Tax Discrimination - It's that time again

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You need other people's opinion if you don't want to be hanged for the murder.

How so? I think you don't quite understand the idea of a trial and jury. Nor does a jury being an option and the criminal having a right to trial even though guilty mean it then becomes a moral opinion of the jury.

 

[eran0004]

How so? I think you don't quite understand the idea of a trial and jury. Nor does a jury being an option and the criminal having a right to trial even though guilty mean it then becomes a moral opinion of the jury.

I'm not talking about trial and jury, so I don't know what you're on about. What I'm talking about is wether or not morality is down to personal opinion.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm not talking about trial and jury, so I don't know what you're on about. What I'm talking about is wether or not morality is down to personal opinion.

...it usually comes to that. Whimsically talking about morality this or that without taking into consideration the real world which is what I'm talking about is why people are having a go at you. Or probably your intention at this point. Nor have you answered my question. How so? In other words how do you need someones moral opinion not to be hung?

Thus the idea of trails and juries come it because that is the deciding factor between a life sentence and a death sentence.

 

[eran0004]

how do you need someones moral opinion not to be hung?

Thus the idea of trails and juries come it because that is the deciding factor between a life sentence and a death sentence.

Because law is based on morality. If you are the only one who think your actions are morally right, then you will probably not find support in the law for it.

 

[Famine]

Where was the morality in the Holocaust (legal) or the slave trade (legal)? Where was the morality in denying women the vote (legal) or homosexuals the right to serve in the military or marry (legal)?

If you weren't ignoring me for the last page, you'd have gone to the Human Rights thread by now and learned why the above is nonsense.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Because law is based on morality. If you are the only one who think your actions are morally right, then you will probably not find support in the law for it.

I've never heard a killer make the plea that they killed someone due to being morally right (though some may have). Nor are there any actual law or rights written that would agree to this. Rather people who decided if you should be hung or not look at it in the context of did said person A break the law as demonstrated, and if so then people will say yes if not they'll say no. However, to be clear this is measured on whether the demonstration could prove unilaterally that the law was broken as it is written, not moral opinion and whimsical dancing in the sun. From there it is decided to what degree was the law broken and so on...

Once again you still fail to answer my question. How so? How is law based on morality rather than the gov't doing the job they're meant to do and thus protecting people and thus punishing those who decide to harm in the various ways that harm can be described under the scope of law.

 

[eran0004]

Where was the morality in the Holocaust (legal) or the slave trade (legal)? Where was the morality in denying women the vote (legal) or homosexuals the right to serve in the military or marry (legal)?

Holocaust: It was considered morally right because they believed that there was an international Jewish conspiracy and that it was a threat against the goal of building a powerful aryan nation. They also developed ideas that Jews were of a lesser race and thus there was no moral reason to treat them as equals.

Slavery: It was considered morally right because slaves were considered to be the property of their owners, and the owner was considered to have to moral right to do whatever he wanted with his property.

Denying women vote: It was considered morally right because it was believed that women were hysterical, irrational beings, and that vote must be reserved for rational minds.

Denying homosexual rights: It is considered morally right because some people believe that it's against nature or that it's against God's will.

That doesn't mean that everyone sees it the same way. People of different opinion might think that all of the above is morally wrong. The morality of a society as a whole depends a lot on the dominant discourse.

Hitler did not rise to power because he convinced the people that it was about time to do evil. Instead, he was able to manipulate the discourse through means of propaganda. It's much easier to rule a country when the people think that you're doing the right thing.

So if you want to kill me and make others think that you are morally right in doing so - invest in propaganda.

Edit: That is also one important goal of the education system, to make sure the children develop values that reflect the values of the society.

I've never heard a killer make the plea that they killed someone due to being morally right (though some may have). Nor are there any actual law or rights written that would agree to this. Rather people who decided if you should be hung or not look at it in the context of did said person A break the law as demonstrated, and if so then people will say yes if not they'll say no. However, to be clear this is measured on whether the demonstration could prove unilaterally that the law was broken as it is written, not moral opinion and whimsical dancing in the sun. From there it is decided to what degree was the law broken and so on...

