There's no such thing...

I watch too much Breaking Bad to discuss this ever again

I watch too much Breaking Bad to discuss this ever again

yup

I'm going to have to disagree. Shades of grey exist, but some things are either RIGHT or WRONG, without any shades of grey. For example, being kind to someone is always right, and hurting someone else is always wrong.

I'm going to have to disagree. Shades of grey exist, but some things are either RIGHT or WRONG, without any shades of grey. For example, being kind to someone is always right, and hurting someone else is always wrong.

While I prefer that people are kind, and express distaste with people who hurt others, I don't think I have any authority to claim that either are right or wrong. What makes being kind "right?" What makes hurting others, "wrong."

yay someone who gets it.

I mean, for awhile I cheered for Walt to do terrible things...and I often cheered for Gus...
so Im just assuming that show has broken me.

Well, people are very excited about the season finale. I need to watch this show. Everyone raves...

Now - back to deontological ethics

I'm a Christian and according to the Bible there is such things as right and wrong and good and evil. So that settles it for me. Yep there is such things as right and wrong and good and evil.

That's nothing more than someone's view of what should be, ie morals. Morals aren't the same thing as absolute truths, not by a long shot.

It's hard to take one's opinion seriously when it involves religion and poor grammar...however...it is your right to believe what you want, even if I think you're wrong.

Right and wrong are relative to situations, station in life, general social/societal acceptability, and all sorts of other ever changing variables.

It's all one big fat grey area, but I, like some others, still like to say some grey is light enough to be white, and some is dark enough to be black.

Edited my original post to correct the poor grammar.

There is good and there is evil...there is right and there is wrong...it all depends on your own definition, personal experience, and religious background amongst others...

I don't have a point. Just interested in a discussion.

And I disagree with stRangerdanger up there ^. I choose to operate within societal norms for mutual pleasure and functionality. If someone has an innate desire to break the rules this argument sure is convenient. But not everyone is on the lookout for some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card.

And, regarding the blind christian dogma thing...hell...I don't even know where to start. :laugh: I can't talk about it here anyway so I'll just let my little laughing smiley face symbolize my reply.

You choose to operate in societal norms because either:

a) Your morals fit those that society deems as normal
or
b) You don't want to go to jail for breaking laws that society deems as normal

Your use of the word "functionality" is exactly why moral relativism is bull**** to begin with. It's like anarchists saying anarchy works while living in the US. Moral relativism works because we're all protected/enslaved by a blanket of laws that prevent moral relativists that don't have good intentions from doing what they find to be morally good for them. The "get out of jail free" card doesn't work because a judge and jury would laugh at someone who used a moral relativist argument in court to explain why they thought that taking someone's car for a joyride without their permission was perfectly acceptable.

That being said, I'm not anti-moral relativism as I don't care what people do as long as they don't hurt others. I'm just anti-things that don't work.

......and hurting someone else is always wrong.

I'm also going to have to completely disagree with this. Hurting people who are doing terrible things to others is a good thing. Extreme example time:

I see a rapist attacking a girl in an alley. Putting a bullet/knife/knuckles into his head is a bad thing?

But do two wrongs make a right?? That depends on the person's morals and point of view. On one hand, I'd like to see the rapist get thrown in jail and do time for his crime....on the other hand sometimes karma can be a *****!

Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?

I don't have a point. Just interested in a discussion.

And I disagree with stRangerdanger up there ^. I choose to operate within societal norms for mutual pleasure and functionality. If someone has an innate desire to break the rules this argument sure is convenient. But not everyone is on the lookout for some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card.

And, regarding the blind christian dogma thing...hell...I don't even know where to start. :laugh: I can't talk about it here anyway so I'll just let my little laughing smiley face symbolize my reply.

You choose to operate in societal norms because either:

a) Your morals fit those that society deems as normal
or
b) You don't want to go to jail for breaking laws that society deems as normal

Your use of the word "functionality" is exactly why moral relativism is bull**** to begin with. It's like anarchists saying anarchy works while living in the US. Moral relativism works because we're all protected/enslaved by a blanket of laws that prevent moral relativists that don't have good intentions from doing what they find to be morally good for them. The "get out of jail free" card doesn't work because a judge and jury would laugh at someone who used a moral relativist argument in court to explain why they thought that taking someone's car for a joyride without their permission was perfectly acceptable.

That being said, I'm not anti-moral relativism as I don't care what people do as long as they don't hurt others. I'm just anti-things that don't work.

That's why I mentioned functionality. Not all of us see civilization as a requirement. You're operating within your own narrow definitions and preferences. I don't actually totally understand anarchy yet but I think I might be an accidental anarchist in some regard. I see merit in total abolition of order. Yes, as in, I might be raped or murdered or both, at any minute, with no repercussions for my attacker, unless I'm vigilant and capable of managing my own existence - and even then it will be a complete crap shoot. It would be living in the wild.

Fortunately for me, I also see merit in maintaining western civilization. It's comfortable and I quite enjoy it.

I just don't think one is actually better than the other.

Fair enough.

I've happened to spend some time in countries/areas that operate with no government control. (outside of the military) I was armed the whole time so I was ok but I'd be dead right now if I wasn't. I guess that doesn't "prove" our way is better but at least I don't have to worry about blasting someone in the chest on a daily basis. From every anecdotal case I've been in, anarchy ends up with some sort of mob/government rule.