Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlineabsols
Stranger

Registered: 11/10/13
Posts: 986
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: moral relativism [Re: DieCommie]
    #19221017 - 12/03/13 08:12 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:

Doesn't work that way.  No man is an island and you are always responsible for your actions which includes inaction.  In the words of Rush, "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice"




on the contrary, it does work exactly that way ! he is proving indirectly how truth and lies are being on the same space for now, true freedom rights exist as him and more, and evil means through lying wills are alive by reversing truth knowledge first in jumping on what exist

you pretend to reason though I am sure you didn't say it out of experience ...

you pretend that for others, as an argument to climb on their arguments ..
thinking that they are meaning good without having the way to justify it, so good must be free thing to take from them

your argument is clearly on the base of no one else exist ... if no one else then you exist, then yes you would have to keep justifying everything objectively done as being an effect of your presence ...

but sorry it is stupid thinking ... which is not thinking at all ..

because if else do not exist, it means that there is no truth, if there is no truth there cant be objective thing of same basically truth out true present... if there is no present then not only anything out of you so not totally subjective cannot be, but even you cannot be present ...
then definitely moving for a perception would be totally wrong in truth and in lies

then it is all like we know
truth is through being real with else recognitions being right first
and lies is through jumping on what is known existing else fact

so when he says it is not his business, when he would never mean to kill anyone ... so it is about else and infinite that has to in such situations show being ..when his being is by recognizing else reality first .. anyway for sure, else presence is much more truth then mortal being ... if truth is criminal then any objective move is to be criminal ... when he is not criminal it is best to stay out still

when the situation is showing an absolute positive end out of right move ... it is different story,,then who wont move would be evil, as all is always clearly seen in truth, and absolute answers are the most obvious

another story is also when moving by taking risks of dying ownself for caring about someothers rights more then oneself as a fact, like own children or people really caring about, or some other things, like else everything rights... or objective rights more then oneself.. it should not exist.. but it exists a bit when true beings are objective rights living relatively ... so it is about defending own true selves existence being the only right way ...but of course it is blabla ... how far that can be sustainable in such situation that cant be bearable a second.. only if there is no other way to react constantly ...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: moral relativism [Re: Icelander]
    #19221577 - 12/03/13 11:08 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:
I didn't say anything about not making a choice.:tongue: I just told you what my choice would be and why. :wink: 
Quote:

Seriously. I'd let them all die.


  And that's my choice.






Good answer.  As long as you dont insist you can separate yourself from your situation and the consequences, I have no complaint.  :thumbup:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: moral relativism [Re: DieCommie]
    #19221589 - 12/03/13 11:11 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

I've been letting people die all over the place lately. :lol:  Serves em right. They were obstructing my view.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: moral relativism [Re: Icelander]
    #19221596 - 12/03/13 11:12 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:
I've been letting people die all over the place lately. :lol:




Happens every time I buy a cup of coffee rather than donate to africa... or so the TV claims.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: moral relativism [Re: DieCommie]
    #19221603 - 12/03/13 11:12 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

I vastly prefer coffee. :thumbup:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: moral relativism [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #19222170 - 12/03/13 01:08 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

SneezingPenis said:
1) imagine that there are 5 workers, working on some train tracks and a train is coming. the only thing you can do to save them is pull a lever to make the train switch tracks, but there is 1 person working over there. Basically, your choice is to pull the lever, kill 1 guy and save 5, or do nothing and 5 people will die.

9 out of 10 people said they would pull the lever as I am sure most of you would.

2) same scenario, except this time you are on a bridge overlooking the train tracks and the 1 person is standing next to you. the only way to save those 5 people is to push the guy onto the tracks to stop the train.

9 out of 10 people said they would not push the guy.


now that is odd, because ultimately they are the exact same things, with the exact same outcome.




