The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central If I Were the Devil

I'm not trying to claim moral superiority, except to say that there must be some universal moral code in order for society to function. Historically, that moral code has been that some things, lying for instance, are wrong. If you are of the belief that a universal code of morality is wrong, or impossible, then you are advocating a world where every person can do whatever they want, to whomever they want, whenever they want, with only rule of law to stop them. The problem with that is that the law can only go so far before it becomes that universal moral code, except then it's an enforceable method of control, at which point people would become slaves to it. As long as there are laws, there will be men and women writing and enforcing them, and that means that there will always be imperfections and motives. Laws without morality are simply the tools of tyranny.

Universal moral code implies universal right and wrong, or outside observer - GOD. You promised this thread wasn't about more Jesus :(

What the fuck? You don't need some magical outside observer to have right and wrong! WE are the outside observers observing each other.

Think about this carefully - if universal moral code exists, then such code implies that there are Absolute Right, Absolute Wrong, otherwise there would be multiple moral codes all equally valid. This in turn implies that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other circumstances. For morals to be truly absolute, they would have to have a universally unquestioned source, interpretation and authority, e.g. GOD, and mere humans are not capable of such absolutes.

All rights and wrongs are not absolute. Taking what I said two posts ago, these are ideas that would have to be agreed upon, and they would likely evolve over time. For the past three centuries, we here in the US have agreed that certain things are right and wrong. Sure, a lot of those moral imperatives come from the (vast) majority of religious people, but the fact remains that majority rules and those are the rights and wrongs they've agreed upon. If we simply abandon morality rather than try to help it evolve to our current environment while still keeping it sane and effective, then we've doomed ourselves to the absolute rule of law, and don't fuck with judge dredd.

Edited because Brutal said it better, lol Judge Dredd.

If you concede that right and wrong are not absolute, then they turn into majority rule. US is a Republic, not majority rule, as such laws should not be based solely on morals.

Ether way - getting back to original premise, that more morals somehow going to solve all our problems. How do you see it happening when you can't even define morals other than tyranny of the majority?

You derive great pleasure in poopooing the ideas of others, but you bring nothing constructive to the argument.

What do you propose Sini? Or, is Derid right in asserting that what you really want is the same as most leftists, a tyranny of the "elite." Since, after all, you know better than the poor masses of ignorant folks you claim to represent.

For the most part, I trust other humans to make sound decisions. What's your plan?

Bring nothing constructive? Are you just throwing random acquisitions to see what sticks? Try perjury and fornication next time.

As to rest of your post - you are like Jack-in-the-box, popping out with the same response every time. As of late, no matter what we are talking about it is blah blah elite, blah blah left, blah blah constitution. You used to be curious about ideas, now you just spew dogmatic garbage. What happened?