Was Anne Frank Right? Are People Really Good At Heart?

Cat

Argument Topic: Are people inherently good?

@JulesKorngold
No, people are inherently bad. A man raised without teaching will be naturally evil, our natural instinct is to turn to an animalistic 'fight-to-survive' primitive thinking which seems to be in us already. Certain things can be done to avoid this of course, like raising a child in a sound environment and ingraining in his mind morals that will teach him to do good, but even still, this child will grow up and might still do terrible things. 
If you leave a child by himself without any other human interaction, he will be feral, bite and not choose to do good when met with a disturbance.
A child raised in a normal human home will learn from his parents and surrounding environment and choose to do good, but still the evil is inside them. We are naturally selfish creatures.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

People in general are good. Flawed, but good.

The problem is that they have always been under the leadership of the few bad people.

Bad people are able to rise to the top of society because they have more tools at their disposal than good people. They are unsympathetic, ruthless, self-interested and hungry for power, plus they are usually able to mimic the traits of good people when they need to.

This pattern isn't just indigenous to humans, either. It happens throughout the entire animal kingdom. The most ruthless members of the species rise to the top. It's a well-known biological pattern. 

MayCaesar

Humans are biologically varied to overemphasize negative events, since they have the potential to be lethal or otherwise permanently harmful, while good events can only be, well, so good and their consequences are temporary. Hence there is proclivety we have to focus on the bad things humans do to each other. One act of murdee is much more noticeable than 100 acts of life-changing charity.

Yet objectively humans do far more good things to each other than bad things. Look at your own experience: chances are, for every insult you suffered, you got 100 smiles or compliments. For every time someone screwed you over, 100 people helped you out.

That is the general trend, that is. There are individual humans who thrive in putting others down, and we have a couple of examples here on this website (for certain reasons, anonymous communities tend to attract a disproportional number of them). Yet even those people generally act as decent human beings, they just turn into monsters in particular contexts triggering something in their psychology. The number of genuinely evil people in the world is tiny and they tend to be dealt with swiftly once found out.

Sonofason

Cat said:

@JulesKorngold
No, people are inherently bad. A man raised without teaching will be naturally evil, our natural instinct is to turn to an animalistic 'fight-to-survive' primitive thinking which seems to be in us already. Certain things can be done to avoid this of course, like raising a child in a sound environment and ingraining in his mind morals that will teach him to do good, but even still, this child will grow up and might still do terrible things. 
If you leave a child by himself without any other human interaction, he will be feral, bite and not choose to do good when met with a disturbance.
A child raised in a normal human home will learn from his parents and surrounding environment and choose to do good, but still the evil is inside them. We are naturally selfish creatures.

There is no such thing as being inherently good or inherently bad.  The entire concept is entirely subjective.  

Nomenclature

@Sonofason

There is no such thing as being inherently good or inherently bad.  The entire concept is entirely subjective.

Well, I agree that it's a lot more complex than simply labelling certain people good and others bad, but it isn't "entirely subjective". Certain crimes (for example infanticide) are considered lamentable and horrifying by the overwhelming majority of both historical and modern cultures. If it were "entirely subjective" then it would rule out the existence of human nature (i.e. a pattern of behaviours to which humans are predisposed).

Sonofason

Nomenclature said:

@Sonofason

There is no such thing as being inherently good or inherently bad.  The entire concept is entirely subjective.

Well, I agree that it's a lot more complex than simply labelling certain people good and others bad, but it isn't "entirely subjective". Certain crimes (for example infanticide) are considered lamentable and horrifying by the overwhelming majority of both historical and modern cultures. If it were "entirely subjective" then it would rule out the existence of human nature (i.e. a pattern of behaviours to which humans are predisposed).

Being predisposed to having patterns of behaviors has absolutely nothing at all to do with being good or evil.  Human nature is human nature...It is neither good or bad.  Acting against one's human nature is not bad, and it is not good.  It is simply acting against one's human nature...Unless perhaps we are speaking of good as being that which is beneficial, and we are speaking of evil as being that which is not beneficial.  But it has nothing to do with morality.