Once again you still fail to answer my question. How so? How is law based on morality rather than the gov't doing the job they're meant to do and thus protecting people and thus punishing those who decide to harm in the various ways that harm can be described under the scope of law.

But the law is written from a moral standpoint, you don't just make up what's right and wrong because of no particular reason. Laws are not disconnected from morality. When the morality of a society changes, so will the the laws. Obviously there's a time lag between morality change and legal change, because the procedures to elect a parliament and a government and the procedures to change legislation works within certain time frames. But over time it should be fairly analogue to the moral staindpoints of the society.

Edit: The reason why you so rarely see murderers claim that they were morally right to kill someone is probably because the murderers rarely think that they are. Murder usually doesn't happen because of morality reasons, but because of other reasons.

Terrorism, on the other hand, is usually based on an idea of what is right and what is wrong. Terrorists rarely refer to themselves as terrorists, but rather "freedom fighters" or other similar things. Their crimes and murders are based on an ideologic standpoint, and they will often claim, when in court, that they are morally right to do what they have done.

For instance: Anders Bering Breivik believed that there was an islamic conspiracy to take over the world and that Arbeiderpartiet were traitors and a threat to the nation because of their generous multi-cultural views. He considered it being morally right of him to fight against that, so he bombed the government building and then went to a summer camp to kill youths from Arbeiderpartiet. He equaled it to fighting against the nazi occupation during world war II.

So in his view, he had morality on his side.

Most other people did not agree.

 

[Famine]

Holocaust: It was considered morally right

That alone will end any interest in your post. Good that you put it at the start. You actually believe that human rights abuses can't happen in countries where the abuse is lawful

Law is subjective and depends on whim. Morality is objective and depends on logic. Morality is not subject to popular vote.

But as I said:

If you weren't ignoring me for the last page, you'd have gone to the Human Rights thread by now and learned why the above is nonsense.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

But the law is written from a moral standpoint, you don't just make up what's right and wrong because of no particular reason. Laws are not disconnected from morality. When the morality of a society changes, so will the the laws. Obviously there's a time lag between morality change and legal change, because the procedures to elect a parliament and a government and the procedures to change legislation works within certain time frames. But over time it should be fairly analogue to the moral staindpoints of the society.

It's made up from a standpoint of many votes and a collective that could be claimed moral in some cases or logical, morality doesn't equal rationality. It's logic that decisions are made on and how criminals are punished and how people decide to punish said actions. Also Laws are disconnected from morality and made on what's best for people, if you think it's someones rational moral right to be able to kill and thus rational moral right for others to condemn them, then obviously the law is in a disconnect for one group and not the others. If laws were truly connected directly to morality as you seem to claim, then it would play both sides of the fence, however, this isn't the case. Thus laws are of logic and evidence basing rather than what one feels or deems morally correct from within or as a whole.

This is the first time I've said this to anyone other than Danoff I think, but I will also not being responding after this for two reasons. It is utterly stupid and daft to think or even claim the Holocaust was considered morally right and in doing so you have a total misrepresentation of the idea of morality and rather thinking that irrationality and morality go hand in hand. Thus you can continue but I have no interest in someone that one can't extrapolate on their said claims and two is about as irrational as the claims they've made.

 

[Tornado]

I could have sworn the allies executed pretty much all of the German high command because of course it 🤬 wasn't moral to practice genocide on a global scale.

 

[eran0004]

That alone will end any interest in your post. Good that you put it at the start. You actually believe that human rights abuses can't happen in countries where the abuse is lawful

Law is subjective and depends on whim. Morality is objective and depends on logic. Morality is not subject to popular vote.

But as I said:

I see you're still afraid to treat my posts with intellectual honesty.
Let me know when you're ready to talk again.

