Moral Relativism

[Woodruff]

Except I am not derailing or getting into what you call "psycobabble" at all. I am explaining why your basic premise is incorrect. See, your premise is only correct because you already define "cheating" as something morally wrong... ergo, its a circular argument. Eliminate that and get down to the details and then it very much does become a question.

Perhaps you're having some difficulty with the phrase "in our current school system setup"? That places the definition on it. So...if you don't have anything useful to add to this part of the discussion...

It is the crux of the argument.

No...it's not the "crux" of shit...it is a defined part of the question. Period. I'm still waiting for an answer, by the way.

Even so, there is a very, very simple answer.. it is OK to cheat if the teacher is cheating in the test.

That isn't even remotely a "very, very simple answer" and it completely obfuscates the actual question unless you believe that the majority of students in AOG's class believes that their teachers all "cheat" in making the tests. There is no qualification to the question, there are no "ifs ands or buts"...just answer the damn question as it was phrased. Good Lord, it's like pulling teeth to get a straight answer to a pretty damn straight question.

[PLAYER57832]

I answered. If you don't like my answer, I am sorry, but that is my answer.

[Woodruff]

All of this is irrelevant to the point. Individual perspectives are irrelevant to the point. It doesn't matter "how someone sees it". For every given specific situation, there is a "right" and a "wrong".

Except, that IS the whole point. If there is more than one way to see it, then it is not a universal right or wrong.

That doesn't even make basic sense. That's exactly like claiming that opinions override facts.

No, because in morality there are no facts, truly, its all opinion. And again, that is rather the point.

I disagree entirely. For instance, it is factual that a corporation forcing people to work without any form of pay or other compensation is "wrong".

[Woodruff]

I answered. If you don't like my answer, I am sorry, but that is my answer.

I am also sorry that you are unable to answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer.

[PLAYER57832]

All of this is irrelevant to the point. Individual perspectives are irrelevant to the point. It doesn't matter "how someone sees it". For every given specific situation, there is a "right" and a "wrong".

Except, that IS the whole point. If there is more than one way to see it, then it is not a universal right or wrong.

That doesn't even make basic sense. That's exactly like claiming that opinions override facts.

No, because in morality there are no facts, truly, its all opinion. And again, that is rather the point.

I disagree entirely. For instance, it is factual that a corporation forcing people to work without any form of pay or other compensation is "wrong".

The fact is them working without compensation. That is it wrong is your opinion. (I agree, as would almost all people, but it is still opinion) Many leaders in the past very much disagreed, because they thought that some people mattered more than others, that the pain of a few was justified by greater good for all...etc, etc, etc.

Also, just what is a corporation? If you consider a church a corporation (many are), in particular many cults, they would argue it is OK, also. You can say they get "some compensation", but that is belief.

Again, I absolutely agree with the statement, but it is not a "universal" right or wrong. It is what we believe, given our circumstances and experiences.

[jimboston]

This point is similar to what I was trying to demonstrate with my threads about Discrimination and Profiling.

Some questions are just to broad or to vague to answer with an absolute "yes" or "no".
Sometimes you need the details to make a valid moral judgement.

That said... I do believe that there are many situations or circumstances that can be clearly defined as right or wrong.

Though I do agree that there are many here in the Bump that seem to disagree with this. Just look at the Roman Polanksi thread. The guy is an admitted child rapist... an act which I have to believe the vast vast majority of people would agree is wrong... yet we have people defending him here!

[jonesthecurl]

All of this is irrelevant to the point. Individual perspectives are irrelevant to the point. It doesn't matter "how someone sees it". For every given specific situation, there is a "right" and a "wrong".

Except, that IS the whole point. If there is more than one way to see it, then it is not a universal right or wrong.

That doesn't even make basic sense. That's exactly like claiming that opinions override facts.

No, because in morality there are no facts, truly, its all opinion. And again, that is rather the point.

I disagree entirely. For instance, it is factual that a corporation forcing people to work without any form of pay or other compensation is "wrong".