Are they really the exact same scenarios, though?  Even though the same outcome is guaranteed in the setup, I feel like most people are visualizing the scenario in their mind and asking themselves what they would do before they know any kind of certain outcome.  With the lever, you at least know with pretty good certainty that the train WILL switch to the second track, saving lives overall.  With the pushing a man over the bridge, I don't see that as being able to stop the train with any great certainty at all.  I'm pretty sure a train wouldn't stop from one person being dropped in front of it, anyway.  :lol:  So when asked to judge what they would do by visualization and common sense, only the first course of action seems like it would with high certainty save lives.  The second only provides certain death for the single individual, and low probability of stopping the train.  So despite the fact the researchers told the participants the outcome would be the same, I don't think the participants really took that into consideration when visualizing themselves having to make that decision.  :shrug:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: moral relativism [Re: deCypher]
    #19222285 - 12/03/13 01:36 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

in the scenario they gave on NPR they elaborated a lot more about that, saying that you are far off and the conductor would stop the train if they hit someone. stop the train in time to not hit the other people.

I wish they would have come up with a better scenario to poll people with because i can think of lots of other things that wouldn't lead to this kind of "well if the train...." talk.

they later went on to talk about how throwing sugar cane into chimpanzees habitat results in chaos followed by the alphas evenly distributing it among all, claiming that sharing is an inherent quality if even it is to merely avoid the consequences of not sharing.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVaipen
Psychonaut

Registered: 01/15/12
Posts: 782
Loc: Europe
Re: moral relativism [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #19243676 - 12/08/13 04:29 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

SneezingPenis said:
recently NPR had a pretty nice piece where they polled a bunch of people the following questions.

1) imagine that there are 5 workers, working on some train tracks and a train is coming. the only thing you can do to save them is pull a lever to make the train switch tracks, but there is 1 person working over there. Basically, your choice is to pull the lever, kill 1 guy and save 5, or do nothing and 5 people will die.

9 out of 10 people said they would pull the lever as I am sure most of you would.





I don't think I would.

First of all, it is a strange situation and I am much aware that to answer to this is to accept this strange predicament occurring.

So why would I not? Is it up to me to decide who lives or dies. To pull the lever means I intervene in what is to come. What is to come could mean that one of these five people looks up in time to warn the others. All will survive. But if you insist that this can never occur, that the situation you set up cannot be altered, amended or changed in anyway, you are doing something impossible. You are forcing an impossible situation because reality does not work that way. And morality is a function of reality and how we deal with that. So the starting point can never be.

You are forcing reality to behave differently than what it is based on. You are asking me choose between a wave and a particle, but the situation you describe is forcing me to see two particles. A situation where one particle dies or where 5 particles die. That is to say, if to be a particle means death, that is what you are saying, then the single person and the five must all be particles.

What you want to describe is a situation of indeterminism. And that the lever represents the choice to create a wave or a particle. And the group or the individual can be particle or wave.

If that is the case, anything can happen. So I would not pull any lever. The universe unfolds as it may. The track is set to bring the train into that group of five. They might notice and jump to safety, but if I pull the lever, I killed a person. And I still would not know 100% certainty that in doing so the train would not crash over 6 others behind the one, that I didn't see, or that a car holds toxins, that would spread and kill many more. Your situation suggest there won't be consequences along with the choice.

What if that one person will do much good in the world.

If you think that intervention in the natural flow of things will bring optimal results, you go on a path of constant having to question everything because to have the optimal outcome means you have to keep intervening. And in doing so you cause what you want to avoid.

So I have no moral problem with letting the train drive into the group. And it matters little if someone stands next to me that I have to push to save others.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCosmicJokeM
happy mutant
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/05/00
Posts: 10,848
Loc: Portland, OR
Re: moral relativism [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #19243806 - 12/08/13 06:54 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

I would not act.  The sole man was never in any danger - you're the only danger to him.  Perhaps people don't fully realize this when they're pulling a lever, and are able to focus on the utilitarian action of saving five people, because they're not getting their hands dirty.  When you have to push the guy onto the tracks, that's gritty and visceral.  It shifts their focus from being the hero who pulled the lever to the uglier truth, that they're sentencing somebody to death that had nothing to do with this.


--------------------
Everything is better than it was the last time.  I'm good.

If we could look into each others hearts, and understand the unique challenges each of us faces, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care.

It takes a lot of courage to go out there and radiate your essence.

I know you scared, you should ask us if we scared too.  If you was there, and we just knew you cared too.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineIcyus
KavitārkikasiṃHa
Male


Registered: 11/07/13
Posts: 3,502
Loc: Inbetween.
Last seen: 8 years, 27 days
Re: moral relativism [Re: CosmicJoke]
    #19243817 - 12/08/13 07:03 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Well.. if I were to push someoneto thekr death I would like to know them first..


--------------------
And thus begins the  reverse-fusing of our one-dimentional understanding, and adds ever-expanding perspectives, in depth and number; splitting our perception, and in so doing, seemingly irrationally, creates yet more one-ness, with all that ever was, is and will ever be, streching across the infinite, inunderstood concept of everything, percievable and not.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineabsols
Stranger

Registered: 11/10/13
Posts: 986
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: moral relativism [Re: CosmicJoke]
    #19243834 - 12/08/13 07:20 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

what I always reacted within myself like to that type of questions, is the realization of how it is impossible to say

that is why I think those kind of questions are traps to what you are for everything .. like saying yes I will go to the other track, is being a criminal in everyday life

and who says I would leave it to kill everyone there.. is like the selfish type who in danger would think only to save himself out

so two opposite ways of being wrong anyway

the sincere answer is we cant know because we know that we are not objective reasons nor forces, the right answer is ask me about something that did happen really, a thing even oneself is only the present free still sense, and we are free to speculate about things or for something it doesn't say us nor make anything, and fuck the powers interests that seek to abuse our freedom rights by willing  to prove that we are wrong beings constantly out of what is not real nor that we do nor did

gods or supernatural powers don't want to accept that we are superior in truth, because we realize our conscious perspectives objectively right

when we mean positive or present perspective, we mean it in terms of value  we must relatively being too to mean being present else too because we are aware of being existing individual value too, so we know how to look at existing things, in real ways not like nothing but infinite nonsense of none ...those gods and powerful entities are opportunists of infinite fact ... and who says opportunist is talking about inferiority in depth.. that is why they love to appear free so stay alone for that ... complete nonsense 

that is why gods give a lot of animals awareness to be humans.. so they can possess them and compete with us to kill us and keep their powers on all

it is absurd that we cant say a thing, unless we have to keep saying everything for nothing .. we cant even say a word to each others ... it is freaking insane ... without any drug !!


Edited by absols (12/08/13 07:29 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineabsols
Stranger

Registered: 11/10/13
Posts: 986
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: moral relativism [Re: Vaipen]
    #19243863 - 12/08/13 07:47 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Vaipen said:


I don't think I would.

First of all, it is a strange situation and I am much aware that to answer to this is to accept this strange predicament occurring.

So why would I not? Is it up to me to decide who lives or dies. To pull the lever means I intervene in what is to come. What is to come could mean that one of these five people looks up in time to warn the others. All will survive. But if you insist that this can never occur, that the situation you set up cannot be altered, amended or changed in anyway, you are doing something impossible. You are forcing an impossible situation because reality does not work that way. And morality is a function of reality and how we deal with that. So the starting point can never be.

You are forcing reality to behave differently than what it is based on. You are asking me choose between a wave and a particle, but the situation you describe is forcing me to see two particles. A situation where one particle dies or where 5 particles die. That is to say, if to be a particle means death, that is what you are saying, then the single person and the five must all be particles.

What you want to describe is a situation of indeterminism. And that the lever represents the choice to create a wave or a particle. And the group or the individual can be particle or wave.

If that is the case, anything can happen. So I would not pull any lever. The universe unfolds as it may. The track is set to bring the train into that group of five. They might notice and jump to safety, but if I pull the lever, I killed a person. And I still would not know 100% certainty that in doing so the train would not crash over 6 others behind the one, that I didn't see, or that a car holds toxins, that would spread and kill many more. Your situation suggest there won't be consequences along with the choice.

What if that one person will do much good in the world.

If you think that intervention in the natural flow of things will bring optimal results, you go on a path of constant having to question everything because to have the optimal outcome means you have to keep intervening. And in doing so you cause what you want to avoid.

So I have no moral problem with letting the train drive into the group. And it matters little if someone stands next to me that I have to push to save others.




very true, exactly the right points ! :thumbup:


Edited by absols (12/08/13 07:47 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCosmicJokeM
happy mutant
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/05/00
Posts: 10,848
Loc: Portland, OR
Re: moral relativism [Re: Icyus]
    #19243884 - 12/08/13 08:00 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Icyus said:
Well.. if I were to push someoneto thekr death I would like to know them first..




I'd kill em all, but leave one to tell the tale.  :nbk:


--------------------
Everything is better than it was the last time.  I'm good.