I could have sworn the allies executed pretty much all of the German high command because of course it 🤬 wasn't moral to practice genocide on a global scale.

Because the allies based their moralic standpoints on other grounds than what nazi's based theirs on. If you have the moralic standpoint that all humans are equal, then killing innocent people because of their race is pretty much one of the worst things you can do.

Just because someone is claiming moral right doesn't mean that they're immune to any accusations. It simply means that they think they were acting in the right way. Other people of different moralic standpoints can still consider it a crime and punish them for it.

Explaining something is not the same as defending something.

It's made up from a standpoint of many votes and a collective that could be claimed moral in some cases or logical, morality doesn't equal rationality. It's logic that decisions are made on and how criminals are punished and how people decide to punish said actions. Also Laws are disconnected from morality and made on what's best for people, if you think it's someones rational moral right to be able to kill and thus rational moral right for others to condemn them, then obviously the law is in a disconnect for one group and not the others. If laws were truly connected directly to morality as you seem to claim, then it would play both sides of the fence, however, this isn't the case. Thus laws are of logic and evidence basing rather than what one feels or deems morally correct from within or as a whole.

This is the first time I've said this to anyone other than Danoff I think, but I will also not being responding after this for two reasons. It is utterly stupid and daft to think or even claim the Holocaust was considered morally right and in doing so you have a total misrepresentation of the idea of morality and rather thinking that irrationality and morality go hand in hand. Thus you can continue but I have no interest in someone that one can't extrapolate on their said claims and two is about as irrational as the claims they've made.

You're right that morality is not always based on logic. Look at religion, for instance. Reason as a base for morality started with the enlightenment, but still today a lot of moralic standpoints are based on feelings rather than rational ideas.

Law is for most part based on logic, but there's an underlying moralic foundation. The basic moralic assumption that stealing is wrong, for instance.

Why laws change as the dominant discourse changes is because if there's a discrepancy between law and the morale, then people will ask for the laws to change. For instance, if the society consider it being wrong to deny women the right of vote, they will raise opinion to have the laws changed and if enough people agrees with it, the law will have to be changed.

The holocaust may not have been considered morally right by the people of Germany, because they had very little insight in what was going on. But in the Nazi high command and in Nazi ideology it was certainly being justified. Again: Just because I say that someone else thought they were morally right, doesn't mean that I agree with them or defend their morality.

 

[Famine]

I keep pointing you to the Human Rights thread so you'll stop making the same mistakes over and over again. Apparently you don't want to have your opinion challenged, regardless of how bereft of reason it is.

In the meantime, I'll just enjoy watching @Danoff toy with you until you reach the point where you're contradicting yourself within the same sentence. You could have saved yourself a lot of bother had you paid attention to me rather than dodging out.

 

[Tornado]

There's no intellectual honestly to be given to the concept of "the Holocaust was fine because the German government said it was, and only because the allies won can we say it was wrong." It ignores so much of the reality of what was actually happening in Germany during WWII that you might as well be banging on about Lexus models again.

 

[eran0004]

There's no intellectual honestly to be given to the concept of "the Holocaust was fine because the German government said it was, and only because the allies won can we say it was wrong." It ignores so much of the reality of what was actually happening in Germany during WWII that you might as well be banging on about Lexus models again.

I never said the holocaust was fine. Show me where I said that.

I keep pointing you to the Human Rights thread so you'll stop making the same mistakes over and over again. Apparently you don't want to have your opinion challenged, regardless of how bereft of reason it is.

In the meantime, I'll just enjoy watching @Danoff toy with you until you reach the point where you're contradicting yourself within the same sentence. You could have saved yourself a lot of bother had you paid attention to me rather than dodging out.

Why should I read your posts when you don't read mine?

 

[Tornado]

I never said the holocaust was fine. Show me where I said that.

Holocaust: It was considered morally right

Hence, "fine."


Then you followed it up with a bunch of stuff that wasn't entirely what was happening by the time the Holocaust rolled around.

