quote:

Of course not. It has nothing to do with right and wrong.

Okay so you are saying that order has nothing to do with right and wrong. I was asking because clpo13 was saying that if an action broke down the order of a society it was discourage so order played a role in determining if a type of behavior was wrong.

quote:

I've already stated the justification: either it creates chaos or it's dangerous.

Okay so the Justification is stopping activities that create chaos or are dangerous. However why are we choosing these justifications? Why are we saying that chaos and danger are bad? Is it because these things are harmful to people? If so we are instating a value for Human life and saying that we have to protect the life of people from others irresponsible behavior. So now we have a universal moral, it is good to protect people from the irresponsibility of others. Chaos and danger are not inherently bad so they can only be wrong if they are violating some value that we are upholding.

quote:

Tell that to my ruined childhood.

Were you forced to convert? Or abused by a religious group?

quote:

I happen to like Germany.

I also like Germany.
I was not trying to come down on Germany or its people; all I was doing was using the situation that these German Commanders were in to pose a question.

quote:

I could defend either side, killing the Jews or saving them.

So they could have gone either way? There is nothing to say that killing the Jews would have always been wrong? Can you say murdering millions of defenseless people in prison camps is acceptable? On that note what is your defense for killing the Jews?

quote:

Could any of us answer that?

What is your answer to the question? I happen to think that there is absolute truth.

quote:

So is order the determining factor for what is right and wrong?

Of course not. It has nothing to do with right and wrong.

quote:

So if we are going to enforce a certain type of behavior we need a justification for doing so.

I've already stated the justification: either it creates chaos or it's dangerous.

quote:

Well forced conversions aren’t used by Christianity and are not used by the majority of Islamic groups.

Tell that to my ruined childhood.

quote:

Okay lest say it was what the leadership deemed to be right

That's all I wanted. I happen to like Germany.

quote:

So if there are no higher morals, which morals should, they have gone by?

Yes, morals come and go. How should I know what ones they should follow? I could defend either side, killing the Jews or saving them. Would you like me to?

quote:

One important question would be is there absolute truth?

Could any of us answer that?

quote:

Order and law should be interchangeable.

So is order the determining factor for what is right and wrong? Remember that these questions are being put forth under the basses that there is no universals and that morals are just individual’s feelings. So if we are going to enforce a certain type of behavior we need a justification for doing so. So far the stated justification has been order. But if order is all that there is then why do we uphold individualism? Do we uphold order as long as it is beneficial to us? If so then order is not the only determining factor for right and wrong and there must be something else, such as freedom.

quote:

You're wrong.

The CIA world fact book says that 33.03% of the world is Christian and 20.12% of the world is Muslim. So over half the world is either Christian or Muslim. If we want a larger majority we could change it to all religions and them forcing everyone to believe in some type of god.

quote:

Most of them already do that. And if they succeeded, we'd have a theocracy.

Well forced conversions aren’t used by Christianity and are not used by the majority of Islamic groups. However as you pointed out if it did happen we would have a theocracy. Would that be wrong? If so why? It may seem wrong to you, and me, but if morals are determined by individuals and the majority gets to determine which morals are used then a world theocracy could not really be wrong. Also is order is our standard we would have to accept this. A unity of though is more orderly then different thoughts.
However at the same time a theocracy would go against our determining factor of freedom. So on one basses a theocracy would be justified but by another it would be rejected. Does the majority get to pick which determining factor it goes by? Or does it have to find a balance between the morals that we have determined to uphold?

quote:

and individuals have their own opinions and ideas.

So we act as individuals, but again individuals are going to look out for their interests over the interests of others. If I always do what I feel is best then I will probable trample on someone else’s freedom. The same goes for threat other person. If he does what is best for him he will dispose of me because I am in his way. So don’t we have to have some overriding force to hold us in check? This is why rules are enforced and boundaries set for our behavior. The question is what is the basses for these rules and boundaries?

quote:

Can we admit it was not the country but the country's leader?

Okay lest say it was what the leadership deemed to be right. The point is that these German officers were doing what they had been told was right, so if right and wrong is individually based what basis did we have to punish them for their actions.

quote:

They are created by the society and circumstance.

