egafd.com

Give it up Wazza!

Morals change..............you know this.....

Point taken Lizard.

Nah, nah, nah,

Some morals Wazza, some morals - not all. The trouble with morality is that the moraliser is usually intolerant of others' morals.

Was it immoral that Europeans kept slaves? Not at first, no. It was accepted, and expected as long as the slaves had food and shelter. The church endorsed slavery before condemning it. Public opinion changed the view of the church, and both changed the view of the law. Is it immoral now? Of course! It's hard to imagine how you'd feel about a present immoral act, being reared in the time and culture of the peoples who accepted that act.

Humans decide what's right & wrong, good or bad; some things from a very early age, but because the decisions are made by society, and from person to person, morals change.

To me, slavery, the holocaust, and this honour killing of a young girl, are all immoral acts, but not to everyone. Insanity is just a tag society uses to name someone with a brain that doesn't think in the same way as the majority of other peoples' brains. To the insane, I guess we're the lunatics!

Some people are more moralistic than others.

Like all species, we're genetically programmed to have certain traits and behavioural tendencies, which help us survive long enough to pass on our genes to the next generation: a few basic morals maybe? This does not include all morals though.

The moral in question, -not killing someone- in this instance may indeed be a moral we're genetically programmed to accept as good, and we're actually in agreement. We are not in agreement however, if you think all morality -in it's entirety- is 'constant'.

I thought I'd made my point about slavery? The holocaust is similar. Some found it immoral, others morally justified. To me it was immoral and wrong, but I'm not constant in time, and as such I cannot give you a definite answer that I may have found it immoral if I'd been born in Germany, in 1905, to Catholic parents.

As I've already helped you on the 'morality meaning' we know that morality is both accepted behaviour, and what's good & bad. Since humans decide behaviour, acceptability, what's good, and what's bad -to themselves- then morality is very personal from person to person, place to place, and generation to generation.

I don't know why you brought up such emotive subjects to back up a point of view Warren...............ok well, I do actually; it's usually the safest means of arguing a point without logic. Emotions are powerful, and usually hit home after all.

The holocaust happened Warren. That tells me it was acceptable enough, by enough people at that time & place in history. It was considered 'a good thing' by enough for these things to have been carried out. Acceptability, and considerations of goodness -according to the Oxford English Dictionary- is morality.

So your answer is 'yes', killing 6 million Jews was morally ok to the people that accepted it as a good thing.

I'm glad morality changes. If we all had the same morals, regardless of time & location, then we would never have intervened and stood against those atrocities in the first place, and slavery would never have been abolished.

Even a child rapist has a moral code Warren. Immoral to you & me, sure, but morals just the same.

My apologies to anyone reading our debate here! We both seem to have the same morals regarding this young girl! Wazza just made a bold statement that is way off the mark. Nothing is really constant, and I think deep down he knows it. !laugh!

I ducked nothing.

You asked a question that was unanswerable. How long is a piece of string?

I could only give you my personal opinion, based on my morals & ethics. I did this in the first paragraph: 'To me it was immoral and wrong,'. Go check.

If you think morality is 'constant', then so be it. Logic tells me that we all behave differently, and tolerate/accept different things/rules in life. This tells me that morals differ.

I don't think the Aztecs thought human sacrifice was immoral like we do now. I personally think it immoral to slice off a babies foreskin, without asking what the child wants, or maybe it's immoral the way Muslims kill animals to produce 'halal' meat for consumption. Both counts come under 'unnecessary pain & cruelty', but they're considered 'good' and 'accepted' acts by millions.

'Good' and 'acceptable behaviour' Warren. Look up 'morality' in the Dictionary again.

You two still at it? !laugh!