It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Oh you've hit this spot on with me. I currently live in Central Florida, a part of the state that is hugely populated with old people who like to tell me and my few friends that we are wrong.
Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
I belive, as other posters have stated, that there are a few absolute moral truths in this world. For example, it is wrong to commit unjustifiable acts of violence against others and it is wrong to steal.
The difficult problem with morality is that it is hard to clearly define these absolute truths. It is also difficult to define where the exceptions (if they exist) lie. For example, people still debate whether one may steal a loaf of bread to feed their starving family. Pacifists believe all violence is wrong, while others believe violence is permissible in certain circumstances like self-defense.
To further complicate morality, many societies have created secondary moral rules that prevent people from violating absolute moral rules. The belief is taht if something can lead to immorality, then it is immoral. These secondary moral rules may seem dogmatic or nonsensical because one can violate the rules without violating an absolute moral rule.
Take drinking as an example. Many societies and religions claim drinking is immoral. One is more likely to violate an absolute moral rule if they drink. Drunk people are more likely to get into fights and harm others. It is possible, however, to have a drink without committing violence, stealing, or violating some other absolute moral rule. And in fact, many people do drink and remain moral.
People also confuse religious taboos, rites, and idiosyncracies with morality. This further muddies the debate. Reciting certain incantations, wearing certain garments, appearing at a church are in and of themselves not moral acts. Eating "unclean foods," watching football on Sunday instead of going to a church, forgetting to pray, or urinating on Koran is not immoral per se.
Perhaps this thread can be advanced if we try to discern the absolute moral rules, like refraining from unjustified violence, from the secondary moral rules, like refraining from drinking. Secondary moral rules can easily be attaked because they can (and often are) violated without violating absolute moral rules. The debate can be further advanced by disregarding religious taboos and idiosyncracies.
Originally posted by Allred5923
And by the way, the next time you get into one of those conversations with your new neighbors, just say "Yeh, I am from there, how long have you been ugly?" and walk away!!!
Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
reply to post by d60944
I don't think you're getting my point here. I listed both of those things and then asked the question: What is it that determines why one thing (your x, y, and z) is considered immoral while another (your a, b, and c) is considered to be a "moral" quality?
Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
This list can be altered as discussion furthers(maybe this can become an 'immorality tree':
Absolute Immoralities
Intentionally inflicting any unnecessary damage or pain to an individual.
Secondary Immoralities(as derived from absolutes)
Rape
Molestation
Torture
Murder
Suicide
Battery
P.S. Zerbst...this isn't about me, I was an example. This is actually about morality and the way it get's thrown around as an attack against anything that strays from the 'norm'.