So in that case they can come and go. Like in the case of world war two. The German commanders would have been breaking their countries morals if they did not kill the Jews, but by killing the Jews they were breaking the morals of other countries like America and Brittan. So if there are no higher morals, which morals should, they have gone by?

quote:

Yeah. No one wants to be prisoners, sexually abused or killed. So we see them as wrong and generally dissuade them.

So we see things as wrong simply because we don’t want them to happen to us? This is true but is more then this because we have the same reaction if these things happen to someone. Even if we aren’t involved we condemn certain behavior as wrong. So there is something innate in people that tells them that certain things are wrong, because even if we haven’t contemplated the thing happening to us, or haven’t experienced it personally we still see it a wrong, and have that negative reaction to it.

One important question would be is there absolute truth?

quote:

In that case I would state again what basses do we have for condemning people, or having a legal system? Is it all under order and if it is what would be wrong with a totalitarian state that strictly enforces order? Personal liberty and freedom aren’t necessary for order.

Dear Nephy, laws keep order. Order and law should be interchangeable. Unlawfulness and chaos. Good does not mean law. Personal liberty is in the law, because everyone likes it. What moron would write a law in which he didn't have any personal freedom or liberty? When people don't like something, they riot. Riot=chaos. Which law inspires the least amount of chaos? Allowing children to be raped or dissalowing it? I vote for the latter.

quote:

Now the majority of the people in the world are Christian or Muslim.

You're wrong.

quote:

What if those two religions teamed up and said that everyone else had to be part of their religion, and forced people to convert?

Most of them already do that. And if they succeeded, we'd have a theocracy.

quote:

What basses do we act on, or judge on?

We act on the basis that we're individuals (note basis not basses) and individuals have their own opinions and ideas.

quote:

However they were doing what their country deemed alright.

Can we admit it was not the country but the country's leader? Bush is doing a lot of things I don't agree with right now. Me and much of the country. It is the act of the person in power, not the people. Leader's act, not country's.

quote:

If the morals aren’t universal what are they?

They are created by the society and circumstance.

quote:

So what causes all these people to come to the same conclusion? Is there something that makes people see certain types of behavior as wrong?

Yeah. No one wants to be prisoners, sexually abused or killed. So we see them as wrong and generally dissuade them.

quote:

And I'm saying right and wrong don't exist at all. They are just labels, human-created ideas.

Alright I see what you are saying. One of the problems was what I was thinking of when you say right or wrong.

quote:

It's all about opinions.

So basically by your definition right and wrong just mean what a person thinks or feels. So wouldn’t that mean that rapping children, torture, sex slavery, murder and everything else is not really wrong. You would say that these actions are condemned but not really wrong. In that case I would state again what basses do we have for condemning people, or having a legal system? Is it all under order and if it is what would be wrong with a totalitarian state that strictly enforces order? Personal liberty and freedom aren’t necessary for order.

Consider this situation. According to you there is no right and wrong, only opinions and the majority get their way. Now the majority of the people in the world are Christian or Muslim. What if those two religions teamed up and said that everyone else had to be part of their religion, and forced people to convert? They would be the majority so according to you they should get to define right and wrong, so what do you do?
Wouldn’t they be right? You could say that they were wrong but you would be the minority and the majority enforces their idea of right or wrong? Again what basis do you condemn people actions on if every thing is relative? What basses do we act on, or judge on?

Another point to consider is what majority are we talking about? Is right and wrong based off of the majority in a state, or country, or people group, or the world? For example the majority of people in Nazi Germany allowed millions of Jews to be murdered, however the world condemned them and after the war punished many of the German commanders. However they were doing what their country deemed alright. So which group should people go by when they are determining if they should do something?

quote:

Exactly. I wouldn't go so far as to say there are no morals, but I do think there are no universal morals.

If the morals aren’t universal what are they? Can the morals be changed? If they can then they are really no more then what people think should be done.

Let’s take another look at the possibility of there being universal morals. One question that we should look at is what makes people determine certain behaviors to be wrong. Things like sex abuse, murder, and the lack of any freedom has been considered wrong by the majority of people. There are always certain time periods or cultures in which there are exceptions to this but for the most part there is a consensus that certain things are wrong. So what causes all these people to come to the same conclusion? Is there something that makes people see certain types of behavior as wrong?

Also even people that break laws and abuse others usually will say before they commit the crime or after that they acknowledge that type of behavior as wrong. So what tells them that it is wrong? And if they define their own morals why would they define something they do as wrong?

quote:

The point that I am making is that if there is right and wrong, there has to be absolutes.