Why should I read your posts when you don't read mine?

Pretty sure Famine wasn't the one who purposely drew attention (twice) that he was going to ignore what you were saying.

 

[eran0004]

Hence, "fine."

No. Compare these two statements:

1. "The holocaust was fine."
2. "The Nazi leadership believed that the holocaust was justified."

 

[Exorcet]

No. Compare these two statements:

1. "The holocaust was fine."
2. "The Nazi leadership believed that the holocaust was justified."

Well, either the holocaust was fine because morality is relative or it is not fine at all because morality isn't relative.

You seems to be saying that morality is realitve, which would mean the holocaust was fine because people thought it was justified. If there are absolute rights and wrongs, the holocaust can be judged against those. Some people could still think that the holocaust was justified, but their opinion would be meaningless.

For instance: Anders Bering Breivik believed that there was an islamic conspiracy to take over the world and that Arbeiderpartiet were traitors and a threat to the nation because of their generous multi-cultural views. He considered it being morally right of him to fight against that, so he bombed the government building and then went to a summer camp to kill youths from Arbeiderpartiet. He equaled it to fighting against the nazi occupation during world war II.


So in his view, he had morality on his side.

Most other people did not agree.

He was wrong. Even if every person in the universe agreed with him, he would still be wrong. So law and majority opinion don't matter when it comes to deciding right and wrong.

 

[Famine]

No. Compare these two statements:

1. "The holocaust was fine."
2. "The Nazi leadership believed that the holocaust was justified."

According to the standard that morality is opinion, majority opinion begets morality and law (formed from majority opinion) defines rights - your standard - the two statements can be conflated. There is no way to believe that and not believe that the Holocaust was moral (because it happened lawfully) - and if you believe it was moral then you should be fine with it, lest you're behaving immorally.

Of course had you read through the Human Rights thread by now, you'd see why this is an untenable position to hold. I keep guiding you to it for your own benefit...

 

[Danoff]

Law does not say what is morally right, no. What's morally right is down to opinion.

Very common viewpoint, often coupled with a notion that democracy helps us find morality - because getting lots of uninformed opinions on the matter will somehow lead us to the right answer. You have put forth both of these positions. That morality doesn't exist (that it's basically another word for opinion), and that popular opinion is somehow superior to individual opinion. I wish you were alone in thinking this, but there are millions upon millions of people who agree with these notions.

The human rights thread @Famine keeps pointing you to details exactly why both of those positions are wrong. But I'll do a little of it here.

The problem really comes down to Nazi Germany. Thank goodness for the Nazis really because without them how would we have such wonderful examples to draw from during internet debates? The Nazis demonstrated to the world that morality is not a matter of opinion - that you can't just round up a kill massive numbers and call yourself morally right and hide behind your opinion. They also demonstrated in a very vivid way that democracy will not protect your rights. The people of Nazi Germany supported what they were doing. Somehow getting a big group of them together didn't help them realize they were doing wrong.

Long before Nazi Germany, a country was founded on the principle that democracy is not enough, and that morality is not opinion. The founders of that country put in place a representative government, not the first time that had been done, but also went out of their way to call out human "rights". These "rights" were put in place as roadblocks to democracy - precisely to prevent the sort of thing that happened in Nazi Germany (well before Nazi Germany).

Rights are a morality that is rooted in logic rather than opinion. They exist independent of government, opinion, or even human beings. The US is a constitutionally limited republic (limited largely by the bill of rights), precisely because what you're saying is wrong. What is moral is not up for a vote (see signature), human rights exist because the majority will oppress. Right now in America, the majority (those who pay very little in tax), is in the process of oppressing the minority (those who pay a lot in tax) by voting for a discriminatory tax code. The US constitution has rules against this, of course, but more and more the US is ignoring the constitution in whatever way the majority feels is appropriate. It seems the US has forgotten the lessons that the world learned in WWII.