I dunno, what if the corporation is a privatised prison?
Or what about people who are sentenced to community work?

[Woodruff]

Except, that IS the whole point. If there is more than one way to see it, then it is not a universal right or wrong.

That doesn't even make basic sense. That's exactly like claiming that opinions override facts.

No, because in morality there are no facts, truly, its all opinion. And again, that is rather the point.

I disagree entirely. For instance, it is factual that a corporation forcing people to work without any form of pay or other compensation is "wrong".

I dunno, what if the corporation is a privatised prison?

Room and board is certainly compensation.

Or what about people who are sentenced to community work?

That wouldn't be a corporation then, would it?

[Army of GOD]

So where is OP?

Is (s)he not going to respond to Woody's and my own response to her request?

[jonesthecurl]

I disagree entirely. For instance, it is factual that a corporation forcing people to work without any form of pay or other compensation is "wrong".

I dunno, what if the corporation is a privatised prison?

Room and board is certainly compensation.

Or what about people who are sentenced to community work?

That wouldn't be a corporation then, would it?

Room and board is compensation for work? Oh, slavery's OK too then.
...and it's alright to force people to work if you're not a corporation?

[Woodruff]

I disagree entirely. For instance, it is factual that a corporation forcing people to work without any form of pay or other compensation is "wrong".

I dunno, what if the corporation is a privatised prison?

Room and board is certainly compensation.

Or what about people who are sentenced to community work?

That wouldn't be a corporation then, would it?

Room and board is compensation for work? Oh, slavery's OK too then.

You realize that you're entirely agreeing with my premise now, right? Because by stating that "room and board" is not enough compensation for employment by a corporation, you are effectively admitting that LESS than that would certainly be "wrong". Thank you.

...and it's alright to force people to work if you're not a corporation?

It is outside of the bounds of the statement. It is, at best, a derailment.

[jonesthecurl]

So by questioning your universal rule I'm backing up your point? Ok then I agree with it which must therefore prove you wrong.

[Woodruff]

So by questioning your universal rule I'm backing up your point?

Not at all, by questioning it...but that's not what you're doing. You're attempting to re-word it. My "universal rule" regarded SPECIFICALLY corporations forcing individuals to work without any compensation. You didn't do anything other than attempt to change it (when I stated that room and board would be considered compensation, which it certainly can be, you started in about slavery being ok). My point is that you certainly were attempting to imply that "slavery is wrong therefore just giving room and board is wrong" to which my response that if you believe that little compensation is wrong, you certainly must agree that LESS THAN THAT is also wrong. Thus, you are in agreement with me.

Ok then I agree with it which must therefore prove you wrong.

This doesn't even make basic sense.

[Snorri1234]

So by questioning your universal rule I'm backing up your point?

Not at all, by questioning it...but that's not what you're doing. You're attempting to re-word it. My "universal rule" regarded SPECIFICALLY corporations forcing individuals to work without any compensation. You didn't do anything other than attempt to change it (when I stated that room and board would be considered compensation, which it certainly can be, you started in about slavery being ok). My point is that you certainly were attempting to imply that "slavery is wrong therefore just giving room and board is wrong" to which my response that if you believe that little compensation is wrong, you certainly must agree that LESS THAN THAT is also wrong. Thus, you are in agreement with me.

Uh...I don't think you're reasoning correctly here. Jones questioned your "fact" on a superficial level, you then corrected/explained your fact and he tangented into slavery. But that was only because you said "not really wrong because of this".

I mean, of course he would agree that your "fact" was wrong, much like slavery. But he brought slavery up for a tangent, not the real meat and bones of your core-argument.

[Woodruff]

So by questioning your universal rule I'm backing up your point?

Not at all, by questioning it...but that's not what you're doing. You're attempting to re-word it. My "universal rule" regarded SPECIFICALLY corporations forcing individuals to work without any compensation. You didn't do anything other than attempt to change it (when I stated that room and board would be considered compensation, which it certainly can be, you started in about slavery being ok). My point is that you certainly were attempting to imply that "slavery is wrong therefore just giving room and board is wrong" to which my response that if you believe that little compensation is wrong, you certainly must agree that LESS THAN THAT is also wrong. Thus, you are in agreement with me.

