Recluse was ripped off.

Some people like to pretend it isn't there

Not that it isn't there, but it's not there for the reasons you're pretending it's for

Well, we can agree to disagree on that then

Well, tangents can be fun and interesting too

Nonsense.

Whether there is a basis to judge actions is irrelevant. Just because people make individual opinions about whether a song is good doesn't mean there is an absolute good/bad style of music.

This reminds me of the meme that a time paradox would destroy the universe in fiction. You're anthropomorphising the universe, which has no sentience to get confused by paradoxes.

I'm pretty sure there is no reference to tartarus in the Bible anywhere, or any reference to an abyss of torment.

Animals other than humans are quite capable of morality and altruism. I'm rather insulted by the blanket dismissal of the many things they do just because they do not have language or the accumulated knowledge it provides.

As my girlfriend likes to say, "No one listens to me. I might as well be a Leonard Cohen album."

Ouch. Yet totally true.

You have a very limited idea of how social animals operate. Elephants make for some of the strongest examples here because they seem to have some of the most developed social traits, but they're not alone in their behaviour. Elephants have been recorded to provide food for animals who couldn't feed themselves. Even if it was from birth defects which would never allow for them to provide for themselves. They've also been recorded to show comfort to dying herd members, staying with the individual until it's passed.

The reason for this is emotional, quite simply. This is probably a step up on the cynicism ladder from denying the existence of absolute morality, but it also makes for even stronger conditioning. If you get a positive internal emotional feedback out of something, you're more likely to do it. The herd member with the birth defect might not be able to feed itself but it can provide gratitude for being fed. Gratitude, expressed in any number of ways, feels good to receive. Therefore it's in the other animals interest to provide triggers for the handicapped animal's gratitude.

And then there's the fact that the animal isn't possibly quite so useless. It might still be able to mind the herd's young while the others rove and forage for food. It might be able to assist in other ways. Just as with humans, specialization is not uncommon with social animals.

None of this is weighed down by any type of moral imperative.

"If you're going through hell, keep going."
Winston Churchill

Whereas others like to pretend it's there but are unable to actually provide proof or supportive argument of their point of view, other than desperately scrambling to try and poke holes in the other side's views. As far as arguing your point goes, this is a loser's gambit because you're not really arguing your point anymore.

"If you're going through hell, keep going."
Winston Churchill

And I'm not seeing any proof to support a lack of absolute morality

Because it's impossible to prove a negative.

I have however provided evidence, even examples, that morality is subjective and therefore relative. Which, I'll note, you've ignore except for where you could actually think of ways to attack the argumentation.

"If you're going through hell, keep going."
Winston Churchill

Agreed.
Or did you mean Eisregen_NA? (Stroke Victim Smiley agrees with me.)

I say that the Tiger Shark that eats it's sibling while still in the womb believes it's position is correct as well. A few of us have sited examples of social behavior in other animals being the equal of human morality. We are only special in that our language skills give us the ability to rationalise our actions. This makes it too easy to talk ourselves up, point fingers at the 'funny' people, and talk our way out of punishment for bad behavior that wouldn't have happened if we were really 'superior'. Humans are not

Langauge isn't the only thing that makes us special

I wonder if those are connected somehow.

Also, I believe more than a few supervillains have opined that such qualities as mercy, love and honor separating us from the animals are in truth just manifestations of mankind's arrogance. Of course, they often get taken down in The Final Battle, either by the hero's courage and determination or by their own errors in judgement(for instance, charging forward to kill the hero only to fall off a cliff to their death when the hero quickly steps to the side). So, who cares what they think?

Of course, in a NON-fantasy setting, there's really not much black-and-white cases of good vs. evil. I'd cite an example of how gray these conflicts can be, but I'd rather not get banned for setting off a political flamewar.

You mean anything besides the fact that we're naked Great Apes? I don't believe in 'souls' or 'eternity'. I'm quite prepared for the sine-wave of life to pass on to another generation of naked apes once my time is through

Even this universe won't last forever. And we're such a tiny part of it. So to say we are 'special' in any way is kind of silly. The jumping-spider that keeps my lamp free of annoying bugs is just as 'special' as you are

Morality is about as relative as "Your money or your life!" is a viable choice. Yes, technically speaking, you can view morality as relative and use that relativity to justify any number of apparently amoral decisions. In fact, people have tried to do just that to me on many occasions, and there is a certain point beyond which I will stop arguing and simply say "No, that is not acceptable in any way, shape or form and I'm not interested in hearing arguments justifying it."

Morality may be relative if viewed against the backdrop of the vacuum of space. But we don't live in perfect isolation, we live in a society. A society with certain morals, be they good or bad. And we, as people, hold our own view of the morally right and morally wrong, which doesn't always mesh well between us. I happen to be one of the most intolerant people when it comes to questions of morality, because I've no respect for views that see my morally wrong as their morally right. I may be a bit more receptive of seeing my morally right as their morally wrong, but I've dealt with "relative" morality long enough to know that by far the most use it sees is as an excuse bad people use to justify being bad.

Relative morality only works in theoretical philosophy. In actual practice, morality is only as relative as it is acceptable in the given situation. And, honestly, I happen to believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, and I've no interest in accepting other people's views above my own for no reason other than because they have the right to hold them. Which, ironically, is pretty much on topic for the thread. I am not interested in entertaining the notion of evil morality justifying the killing and oppression as depicted in the Rogue Isles simply because they may hold a different world view from my own. What I see is deplorable evil, and something I've no intention of accepting any justification for.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

So if your house was on fire, you'd give equal priority to helping the insects along with the humans?

Micro Thong

Not exactly the comfiest of undergarments but it doesn't show any lines...

However her lack of bra is more worrisome. By the time she's forty her breasts will be down around her knees.

Just because he considers the jumping spider in his lamp to be just as "special" as he is, he can still hold a bias towards his own species.

Recluse doesn't need our pity, he needs our milk money.