 

[eran0004]

Well, either the holocaust was fine because morality is relative or it is not fine at all because morality isn't relative.

That's a false dilemma. Holocaust can still be wrong if morality is relative, and crimes can still be judged even if the criminal think he was right in doing what he did. Again, just because someone is claiming that something is morally right, it doesn't mean that others will have to agree. What will be considered right or wrong in a society, is up to the opinion of people and the opinion of people is up to how well they've been convinced about something.

You seems to be saying that morality is relative, which would mean the holocaust was fine because people thought it was justified. If there are absolute rights and wrongs, the holocaust can be judged against those. Some people could still think that the holocaust was justified, but their opinion would be meaningless.

It would mean that the nazis thought it was right - not that the holocaust was fine. If we consider it right or not depend on our moralic beliefs.

The universe wasn't created as a place where holocaust is wrong, it's not something that can be derived from nature or a universal law. Nature is only bothered with what works or not: What works has a chance of happening - what doesn't work has no chance of happening. What's right and wrong are systems of beliefs created by the human mind to guide social interaction and it only exists in the human mind.

If morality is not relative, but something that's fixed and eternal, it must mean that morality can be self supporting and that any argument against a moralic belief can be countered with "morality is right because it is morality, and morality is always right". And that leads to another more problematic question: Who's the authority to decide what the morality is? Is it the parent? Is it the teacher? Is it the philosopher? Is it the king or the president? Is it God? Is it a magical force of justice in the universe that was created with the Big Bang?

If morality is relative, it encourage us to reflect on it, review it and see if there are any flaws in it, because we wouldn't assume that current set of beliefs are the final, everlasting perfect ones. Should phenomenon X be right or wrong? What would be the consequences? If we find that phenomenon X is wrong, are there any exceptions in which it can be considered right?

Relative morality also allows us to understand the motivation of other people. One doesn't have to take it as far the holocaust, it could be something as trivial as to understand the dress code of a particular place and time.

He was wrong. Even if every person in the universe agreed with him, he would still be wrong. So law and majority opinion don't matter when it comes to deciding right and wrong.

If every person agreed with him, who are to say that he's wrong? God? Can a person be wrong about something unless there are other people to think that he's wrong? What relevance does "wrong" have if no one is aware of it? And what is truth? Is it true that stealing is wrong? What is that based on, other than the opinion of people?

 

[Danoff]

@eran004, GTPlanet has a thread for this topic - it's called the human rights thread.

That's a false dilemma. Holocaust can still be wrong if morality is relative,

No it can't. All it can be is disagreed on.

Who's the authority to decide what the morality is? Is it the parent? Is it the teacher? Is it the philosopher? Is it the king or the president? Is it God? Is it a magical force of justice in the universe that was created with the Big Bang?

Logic.

If morality is relative, it encourage us to reflect on it,

Actually it doesn't. It encourages us to ignore it. If morality is relative, it has no meaning. All that matters is what you can get away with and how many people agree with you. Luckily human rights and logic exist.

If every person agreed with him, who are to say that he's wrong? God? Can a person be wrong about something unless there are other people to think that he's wrong? What relevance does "wrong" have if no one is aware of it?

Irrational behavior can certainly exist, and it can even be supported - theoretically by everyone on the planet. And if nobody ever realizes that it's irrational, then there is no consequence, and yet it remains irrational - not logically supported.

And what is truth? Is it true that stealing is wrong? What is that based on, other than the opinion of people?

Yes it is true that stealing is wrong. Wrong being defined as violating the rights of others. You have a logical right to your property which sprang into being alongside logic and the universe itself. Stealing is a violation of those property rights. If everyone agrees with you (see the US Tax code for example) you can get away with it, but you're still violating rights and the logical consequences of that still exist even if they are never acted upon.

 

[Famine]

That's a false dilemma. Holocaust can still be wrong if morality is relative, and crimes can still be judged even if the criminal think he was right in doing what he did.