And I'm saying right and wrong don't exist at all. They are just labels, human-created ideas. Therefore, one group of people can say something is right while another says it's wrong because there is no "right" answer. They're both right according to their morals, which is all there is. It's all subjective.

quote:

In the same way right and wrong do not mean the same thing, they are opposites

Of course that's what they mean, but that's not how they are used. Something I see as right is seen as wrong by someone else. It's neither. We simply see it differently. It's all about opinions. It's my opinion it's right; their opinion it's wrong. That's not contradictory because there is no right answer. Something like gay marriage is neither right nor wrong. It just is. Different groups of people apply their own opinions about what should be right and what should be wrong, according to them.

quote:

Are you familiar with the law of non contradiction?

I am, but I'm saying it doesn't matter here. I know the ideas of right and wrong are diametric opposites. The thing is that this isn't about facts. It's about opinions. I don't know how else to explain it.

quote:

but because our views contradict each other we can’t both be right.

I think I'm beginning to see the hang-up here. I'll say it straight out: there is no "right." We're both right only because our opinions matter to us and us alone. I can no more force my idea of what is right on you than you can force your idea of what is wrong on me. There is no universal "right answer."

quote:

But the state law can be superseded by the federal law. So there is still a standard. Basically our system is set up to give the states a lot of freedom, but there is still bounds and a system set up.

Technically-speaking, federal law shouldn't override state law (the founders wanted states to be somewhat independent, as you pointed out), but again, what of things like brothels and assisted suicide? There are no federal standards governing those, meaning it's up to the states to determine the legal status of such things. Many people find brothels abhorrent and "wrong," but the state of Nevada doesn't find them "wrong" at all, considering they're quite legal there. Certain things may have a federal standard, but not everything (gay marriage is a good example).

quote:

t is meaningless because there really is no such thing as right and wrong, and we don’t know which on of us is right. So if there are morals, there has to be a moral code, or you don’t really have morals.

Exactly. I wouldn't go so far as to say there are no morals, but I do think there are no universal morals. No one is "right." That's the bottom line right there. The only morals that matter are individual morals. If enough individuals with similar morals band together, they can create laws, policies, etc. based on those morals. But there is no universal "right" or "wrong" to things. We can hold different opinions about right and wrong because neither of us is right. Hopefully we've got that misunderstanding cleared up. I wasn't sure how the law of contradictions played in, but you're still hung up on a universal set of morals (which would mean there is a "right" answer to what's right and wrong), but I'm denying that completely. It all really is meaningless.

And this is a really interesting debate. Very philosophical.

quote:

It's definitely an improvement. This topic is actually really fun to read now

It is defiantly interesting.

High everybody. I am leaving tomorrow for seven weeks. During that time I will not be able to get on youth noise so I won’t be able to respond to anything for seven weeks.
Have a great summer.

quote:

Originally posted by Nephilem:
Okay this entire debate is focusing on one main point, what is right and wrong.

It's definitely an improvement. This topic is actually really fun to read now

Okay this entire debate is focusing on one main point, what is right and wrong.
The point that I am making is that if there is right and wrong, there has to be absolutes. Basically you have some people saying that something is morally wrong, and others saying that the same thing is morally okay. Even if this is just a label, only one can be right because they are making a contradictory claim. It can’t be both right and wrong. This is because right and wrong mean two opposing things, and thus it can’t be both.
Hopefully this will help to clear this up. Even if right and wrong are just labels it can’t be both.

quote:

Thus, something can indeed be both wrong or right (or neither), in the same way that something can be both a foot and 12 inches long. Those are human ideas, completely defined by humans.

Taking this example something could be one foot and twelve inches because those two measurements mean the same thing. I could not say that two feet equal twelve inches, because that would be incorrect. In the same way right and wrong do not mean the same thing, they are opposites, even if they are just a human label they can not be both. It could only be one, because they are contradictory. This comes back to the law of non contradiction.

quote:

We assign arbitrary labels to it based on our own beliefs/thoughts/etc. 100 mph is not inherently fast or slow.

This is a difference in perception. This is again different then right and wrong. With right and wrong we are stating whether or not a specific action has moral support of relevance. This is true if there is a moral standard, and it is also true if it is just a label. So because we are stating the nature of something it cont be both right and wrong. Are you familiar with the law of non contradiction?

quote:

There is only perception.

