• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Moral Dilemma's. How do you handle them?

zgoldsmith23 said:
That's you're opinion, and nothing more. I guess we should start of my determining what is "wrong" and what evidence you have for this claim. I'm assuming you think something being "unfair" or "unnecessary" is also "wrong" and would like to see your evidence for this, too.
Click to expand...
If you can't see the 'evidence', then you're what's wrong.
 
SapphireSpire said:
If you can't see the 'evidence', then you're what's wrong.
Click to expand...

Why don't you present this evidence, though? I'd certainly be open to seeing it. I read through journals daily, and, so far ... nothing.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Why don't you present this evidence, though? I'd certainly be open to seeing it. I read through journals daily, and, so far ... nothing.
Click to expand...
What do you mean 'evidence'? There's no physical evidence that can define right and wrong.
These concepts are purely cognitive. To understand morality you have to begin with the selfish
ego. All normal people are born with specific needs- food, protection, love. When your needs
are met, you're happy. Happiness is the meaning of 'right'. When your needs are not met, you
suffer. Suffering is the meaning of 'wrong'.

At some point in life you realized that other people have needs as well, and they're competing
for the same resources as you. You can either fight over everything you want at the risk of
injury or death, or you can agree to live by the rules we've invented to give ourselves equal
rights to life and property.

You recognize that your rights and well being depend on everyone else's rights and well being
and that any threat to other people is a threat to you. The child in this story is not some
independent agency that nobody has anything to do with. He's an important member of the
community and is entitled to the same rights and protections as everyone else. If not then
neither is anyone else.
 
Last edited:
SapphireSpire said:
What do you mean 'evidence'? There's no physical evidence that can define right and wrong.
These concepts are purely cognitive. To understand morality you have to begin with the selfish
ego. All normal people are born with specific needs- food, protection, love. When your needs
are met, you're happy. Happiness is the meaning of 'right'. When your needs are not met, you
suffer. Suffering is the meaning of 'wrong'.

At some point in life you realized that other people have needs as well, and they're competing
for the same resources as you. You can either fight over everything you want at the risk of
injury or death, or you can agree to live by the rules we've invented to give ourselves equal
rights to life and property.

You recognize that your rights and well being depend on everyone else's rights and well being
and that any threat to other people is a threat to you. The child in this story is not some
independent agency that nobody has anything to do with. He's an important member of the
community and is entitled to the same rights and protections as everyone else. If not then
neither is anyone else.
Click to expand...

Happiness may be the meaning of your "right" but it does not necessarily objectively apply. You say suffering is "wrong" but, again, what is this based off of? You not liking it? And to what extent will you go to avoid suffering?

Sure, other people have needs and, yes, we're competing for the same resources on a little rock in space. But, you're presenting a false dichotomy. One can fight over everything at the risk of injury or death, but one does not have to necessarily "fight" as there are multiple options. Too, a person can disagree with these "rules" that even you stated - are invented - in the false notion of "rights to life and property." Again, you're making an empty claim.

I do not recognize that. I'm not sure why you think "any threat to other people is a threat to me;" If someone threatens a man in Ghana, how is this a threat to me? If someone threatens a man in New York, how is this a threat to me? If someone threatens my next door neighbor, how is this a threat to me? Even as you say, "if not, then neither is anyone else" and I would agree with that as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom