Original Sin and...

[_Themis]

What happened to these women was very bad, and very horrific. In no way did I argue that I view it as good in any way.

sure you did...just like slavery...just because it is bad today means that it was good on another day.

Then show where I said it. I said things like slavery have been seen by some groups as good, and that groups can change what they see as good and bad as they have with slavery in the US. I never said that just because something is seen as good today that it will be seen as bad on another day. This is just the BS you make up to fell you are winning some debate. I have just given you examples of things that have been viewed as bad or good by different groups.

according to you, "harm" is subjective...

It is to some extent. Certainly people can have different views on what is harmful. You haven't shown otherwise, and people have shown that there are differences. There is lots of agreement as well on many issues.

Castro could easily take the position that he saw no harm in the way he was treating these women.

He could. He could also view it as bad, but may have given in to others desires.

And you have no cohesive argument to support your claim that he was doing "harm" without relying on something objective...otherwise,you would have to argue that it could be "good in any way".

Still not sure what you would consider a cohesive argument. harm is defined by the group. In this case the state makes laws to try and protect people from what we may view as harm, and punish those who break the rules. This SOB will now get some deserved punishment. If it had been my daughter I would be very tempted to murder him if given the opportunity.

[_Themis]

huh?...i underlined in your statement what i actually do not understand

You have already lost here. Not just because you are wrong, but because you were dumb enough to quote(without providing a link as though we wouldn't find where it came from) material that proved you wrong about multiple societies.

you have not shown that at all...just making the claim that they are not is not the same as actually proving they are not. For example, slavery has always been bad and always will be bad...just because an individual or a group chooses to behave badly does not make slavery "good" on any level. Slavery is intrinsically bad....never has captor and slave been in agreement on that matter.

We have already proven it by giving you multiple example. People could give you countless more but I doubt you would admit to being wrong. I understand you want to believe God has some absolute moral codes, but we are really talking about humans and what they have as their moral codes. WE have given many examples showing that moral codes do vary from group to group, even if there are many similarities. Especially when dealing with stealing or killing. You probably think your moral code you get from the LDS church is from God. Others think they have the right one from God.

you have argued for slavery...and against it...ergo the lack of cohesion.

I think you don't really pay attention to what people are saying, and just make up what you want to believe about others. I have never seen you really try to understand the other person. I have never argued for slavery. I believe I may have said I view it as wrong. I have only shown that others have viewed it as good. That is not an argument for slavery, or is that to hard to understand?

i have provided examples...i noted that there are transcendent human behaviors and feelings...and that these transcendent qualities are the foundation of morality. On the other hand you have made the claim that good and bad are only based on what people think...and have provided no proof for that claim.

We have already proven you wrong. Slavery was just one example among a number people have provided you. I do agree that we do tend to have more agreement on issues that work for humans best survival. This is why stealing and killing tend to have more agreement, although they still have variation. There are many others that don't involve survival as much. These tend to have much more variation in what is good or bad. How much clothing you should wear is another good example of this. Bazooka is right that survival could be viewed as the ultimate moral. It is really where are most important moral codes are based on.

why would you possibly care if slavery was "good" in the future? according to your own argument, if this were to occur then it would actually be "good"....so you are effectively stating that you wish good things would not occur in the future.

No, I said only that it could be viewed by a group in the future as good. I don't think in absolutes like you. I will always consider slavery bad and hope it is not seen by anyone as good. You really don't understand this issue at all.

the more diverse then the less cohesive?...thanks for that.....so the poster was correct about the detriment to moral fabric.
These statements like "it will still work fine" is an interesting sign of "hope and faith" form you...considering you have no evidence to base that claim on...nevertheless, by definition, every society is cohesive - so i am still not convinced that you are familiar enough with the concepts involved here.

He was not correct. Diversity does not always involve moral codes, but yes it can cause a society to be less cohesive. Certain countries were formed based on resources and not on cultural groups causing a lot conflict as a result. Even though their moral codes were actually quite similar. Much more so then in places like the US, yet the US is fairly cohesive society with lots of different groups with different moral codes. They key is freedom to live ones life and a more tolerant attitude for different views of others.