Okay let’s assume that it is just a perception. As I have said the perception of right and wrong can change so you could say that you don’t think that something is wrong, and I could say that I do think it is wrong. We would both have an opinion, but because our views contradict each other we can’t both be right. It is impossible for something to be true and not true. For example you can’t say that the WTC in New York was hit, and not hit, on 9/11. That would be a false statement. We know that 9/11 did happen so the second part of that statement would be false.

quote:

Why not? If the state felt that was the right decision to make, they'd be perfectly within their rights as a state to make such a decision.

But the state law can be superseded by the federal law. So there is still a standard. Basically our system is set up to give the states a lot of freedom, but there is still bounds and a system set up.

quote:

How? I don't follow.

Here’s why. If right and wrong have any validity, there has to be a moral code to determine what is right and what is wrong. If there is no code then right and wrong have no validly and are worthless because it is nothing then opinion. Now because of the law of non contradiction we know that both opinions can not be valid, so this complicates things even more if there is no code, then you can say that something is wrong and I can say that something is right, and it is meaningless because there really is no such thing as right and wrong, and we don’t know which on of us is right. So if there are morals, there has to be a moral code, or you don’t really have morals.

quote:

Logic tells us that something is either right or wrong. It can’t be both. So saying that it is neither, and it all depends on your opinion of morality is an illogical statement. It has to be one or the other.

How is it illogical? You keep assuming that "wrong" and "right" are universal ideas, whereas I'm saying they're merely human creations, like feet or minutes. Thus, something can indeed be both wrong or right (or neither), in the same way that something can be both a foot and 12 inches long. Those are human ideas, completely defined by humans. The universe doesn't not care for morality. It just is. We're the ones who assign labels to it. And two different people can slap different labels on the same thing.

quote:

Both sides say they are right, and so the law on non contradiction says that only one of them can be right. One of them has to be wrong.

But what is wrong? Again, you're depending completely on the concept of universal morality. I say it doesn't exist, so I don't see a contradiction.

Look at it this way: a car is traveling 100 miles per hour. I might say it's going slow, since I think 150+ is fast. On the other hand, someone else might say it's fast, since to them, anything over 50 is fast. So is 100 mph slow or fast? It's neither. We assign arbitrary labels to it based on our own beliefs/thoughts/etc. 100 mph is not inherently fast or slow.

quote:

Okay once again only one group can be right.

Why? Why must one group be right? I'll say it again in case my explanations earlier in this post don't get across: there is no universal right or wrong. Those two terms are just labels. It's all about perception because there is nothing else. There is nothing inherent in things that make them either right or wrong. There is only perception.

quote:

For example a state can’t declare that theft is legal in their state, or that rape is legal in their state.

Why not? If the state felt that was the right decision to make, they'd be perfectly within their rights as a state to make such a decision. In fact, states have indeed legalized things which were seen as illegal. Brothels, for instance, are still legal in Nevada. Physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon. Or how about same-sex marriage? All three of these things are considered illegal in most states but have been legalized in certain states. Same concept. There is no universal declaration that those things are illegal.

quote:

What I have been trying to tell you is that logically speaking if there are morals there must be a moral absolute.

How? I don't follow.

quote:

Sinful to whom?

I was submitting this point to Muslims. I was asking them how they deal with polygamy, do they accept if, and if they reject it on what bounds?

quote:

What part of this are you not getting? I am making the claim that there is no right and wrong.

I am getting it and I’m telling you that that is logically unsound. Logic tells us that something is either right or wrong. It can’t be both. So saying that it is neither, and it all depends on your opinion of morality is an illogical statement. It has to be one or the other.
I’m also saying that morality is what holds society together, something bigger then order.

quote:

as I said earlier, the strongest group gets to impose it's morals.

The strongest group gets to impose what it thinks are the correct morals. As I have already said there are many groups that have done horrible things, and they are condemned as wrong, however they thought they were right. Once again this is not an issue of is there right or wrong. Both sides say they are right, and so the law on non contradiction says that only one of them can be right. One of them has to be wrong.

quote:

It's all in how you view it.