Uh...I don't think you're reasoning correctly here. Jones questioned your "fact" on a superficial level, you then corrected/explained your fact and he tangented into slavery. But that was only because you said "not really wrong because of this".
I mean, of course he would agree that your "fact" was wrong, much like slavery. But he brought slavery up for a tangent, not the real meat and bones of your core-argument.

Yet it doesn't make sense in that context either, because he clearly is implying that my statement that "room and board" is a form of compensation equates to my believing that slavery is "right". That's not even tangental...it's an entirely different situation than the one I was stating.

[jonesthecurl]

OK then I'm lost. what are you saying?

[Snorri1234]

So by questioning your universal rule I'm backing up your point?

Not at all, by questioning it...but that's not what you're doing. You're attempting to re-word it. My "universal rule" regarded SPECIFICALLY corporations forcing individuals to work without any compensation. You didn't do anything other than attempt to change it (when I stated that room and board would be considered compensation, which it certainly can be, you started in about slavery being ok). My point is that you certainly were attempting to imply that "slavery is wrong therefore just giving room and board is wrong" to which my response that if you believe that little compensation is wrong, you certainly must agree that LESS THAN THAT is also wrong. Thus, you are in agreement with me.

Uh...I don't think you're reasoning correctly here. Jones questioned your "fact" on a superficial level, you then corrected/explained your fact and he tangented into slavery. But that was only because you said "not really wrong because of this".
I mean, of course he would agree that your "fact" was wrong, much like slavery. But he brought slavery up for a tangent, not the real meat and bones of your core-argument.

Yet it doesn't make sense in that context either, because he clearly is implying that my statement that "room and board" is a form of compensation equates to my believing that slavery is "right". That's not even tangental...it's an entirely different situation than the one I was stating.

No, he's saying that if you claim "room and board" is compensation THEREFORE the situation is completely different and that's totally okay it would logically mean that slavery is also okay.

I think the problem is that you went with "room and board is compensation" instead of the much more easy "private prison is different because the criminals could be argued to have a debt to society". Room and board ARE NOT compensation because they are a required expense in the case of a corporation being able to force people to work. In fact, if money is considered an amount of labor (like it should for economic purposes) then the fact people spend that money on room and board means the argument you're making is silly. If compensation makes it "not wrong" then your whole "fact" falls flat because it doesn't exist. It's a bit libertarian I know, but you simply couldn't force anyone to work for you for no compensation at all. (at least on a grand scale of enough workers and enough time)


Man, I realize that I could actually argue over whether your fact is true but am now spending time explaining why your fact doesn't matter.

[Woodruff]

So by questioning your universal rule I'm backing up your point?

Not at all, by questioning it...but that's not what you're doing. You're attempting to re-word it. My "universal rule" regarded SPECIFICALLY corporations forcing individuals to work without any compensation. You didn't do anything other than attempt to change it (when I stated that room and board would be considered compensation, which it certainly can be, you started in about slavery being ok). My point is that you certainly were attempting to imply that "slavery is wrong therefore just giving room and board is wrong" to which my response that if you believe that little compensation is wrong, you certainly must agree that LESS THAN THAT is also wrong. Thus, you are in agreement with me.

Uh...I don't think you're reasoning correctly here. Jones questioned your "fact" on a superficial level, you then corrected/explained your fact and he tangented into slavery. But that was only because you said "not really wrong because of this".
I mean, of course he would agree that your "fact" was wrong, much like slavery. But he brought slavery up for a tangent, not the real meat and bones of your core-argument.

Yet it doesn't make sense in that context either, because he clearly is implying that my statement that "room and board" is a form of compensation equates to my believing that slavery is "right". That's not even tangental...it's an entirely different situation than the one I was stating.

