Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
lots of societies have understood right and wrong differently than you might will. maybe that is because the idea that there is anything like an absolute on this is a particular philosophical perversion.
|
Are you mad at me? I'm not looking for absolutes in anything (because it's even arguable that absolutes exist). I'm trying to figure out if moral and religious commonalities are coincedental. I am opening a topic up for debate, I'm not trying to force my supposed beliefs of a singluar morality on anyone. I don't really apreciate the word "perversion" being applied to thoughts that I'm trying to get input on. I'm not here to argue. I'm here to learn. Are you willing to teach?
As much as I'd like to think myself a great philosopher, I am really only a novice. My interest in philosophy is relatively new, steming from a past interest in religion. I just got a book on Nietzche the other day, and I have yet to crack it open. (Embarassed to say this..) I have no idea what Nietzche taught. I'm still just a 21 year old kid trying to figure out as much as he can. Your post is facinating, if a bit confusing. So morality and rationality are not universally linked. That makes sense. Ratioonality is based on logic (I think), and morality is based in right and wrong that may not always follow logic. I was not suggesting above that social conduct is totally morality, but it has many roots in morality, as I understand it. Why do men hold doors and pull out chairs for women? Because it is morally correct to automatically show respect for women in some moral codes. That is how I rationalize my argument. Why do some people oppose the death penalty? Is that even a social issue?
Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. We're in agreement that "social norm" means a pattern of behavior expected within a particular society in a given situation, yes?