Okay once again only one group can be right. This is why there has to be an over arching law of morality. Logic dictates that both groups can’t be right. It is impossible. Perception of right and wrong can change but right and wrong can not change. So you can look at issues like slavery. It can either be right or it can be wrong. It can be perceived as both but it can only be one.

quote:

Our legal system is already like that. Local courts often disagree with state courts, state courts disagree with federal courts, district courts disagree with the Supreme Court, and so on.

There is room for change, what I meant was what if there was no standard. For example a state can’t declare that theft is legal in their state, or that rape is legal in their state. That can’t happen. Yet if there were no absolutes the biggest group in states could push for horrible things to be legal.

The end conclusion is that there has to be a moral code. We both agree that there are morals; however we disagree over whether or not there are absolutes. What I have been trying to tell you is that logically speaking if there are morals there must be a moral absolute.

quote:

The point I was making with Islam was that it supports a life style that many would view as sinful. This really ties into ideas on right and wrong, if you believe that polygamy is wrong you should be aware that Islam supports polygamy.

Sinful to whom? You should know by now that the morals of one religion do not apply to everything. If people think Islam is sinful by their morals, then that's all right. But that doesn't really matter to anyone other than them, does it?

quote:

With this in mind there has to be a way to determine which of the two was right, since only one of them can really be right.

What part of this are you not getting? I am making the claim that there is no right and wrong. It's all in how you view it. So, both the Allies and the Nazis were "right" in their thinking because they viewed what they were doing as right. There is no over-arching rightness or wrongness to the situation. Same goes for slavery. I don't accept absolute morality, so you can't just use that as the basis for your arguments, since you first need to prove the very existence of absolute morality.

quote:

Under this system all condemnation really starts to loss its worth, because there is no final word on right or wrong. Everyone judges each other but there is no universal standard, everyone just makes up their own standards as we went along.

Again, you're not quite grasping what I'm talking about. Sorry if my explanations aren't clear. It's a tough topic to try to explain. Anyways, condemnation does not lose meaning, since, as I said earlier, the strongest group gets to impose it's morals.

Take an example that might be closer to home. A major part of Christianity is preaching to non-Christians. From a Christian point of view, that is the right thing to do. However, an atheist might find it very, very wrong. Preaching, in his eyes, is similar to brainwashing, and he things people are bullied into believing. He is perfectly justified in condemning Christians for preaching. No one can stop him from doing that because no one can show that preaching is inherently right. It's all in how you view it.

quote:

For an illustration of why this is a problem try to imagine what our legal system would be like if all the branches of the law came up with their own ideas of what is right?

Our legal system is already like that. Local courts often disagree with state courts, state courts disagree with federal courts, district courts disagree with the Supreme Court, and so on. A person's lawsuit might be turned down in his state supreme court, but he might be able to convince a court of appeals to overturn it. Even within the Supreme Court there are disagreements about what is wrong or right. One Chief Justice's court might overturn decisions made by his predecessor's court simply because his interpretation sees the ruling as unconstitutional.

In the United States legal system, the only absolute is the Constitution, and even that's up for interpretation at times.

quote:

The most powerful group may have their will enforced but that does not mean that what they do is right.

Of course. They merely view it as right. As I said earlier, there is no wrong and right. Those are human terms, applied by humans to random things viewed by the majority as right or wrong. If you want, you can always try to prove that there are absolute rights and wrongs, but bear in mind that I will probably be able to show how they aren't absolute.

quote:

Jesus wore a robe. Does that mean Christians should follow his example and wear robes? He was single, so shouldn't Christians stay single?

The imitation of Jesus are different then the imitation of Muhammad because Christianity is not as stringent in the rules of everyday life as Islam is. The thought process is different. The point I was making with Islam was that it supports a life style that many would view as sinful. This really ties into ideas on right and wrong, if you believe that polygamy is wrong you should be aware that Islam supports polygamy.
And yes Islam does also support mirage with one woman.

quote:

So, the Holocaust was neither right nor wrong. The Nazi Party viewed it as right, and the Allies viewed it as wrong. That's how it was in my eyes.

Okay what you are talking about it whether or not a certain action is viewed as being right or wrong. I agree with you that people can have different views about what is right or wrong. However though people may have different opinions they can all be right. Take the example of the Holocaust. The Nazi party and the allies could not both be right. This is actually a law of logic, called the law of non-contradiction. Basically something can be both true and not true. So it is either true that the Holocaust was wrong, or it is not it is impossible for it to be both.
With this in mind there has to be a way to determine which of the two was right, since only one of them can really be right.

quote:

They were perfectly justified in that they saw it as wrong, even though the South saw it as right.