Nomenclature

@Sonofason

Being predisposed to having patterns of behaviors has absolutely nothing at all to do with being good or evil

I disagree. If I am predisposed to murdering children, I think pretty much the entire world would agree that's bad. If I am predisposed to running into burning buildings to save children, I think pretty much the entire world would agree that's good. Your premise that good and bad behaviours are "entirely subjective" does not qualify itself against the fact that certain behaviours are accepted almost ubiquitously as being either good or bad.

Human nature is human nature...It is neither good or bad. 

Well, that isn't strictly true, but it's difficult to prove without us agreeing on the difference between good and bad. What that difference really comes down to in the objective world is selflessness versus selfishness. Selfless acts, where people put the needs/desires of others before the needs/desires of themselves are generally considered "good", while selfish acts, where people put their own (usually deviant) needs/desires before (or perhaps rather, at the expense of) the needs/desires of others are those generally considered "bad". With this working definition, it becomes much easier to see a rough framework within which aspects of human nature can be considered either "good" or "bad".

Sonofason

Nomenclature said:

@Sonofason

Being predisposed to having patterns of behaviors has absolutely nothing at all to do with being good or evil

I disagree. If I am predisposed to murdering children, I think pretty much the entire world would agree that's bad. If I am predisposed to running into burning buildings to save children, I think pretty much the entire world would agree that's good. Your premise that good and bad behaviours are "entirely subjective" does not qualify itself against the fact that certain behaviours are accepted almost ubiquitously as being either good or bad.

Human nature is human nature...It is neither good or bad. 

Well, that isn't strictly true, but it's difficult to prove without us agreeing on the difference between good and bad. What that difference really comes down to in the objective world is selflessness versus selfishness. Selfless acts, where people put the needs/desires of others before the needs/desires of themselves are generally considered "good", while selfish acts, where people put their own (usually deviant) needs/desires before (or perhaps rather, at the expense of) the needs/desires of others are those generally considered "bad". With this working definition, it becomes much easier to see a rough framework within which aspects of human nature can be considered either "good" or "bad".

We are not going to agree on the difference between good and bad.  It is not good to run into a burning building to save a child if you die doing it.  That is my personal subjective opinion.  If I need an overly expensive drug to save my wife, and if I could not afford to buy it...it would be good to steal it to save my wife.  The pharmacist might not agree, and nor would I care.

Nomenclature

@Sonofason

We are not going to agree on the difference between good and bad.  It is not good to run into a burning building to save a child if you die doing it.

I think you're confusing two different concepts here. People who die while trying to save children from burning buildings are lauded as heroes. It's precisely the unnecessary risk to one's own life which makes the act so commendable in the first place. 

If I need an overly expensive drug to save my wife, and if I could not afford to buy it...it would be good to steal it to save my wife.

I agree, and especially if stealing is against your usual moral principles. You'd be committing a selfless act, putting yourself at risk of punishment in order to save the life of someone else. I think you'll also find that even the justice system would view the circumstances as mitigating. 

Dee

 

                  Was Anne Frank Right? Are People Really Good At Heart?

It's a very interesting question as can we  really define good in a meaningful way that has universal agreement.?.  To  me  its all  surely  relative  if not I'd  like to see a challenge to that assertion to prove otherwise?

I'm very happy in my  life as many years ago I faced up to  what was then a chilling fact for me , all people are out for themselves and most want something from you or your partner , this might sound very unfair and harsh but put it to the test and you will see for yourselves.

I delight in the company of my wife my books my art and one true friend who I can be brutally honest with and  we expect nothing but our presence from each other especially over the chess board..

