The value of life (No religion or politics).

Sort:
Balviboy
I can’t contribute
AG120502
Balviboy wrote:
I can’t contribute

Pretty sure you can. You don’t need to write essays if you don’t want to. Just share your views.

BasixWhiteBoy

Why'd you delete your 'Bump' post?

Balviboy
You probably don’t want my viewpoint on this…

But I do think we undervalue our lives.
AG120502
BasixWhiteBoy wrote:

Why'd you delete your 'Bump' post?

It was useless.

AG120502
Balviboy wrote:
You probably don’t want my viewpoint on this…
But I do think we undervalue our lives.

As long as you can filter it just enough to keep this from getting locked using the instructions I gave last page, you’re welcome to. I’m not asking you to dilute your beliefs. I’m just asking you to evade detection.

theeldest1

What to discuss now....

AG120502

We were talking about morals.

AnishAce1

I had completely, inevitably, fully, forgotten about this

AG120502
AnishAce1 wrote:

I had completely, inevitably, fully, forgotten about this

So you’ll share your view?

AnishAce1

#230 what if I don't have any view?

AnishAce1

#230 also long time no see

theeldest1

Morals ah, okay. Just re-read everything, and it seems to me that a general consensus is that there are no morals other than what we decide. In that case, is murther wrong? (Not sure if it's a censored word here, mu rd rrrr)

AG120502

That would be understandable. You haven’t decided and are willing to admit that.

AnishAce1

#234 u haven't changed even a bit have u? 😑

AG120502

Why don’t you have any views on this?

AnishAce1

#236 i prolly haven't decided on one

AG120502
theeldest1 wrote:

Morals ah, okay. Just re-read everything, and it seems to me that a general consensus is that there are no morals other than what we decide. In that case, is murther wrong? (Not sure if it's a censored word here, mu rd rrrr)

Legally, yes. Also, ‘that’ being illegal was inevitable. There were probably several people trying to create order in their villages millennia ago. People being allowed to ‘that’ each other would result in anarchy. So I’d say it isn’t wrong, just not conducive to order. Many people have order as a requirement for their goals. They’d like order. Also being able to flout the rules whenever they want to, but there need to be rules to break in the first place.

So in conclusion I think it isn’t intrinsically wrong, just that you’ll be punished for doing it. Which does not mean I consent to being subjected to ‘that’. It means people who commit ‘that’ are obstacles and will inevitably be removed.

theeldest1

But morally? Is it morally wrong, wrong to do 'that' to another person? Forget about the Constitution, right to life, is it wrong and if so why? If there are no morals, no ethics, than it's not wrong to do so and that has tremendous impact.

AG120502
theeldest1 wrote:

But morally? Is it morally wrong, wrong to do 'that' to another person? Forget about the Constitution, right to life, is it wrong and if so why? If there are no morals, no ethics, than it's not wrong to do so and that has tremendous impact.

If there are no morals or ethics, the impact would be huge. But it likely wouldn’t be as big as you think. Society enforces a lot of things. Peer pressure can make you stop thinking. Condemnation can make you give up. And that’s just the soft power. When society starts using hard power, you’re done for.