Again the law of non contradiction comes into play. The north and south could not both be right. They may have both thought they were right but only one of them could really be right.

quote:

You're not getting it. If I see slavery as wrong, then I am justified in condemning them. You're mistaking the lack of absolute right and wrong for the inability to condemn people for what you think is wrong.

No you would not be justified. Because if what they do is right to them who are you for coming in and telling them that what they are doing is wrong. Under this system all condemnation really starts to loss its worth, because there is no final word on right or wrong. Everyone judges each other but there is no universal standard, everyone just makes up their own standards as we went along.
For an illustration of why this is a problem try to imagine what our legal system would be like if all the branches of the law came up with their own ideas of what is right? The possibilities are almost none ending to envision pure chaos as everyone enforced contradictory laws.

quote:

Pretty much. We may not always like it, but the biggest or strongest group gets to say what's right or wrong.

Okay so the things in the following quote are okay?

quote:

So the Stalinist Gulag was ok?
Or the repression and killing of the Chilean People by Augusto Pinochet after the coup d'etat that murdered Allende?

These things are clearly not okay just because one group decided that it is. The most powerful group may have their will enforced but that does not mean that what they do is right.

quote:

It does promote polygamy in the sense that Muhammad had many wives. Muslims are supposed to follow the example of Muhammad and if Muhammad has many wives Muslim men can assume that they also should have many wives.

Jesus wore a robe. Does that mean Christians should follow his example and wear robes? He was single, so shouldn't Christians stay single?

Anyways, even if Muhammad had multiple wives, that does not mean all Muslims are to take multiple wives. They can if they want, but it is all right by the Qu'ran to stay with a single wife.

quote:

Right and wrong can not change. What is accepted as right and wrong may change but right or wrong can not change. Look at it this way what are you saying when you say something is wrong? You are saying that that type of action is flawed. Take the mass killing of Jews during WWII. That was considered acceptable by the Germans, but it was clearly wrong.

We're looking at things differently. I don't see ideas like right and wrong as explicitly existing. For me, it's only the acceptance of things as right and wrong that exist. So, the Holocaust was neither right nor wrong. The Nazi Party viewed it as right, and the Allies viewed it as wrong. That's how it was in my eyes.

quote:

If slavery was right for the south the north had no right to come in and stop them from having slaves. The only reason the north was justified in trying to free the slaves was because having slaves was wrong.

They were perfectly justified in that they saw it as wrong, even though the South saw it as right. Again, the strongest group gets to impose it's view of morality.

quote:

Exactly you just showed why slavery was wrong. And has always been wrong. If it has not always been wrong, you have no basses for condemning the slave traders. And this applies to everything. If there is no right or wrong, then no wrong has ever really done anything wrong, it is just a mater of their actions either being accepted or not accepted.

You're not getting it. If I see slavery as wrong, then I am justified in condemning them. You're mistaking the lack of absolute right and wrong for the inability to condemn people for what you think is wrong.

quote:

That’s basically what you just said, what ever the majority says goes.

Pretty much. We may not always like it, but the biggest or strongest group gets to say what's right or wrong.

quote:

Get your facts straight.

I am not trying to explain the causes of the civil war, and I am not saying that slavery was the only issue. All I am talking about right now is whether or not slavery was wrong, not aspects of the civil war. So my point was if slavery was right the north had no right to oppose it.

quote:

So the Stalinist Gulag was ok?
Or the repression and killing of the Chilean People by Augusto Pinochet after the coup d'etat that murdered Allende?

Exactly that is why I am saying that this system does not work. Under this system these things would be justified.

quote:

Relative values like right and wrong can't be arbitrarily applied based on one's moral credence like you do.

Right and wrong are based off of a moral code, and I would argue that this is the only system that works which is why it is used. Things are viewed as inherently right or wrong, and if there is not a system of right and wrong society falls apart.

quote:

You base your judgement on your religious beliefs

I don’t believe that specific aspects of Christian teachings should be enforced, but I do believe that right and wrong is based of a moral code that was made by God.

quote:

The only reason the north was justified in trying to free the slaves was because having slaves was wrong.

The north wanted to free the slaves because they had huge potential as consumers, and they wanted to do away with the south's independent primitive economy so it would become dependant on the north's industrial production. Get your facts straight.

quote:

any action in the name of order would be right.

