SingleCellOrganism
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2010
- Messages
- 531
- Reaction score
- 105
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?
Follow the logic:
1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive
2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me
3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time
Ergo - lie, steal, cheat; anything that improves your own situation is the "strong surviving"
Some moralists/absolutists would disagree with this, but hey, its all relative anyway!
I never receive any disagreement when I state so definitively that solipsism is really the only way to go.
Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?!
Ahh, but solipsism ignores the probability that others exist, so you are only deluding yourself!
With relativism you get to acknowledge others exist, and still screw them over because its "right for you".
Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?
Follow the logic:
1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive
2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me
3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time
Ergo - lie, steal, cheat; anything that improves your own situation is the "strong surviving"
Some moralists/absolutists would disagree with this, but hey, its all relative anyway!
psychopath ( ) n. A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy.
I see these words on the screen and am comforted that I made them so.
Would you like to be killed and/or have your property stolen? It's fairly common sensical to understand that social morality consists largely of not doing to other people what you wouldn't want done to you. Why do you need a god to tell you not to steal?
1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive
2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me
3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time
Ergo - lie, steal, cheat; anything that improves your own situation is the "strong surviving"
I agree, it's a psychotic philosophy, but that is essentially what is being taught in the subtleties of our western culture.
Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?
Follow the logic:
1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive
2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me
3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time
Ergo - lie, steal, cheat; anything that improves your own situation is the "strong surviving"
Some moralists/absolutists would disagree with this, but hey, its all relative anyway!
my sargent alway said "if you aint cheating you aint trying".Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?
Follow the logic:
1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive
2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me
3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time
Ergo - lie, steal, cheat; anything that improves your own situation is the "strong surviving"
Some moralists/absolutists would disagree with this, but hey, its all relative anyway!
Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?
Taken at face value, though, excluding group behavior and denying the emotional ties we have by nature, your original premise is correct.
Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?
Follow the logic:
1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive
2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me
3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time
Ergo - lie, steal, cheat; anything that improves your own situation is the "strong surviving"
Some moralists/absolutists would disagree with this, but hey, its all relative anyway!
Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?
Follow the logic:
1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive
2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me
3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time
Ergo - lie, steal, cheat; anything that improves your own situation is the "strong surviving"
Some moralists/absolutists would disagree with this, but hey, its all relative anyway!
Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?
Follow the logic:
1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive
2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me
3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time
Ergo - lie, steal, cheat; anything that improves your own situation is the "strong surviving"
Some moralists/absolutists would disagree with this, but hey, its all relative anyway!
Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?
Follow the logic:
1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive
2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me
3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time
Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?
Follow the logic:
1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive
2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me
3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time
Ergo - lie, steal, cheat; anything that improves your own situation is the "strong surviving"
Some moralists/absolutists would disagree with this, but hey, its all relative anyway!
Human beings would not have evolved successfully had we not been hardwired to live in "packs," if you will. Pack living precludes survival of the fittest and INcludes looking out after each other. Even the animal kingdom doesn't live by survival of the fittest within the herd or pack unit. "Survival of the fittest" mentality applies to predators.
How do societies function and agree upon norms if everything is subjective and personal?All experience is personal and subjective, including your experience of yourself.
How do societies function and agree upon norms if everything is subjective and personal?
But if all experience is subjective and personal then how is it that two people, let alone a society of people, all come to an understanding on what those rules/laws are?They establish rules/laws. It is possible to derive natural rights from relative morality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?