By what standard? One that changes with the tides based on "morality is just opinion"?

How can anyone be comfortable with locking someone up forever or killing them based on crimes that are not crimes next week - or last? How can owning someone, imprisoning and violating them be right depending on your perspective?

Oh, that's right, they can't.

The universe wasn't created as a place where holocaust is wrong

It wasn't created at all.

it's not something that can be derived from nature or a universal law.

Actually it is. Perhaps if you'd and actually read the Human Rights thread you'd save yourself a lot of time.

Nature is only bothered with what works or not

Nature is not bothered at all. "Nature" isn't conscious.

Who's the authority to decide what the morality is?

No-one. That'd make it subjective and exactly as useless as the morality you've been describing to this point.

Since it has to be objective for the concept of crime to even exist, the only way to determine morality is logic. But if you'd read the Human Rights thread...

 

[eran0004]

Very common viewpoint, often coupled with a notion that democracy helps us find morality - because getting lots of uninformed opinions on the matter will somehow lead us to the right answer. You have put forth both of these positions. That morality doesn't exist (that it's basically another word for opinion), and that popular opinion is somehow superior to individual opinion. I wish you were alone in thinking this, but there are millions upon millions of people who agree with these notions.

That connection isn't made by me though. I'm not saying the democracy helps us find morality, rather that due to the democratic system, the dominant moral view of the society is going to be reflected in the laws. If all the morality is bogus, then the laws in that democracy will be bogus too. Freedom of speech though is probably a good thing when it comes to evolving the moralic system, because it gives people of different opinion the possibility to test their opinions against each other.

Morality is not the same as opinion, because opinion can be about a whole lot of different things, while morality is a set of beliefs specifically for what's right and what's wrong. You can have an opinion that the colour red looks good, but it's not a moralic point of view. You can have an opinion that abortion is wrong, that's a moralic point of view.

The problem really comes down to Nazi Germany. Thank goodness for the Nazis really because without them how would we have such wonderful examples to draw from during internet debates? The Nazis demonstrated to the world that morality is not a matter of opinion - that you can't just round up a kill massive numbers and call yourself morally right and hide behind your opinion.

Had they won the war I bet they could have done just that. The power of propaganda is strong, especially in a country where there's no freedom of speech. And it's unlikely that if they had won the war the world would have known much about the details of the holocaust anyway.

They also demonstrated in a very vivid way that democracy will not protect your rights. The people of Nazi Germany supported what they were doing. Somehow getting a big group of them together didn't help them realize they were doing wrong.

On the contrary, I don't think it's a coincidence that the Allied forces (except Soviet, who only joined once Germany attacked them) were made up of democracies and that the Axis were dictatorships.

The people of Nazi Germany were largely unaware about the details of the holocaust. All they knew was that there was a total war, that Jews were considered traitors and that they were being arrested and lost their rights.

But yes, the idea that the Jewish population were traitors and a threat was largely supported, due to the propaganda machine. It's also important to remember that Germany wasn't a democracy at that time, so no one was really allowed to present an alternative message to the one that the Nazi regime was presenting.

Long before Nazi Germany, a country was founded on the principle that democracy is not enough, and that morality is not opinion. The founders of that country put in place a representative government, not the first time that had been done, but also went out of their way to call out human "rights". These "rights" were put in place as roadblocks to democracy - precisely to prevent the sort of thing that happened in Nazi Germany (well before Nazi Germany).

Well, strictly speaking it's an opinion that morality is not an opinion. Just because you put it on a piece of paper doesn't mean that it's true. Just look at the Bible.

Rights are a morality that is rooted in logic rather than opinion. They exist independent of government, opinion, or even human beings. The US is a constitutionally limited republic (limited largely by the bill of rights), precisely because what you're saying is wrong. What is moral is not up for a vote (see signature), human rights exist because the majority will oppress. Right now in America, the majority (those who pay very little in tax) in the process of oppressing the minority (those who pay a lot in tax) by voting for a discriminatory tax code. The US constitution has rules against this, of course, but more and more the US is ignoring the constitution in whatever way the majority feels is appropriate. It seems the US has forgotten the lessons that the world learned in WWII.