To truly  find out  whether people are good at heart I always mention  a prediction made by a women to me many years ago ,she asked me " are your parents alive " I  replied "yes " she said " do you respect and love your brothers and sisters " again  I said "yes " she said " wait till your parents pass away and get back to me " , 

I thought she was talking nonsense but boy was she right when to my horror my family fought tooth and nail over the will , I've heard similar stories time and time again. I often wonder if most families go through the pretence of loving   each other why do most spend so little time together.

If there was a god in heaven and he asked you regards your family "how many would you pick as your preferred  family".  How many would you?

Most people can do good things and can easily justify  doing bad as we talk ourselves into believing we are actually doing good ; we are brilliant at justifying our own petty , mean,   vindictiveness and are outraged mostly if others point it out,

Most people to me are not  to be trusted and most possibly ego driven nuts .but can prove to be  very good  company once in a while , they would most likely say the same about me and I wouldn't expect anymore and  I wouldn't  really care.

Nomenclature

@Dee

I'm very happy in my  life as many years ago I faced up to  what was then a chilling fact for me , all people are out for themselves and most want something from you or your partner , this might sound very unfair and harsh but put it to the test and you will see for yourselves.

I think it's absolutely true Dee, but I don't believe that is how most people would operate if they weren't incentivised to do so. It usually comes down to one of two things. Competition for sex or money. The first is natural, but the second is something we have introduced into the environment ourselves. 

Dee

@Nomenclature

Hi Nom , yes you're spot on the cause of most of these issues  is down to money and the   never ending competition for such , it's a fascinating topic and it's a great pity I don't predict much more input on it from others on this site.

Sonofason

Nomenclature said:

@Sonofason

We are not going to agree on the difference between good and bad.  It is not good to run into a burning building to save a child if you die doing it.

I think you're confusing two different concepts here. People who die while trying to save children from burning buildings are lauded as heroes. It's precisely the unnecessary risk to one's own life which makes the act so commendable in the first place. 

If I need an overly expensive drug to save my wife, and if I could not afford to buy it...it would be good to steal it to save my wife.

I agree, and especially if stealing is against your usual moral principles. You'd be committing a selfless act, putting yourself at risk of punishment in order to save the life of someone else. I think you'll also find that even the justice system would view the circumstances as mitigating. 

Saving a child is not good and it is not bad.  Saving a child is just that...saving a child.
There is nothing good about being a hero.

Nomenclature

@Sonofason

Saving a child is not good and it is not bad.

There's a consensus in all societies that saving a child is good, so this torpedoes your argument that good or bad is "completely subjective". Just accept that you're wrong. If you'd said "largely subjective" I'd have agreed with you, but you didn't. You went for the home run and unfortunately you blew it.

Sonofason

Nomenclature said:

@Sonofason

Saving a child is not good and it is not bad.

There's a consensus in all societies that saving a child is good, so this torpedoes your argument that good or bad is "completely subjective". Just accept that you're wrong. If you'd said "largely subjective" I'd have agreed with you, but you didn't. You went for the home run and unfortunately you blew it.

Sorry, I place no credence on a consensus.  I am right, even if the entire world is wrong.

Nomenclature

@Sonofason

Sorry, I place no credence on a consensus.

That's OK, because I place no credence on the mindless blathering of anybody who claims things are "completely subjective" and then rejects conclusive proof that they are not "completely subjective".

conservativebritish

Argument Topic: people are frankly evil at the core

if we look back into history humans have always been aggressive from the tribal ages to maybe 2000 we have wars because of our aggression if humans were not agressive to the soul humanity would be united and far more technologically advanced 

Sonofason

Nomenclature said:

@Sonofason

Sorry, I place no credence on a consensus.

That's OK, because I place no credence on the mindless blathering of anybody who claims things are "completely subjective" and then rejects conclusive proof that they are not "completely subjective".

That is a completely subjective opinion which by the way is wasted on me.  If you had given conclusive proof, I would have noticed.

