WidowMakers wrote:So you are saying that there is no right or wrong correct. Then please again answer my questions. And by answer my questions I mean actually give answers to the 4 questions I wrote please.
WidowMakers wrote:Please post a response to these questions.
1) If I walk up to you and hit you in the face (for no reason), am I wrong? Why?
2) If I kill your family (for no reason), am I wrong? Why?
3) If the majority of the people on earth agree that it is OK to hit you in the face (for no reason), is it ok? Why?
4) If the majority of the people on earth agree that it is OK to kill you (for no reason), is it OK? Why?
Fine, I'll humor you.
1) Yes, it is wrong. But! This is an example, although a rather strange one in potential differences in culture. In my culture (and from what I can tell, everyone else in the forum's culture) this is wrong. I will go into more detail on the particulars of this later in the post.
2) Yes, it is wrong. This one is a rather interesting question when it comes to our culture. We have labeled random killing as wrong (a good idea in my opinion, but hey, opinions aren't universal either). If we came across a new group of people, theoretically, that had random acts of violence ingrained into their culture, we likely wouldn't respect their views and would attempt to force them to stop. That's our culture.
3) No, it isn't wrong. I don't, of course, refer to a 51% majority. I mean that it is the cultural standard of the people. To each his own I guess.
4) No, it isn't wrong. It's pretty tough for me to say that, but they've gotten by, somehow, with random killings being a part of their culture. It's not my place to judge
Before you tear into me about #3 and #4, keep in mind these are your arbitrary questions and are the literal extreme of this idea of evolving morals. Anyways, moving on...
WidowMakers wrote:And on a side note. Someone said that a couple hundred years ago slavery was OK. Was it OK for the slaves? Do you think they thought it was OK? NO!!!! So who was right there, the slave owner or the slave?
You say there are difference between cultures. Well who is correct when those cultures meet? When there is a dispute and both sides feel justified (US civil War / WW2 / etc) who is correct? And if the outcomes of these wars would have been different (south wins / Hitler wins) would the rest of the world have said "well i guess it is OK to kill Jews then and slavery must be OK because the south won the war". NO!!!
Well, slavery was practiced throughout human history until very,
very recently. The Romans, who were mainly Christians later in their existence, felt no qualms about slavery. They also had the Gladiatorial games, a step away from your aforementioned random killings. The idea of slavery being evil has only been culturally accepted (here in America at least, most other countries were a bit ahead of us) in the last 100-150 years. As you said, a war was fought (partially, I know it's more complicated) over it! So how can it be universally wrong when the Christian world spent the majority of it's life practicing it?
A quick note on the World War II bit, Hitler, not Germany, felt that the Jews should be killed and it was far from being accepted throughout the country.
The implications of no universal moral code are that anything is justifiable. Can anyone here live with that fact?
Yes. If people respect my culture then I'll respect theirs.
WidowMakers wrote:Frigidus wrote:WidowMakers wrote:Again, you need a proved and good case for stellar evolution before biological evolution can take place.
How so? The idea of evolution (outside of biological evolution) is simply a metaphor (this includes the above idea of "evolving" morality).
So you are saying the universe can into being by metaphor? What does that even mean?
Please explain, scientifically, how the solar systems were formed by explaining all of the issues I previously listed.
I guess I don't understand. Everyone in this thread want to give a scientific explanation for evolution but no one will give an explaintion, scientifically for teh origin or the universe and the planets (and so on), which are required before biological evolution can start.
I had misunderstood what you meant at first, I thought you were implying that the universe was evolving. Sorry about the confusion. That said, the Big Bang theory is only a theory. It is the most widely used theory, but it can't be proven with our limited scope of understanding. All that we have to go on is the snapshot of the universe that is our reality. It's not easy to jump from the result to the beginning, and we haven't yet.