If we could look into each others hearts, and understand the unique challenges each of us faces, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care.

It takes a lot of courage to go out there and radiate your essence.

I know you scared, you should ask us if we scared too.  If you was there, and we just knew you cared too.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblehmmn


Registered: 01/09/13
Posts: 372
Re: moral relativism [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #19244195 - 12/08/13 09:51 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

SneezingPenis said:
eh, that wasn't really directed at you. just the overall nature of this forum. everything descends into arguing semantics. People treat hypothetical situations like they are loophole riddles rather than get into actual discussion about what it presents.

its ok though. I did that shit the entire time i was here posting regularly.




I notice a lot of this as well.  This forum would be a far more fruitful philosophy / debate forum if the culture shifted toward genuine consideration of ideas on their merits and away from egotism.

...

I would answer as 9/10 people answer both questions.  I think the best action is to turn the switch and push the guy - assuming that I know nothing about the relative value to society of all people involved.  I assume that the hypothetical is implying that all the people are of equal excellence.

Why wouldn't I push the guy to save 5 others?  There are much greater emotional barriers to taking the right action in the second hypothetical.

This brings me back to Sneezing Penis's initial question: what's up with levers?  In what ways does this same psychological mechanic of the lever arise in our lives?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: moral relativism [Re: CosmicJoke]
    #19244196 - 12/08/13 09:51 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

I have never seen this many people miss the point.

if i walked up to you and asked you "why did 90% of people vote for that candidate?" and you answer "I didn't vote for him!".

that isn't an answer to the question, it is a reaction of a person unable to imagine a situation that didn't involve them and therefor placing themselves in the aforementioned situation rather than think of a proper answer to the question or keep their mouth shut.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCosmicJokeM
happy mutant
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/05/00
Posts: 10,848
Loc: Portland, OR
Re: moral relativism [Re: CosmicJoke]
    #19244307 - 12/08/13 10:22 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Pardon? I attempted all of the above, to think hypothetically about what I would do in the situation as well as others' motives who'd choose differently. :/ 

Quote:

CosmicJoke said:
I would not act.  The sole man was never in any danger - you're the only danger to him.  Perhaps people don't fully realize this when they're pulling a lever, and are able to focus on the utilitarian action of saving five people, because they're not getting their hands dirty.  When you have to push the guy onto the tracks, that's gritty and visceral.  It shifts their focus from being the hero who pulled the lever to the uglier truth, that they're sentencing somebody to death that had nothing to do with this.




By all means link the episode of the radio show if you want a more in depth discussion.


--------------------
Everything is better than it was the last time.  I'm good.

If we could look into each others hearts, and understand the unique challenges each of us faces, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care.

It takes a lot of courage to go out there and radiate your essence.

I know you scared, you should ask us if we scared too.  If you was there, and we just knew you cared too.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr Person
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 551
Loc: inner circle of fault
Re: moral relativism [Re: hmmn]
    #19244589 - 12/08/13 11:38 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

hmmn said:

I notice a lot of this as well.  This forum would be a far more fruitful philosophy / debate forum if the culture shifted toward genuine consideration of ideas on their merits and away from egotism.





I think this is definitely the wrong attitude.  People who think this way seem to believe that PS&P is a tool for them to hear what they want to hear about their own niche ideas.  The painful truth is that not every hypothetical scenario is worthy of pages of good faith debating.  I like that the bar is kept so high here.   

Keep in mind also that this forum has been around for over a decade (along with some of it's members), and the ideas brought forth for discussion are rarely fresh or novel. If you use the search function, or the related threads feature at the bottom of each thread, you'll see that most topics have been discussed many times.  So it's humorous when new members walk into the tail end of a 12 year conversation and expect everyone to get solemn and sincere for their pet topic.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblehmmn


Registered: 01/09/13
Posts: 372
Re: moral relativism [Re: Mr Person]
    #19244863 - 12/08/13 12:54 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Mr Person said:
Quote:

hmmn said:

I notice a lot of this as well.  This forum would be a far more fruitful philosophy / debate forum if the culture shifted toward genuine consideration of ideas on their merits and away from egotism.





I think this is definitely the wrong attitude.  People who think this way seem to believe that PS&P is a tool for them to hear what they want to hear about their own niche ideas.  The painful truth is that not every hypothetical scenario is worthy of pages of good faith debating.  I like that the bar is kept so high here.   

Keep in mind also that this forum has been around for over a decade (along with some of it's members), and the ideas brought forth for discussion are rarely fresh or novel. If you use the search function, or the related threads feature at the bottom of each thread, you'll see that most topics have been discussed many times.  So it's humorous when new members walk into the tail end of a 12 year conversation and expect everyone to get solemn and sincere for their pet topic.




It's not about my topics (I haven't made any, haha); rather, I've given my observation of how people generally treat each others' and their own topics here.  People commonly miss others' points and prefer clever one-liners and fallacious arguments aimed at confirming their existing views to a genuine examination of ideas on the basis of their merits. :shrug:

I have no interest in a forum whose purpose is to confirm what I already believe.  What a waste time that would be! :nyan:

I do love good debate, though.  Hope to see more of it...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBeanhead
IS IRONIC PARADOX
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/08
Posts: 17,257
Loc: Geospatial inversion.
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
Re: moral relativism [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #19244927 - 12/08/13 01:08 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

SneezingPenis said:
recently NPR had a pretty nice piece where they polled a bunch of people the following questions.

1) imagine that there are 5 workers, working on some train tracks and a train is coming. the only thing you can do to save them is pull a lever to make the train switch tracks, but there is 1 person working over there. Basically, your choice is to pull the lever, kill 1 guy and save 5, or do nothing and 5 people will die.

9 out of 10 people said they would pull the lever as I am sure most of you would.

2) same scenario, except this time you are on a bridge overlooking the train tracks and the 1 person is standing next to you. the only way to save those 5 people is to push the guy onto the tracks to stop the train.

9 out of 10 people said they would not push the guy.


now that is odd, because ultimately they are the exact same things, with the exact same outcome. why do the majority of people, regardless of background, ethnicity, even culture overwhelmingly choose the same answers to those questions?

why would we choose to drastically change the outcome of two almost identical situations? the act of pushing someone is somehow worse than pulling a lever.

it works like that in many situations... I am sure it would be considered inhumane if instead of the "throwing of the switch" in electric chair death row situations was replaced with a person directly electrocuting them with some overpowered cattle prod.

I wish they would have delved deeper into the concept of "the lever" rather than focusing on why, when and how the moral centers of our brain become more active in these situations.

i wish that they would keep polling variations of the same question with slightly different minutia to pinpoint the very exact point at which a "lever" no longer has us making a moral distinction.




I'd be running away from the incoming train. How does fruitful debate arise from two wrong choices.


Edited by Beanhead (12/08/13 01:10 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 19 hours, 2 minutes
Re: moral relativism [Re: hmmn]
    #19245183 - 12/08/13 02:01 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

NPR page

Link to Harvard's moral test found on the NPR page.

Good idea to have some links. I was curious to see the questions in their original form.

I took a look, the questions rotate, I'm guessing they try to give new questions to every one who takes the test, the trolley question isn't on the survey I took. Most of the questions are IMO flawed, I answered only to move to the next question. I don't feel the need to contact the researchers and let them know that their questions are flawed as their inability to see that their questions are flawed or their purposeful asking of flawed questions makes me think they are narrow minded and wouldn't consider my criticism or duplicitous and would disregard my criticism and/or are trolling for feedback on their flawed questions.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Moral relativism
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Alan Stone 5,618 66 05/13/05 04:51 PM
by sbenton
* Do Basic Human Morals Exist
( 1 2 all )
mrfreedom 5,078 24 05/28/02 07:55 AM
by Sclorch
* can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Anonymous 21,744 157 12/21/04 06:31 AM
by deafpanda
* Are morals subjective?
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 5,852 35 04/24/03 05:58 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* What is the opposite position to moral relatavism? Moonshoe 931 6 03/26/06 01:25 PM
by EternalCowabunga
* are there morals?
( 1 2 all )
CleverName 4,185 33 09/21/02 11:26 AM
by Albino_Jesus
* becoming free of morality
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SneezingPenis 6,682 72 09/24/06 07:32 PM
by Icelander
* Determinism and Morality All We Perceive 1,771 13 09/26/07 03:27 PM
by SneezingPenis

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,930 topic views. 2 members, 5 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 15 queries.