Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Re: rebuttal to decem's post
rotovibe said:First of all I would like to personally apologize for my condescending tone. It was not meant to be intentional. I’m assuming you are a network admin and I know that can be taxing at times. So I stand corrected and respect your present position.
accepted.. i work as a tier II help desk analyst.. but close enough..
The issue of man made morality:
How do you define morality?
Webster’s dictionary defines it as:“A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct”
So we can deduct that morality is based on right and wrong.
So we then have to define right or wrong in a sociological context.
Webster’s says : right-‘That which is just, legal, proper, or fitting.’
Wrong-“Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure”
it is as impossible to define right and wrong as it is to define good and evil, for they are some of the most subjective terms in the english language. henceforth, it therefore also becomes impossible to define morality.
[/B]You also said that morality is inherent in everyone.
“people are shaped from what's already in them, something untouchable,”
I know not to steal, I know that killing someone is bad, I know its good to be in harmony with someone. I agree.[/B]
ahh.. but each and every person's concept of morality is different, for if we all held the same concept of morality we would all be in accord on virtually everything. laws would no longer be needed would they?
Now we have a problem. How do we consider what is right or what is wrong when talking about man-made morals that are shaped by our own personal experiences? In essence, how do I know what is right for me is right for you or any other human considering that my morals are made by me?
Consider cannibalism, I have read about social collectives in the jungles of the Amazon that have no moral objections to eating human flesh. Do you, personally think this is a moral act? What about if I also include that they eat their ancestry for the sake of acquiring their wisdom and knowledge? Does that make it any more moral? It isn’t for me and I would assume that it isn’t for a lot of people.
fuck.. you beat me to it.. i just hit quote then started replying to each item...
i'm in agreement with you..
So how does man make universally consistent, understood morals when we can’t even agree on what’s morally right or wrong? We cannot. Man is fallible we have shown it through history.
amen brotha.. lol..
seriously.. again... our views are in accordance.
We are finite people and morality is transcendent beyond cultures, lifetimes and eras despite our inherent ‘evil’ nature. As you stated…
“you will never be able to fully inhibit what ‘evils’ lie within them”
I am concluding that you’re saying that man is inherently evil.
no.. i am not saying that man is inherently evil. first, let me restate that good and evil are impossible to define, but i do believe that we can come close. now, i also believe that all people have a different combination of "good" and "evil" within them. (i.e. buddha.. 100% "good".. and "child molesting, theaving, murdering, animal punishing, torturing, raping maniac.. 100% evil).. now that i brought it up.. how bout checking out my
good and evil among humans and animals in the universe thread
So in essence how can an evil man make moral absolutes? It can’t. The very fact that we are ‘evil’, as you stated, robs us of that power. How can something evil produce something morally objective? It can only produce evil because it is it’s nature.
again.. 100% agreement.
The fact of the matter is, there are established moral absolutes and in your definition of evil man , man cannot construct these concepts of morality.
he can construct concepts of morality relative to himself. he cannot, however, construct concepts of morality for the human race as a whole or anything else in this universe for that matter.
Yet they exist.
you just said that man cannot construct concepts of morality, so how do you know they exist? you don't homes. this is the same as lobbying for the existence of god.
FINITE BEINGS CANNOT CREATE INFINITE TRUTHS.
how can a finite being even begin to think in infinite terms if they are indeed finite?
by making this statement, you must now concede to one point or the other.
a. you don't really know, nor can you say, that morals for the human race or any other living being anywhere exist..
or
b. human beings are not finite and therefore can indeed conceive accurate concepts of morality.
On your use of the word ‘evil’:
“you will never be able to instill morals in a person. you will never be able to fully inhibit what "evils" lie within them”
When you say there is evil, aren't you admitting there is good?
yes. for there cannot be one without the other. just as there can be no wrong without right.
When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil.
i'm hesitant to agree, for a number of reasons really. could it not be that there could be an objective understanding, not influenced by subjectiveness, of good and evil without being able to define it?
But when you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver. For if there is no moral lawgiver, there is no moral law.
i have admitted to no moral law, nor have you proven it.
but if i did, then yes, a moral lawgiver would be necessary.
If there is no moral law, there is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil.
nope.
both "morality" and "good" are indefinable and abstract, and it cannot be said that one must follow the other.
"good" and "evil" on the other hand, though indefinable, i feel can indeed be associated with one another's existence and that the correlation that one must exist if the other exists can indeed be made.
As a professed atheist, it is irrational to believe in evil.
no. again, your argument lacks logic.
"good" and "evil" cannot be associated with a giver of "good" and "evil," as moral law can be associated with a moral law giver/judge.
this argument may be better suited for the thread to which i made reference of in my above statement.