So the Stalinist Gulag was ok?
Or the repression and killing of the Chilean People by Augusto Pinochet after the coup d'etat that murdered Allende?

Relative values like right and wrong can't be arbitrarily applied based on one's moral credence like you do. You base your judgement on your religious beliefs, thus anyone who does not share those beliefs is automatically wrong, if not in judgement, in justification.

quote:

Islam does not promote polygamy.

It does promote polygamy in the sense that Muhammad had many wives. Muslims are supposed to follow the example of Muhammad and if Muhammad has many wives Muslim men can assume that they also should have many wives.

quote:

Do right and wrong change? That's a good question. I'm likely to say yes.

Right and wrong can not change. What is accepted as right and wrong may change but right or wrong can not change. Look at it this way what are you saying when you say something is wrong? You are saying that that type of action is flawed. Take the mass killing of Jews during WWII. That was considered acceptable by the Germans, but it was clearly wrong.

quote:

So, slavery was never wrong or right. Things never are inherently one way or the other.

Now let’s look at the issue of slavery. If slavery was right for the south the north had no right to come in and stop them from having slaves. The only reason the north was justified in trying to free the slaves was because having slaves was wrong.
Basically if right and wrong can caught there is really no right or wrong, just acceptable and not acceptable.

quote:

On the other hand, some people viewed it as evil. Slaves were indeed humans, and no human should ever be forced to be subservient to his equals.

Exactly you just showed why slavery was wrong. And has always been wrong. If it has not always been wrong, you have no basses for condemning the slave traders. And this applies to everything. If there is no right or wrong, then no wrong has ever really done anything wrong, it is just a mater of their actions either being accepted or not accepted.

quote:

There is no absolute, over-arching view of order; it's what the largest or strongest group of people views as right.

So there is no really definition of what falls under order. So if the majority of people in a country said it was alright to take the children of a small group and rape, and torture, and kill them that would be alight. That’s basically what you just said, what ever the majority says goes.

quote:

Possibly. A single, large nation would probably create more problems than it solves,

Alright so it might not work it might, the point is that from what you said any action in the name of order would be right.

quote:

I brought up this point because many people in Europe and the US are opposed to polygamy and so the fact that Islam promotes polygamy would likely be an issue for many people so I wanted to bring it up.

Islam does not promote polygamy. As I stated earlier, a very small percentage of Islamic marriages are polygamous. There's a lot more to Islam than just polygamy. If people are going to have a problem with a religion just because of one rather insignificant aspect, I think the problems go deeper than simple dislike of polygamy. I mean, I immensely dislike the inherently Christian idea of preaching the Bible to non-believers, but that alone isn't going to make me hate Christianity. That would be rather...bigoted of me, wouldn't you say?

quote:

There is a big problem with this system and that is, does right and wrong change? The majority used to say that slavery was alright. But was it really right? Was it right when the majority supported it?

Do right and wrong change? That's a good question. I'm likely to say yes. I don't really have the means to argue that philosophically, but based on how so many things have swung from being generally accepted to generally despised or vice versa.

On the matter of slavery, it's an excellent example of how the morals of the strongest group win out. The American Civil War was fought primarily over the institution of slavery, which was slowly becoming disliked. The North symbolized freedom; the South protected slavery. Yes, it's simplified, but I'm not going to explain what everyone (at least every American) learns in history class. When the North beat the South and abolished slavery throughout the United States, it was a clear-cut instance of the strongest group imposing it's view of morality. Had the South won, slavery would have continued, to a point (when popular opinion would have turned against it again).

So, slavery was never wrong or right. Things never are inherently one way or the other. Ideas cannot be good or evil, since those are human-created concepts. With slavery, some people viewed it as good. Slaves were only partially human, after all, so it was good that people should take them in and reform them through labor. On the other hand, some people viewed it as evil. Slaves were indeed humans, and no human should ever be forced to be subservient to his equals. Slavery became "wrong," so to speak, when the majority viewed it as evil, as opposed to when the majority viewed it as good.

quote:

Could you justify suppressing freedom of speech, religion and the press under the name of a greater order?

What a thing to ask of a libertarian. No, I can't personally justify it, but in the name of order, I'm sure someone could. There is no absolute, over-arching view of order; it's what the largest or strongest group of people views as right. Order makes societies, but it's up to the members of those societies to determine what kind of order will hold them together. It's a bit counter-intuitive, but I'd say the evidence supports it.