Logic can't chose between two equally logical answers. Take death penalty, what does logic say about that? On one hand it only make sense that someone who has murered someone else doesn't deserve to live, on the other hand it only make sense that if you kill someone who is a murderer, then you too are a murderer and have done the same wrong. Surely, death penalty can't be both right and wrong within a certain system of morality. In the end, what's worth more than the other has to be down to opinion. How successful you are at convincing others that your opinion is right is another story. Two people presented with the same logical arguments, but viewing them in two different perspectives, will not always come to the same conclusion. When it comes to taxation for instance, one might find that the good of the public overrules the rights of the private, and the other may find the opposite.

Just because the US constitution is based on a certain philosophical belief, it doesn't mean that that philosphical belief is correct. It may show that the founding fathers of the nation thought that it was correct (or rather, that they belong to a certain school of thought), but in an objective sense it doesn't mean anything. After all, there is always a possibility that they were wrong about some or all of it. Morality is always evolving and it's unreasonable to think that at any given time and place you can arrive at the complete, ultimate morality, just as it's unreasonable to think that the society at any given time and place can arrive at a point where all of science has been discovered and there's no more research to be done. We always live at the end of time, and thus we think that everything has already been done and that we sit at the finish line with all the right answers. But that is something that people have been thinking ever since the dawn of mankind and if it was possible to arrive to such a point, surely we would be able to see that point somewhere in history, because with all the time that has passed it's unlikely that it would happen right now.

What is moral or not is not up to vote (even if my moralic views doesn't win the election, I still get to keep them), but whatever discourse gets the most support will have more influence over the legislation.

 

[Danoff]

Well, strictly speaking it's an opinion that morality is not an opinion. Just because you put it on a piece of paper doesn't mean that it's true. Just look at the Bible.

This has been covered at length in the human rights thread.

Logic can't chose between two equally logical answers.

Misunderstands logic.

Take death penalty, what does logic say about that? On one hand it only make sense that someone who has murered someone else doesn't deserve to live, on the other hand it only make sense that if you kill someone who is a murderer, then you too are a murderer and have done the same wrong.

This has been covered at length in the human rights thread.

Surely, death penalty can't be both right and wrong within a certain system of morality. In the end, what's worth more than the other has to be down to opinion. How successful you are at convincing others that your opinion is right is another story. Two people presented with the same logical arguments, but viewing them in two different perspectives, will not always come to the same conclusion. When it comes to taxation for instance, one might find that the good of the public overrules the rights of the private, and the other may find the opposite.

This has been covered at length in the human rights thread.

Just because the US constitution is based on a certain philosophical belief, it doesn't mean that that philosphical belief is correct.

This has been covered at length in the human rights thread.

Morality is always evolving and it's unreasonable to think that at any given time and place you can arrive at the complete, ultimate morality, just as it's unreasonable to think that the society at any given time and place can arrive at a point where all of science has been discovered and there's no more research to be done.

This has been covered at length in the human rights thread.

What is moral or not is not up to vote (even if my moralic views doesn't win the election, I still get to keep them), but whatever discourse gets the most support will have more influence over the legislation.

This has been covered at length in the human rights thread.

 

[eran0004]

@eran004, GTPlanet has a thread for this topic - it's called the human rights thread.

We can go back to taxes if you like. I don't think we'll come to an agreement about this anyway

No it can't. All it can be is disagreed on.

Why would it have to be agreed on? I am the judge, I judge after my beliefs. If I think something is wrong, then that's my opinion. If I have the power to do something against it, then I probably will (depending on how severe the situation is, but something like the holocaust would certainly be severe enough).

Logic.

Use an example. Abortion, right or wrong? What does logic say?