Sonofason

A consensus of subjective opinions is not objective evidence of anything other than it being a consensus of subjective opinions. Opinions that good exists is not evidence that good exists.  A vast majority of people believe that God exists.  Yet that doesn't make it so.

Nomenclature

@Sonofason

That is a completely subjective opinion

No it isn't. It is supported by the evidence of your own responses.

Nomenclature

@Sonofason

A consensus of subjective opinions is not objective evidence of anything

Don't make me laugh you halfwit. If the entire world agrees about something then it can't by definition be "completely subjective". Stop contradicting yourself.

John_C_87

Don't make me laugh you halfwit. If the entire world agrees about something then it can't by definition be "completely subjective". Stop contradicting yourself.

Yes, principle of agreement can still be completely subjective even though almost the entire world agrees with each other on the principle. What are you saying here is not whole truth and requires the description of why and how even if you say freedom of speech is a lesser Human Right and not a United State Constitutional Right? It is not whole truth because a Democracy needs to be well regulated and any simple shared principle to vote is not a known form of regulation. It is a method to transfer blame as whole truth to others. All we need look at is America's own history with England's Parliament.  

Good does exist....The question is always when does good become bad?

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

Yes, principle of agreement can still be completely subjective even though almost the entire world agrees with each other on the principle.

Stop writing nonsense, John. Something which is "completely subjective" is something which is particular to each individual opinion. A global consensus of agreement is the exact opposite of that. 

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

Stop writing nonsense, John. Something which is "completely subjective" is something which is particular to each individual opinion. A global consensus of agreement is the exact opposite of that. 

Groups of people can act off shared personal feels with individual reason, your education proves that as writing becomes nonsense by conditioning, economic embargoes might be the best connection to established justice on this matter. It has also become an issue of political elitism as Executive Orders asking for perjury over right and is now used in attempt to guide the people from a Constitutional right to common defense used by orders of economic governing in socialism. The legal refusal to do business with someone who is not cleared of a possible crime as this type of crime has not been before the Courts for many possible reasons outside of corruption. 

"Stop writing nonsense, John. Something which is "completely subjective" is ONLY something which is CLAIMED particular to each individual opinion. A global consensus of agreement is the POSSIBLE exact opposite of that." 

No solicitor Nomenclature for the subject matter may be a lie. What you are saying and admitinmg in advance you do not understand ( witting nonsense)  as a basic reason to allow perjury forward, and is why it will be going to take place in the first place. 

Sonofason

Nomenclature said:

@Sonofason

A consensus of subjective opinions is not objective evidence of anything

Don't make me laugh you halfwit. If the entire world agrees about something then it can't by definition be "completely subjective". Stop contradicting yourself.

An objective truth is not true because everyone believes and agrees that it is true.  An objective truth is true because it can be shown and proven to be true.  Subjective opinions are not true unless they can be shown to be objectively true.  Something that is morally bad is something that causes harm, or tends to injure.  If a man dies saving a child,  he has caused severe injury and harm to himself.  That is by definition "morally bad".  It is in fact evil.  Perhaps, your opinion is that saving the child was good.  It is possible, however, that the child was destined to live a life of misery...perhaps the child has some horrible disease or disability that would have led to the child having a life of misery and suffering.  The man has now saved the child's life and has caused the child to suffer a life of misery.  And you say that is good?  Your opinion is worthless in the realm of truth...If you don't mind, I'll stick with truth.

Nomenclature

@Sonofason

An objective truth is not true because everyone believes and agrees that it is true. 

We're not talking about objective truth. We're talking about your claim that good and bad are "completely subjective", and the evidence which conclusively disproves that claim. Why don't you stop typing nonsense for five minutes and try to follow your own argument?

If there's a near total global consensus that murdering infants is bad, then that's an objective agreement among the species that murdering infants is bad. There's nothing complicated to understand about that. The only barrier to your acceptance of this fact is your own arrogance, since you're unwilling to admit you were wrong, even though it's painfully obvious that you are.

