The morality debate between Diogenes and Meleagar

[Diogenes]

Meleagar....in order for you to establish that a moral code exists that mankind is subject to...rather than brought about through social agreement and common interest you must, of necessity, establish that justice exists.

A moral law that exists as something in and of itself must be enforced...or it can't exist...has no purpose of existing ...as you cannot establish that justice exists you cannot establish that morality exists as anything other than the evolution of social order.

Morality as a social construct does not require the fulfillment of justice, as it was brought into existence through man man is the ultimate enforcer of it.

So...in light of this...

I want to see how you prove the fulfillment of justice...or is this going to be another case of you refusing to prove it...and you expecting us to rely on ' faith ' that you have a clue.

Given our past exchanges I am pretty sure the latter will be the case.

The History of Morality

Part One

Ogg throws a rock at Ugh
Ugh throws a rock back at Ogg
both are bleeding and hurt
Ogg makes a pact with Ugh that they not throw rocks at each other
Ugh agrees it's a good plan
Ogg carves it into a rock
Thou shalt not throw rocks at each other

there ya go Meleagar...Morality 101...and you didn't even have to pay for the class.

No god necessary...just ' common interest '. Ogg and Ugh just decided that throwing rocks at each other wasn't advantageous or in their common interest.

Unless it can be proven to exist otherwise...

morality is nothing more than ' common interest '. An agreement in a society as to what is acceptable behavior and beneficial to their particular group.

That's why we don't eat each other and a tribe in Borneo might. Why we consider cutting off a hand of a thief excessive and a society in the Middle-east may find it perfectly acceptable.

We may force our values on other societies, and we do, to make them conform to our way of thinking...but that does not mean their morality is or was any less valid.

Our morality changes...as society changes...does that mean our morality in the past was immoral...no...it just means we no longer share or hold those values.

Unless someone can show that morality exists otherwise...as a thing in itself...and is enforced accordingly...the ' only ' rational stand one can take is that it does not exist in that form...

morality existing as a human construct based upon ' common interest ' can be proven rather easily...morality as a thing that exists as a law, or as something apart from man, that man has no control over, and is subject to...

well...you'll have as much luck with that as you do proving the existence of god.

Meleagar please respond and refute.

[el ايمان]

I'm assuming this is open to public opinion, since it's not over PM.

It is a rare occurrence, but I believe Diogene's position t be correct, or at least more valid.

[Cruella]

It's perfectly acceptable for someone to start a thread and ask that only one person responds - as it's not clear from the OP as to whether or not it's only for the people named in the title to respond, then this will be treated as a normal "open" thread unless we hear otherwise from Diogenes.

[do not respond]

[Diogenes]

Might as well treat it as ' open ' seeing as I doubt Meleagar will respond to this here any more than he/she did in his/her own thread.

But...I'm hopin'!

[Diogenes]

Me from Meleagar's thread...

And while you're noting that...

note that Meleagar has, on several occasions, avoided answering or replying to my posts, and has refused on every occasion to provide proof of his/her assertions.

Whatsa matter Meleagar, you only like responding to people you think you can outsmart? Not up to the challenge of a real debate?

Why are you avoiding the debate Meleagar...is it because you can't prove any of your assertions? You'd rather re-open an old thread than debate me?

[Cruella]

You can't force someone to only debate on your terms, Dio. Meleagar is under no obligation to post anywhere at all, and can, as can everyone else, freely pick and choose which threads he debates in.

Please don't use this thread as an opportunity to badger someone who may not have read it, thank you. [do not respond]