SIX BLUE IGUANAS MURDERED IN BOTANIC PARK

[Death Pony]

One of my friends told me an interesting idea a few months ago. Went a little something like this;

In order for there to e a right, there has to be a wrong. The two must exist in equalibrium in order for moral standards to exist. If everyone one is right and no one is wrong then we have lost what it means to be human. However, not everyone has the same ideas on what is right, therefor that situation will never happen and right and wrong will always be.

 

[---XR---]

One of my friends told me an interesting idea a few months ago. Went a little something like this;

In order for there to e a right, there has to be a wrong. The two must exist in equalibrium in order for moral standards to exist. If everyone one is right and no one is wrong then we have lost what it means to be human. However, not everyone has the same ideas on what is right, therefor that situation will never happen and right and wrong will always be.

BINGO!

 

[NilePufferFanatic]

I have a question. If I walked across a very busy freeway, but I didn't believe in trucks, could a semi-truck still hit me?

Hey ---XR---, Death Pony and Xander13, don't make statements about groups you don't belong to based on your prejudices. What's right and Truth are absolutes; it's our perceptions that make them relative. Thus people who have more knowledge on a topic have more valid opinions (like an ichthyologist giving an opinion about fish). DeLgAdO appears to have good grasp on the reality of “Right”.

The Iguanas were probably killed by environmentalists that think they are doing good.

 

[xander]

this thread is making less and less sense

 

[hamato_yoshii]

One of my friends told me an interesting idea a few months ago. Went a little something like this;

In order for there to e a right, there has to be a wrong. The two must exist in equalibrium in order for moral standards to exist. If everyone one is right and no one is wrong then we have lost what it means to be human. However, not everyone has the same ideas on what is right, therefor that situation will never happen and right and wrong will always be.

Which is why there has to be a reference for the laws of morality. In this specific case, with the iguana's, we can all agree that the act was wrong and worthy of punishment. The interesting part is in the punishment itself. While some on here (I guess jokingly) thought violence or bodily harm would be ok for punishment, others (Del) didn't. His point was that unless you have one reference for what is "right and wrong" than you are not in a position to pass the judgement. I think that this is the logical approach. Because if you could imagine if I came on here and said something like "well, I think that the punishment for the iguana killing crime should be that we should murder the offender, and his family, and pets if applicable to make up for lost damages" others on here would think I was crazy, and that the punishment would be too harsh. But the question would be, why? What makes it too harsh? If I don't believe that it's harsh, does that make it ok then? So, we have a degree of punishments here: Jail-time, beatings, and murder (to the excess) and we have people who (hypothetically) agree with at least one of the punishments. So, who is right? While my entry may seem extreme, I may think yours is extreme in the other direction. And on this level, these discussions don't really have any real effect on the matter, because who would really care if I did think we should murder his family, or give him a good beating, but what if I am really a circuit court judge? Then does my opinion matter? Wouldn't his family then be begging for some sort of "moral code" they could appeal to?

 

[Gr8KarmaSF]

Its wrong to continue religious debates after being asked nicely to stop.

FYI - This thread was reported by several members.