Sonofason

Nomenclature said:

@Sonofason

An objective truth is not true because everyone believes and agrees that it is true. 

We're not talking about objective truth. We're talking about your claim that good and bad are "completely subjective", and the evidence which conclusively disproves that claim. Why don't you stop typing nonsense for five minutes and try to follow your own argument?

If there's a near total global consensus that murdering infants is bad, then that's an objective agreement among the species that murdering infants is bad. There's nothing complicated to understand about that. The only barrier to your acceptance of this fact is your own arrogance, since you're unwilling to admit you were wrong, even though it's painfully obvious that you are.

The fact that it is an objective truth that there is nearly a complete global consensus that murdering infants is bad and that there is an apparent agreement among the species that murdering infants is bad, does not negate the fact that the agreement, and the opinions of the people included in that consensus that murdering infants is bad is based on purely subjective opinions and reasoning.

Nomenclature

@Sonofason

The fact that it is an objective truth that there is nearly a complete global consensus that murdering infants is bad and that there is an apparent agreement among the species that murdering infants is bad, does not negate the fact that the agreement, and the opinions of the people included in that consensus that murdering infants is bad is based on purely subjective opinions and reasoning.

Unsurprisingly, you continue to spectacularly miss the point. If everybody agrees about something, it can't therefore be "completely subjective". Even if everybody is objectively wrong, the fact that they all have exactly the same opinion demonstrates that it isn't "completely subjective". 

Whether you prefer brown sauce or red sauce is completely subjective. Whether you believe in God or not is completely subjective. Whether killing kids is bad is not completely subjective, because everybody -- or almost everybody -- agrees about it.

Sonofason

Nomenclature said:

@Sonofason

The fact that it is an objective truth that there is nearly a complete global consensus that murdering infants is bad and that there is an apparent agreement among the species that murdering infants is bad, does not negate the fact that the agreement, and the opinions of the people included in that consensus that murdering infants is bad is based on purely subjective opinions and reasoning.

Unsurprisingly, you continue to spectacularly miss the point. If everybody agrees about something, it can't therefore be "completely subjective". Even if everybody is objectively wrong, the fact that they all have exactly the same opinion demonstrates that it isn't "completely subjective". 

Whether you prefer brown sauce or red sauce is completely subjective. Whether you believe in God or not is completely subjective. Whether killing kids is bad is not completely subjective, because everybody -- or almost everybody -- agrees about it.

NONSENSE ! ! !

Nomenclature

@Sonofason

NONSENSE 

The only person writing nonsense is you. You are making claims which are untrue and refusing to acknowledge detailed explanations about why they are untrue. If the exact same belief persists across all individuals, all cultures and all histories it is utter nonsense to lazily wave it away as "completely subjective". Obviously, there is likely some sort of biological explanation for it, otherwise we would expect to see a diversity of opinion across cultures.

jack

Argument Topic: Was Anne Frank Right? Are People Really Good At Heart?

@JulesKorngold

Hello J:

People are BORN good, and learn to be bad.

excon

Sonofason

Nomenclature said:

@Sonofason

NONSENSE 

The only person writing nonsense is you. You are making claims which are untrue and refusing to acknowledge detailed explanations about why they are untrue. If the exact same belief persists across all individuals, all cultures and all histories it is utter nonsense to lazily wave it away as "completely subjective". Obviously, there is likely some sort of biological explanation for it, otherwise we would expect to see a diversity of opinion across cultures.

I suggest you buy yourself a dictionary, and learn the meanings of words...before attempting to use them in a sentence.

Nomenclature

@Sonofason

I suggest you buy yourself a dictionary, and learn the meanings of words

Meaning of words you hilariously ironic dolt. 

Stop wasting my time with your childish remarks. 

Sonofason

Nomenclature said:

@Sonofason

I suggest you buy yourself a dictionary, and learn the meanings of words

Meaning of words you hilariously ironic dolt. 

