It is a bit long, sorry but a good read.
By Haterproof:
ok. let's start off with morality. if you're talking about relative 'morality' then you're not really talking about morality at all.. you're just talking about SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS. morality MUST address ALL THINGS. not just those you are applying it to otherwise how would you ever have any basis to refer to anything as "immoral" if nothing is ever compared?
science and philosophy are not based on morality anymore than a shovel is based on work or a screwdriver is based on achievement. they are simply TOOLS of investigation, not agents of morality or even a basis for it. the example hardly applies. and **** plato. plato asked questions. he didn't accomplish 'morality' or even define it properly. he made his investigation into it and made some stabs at it and that's about it. morality demands an absolute standard otherwise the definition of morality is too subjective to apply to anyone without being hypocritical in the application.
and it is an oxymoron because religion is a source of great immorality (referring to those who speak "in the name of God" yet hold arbitrary criteria for doing so and apply that arbitrary criteria to others.)
and you can argue that atheists can be moral, but i would simply refute it by saying they have no set criteria that would be considered 'moral' and they certainly couldn't live up to that criteria if they did offer a definitive moral standard.
also regarding the "exception" to the rule, in this case, there is none. i didn't mean to imply that there was an exception. i simply meant that that's the only way one could provide an exception. but since that isn't possible, there really ISN'T an exception to the rule.
when we say there's always exceptions to the rule, usually we're referring to our own waffling standards, practices and ideals. like men and women not having the possibility of friendship, that is a rule with exceptions because it's not a principle. it's not a natural law, it's a rule of thumb. a GIST. a succinct composition of understanding which allows for relatively minor interpretational disputes. just like our justice system. it's not a principle or a natural law. it's an ideal, thus subject to various exceptions. morality is not subject to such exceptions at any time.
and morality shouldn't be an individual exercise because it doesn't simply apply to one individual. it applies to everyone. it does not exist in one particular individual's context.
and **** everyone else, i happen to be a "pundit" (as long as you're not making any hindi references).. education curses a man that way. so such questions will ALWAYS interest me.
and as far as hypocrites go, you're wrong there too. EVERYONE is a hypocrite. you couldn't name one person who isn't a hypocrite in some way, shape or form.
and as for many "good" people, i'd disagree there too. i have yet to meet a 'good' person. i've met RELATIVELY good people but NEVER a good person. they don't exist.
2007-12-31
11:25:19
·
7 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous