Original Sin and...

[_SteelHead]

And yet you have provided 0 examples of a universal moral.

And I will tell you again (as you seem to lack comprehension), survival was thrown out there to demonstrate that morality is often discarded. You are right though survival isn't a moral. It is an instinct.

Then again, I am being critiqued by the guy who offered laughter as a moral.

[_Themis]

Humans cannot survive without the group.

yet Gautama Buddha, Yoshida Kenko, Baal Shem Tov, Hsu Yun, Rabbi Yisroel Salanter, and countless other famous and not-so famous hermits have proven your statement wrong.

I can see why you choose sub as part of your name. Smarter people would easily see I have been referring to humans as a group surviving from one generation to another. This cannot happen without humans working together as a group. Perhaps you can try and find examples of this. I can think of a number of individual who have lived apart from the group for many years.

let me get this point clear......what do you mean by "work"?

Again, it's about survivability of the group. If something doesn't work in this regard then a group either has to change or they will eventual die out as a group.

so, you share the contrary position steelhead offer to rebut steelhead's position, in that the first moral is survival?

You haven't shown yet that you understand what steelhead is arguing. Also I am not sure how the desire to survive is a moral.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moral

hmmm...but Americans had slaves and thought it was "bad"...even convincing the slaves that it was "bad".....your hypothesis here seems arbitrary and beside the point.

Some did. I never said people cannot reevaluate what they think as good and bad, especially considering others who were arguing against slavery. Most slave owners didn't think it was bad, and were willing to fight to maintain it

I stand behind your original incoherent thought which read as:
""considered good...even though....they would view it bad.."?"

The fact you left out others parts of my quote(quote mining) suggests intentionally trying to deceive about what I meant. I am not sure why you thought you could get away with this.

where did i misquote you? or are you content to rely on the "no i didn't" rebuttal?

See above

[_Themis]

so to paraphrase your earlier premise with this one:

morality is often thrown by the wayside when morality is at risk

Got It!

To hard for you to understand? Maybe if you have an example you might be able to comprehend this simple yet correct statement. Some people steal food in order to survive, even though they believe it is wrong.

[_Quasimodo]

you seem to spend a great deal of effort detailing how some cultures like fried chicken, some like baked chicken, some like broiled chicken, and some like roasted chicken, some even like chicken wings, while others just like chicken eggs.......and then you would claim that it is my burden to prove that all these cultures like chicken.....all because you say you don't even believe there is any chicken in the first place.

You might want to step back from the monitor and check your zipper. Your racism is showing.

[_ludwigm]

Some can annoy us with animated avatar and animated crap... read as "s-h-i-t"

Some have no pictures.

Some have no pictures.

Some have no pictures.

Some have no pictures.

I have noncelestial words about this feature.


SHADES???

[_ludwigm]

WASN'T ENOUGH???

[_Bazooka]

Subby, you started this thread and did so in the Celestial forum.

Posters have taken the time and contributed well thought out posts.
Now, when those contributions challenge your original premise and you are unable to support your ground, you resort to meme posting.

Childish and un Celestial.

We accept your concession.

[_subgenius]

...(snip)...Some people steal food in order to survive, even though they believe it is wrong.

You are incorrect. When people steal food to survive, they believe that stealing food to survive is right.
In other words they have a "situational" ethic system going on for them....not exactly a conundrum...motive is a common consideration when it comes to morality...often a person's motive is the difference between manslaughter and murder....so, i am not sure what point you are driving at here.

perhaps you should check out the play/movie Les Miserables and contemplate why Javert must commit suicide....(hint: legalism is a moral system)

[_SteelHead]

That is another assumption to add to the pile. Care to back it up?

[_Bazooka]

...(snip)...Some people steal food in order to survive, even though they believe it is wrong.

You are incorrect. When people steal food to survive, they believe that stealing food to survive is right.
In other words they have a "situational" ethic system going on for them....not exactly a conundrum...motive is a common consideration when it comes to morality...often a person's motive is the difference between manslaughter and murder....so, i am not sure what point you are driving at here.

So you agree, an intrinsic universal moral of right and wrong does not exist because it fluctuates with motivation.