- Douglas Pocock
- Burlington, WA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is Morality Valid?
Is Morality Valid?
Premise One:
No community or human being would act in a way that is contrary to their established morals unless under distress or coercion. (Argue if you disagree).
Premise Two:
Societies and religions have different morals. Cannibalistic societies obviously have no moral apprehension towards eating people. However, there are vegetarian cultures that preach non-violence. (Argue if you disagree)
Assuming Premises One and Two are valid, then morals are subjective to the culture.
So, if the morals are subjective, are they valid?
And if not, then what should laws be based on?
Most believe murder is wrong, but there are some who don’t. For those who believe that murder is acceptable in earnest, are they less moral?
I for one do not believe that they are morally correct, but I don’t feel that they are morally invalid if morals are valid.
Just looking for thoughts on this subject.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.













Casey Miller
Mark Kurtz 20+
"Morals is another word for safety." Very good observation you have. The more we move to higher morals the greater potential for safety. Love is a great safety valve. True freedom to move about, think, learn, and enjoy life is achieved through love and high morals. It is more than mere logic.
Peace,
MK
Douglas Pocock
For a long time through history, society did not see this as an immoral activity. Even though it clearly caused harm to the individual and their families.
Or, why do some nations believe that the death penalty is moral and other do not?
Are they equally valid in a moral understanding or not?
I want to note that I believe in non-violence, but I am just trying to understand the reasoning behind why groups have different morals.