Also, it could be said that suppressing free speech results in a disorderly society due to people objecting against the limitations on their freedom of speech. That's a bit of a reach, I realize, but oh well.

quote:

If there was only one nation could you say that there was more order?

Possibly. A single, large nation would probably create more problems than it solves, in that it would be very hard to govern the parts of it farthest away from the seat of government, which could cause more chaos. I'm not really suited for this kind of big-picture philosophy. My ideas are generally focused on (and apply best to) smaller and more localized situations, if that makes any sense.

quote:

but those are completely dependent on the people in the relationship, not the fact that the relationship is polygamous. Just like a monogamous marriage.

Okay so this issue really boils down to our beliefs. If you believe that polygamy is okay then the fact that Islam supports polygamy is not an issue for you. However if you do have a problem with polygamy you would have a problem with Islam. I brought up this point because many people in Europe and the US are opposed to polygamy and so the fact that Islam promotes polygamy would likely be an issue for many people so I wanted to bring it up.

quote:

Exactly. That's the way of the world. The strongest group gets to say its right.

So what ever the crowd says goes? There is a big problem with this system and that is, does right and wrong change? The majority used to say that slavery was alright. But was it really right? Was it right when the majority supported it?

quote:

Societies can't exist without order.

So basically you are saying that there is a large over arching absolute of order. In that case what do you define as order? Can anything fit under this umbrella? Could you justify suppressing freedom of speech, religion and the press under the name of a greater order? Again what are the boundaries of this larger idea?

quote:

But how? People like Hitler cause chaos because they kill lots of people.

Ah but what if they killed those who cause division. If there was only one nation could you say that there was more order?

quote:

Change can be chaotic, but most good change doesn't involve death.

So only things that cause death are wrong? I though you said the standard was order. There are many times that people have done things to gain rights that have decreased the order of something.

quote:

Kind of like "Thou shalt not kill"? Kill whom? Do circumstances matter? What if they were the aggressor? What about war?

Yes I would agree that that rule all by its self is vague. However I would say that if you look at other verses in the bible you will find the picture becoming clearer and clearer.

quote:

I've heard that the KJV is one of the better versions, considering it's one of the oldest. Newer versions suffer from simplified language. I guess this is another reason why I need to learn Hebrew and Greek.

Many people say that it is a really great one. It does have some translation problems because it is an older version of English. I use the NIV and the RSV for the bulk of my bible usage, and sometimes use other translations. We also have the Hebrew and Greek translations that I can use to reference. I know a little of both Hebrew and Greek, which is enough for me because the main thing that I use the Hebrew and Greek for is to look up words that cause problems, like the word day in genesis, and see what the original would have meant.

quote:

The point is that in a relationship with polygamy there are inherent problems.

I can think of a few that could happen (lack of attention to certain wives, etc.), but those are completely dependent on the people in the relationship, not the fact that the relationship is polygamous. Just like a monogamous marriage.

quote:

So no group rely has a claim to being right, it is just the beigest group that is right?

Exactly. That's the way of the world. The strongest group gets to say its right. Majority rule, if you will, although that's not quite right, since the biggest group isn't always the strongest.

quote:

What who says that society’s are supposed to be ordered.

Societies can't exist without order. That's what they're based on. From the beginning of civilization, there have been rules to preserve order and society.

quote:

And who said that they were necessarily causing chaos. I could say that the chaos was caused by those who opposed.

But how? People like Hitler cause chaos because they kill lots of people. You can't blame the chaos on the people trying to preserve the order (by eliminating the cause of chaos).

quote:

Also following that logic anyone who makes any big changes is evil.

Change can be chaotic, but most good change doesn't involve death.

quote:

Exactly and rules that are few and rather general are not that useful.

Kind of like "Thou shalt not kill"? Kill whom? Do circumstances matter? What if they were the aggressor? What about war? You don't really need to answer those questions. I was just pointing out that Islam isn't the only one with vague rules.

quote:

I would suggest quoting from a different version of the bible the King James really is not the best and is difficult to use.

I've heard that the KJV is one of the better versions, considering it's one of the oldest. Newer versions suffer from simplified language. I guess this is another reason why I need to learn Hebrew and Greek.