Stop wasting my time with your childish remarks. 

You saying that I make childish remarks is quite laughable considering your remarks to me...and I quote..."Don't make me laugh you halfwit."
Indeed the only halfwit around here is you...the only child here is you.  Grow up and learn something.
Not to mention this most recent comment to me where you called me an ironic dolt.
Good thing we're not standing face to face, right?

Nomenclature

@Sonofason

You saying that I make childish remarks is quite laughable considering

I'm quite sure it is, considering you're a delusional narcissist.

"Don't make me laugh you halfwit."

Are you denying that you are a halfwit? I'd consider it unwise, since this very thread is saturated in evidence.

Sonofason

Nomenclature said:

@Sonofason

You saying that I make childish remarks is quite laughable considering

I'm quite sure it is, considering you're a delusional narcissist.

"Don't make me laugh you halfwit."

Are you denying that you are a halfwit? I'd consider it unwise, since this very thread is saturated in evidence.

Yes, I may be a narcissist, and am quite sure I am always right.  I am content being a halfwit that knows the truth, and I am content that you are incapable of comprehending the truth.  So goes it...the story of my life.

Nomenclature

@Sonofason

Yes, I may be a narcissist, and am quite sure I am always right.  I am content being a halfwit that knows the truth, and I am content that you are incapable of comprehending the truth.  So goes it...the story of my life.

Look, you can keep sticking your fingers in your ears if you so choose, but there are clearly some aspects of morality which are not "completely subjective", and which have a basis in biology. For example, defending one's young. There is no benefit to the self in doing this, but the behaviour is shared across the species and across many other species. 

Sonofason

Nomenclature said:

@Sonofason

Yes, I may be a narcissist, and am quite sure I am always right.  I am content being a halfwit that knows the truth, and I am content that you are incapable of comprehending the truth.  So goes it...the story of my life.

Look, you can keep sticking your fingers in your ears if you so choose, but there are clearly some aspects of morality which are not "completely subjective", and which have a basis in biology. For example, defending one's young. There is no benefit to the self in doing this, but the behaviour is shared across the species and across many other species. 

No doubt...but making a claim that it is morally good to defend one's young is a subjective opinion.

Nomenclature

@Sonofason

making a claim that it is morally good to defend one's young is a subjective opinion.

No it isn't. You're writing nonsense. In no place on Earth would it be considered morally good to murder one's young and morally bad to defend one's young, disproving your claim that these terms are "completely subjective." Nobody could possibly interpret rushing into a burning building to save a trapped puppy as an act of evil. 

Sonofason

Nomenclature said:

@Sonofason

making a claim that it is morally good to defend one's young is a subjective opinion.

No it isn't. You're writing nonsense. In no place on Earth would it be considered morally good to murder one's young and morally bad to defend one's young, disproving your claim that these terms are "completely subjective." Nobody could possibly interpret rushing into a burning building to save a trapped puppy as an act of evil. 

Your OPINION is duly noted.  I'll leave it to others on this thread to explain the difference between subjective and objective opinions.
In considering whether an act is morally good, which by the way is completely subjective, one must first understand the motive why the act was performed.  Without that, you can't even have a reasonable subjective opinion as to whether or not it was a morally good act.  Even if the outcome seems subjectively good to most people, it may very well be that the motive for saving the puppy could be subjectively considered  an evil act.

Nomenclature

@Sonofason

Your OPINION is duly noted.

It isn't an opinion. It's a documented historical fact. In no culture on Earth, past or present, has murdering your own offspring ever been considered a morally good act. In no culture on Earth, past or present, has protecting your own offspring from murder ever been considered a morally evil act. Your claim that these things are "completely subjective" is therefore not true.

Sonofason

Nomenclature said:

@Sonofason

Your OPINION is duly noted.

