mind drugs doesn't mean just marijuana. And it has nothing to do with morality.

It is more about cost to the society and to individuals as opposed to "you are bad if you do drugs".
When I say cost, I mean the cost to the society due to addiction to these substances, loss of life due to overdose, rehabilitation costs, increased criminality to feed the habit. Those are direct consequences to the people who use drugs and increased costs to the state as well as a drain to the society. Hardly a moral choice to restrict or outright bar it.
Its not banned because it is wrong, it is wrong because it harms people hence banned.

I don't belive in your logic... Almost everyone in my house is alleged to chloroquine...I even consider it more dangerous than weed .....should govt ban this med drug on our behalf? What about those who are benefiting from it ?

DeSepiero:


If something brings happiness to a larger population of a society, I can be considered a greater good of such society. That something is a good in that society...further stresses the subjectivity of morality.

My comment was that is your society all there is? Your greater good must it be the same as another society

chemystery:


And their natural behaviour such as that of humans can be categorised into normal or abnormal, right or wrong, good or bad, etc.

Who taught animals in the wild how to help fellow animals in distress?

Who also taught them how to express emotions?

Just as in humans, the moral variances amongst a particular animal group will be different from another, but they are undeniably there.

culture, environment, political and social factor or contribute to how will develop our emotions....

shaybebaby:

I judge based on reason.

On issues that can be deemed good or bad?

dalaman:


They are words that carry weight.

It is the same human societal laws that have evolved over time that has allowed us to create many mordern societies.

There are always crazy people in every society.

Marrying cars and shoes are not recognized in any society that I know even though some crazies might do it.

Objectophilia or objectum sexual is recognised in several countries and marriages authorised.

countries like Germany, China, France, Japan, USA, etc.

butterflyl1on:


My comment was that is your society all there is? Your greater good must it be the same as another society

No

vaxx:
I don't belive in your logic... Almost everyone in my house is alleged to chloroquine...I even consider it more dangerous than weed .....should govt ban this med drug on our behalf? What about those who are benefiting from it ?

Are they addicted/or likely to become addicted to chloroquine?
Or is their allergic reaction life-threatening?
Is this reaction the same for the entire population of those who are administered the drug?

Do the side effects outweigh any lifesaving benefits?

DeSepiero:


No

So how then is uniformity achieved? What yardstick is used to measure what is good for one and bad for another?

If we are all humans yet have varied moral positions who then regulates adequately what balance we can have in morality when I can have one moral guide in Nigeria and travel to Cameroon and meet something else that is acceptable to them but disgustingly unacceptable to me.

Where do we agree?

DeSepiero:


On issues that can be deemed good or bad?

On outcomes that can be deemed adverse or positive.

shaybebaby:

Are they addicted/or likely to become addicted to chloroquine?
Or is their allergic reaction life-threatening?
Is this reaction the same for the entire population of those who are administered the drug?

Do the side effects outweigh any lifesaving benefits?

it is worst that what i can present here... It is no go area in our house.

That is my question... Should govt ban the drug on our behalf......

vaxx:
it is worst that what i can present here... It is no go area in our house.

That is my question... Should govt ban the drug on our behalf......

Answer my questions, based on your answers, I'll say yes or no.

shaybebaby:

Answer my questions, based on your answers, I'll say yes or no.

I said it is worst

shaybebaby:

On outcomes that can be deemed adverse or positive.

Impressive.

vaxx:
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?

Is Switzerland or Saudi Arabia an individual? You can ask them what is good and bad in the light of common sense. But unfortunately, they have no business with good and bad; they only deal with things that are lawful and unlawful.

Now, you don't compare laws with individual morality. Even god's moral code itself is a law. That is why killing is generally bad but not when it involves government versus criminal nor when it involves god, his people versus their enemies!

As an atheist, my morality is rooted on empathy and my human instinct towards distinguishing benefit from harm. That is why I feel bad even when criminals are killed. This is the same reason I see Yahweh as a cruel bloodsucking nonentity

vaxx:
culture, environment, political and social factor or contribute to how will develop our emotions....

and so? what about animals helping another in distress?

vaxx:
I said it is worst

But on what basis have you made this declaration?

butterflyl1on:


So how then is uniformity achieved ? What yardstick is used to measure what is good for one and bad for another?

If we are all humans yet have varied moral positions who then regulates adequately what balance we can have in morality when I can have one moral guide in Nigeria and travel to Cameroon and meet something else that is acceptable to them but disgustingly unacceptable to me.

Where do we agree?

Try answering this let me see how it goes?

chemystery:

Is Switzerland or Saudi Arabia an individual? You can ask them what good and bad is in the light of common sense. But unfortunately, they have no business with good and bad; they only deal with things that are lawful and unlawful.

Now, you don't compare laws with individual morality. Even god's moral code itself is a law. That is why killing is generally bad but not when it involves government versus criminal nor when it involves god, his people versus their enemies!

As an atheist, my morality is rooted on empathy and my human instinct towards distinguishing benefit from harm. That is why I feel bad even when criminals are killed. This is the same reason I see Yahweh as a cruel bloodsucking nonentity

saudi Arabia and Switzerland are Nation and what make them a nations are the individual in them.... So the law is for the individual in the country....


You are right they deal with laws...laws do not carry the spirit of emphaty.... It is not unlawful for me to stop my car to carry a pregnant woman in labour at the road side if I see one...I can just by passs and go....no police will arrest me for not stopping.....


It is lawful for me if I am medical doctor to demand for my fee before attending to a terrible sick patient that come to my office before treatment....


Here nothing like good nor bad...am only following the laws .....

Therefore laws should replace good or bad concept....since it is only human device right?

chemystery:
and so? what about animals helping another in distress?

is it compulsory or mandated by law to do so

vaxx:
is it compulsory or mandated by law to do so

shaybebaby:

But on what basis have you made this declaration?

life threaten