These people don't exist. They're in your - and Ann Coulter's - head.
Calm down, big guy. You're at a 10 and you need to be at a 2.
Where DO morals come from anyway?
Morality is simply a compass or set of standards; some may call them norms or even foundations ... some limit morals to religious connotation ... but not I ... it depends on your sociology proff. Your question demonstrates the sickness I describe perfectly ... making you little more than relativistic mush ... not even sharing an email address and remaining entirely "anon" fits perfectly too ... empty, vacuous, anonymous air.
Morals are a function of societal beliefs, be they religious or other ... if you don't value your society or culture ... you won't value it's moral standards, norms, whatever.
Societies, cultures, groups, with poorly defined norms (morals), standards, etc., are the easiest to dominate ... because they don't have a compass. This is true be they violent, non-violent, democratic, or not.
By the way, it'd be a wonderful surprise if for once, anon, you demonstrated that you can actually argue a point, give a rational debate, and deal with the actual concepts presented by breaking them down into their attributes then shocking us all with a clear description of how and why they are wrong.
Failing that, you lose.
"Morals are a function of societal beliefs"
You don't believe in moral relativism. You're either making a descriptive statement, or a normative one, when you say morals depend on societal beliefs, while decrying moral relativism.
If it is descriptive, then you're saying that there *is* only one moral law, and therefore there is only one valid set of societal beliefs.
If it is normative, then you're saying that there *should be* only one moral law, and therefore should be only one set of societal beliefs.
Which is it? Are you arguing for an existing objective morality, or are you arguing that we should enforce an objective morality by subjugating other societies?
anon: As a liberal democratic society we "must" believe in certian immutable values or else we cease to exist.
All cultures have norms (moral standards) ... not all are correct relavent in a post modern world. Progressives would water down ours, so that, for instance, the Taliban norm of burning schools or worse, within the framework of Muslim moral structure is just fine ... who are we to judge ... right?
I reject this "relativistic" way of judging ... as I hope you would too. Relativism has value and is necessary to allow for accomodation, to a point. Progressives push the concept to extremes though, that endanger liberal democratic society by making the concepts of right and wrong; evil and just; meaningless ... as I've explained.
I don't know any progressives who match your caricature of them. No one advocates 'burning schools or worse'. No one thinks that the concepts of 'right', 'wrong' or 'evil' have any meaning.
"No one thinks that the concepts of 'right', 'wrong' or 'evil' have any meaning."
Should be
No one thinks that the concepts of 'right', 'wrong' or 'evil' DON'T have any meaning.
But how many and who, believe in the existence of such meaning? And on what would the foundation of such meaning be based? And could 'relativity' be forsworn?
Cheers
Commenting by HaloScan
