I fucking hate morals. They've fucked up the world to where there is less liberty and less freedom. They cause there to be too many hardcore laws. Who agrees? Who disagrees?
I agree TO AN EXTENT. I think that certain morals don't make sense, for example most ones based around something as natural as sex and really any that are overly restricted. I'm personally of the view that laws should really only protect the human rights and raise enough taxation to provide public services (like healthcare, transport and the emergency services). I respect peoples' morals and I don't like trying to change them all that much but I wish legislators would allow people to make up their own morals (with in reasonable bounds) rather than legislating on what they perceive to be deviant acts.
I think everyone has morals to an extent. Most people don't think that it's okay to kill/harm other people, right? I have plenty of morals, and I don't think that's a bad thing. It's not a bad thing to have a little pride sometimes.
morals have nothing to do with laws actually laws are very loosely based on morals, VERY loosely morals are a personal thing that most people have, criminals and mentally ill people are an example of people that have a disconnection from morals the thing that distinguishes a moral action and a non moral action is the rational behind it, most people feel a hatred or anger towards someone or something at some point or other but rationalize it and can understand that actually following through with it is immoral i do agree that most morals revolving around sex are ridiculous but thats just based on how prudish our society has become...sex has never been treated the way it is in our society..which raises some questions in my mind
I'm living in the same world as you are. Take a random neighborhood... Say that there are ten houses in the neighborhood with two or three people in each house. How many of those 20-30 people would actually think it's okay to walk over and kill someone aimlessly? I can't imagine you'd find too many people who would think that was a good thing to do.
Well now you're changing what you originally said. Before, you said, "Most people don't think that it's okay to kill/harm other people, right?" But now you're being more specific. I'll agree that most people don't think it's okay to kill for kicks, but most people do think it's okay to kill for a reason. If you support any war, then you aren't against killing. If you support the death penalty, you aren't against killing. If you would kill the creepy man attacking your child, you aren't against killing someone. Now, I'm not saying that you shouldn't kill the creepy man, or that the death penalty is wrong, or that all war is wrong, but let's face it: nearly everyone is okay with killing and/or harming other people. True pacifists are the only people, I believe, who fall under your original idea, and those people are few and far between.
Whilst i agree with what you're saying, you chose to bring it up in an odd place. The gist of the post you are arguing with was not saying that everyone thinks there is never any justification for killing someone. You're nitpicking for nitpickings sake.
No, I think that the argument fits perfectly. The thread is about morals. If someone truly took a moral stance against killing, then he/she wouldn't support killing under any circumstance. Therefore, I don't think most people take a moral stance against killing. I know that's probably not what The Walrus meant with her original post, but I can still state my opinion, can't I?
Interesting... How about moral conflict, where a moral against killing took a back seat against a stronger moral to preserve the largest amount of life as is possible (or something else where a kill would be justified)?
Well, then I suppose the moral against killing would have to be broken, or more people would have to die. It's obviously not a black and white situation. It certainly makes sense to me to preserve your own life, even if it means taking another's life, but I am sure that there are people out there (deeply religious, I would assume) who wouldn't kill to save their own lives. Those are the people who I see as having a true moral stance against killing and violence in general.
Then again, there are various consequentialist moral theories, in which most subscribers would generally be against killing, but only in specific circumstances would they kill. I would still say that these people oppose murder on moral grounds, despite them seeing circumstances in which it would be acceptable.
