What's new

Do morals even matter anymore?

Morals

  • They are good for some people

    Votes: 1 12.5%
  • everyone but me should have them

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • They are a necessity

    Votes: 7 87.5%
  • If my dog had less morals then you id shave its butt, and teach it to walk backwards.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    8
Why put words in other people's mouths? Einstein's relativity relates to frames of reference. Newton was a hardcore Christian, and would never have said that morality is relative. Defend your own opinion using your own logic. No need to appeal to authority.

Don't think linearly about this. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If these people can jump start their respective fields by delving into an area many thought as wrong morally, why not follow their path with morals and jump start humanity a few hundred years in another direction?

That's not to say forget all of them. Just re-evaluate a few to see if we can find a new frontier.
 
Don't think linearly about this. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If these people can jump start their respective fields by delving into an area many thought as wrong morally, why not follow their path with morals and jump start humanity a few hundred years in another direction?

That's not to say forget all of them. Just re-evaluate a few to see if we can find a new frontier.

I can't figure out what you're trying to say. Can you be more clear?
 
I can't figure out what you're trying to say. Can you be more clear?

In their own respective fields, these people saw something that others didn't. Others that often spent their entire lives thinking about, but not adding up usually because they thought within the walls.

Why can't that same concept of looking where others wouldn't/couldn't/didn't look to find something amazing apply to morals?

I'm sure as heck not smart enough to figure anything useful out. Perhaps reshape how the world looks down on cloning humans.. or genetic manipulation.
 
Genealogy of Morals Nietzsche
If you haven't read it I recommend it. I am not going to speak on morals because I don't want to make an *** of myself. Hit me back in 30 yrs.
 
I don't believe that we should any longer think of Neanderthal as a separate species. I think they can be refered to as a distinct race of human, but speciation should be reserved for organisms that are unable to mate and create fertile offspring.

Interfertility is not always a yes/no proposition. Sometimes populations can be 60%, or 30%, or 5% interfertile. There are even ring species, where populations can't breed with each other, but can both breed with a third population (the ring can also be longer).

The notion of "species" is an arbitrary distinction placed upon groups of populations for human convenience. However, the populations so described have no interest in our convenience.
 
keep reading the thread title like this.

morel1.jpg
 
Back
Top