The point I've been trying to make throughout the whole thread is that morality can be judged on an objective scale through the use of reason.
No, the point you've tried to make is that the behaviour of a few individuals is representative of their ethnic group within a community. Upon being confronted with solid arguments discussing why you are wrong, you chose to claim that it was morality you were discussing - which you clearly don't understand if you think that morals and laws have no overlap.
You keep hiding behind manmade constructs such as laws and borders. I consistently point out that I am not discussing whether an action is legal, or should be punished.
Well, I'm a human bro. The language you are using, is manmade. The morals you are discussing are manmade. We live in a manmade society, so unless you're some kind of Jesus nut, you'd better start dealing with the manmade construct in which you exist.
I'm not discussing whether punishment is required for your irrelevant example. You asked me a question about whether I think something is right and I told you that I do not. Then you accused me of judging other cultures, using my answer as your basis. I simply pointed out that having an opinion on certain actions doesn't constitute a judgement.
I am trying to point out to you, that in an abstract sense, morality exists much like math: regardless of whether people entirely understand it, or whether the law follows it.
You're not being abstract, you're being inconsistent, there's a difference.
Morality only exists to those who understand it. It is a subjective force, unlike maths which has laws and rules which can always be proven. The very fact that you think it's moral to judge an entire group of people based on the actions of the few show just how subjective they are. Most moderate and sane people disagree with the moral judgement you have made but you are still entitled to believe you are right. Morality cannot be proven, mathematics can.
In other words, much as female genital mutilation is wrong, writing 1+1=3 is incorrect. Likewise however, believing female genital mutilation is acceptable is an incorrect belief, regardless of where someone lives or what their local laws say, much in the same way that believing 1+1=3 is incorrect.
In other words, you're wrong. Such mutilation is wrong in your's and my opinion. Just as homosexuality was an offense that would see you burned at the stake 800 years ago. However, moderate society accepts that people have the right to be homosexual if they want to. In fact, the moral values in place today say that even if you think homosexuality is wrong, you cannot kill someone for being that way.
What you fail to see is that much of the world thinks that the way of Western society is wrong and immoral, much like you think of genital mutilation. So that basically trumps your argument.
This is why we disagree, because I say female genital mutilation is wrong in the abstract sense, whereas to you it is only wrong if carried out.
No you don't. You say that it is morally wrong, regardless of the environment which it is carried out in. I say that any action taken against the individual's will is wrong because of the concept of individual freedom upon which our society is based on. Unlike you though, I do not make judgements of things which I do not understand and I do not claim any authority that my position on the matter is correct, whereas you do.
The reason we disagree is because you are unable to accept even a single concept that does not adhere one hundred per cent to your view of how things could be. Some people call this narrow-minded, I call it thoughtlessness. If you actually had taken the time to think about the philosophy behind the concepts being discussed here, you would see that, fundamentally, we agree. However you are trying to simplfy an issue into right and wrong. But you miss the fact that this is not how the world works. If it was, Bush would not be president, the third world (and 20 per cent of America) would not be starving. We would not be having this conversation because this absolute right and wrong whose existence you are trying to convince me of would have spelled out the correct answer.
Unfortunately for your argument, no such texts exist.
Since you do not believe beliefs can be judged (remember, judging is not punishing) in an abstract sense, then you have no ability to examine other culture's beliefs, since everything is relative.
No, sorry, you are just plain wrong. If I am to judge another culture based on my own beliefs then I have no hope of understanding that culture. Making a judgement on any subject before you've even tried to understand it will only bias your learning and, ultimately, your understanding.
People who believe woman have no rights are just as morally correct as people who believe they do have rights.
Which is the point I have been making this whole time and is the reason that it is not my place to judge. This is a perfect example of the inconsistency and the complete lack of understanding that you have shown throughout this conversation. This last statement is the exact opposite of everything you've said thus far.
You can repeat the phrase "well you don't understand what I am saying" as many times as you like and you will still be wrong. It is you who doesn't understand. I'm guessing you're young so I can understand why you're still harping on about it. I know when I was younger I believed first and foremost that I was right and that I knew best. Now I know that I am hardly ever right and that I should take the time to listen to those around me and understand what they are saying before I judge them. One day you will learn to reserve judgement until such time that it is needed. Until then, you will always be wrong on this issue.
This is the fundamental reason this debate has gone no where.
No the reason the debate has gone nowhere is because you clearly have no skills in debating. You have not been able to rebut one argument anyone has made, let alone even address them. Your only response to the points presented to you by myself and others is to say that we don't understand what you are saying. This is a non-debate because you haven't addressed the arguments other people are making. That is all I have done and any adjudicator would announce me and Gustad the clear winners over you on this one.
You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]