Ghost Town not for sale, owner wants to erect giant cross

Right and wrong are merely the collective barometer in any given place at any given time. They are purely existent in shades of grey, are subjective and relative...and can and do change from place to place and time to time.

Everything is negotiable. :)

There isn't much of an effective difference between a world in which humans determine right and wrong or one in which there is some objective, absolute right and wrong known by a divine being who hasn't provided clear evidence of such objective, absolute right and wrong. In the latter world, humans have to try to discern absolute right and wrong while in the former they make it up. In either world, what is considered right and wrong will change over time and in different societies.

Lord Gonchar said:

Everything is negotiable. :)

Just give a frat boy a six pack

ApolloAndy said:

What if people disagree with me about what those are? Call me arrogant, but they're just wrong.

Arrogant isn't even close to the word I'd use.

I think it's exactly the sort of thing that was being pointed out that started this discusion in the first place.

In all honesty, this attitude of closing one's eyes, plugging one's ears and yelling, "I'm right, you're wrong! La la la la la la!" is exactly why the whole religion/belief thing has become such an easy target in this day and age.

---

On a complete aside, I jumped in to this thread feeling disagreement towards what CreditWhOre was posting and trying to stack things to Vater's POV a little more, but found myself ending up in a really interesting place as the conversation progressed.

Exactly why I dig conversation with youse guys.

it is an interesting mix of age groups/experiences and beliefs here. Does usually provide for good discussions.

This is a good discussion.

Proposed universal absolute #1: Don't kill children for entertainment. Obviously there's some defining of terms that needs to go on there, but I can't imagine any society, religion, or culture that would allow this. You might say I was taught this by my culture, by evolution, or by some arbitrary standard of society, but if it's taught but pretty much every culture around the world, then isn't it universal? And as with any truth, there will be people and groups of people who deny the truth (flat earthers, moon landing deniers, anti-vaxers, Six Flags fans) but that doesn't make the truth any less true. Obviously this is an unprovable assertion, but I'm just clarifying my position here.

I'm much more scared of the alternative (complete moral relativism) because it leads to conclusions like "Hitler was wrong because he lost" or which seems even worse.

Lord Gonchar said:
In all honesty, this attitude of closing one's eyes, plugging one's ears and yelling, "I'm right, you're wrong! La la la la la la!" is exactly why the whole religion/belief thing has become such an easy target in this day and age.

That's kind of a strawman. It's not like the conclusion of moral absolutes comes without careful analysis, deep thought, engaging other perspectives, awareness of the consequences, etc. etc. I could flip around the statement to apply to moral relativism too:

"In all honesty, this attitude of ignoring consequences and yelling, "Anything goes! Everything is negotiable!" is exactly why the whole moral relativism thing has become such an easy target in this day and age."

ApolloAndy said:

Proposed universal absolute #1: Don't kill children for entertainment. Obviously there's some defining of terms that needs to go on there, but I can't imagine any society, religion, or culture that would allow this. You might say I was taught this by my culture, by evolution, or by some arbitrary standard of society, but if it's taught but pretty much every culture around the world, then isn't it universal?

Ehhhhh...Perhaps.

But this is getting more into what I'd call morality among societies as opposed to the absolute rights bestowed to every man upon birth.

The right not to be murdered, is certainly not a right. We've been killing people we deem 'worthy' of death since forever.

But no, there tends to be few socieites (and certainly not large successful ones) that kill their young for sport.

But that just reinforces my point - shades of grey, nothing is absolute. There is no "right to not be killed" that is inherent in us all. There are moral judgement calls about when it is right or wrong to kill another human.

That's kind of a strawman. It's not like the conclusion of moral absolutes comes without careful analysis, deep thought, engaging other perspectives, awareness of the consequences, etc. etc. I could flip around the statement to apply to moral relativism too:

"In all honesty, this attitude of ignoring consequences and yelling, "Anything goes! Everything is negotiable!" is exactly why the whole moral relativism thing has become such an easy target in this day and age."

Except I'm talking in shades of grey and of personal belief. There are degrees and options and room for variation. I may very well be wrong in the sense that your shade of grey is different than mine. You can swap words and turn it around on me, but it makes no sense. It isn't the reality of what's happening in the world. No one is being attacked or called out for being willing to discuss options or evolving morality. Just the opposite.

You flat out said (paraphrasing), "What I believe is true and if you disagree, you're wrong."

That kind of zealotry is exactly why so much religious belief is under fire in the greater general political discussion. It is happening in a very real way. It's exactly what ignited this discussion. It makes for an easy target.

(and I mean that to be more advisory in tone than confrontational)

Okay. In a "don't be a dick" kind of way you are certainly right. But in terms of a "true or not true" way, I don't think the tides of popularity are a good metric (said every insane person with a crazy idea, ever).

ApolloAndy said:
Proposed universal absolute #1: Don't kill children for entertainment. Obviously there's some defining of terms that needs to go on there

,

To me those definitions are what takes it out of being an absolute. Unless you have universal, absolute definitions making up the statement, its not absolute. Same issue is true when people say murder is absolutely wrong because murder is a legal construct which has varied over time and varies now in different parts of the world. Though I would say that not killing children for entertainment is closer to an absolute than murder.

but if it's taught but pretty much every culture around the world, then isn't it universal?

At what point is something universally accepted enough to be universal? And who decides?

I'm much more scared of the alternative (complete moral relativism) because it leads to conclusions like "Hitler was wrong because he lost" or which seems even worse.

You said "I don't understand, therefore it can't be" is also not correct." I agree with that. But I think its also true that simply because something scares you or another thing makes you more comfortable doesn't make the first thing false or the second true.

What is the practical difference between a world in which there are any number of absolute rights/wrongs but which have not been made known to humans in any concrete and objective way and one in which humans are on their own to collectively determine rights/wrongs? Particularly when any absolute rights/wrongs do not come with alarms and warning lights informing you that you found them. We may well have been onto various absolute rights/wrongs at various points in our history but since moved away from them.