Morality is a matter of opinion, culture, time, upbringing, religion, etc... Our ideas of good and bad have been in constant motion and continue to be. How about arguing those statements with something more profound than a juvenile intellectual jab?
Why don't you answer the question? As if I didn't know. If you think their warped sense of humanity isn't very much alive, you're reallly not paying attention. And neither, if there is any sanity left in the world 100 years hence, will Clinton or Obama be viewed as anything but intruments of evil; but that hardly does us much good in the present. You think tribalism was in discord with Hitler's thoughts?
I understand that that's what you believe, but you have no idea what the hell you're talking about... ...although why you insist on accentuating the point with practically every sentence I'm not quite sure. If you insist on so characterizing a statement which is, after all, nothing but stone cold fact, it's no skin off my asparagus; but I'd suggest it really is long past time for you to realize that moral subjectivity leads ineluctably to the conclusion that might makes right.
Name a moral absolute accepted through the ages regardless of culture or geography. Society determines what behavior is acceptable. Always has. Always will. Any notion of some absolute and unchanging moral code is.... well contrary to fact, history, and experience....and very naive. ..
How could anything be more subjective than accepting the writings of ancient primitive people as the foundation of human morality?
In the US pot is legal in many states. Abortion is legal. Homosexuality marriage will soon be just as acceptable as interracial marriage. Divorce and children born out of wedlock are hardly anything to bat an eye over. We did away with prohibition. We don't kill witches anymore. We no longer have slaves. The constant evolution of what society accepts and rejects as right and wrong. Simply one example of how vastly one cultures ideas of right and wrong change and mold society and public behavior.
Issues like rape and kidnapping are not subjunctive - the golden rule at work. Would the rapist enjoy being raped ? Would the kidnapper want his kids abducted ?
On the other hand, an action you actually regard as good may result in a negative consequence. See Edward Snowden. This raises an interesting question. Why should one act on principle? If you do a GOOD deed and are punished for it, what does this imply?
What for? Yes, and if society decides it's acceptable to bugger a 5 year old, barbecue it and scarf it down with fava beans and a nice Chianti, then that will bloody well be acceptable. What the hell's your point? Presumably there is some reason I should find this question interesting, but I fail to apprehend it.
That depends on the definition of the term. If you actually read what Ayn Rand wrote on the subject, you will have a hard time rationalizing your position.
My take is that as long as you are not creating a victim then you should be able to do what you damn well please. As a direct response to 'Why should you be good'... because otherwise I would not want to have an association with you. Which from your view shouldn't be a problem.
Many cultures have sacrificed their youth and thought it noble. Partial birth abortion is half extracting a baby from a woman's vagina then severing it's spinal chord. It's legal and acceptable. Yes. Whatever society deems right and normal generally determines social behavior and our perception of morality. The Holocaust. Slavery. Tyranny. Genocide...wouldn't have been possible without public support. What is the source of morality in your opinion? And is it absolute and unchanging?
When I asserted morality was a matter of opinion and constantly changing, you basically called me an idiot. Tell me how my statement is inaccurate. Poke holes in it. Give examples that are contrary to it. Discuss where you believe one derives a sense of morality and right and wrong.
Solomon had more wives and concubines than one could count. He was favored by God and granted unprecedented wisdom as a result. God must have no major issue with polygamy. Or fornication.
Obviously your overreaction has impaired your reading comprehension. Nevertheless, it is certainly fair to say your assertion, though believed by many, is disgracefully idiotic. You've already done that, as by your own reasoning morality is utterly worthless at best. I cannot have such a discussion with anyone who claims to believe what you claim to believe. How very amusing. Logic is not your strong suit, evidently.
If you have a good conscience you will be normally a good person, however if you have a bad conscience you be a bad/evil person. A bad/evil person will one day be punished when they make a mistake and are caught.
That people who do bad deeds will drag your butt to the ground and try to knock your teeth in if given the power/chance I suppose. I find that society increasingly seems to favor punishing optimism/good/success and rewarding negativity/wrong/failure, and I do not like that trend. I am a sunnyside cynic (and a Pavlovian minx as sweet as soda pop too)
Your opinion on this is weak of any evidence to prove that men do just tend to serve their own interests. They are subject to subconscious desires, urges, drives, etc. These 'devils" inside them motivate the greed, the lust, the self-centered decisions they will make and find excuses that sound good to the people willing to listen. I base this all on the psychological studies of Jean Paul Paiget who determined we are born self-centered and our societies tend to us competition ass a way of distributing material gains, as so clearly described by Ayn Rand in her book, "The Virtue of Selfishness."