Actually it doesn't. It encourages us to ignore it. If morality is relative, it has no meaning. All that matters is what you can get away with and how many people agree with you. Luckily human rights and logic exist.

Morality always have relevance to the one who has it. Just because different people have different moralities doesn't mean that my morality suddenly gets worthless. I still believe in what I believe.

Irrational behavior can certainly exist, and it can even be supported - theoretically by everyone on the planet. And if nobody ever realizes that it's irrational, then there is no consequence, and yet it remains irrational - not logically supported.

Certainly. So how do we know that universal morality is rational and not irrational? After all, we can't rule out the possibility that the reason why we think something is being rational is because we're being irrational about it. Theoretically.

Yes it is true that stealing is wrong. Wrong being defined as violating the rights of others. You have a logical right to your property which sprang into being alongside logic and the universe itself. Stealing is a violation of those property rights. If everyone agrees with you (see the US Tax code for example) you can get away with it, but you're still violating rights and the logical consequences of that still exist even if they are never acted upon.

That is a self-supported argument and there's no logical source to it. It's logical that stealing is wrong IF it's right to own property. But why is it right to own property? At the end all logic is going to give you is that it's right because it's a human right, but why is it a human right? Because it's a human right. It's self-supporting, rather than being supported by logic or some universal truth.

Misunderstands logic.

Provides no argument.

 

[Azuremen]

@eran0004 - Please go to The Human Rights thread, all of this has been covered at length over there. You've pulled this thread considerably off-topic while arguing in circles on issues already covered.

 

[eran0004]

@eran0004 - Please go to The Human Rights thread, all of this has been covered at length over there. You've pulled this thread considerably off-topic while arguing in circles on issues already covered.

I've pulled? Hardly...

But as morality is not the main subject of this thread, let's just agree to disagree and go back to taxes if anyone is still interested in discussing that.

 

[Danoff]

Use an example. Abortion, right or wrong? What does logic say?

Does not violate rights. This has been covered at length in the human rights thread. It was also covered in the abortion thread.

Certainly. So how do we know that universal morality is rational and not irrational? After all, we can't rule out the possibility that the reason why we think something is being rational is because we're being irrational about it. Theoretically.

This has been covered at length in the human rights thread.

That is a self-supported argument and there's no logical source to it. It's logical that stealing is wrong IF it's right to own property. But why is it right to own property? At the end all logic is going to give you is that it's right because it's a human right, but why is it a human right? Because it's a human right. It's self-supporting, rather than being supported by logic or some universal truth.

It wasn't a supported argument at all. I didn't explain the supporting detail here because.... wait for it.... this has been covered at length in the human rights thread.

 

[Tornado]

That's a false dilemma. Holocaust can still be wrong if morality is relative, and crimes can still be judged even if the criminal think he was right in doing what he did.

Not if the criminal in question was a government entity and that same government is what is apparently the determiner of morality (and therefore rights). The Holocaust can't be wrong if the Nazi government decided it was right and they were the ones who got to make that distinction.

No. Compare these two statements:

1. "The holocaust was fine."
2. "The Nazi leadership believed that the holocaust was justified."

It would mean that the nazis thought it was right - not that the holocaust was fine.

Nothing in your post actually explained how something being considered morally just by a government entity and something being considered fine is a false equivalency. If all of those examples provided by Famine were considered "morally right" as you stated them to be because the governments in question committing them deemed them to be acceptable, how are they not therefore fine?



And more importantly, how does being obnoxiously pedantic over whether something is a synonym change the fact that by the logic you explained, so long as a government deems an action legal it can't be considered immoral? Does that mean the "kill gays" law from Uganda was fine and dandy if they had managed to pass it?

If every person agreed with him, who are to say that he's wrong? God? Can a person be wrong about something unless there are other people to think that he's wrong?

Quite easily.

 

[Zenith]

If someone says that 2+2=5 where nobody else can disagree with them are they wrong?

Of course they're bloody wrong.