[_Bazooka]

Bazooka is right

I agree...

[_SteelHead]

Except it was me who originally posted that. Credit where it is due and all that.

[_Bazooka]

Except it was me who originally posted that. Credit where it is due and all that.

Glory hunter

[_subgenius]

sure you did...just like slavery...just because it is bad today means that it was good on another day.

Then show where I said it. I said things like slavery have been seen by some groups as good, and that groups can change what they see as good and bad as they have with slavery in the US. I never said that just because something is seen as good today that it will be seen as bad on another day. This is just the BS you make up to fell you are winning some debate. I have just given you examples of things that have been viewed as bad or good by different groups.

Just so we are all clear...are you confirming that:
1. Something viewed as good in the past which is today viewed as bad can never be viewed as good again
or
2.Something viewed as good in the past which is today viewed as bad can be viewed as good again

This being based on what you have already claimed as being true, whereas :

"Some things that were considered good in the past no longer are. Slavery is a good example." - Themis
viewtopic.php?p=708496#p708496
interesting this almost sounds as if you mean to say that slavery is now "universally" bad...which of course we know you do not believe.

"Change to moral codes are done when a group may see that something should now be considered bad or good. Again slavery is a great example." - Themis
viewtopic.php?p=708575#p708575

So, by your own argument, is it possible for slavery to be viewed, in the future, as being good...even though today it is being viewed as bad?

[_SteelHead]

Show that slavery is now universally viewed as bad. Then you might have a starting point. But I am fairly certain there is still slavery in parts of the world, and those keeping the slaves would appear to like the practice.

[_subgenius]

...(snip)..Bazooka is right that survival could be viewed as the ultimate moral. It is really where are most important moral codes are based on....

Steelhead (not Bazooka or Drifting) got his hat handed to him on this claim, let us see if you are willing to lose the same way.
Let us start easy.
You say the claim that "survival is the ultimate moral"....prove it...without that moral being transcendent nor universal...after all, that is your position is it not?
That there is no moral or morals that are universal? are transcendent?...because they are all intrinsically subjective, intrinsically "decided"?
ergo
survival cannot be an ultimate moral at all...according to you it might be a moral that one group decides "works" today...but they may well have considered it "bad" years ago.

[_SteelHead]

Keep propping up strawmen sub. One day someone may buy into your schtick if you repeat yourself enough.

[_subgenius]

Show that slavery is now universally viewed as bad. Then you might have a starting point. But I am fairly certain there is still slavery in parts of the world, and those keeping the slaves would appear to like the practice.

Slavery is intrinsically bad. Just as water is wet.
For example, you know it is bad...you can argue otherwise but your knowledge of it being bad remains.
So, another person who practices slavery merely chooses otherwise...they know it is bad, but they choose to participate anyway....and there could be many reasons to justify their behavior...but the behavior is intrinsically bad.
History and tradition has supported this notion as well...the record of slavery has always reflected its practice as being bad...even when the captor endorsed it, the captive did not.
The preponderance of evidence, historical records, common sense, anecdotes, and logic all favor the conclusion of slavery being intrinsically bad.
Your position is unlikely, absurd, and improbable.

Likewise, the burden is reasonably upon you...you have no evidence, or proof, that slavery is viewed as being "morally good", or even that slavery is just a matter of opinion. Your reliance on speculation, opinion, and facetiousness does not constitute an actual argument.

Currently your position seems to be equal to me saying that human beings are born with certain features like eyes, hands, skin, organs, etc...and you claim that this is not a universal claim that i can make...because several humans have not been born yet and it may well be that a human is born tomorrow that has features of moss, tentacles, and is cold-blooded...at which case it just becomes apparent that you don't understand what a human being is at all....but hey, that is your position is it not? that ultimately you get to decide what anything "really" is and so does everyone else....which just proves my claim, thank you.