No, he's saying that if you claim "room and board" is compensation THEREFORE the situation is completely different and that's totally okay it would logically mean that slavery is also okay.

I never said that "room and board" was "okay", so your logically-following is rubbish. What I said is that "room and board" is COMPENSATION (which it obviously is).

[Shed]

You can continue to ignore my asking of a logical proof saying "rape is wrong".

Right above. I only type so fast.

Has any opinion ever been proven to be incorrect? Ever?

Yes, you moron. Does anyone still believe that the Earth is flat? Or that taking a bath makes you get sick? Or that the moon is made of cheese?

I plan on reading all five pages of arguments, but the examples of opinions you gave were based on facts held to be true at the time. Maybe except for the cheese, because what the heck is that all about?

Anyways, the "Earth is flat" thing makes sense to the people of the Middle and Dark Ages as they did not have the scientific knowledge we have now to prove that the Earth is a sphere. The educated Greeks (Aristotle, Plato, Pythagoras) of old did, however, and the Flat Earth Theory was replaced with the idea of a spherical Earth we use today. That information was lost during the Dark Ages (the "Light" of Greco-Roman achievement is lost/withheld after the invasions of the Germanic peoples, and returns as trade with the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire and China flourishes) and the most widespread source of information is the Bible. The Bible says lots of things, one of them being ".... He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in" Isaiah 40:22, the example used on Wikipedia. If God is divine and the Bible has been inspired by Him, then it must supercede all truths.

As overall knowledge increases, our opinions change. It was true at one point, and might still have some truth.

Ah, anyways, time to read the rest of your arguments

[Snorri1234]

Not at all, by questioning it...but that's not what you're doing. You're attempting to re-word it. My "universal rule" regarded SPECIFICALLY corporations forcing individuals to work without any compensation. You didn't do anything other than attempt to change it (when I stated that room and board would be considered compensation, which it certainly can be, you started in about slavery being ok). My point is that you certainly were attempting to imply that "slavery is wrong therefore just giving room and board is wrong" to which my response that if you believe that little compensation is wrong, you certainly must agree that LESS THAN THAT is also wrong. Thus, you are in agreement with me.

Uh...I don't think you're reasoning correctly here. Jones questioned your "fact" on a superficial level, you then corrected/explained your fact and he tangented into slavery. But that was only because you said "not really wrong because of this".
I mean, of course he would agree that your "fact" was wrong, much like slavery. But he brought slavery up for a tangent, not the real meat and bones of your core-argument.

Yet it doesn't make sense in that context either, because he clearly is implying that my statement that "room and board" is a form of compensation equates to my believing that slavery is "right". That's not even tangental...it's an entirely different situation than the one I was stating.

No, he's saying that if you claim "room and board" is compensation THEREFORE the situation is completely different and that's totally okay it would logically mean that slavery is also okay.

I never said that "room and board" was "okay", so your logically-following is rubbish. What I said is that "room and board" is COMPENSATION (which it obviously is).

So....you responded to jones with an remark that had no real relevance?

Anyone would take your remark as saying that compensation makes forcing work right. You didn't respond with "criminals have a debt to society", you responded with "but those prisoners receive compensation". Based on your two statements it's not unreasonable to figure that its specifically lack of compensation that makes forced labour wrong. I realise that that's not actually your belief, but it certainly follows from it looking at your first two statements.


But let's let this boring tangent slide and focus on the first statement.

I disagree entirely. For instance, it is factual that a corporation forcing people to work without any form of pay or other compensation is "wrong".

Why is this factual?

[PLAYER57832]

Woodruff, the problem with your question is that you see cheating as a problem because you, fundamentally believe in "the system". You believe it works, right now. (note-- I basically do, too). People who cheat simply do not believe in that system or don't believe it is truly beneficial.

That's why your argument is circular. You set up a system that asks "why is this wrong?", but you have already decided it is wrong. A nuetral observer trying to find a universal truth (even within very specific situations) could not do that, would not do that.