It isn't an opinion. It's a documented historical fact. In no culture on Earth, past or present, has murdering your own offspring ever been considered a morally good act. In no culture on Earth, past or present, has protecting your own offspring from murder ever been considered a morally evil act. Your claim that these things are "completely subjective" is therefore not true.

Actually, that is not true.  
(Jakarta) – Coordinated suicide bombings of three Christian churches and the police headquarters in Surabaya, Indonesia’s second largest city, on May 13-14, 2018, were repugnant acts of violence, Human Rights Watch said today. The attackers intentionally used their own children, who were between the ages of 9 and 18, to either carry and detonate explosives or to accompany their parents carrying out the attacks. 
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/05/16/indonesia-isis-suicide-bombers-use-children-4-attacks

Suicide bombing used to be a disturbing phenomenon. It has become so common that now it is the phenomenon of women and children as the human bombs that causes remark. Employing these protected persons as agents of terrorism once would have been unthinkable, as well as unbelievable. Today, from North Africa to Central Asia, it has become commonplace.
https://www.chausa.org/docs/default-source/health-progress/why-terrorists-use-female-and-child-suicide-bombers.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Yeah...they protect their children from murder, so that they can be used as sacrifices for a greater cause.

Women murder their unborn children everyday.  If it were legal to kill them after they are born, they'd do it in a heart beat.

Nomenclature

@Sonofason

Actually, that is not true.

Yes, it is. It's completely true.

Coordinated suicide bombings of three Christian churches and the police headquarters in Surabaya, Indonesia’s second largest city, on May 13-14, 2018, were repugnant acts of violence, Human Rights Watch said today. The attackers intentionally used their own children, who were between the ages of 9 and 18, to either carry and detonate explosives or to accompany their parents carrying out the attacks. 

And which culture exactly are you dense enough to believe views child murder as a morally good act? Because I guarantee you that Indonesia is absolutely appalled by it.

These bombers were fanatics who had already decided to kill themselves and opted to take their children with them for their own selfish reasons. Not even ISIS wants parents to kill their own kids. That would mean its religious state would be depopulated within a single generation. 

A couple of other things you don't seem to have comprehended very well are:-

I said murder. Not murder suicide.

I said no culture in the world views a parent protecting their own children from murder as a morally evil act. I see you've just avoided that last one completely.

The fact of the matter is that you're objectively wrong and you're too arrogant and dense to admit it.

Anthropologists at the University of Oxford have discovered what they believe to be seven universal moral rules.

The research found, first, that these seven cooperative behaviours were always considered morally good. Crucially, there were no counter-examples – no societies in which any of these behaviours were considered morally bad.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-02-11-seven-moral-rules-found-all-around-world

You're wrong. Deal with it.

Sonofason

Nomenclature said:

@Sonofason

Actually, that is not true.

Yes, it is. It's completely true.

Coordinated suicide bombings of three Christian churches and the police headquarters in Surabaya, Indonesia’s second largest city, on May 13-14, 2018, were repugnant acts of violence, Human Rights Watch said today. The attackers intentionally used their own children, who were between the ages of 9 and 18, to either carry and detonate explosives or to accompany their parents carrying out the attacks. 

And which culture exactly are you dense enough to believe views child murder as a morally good act? Because I guarantee you that Indonesia is absolutely appalled by it.

These bombers were fanatics who had already decided to kill themselves and opted to take their children with them for their own selfish reasons. Not even ISIS wants parents to kill their own kids. That would mean its religious state would be depopulated within a single generation. 

A couple of other things you don't seem to have comprehended very well are:-

I said murder. Not murder suicide.

I said no culture in the world views a parent protecting their own children from murder as a morally evil act. I see you've just avoided that last one completely.

The fact of the matter is that you're objectively wrong and you're too arrogant and dense to admit it.

Anthropologists at the University of Oxford have discovered what they believe to be seven universal moral rules.

The research found, first, that these seven cooperative behaviours were always considered morally good. Crucially, there were no counter-examples – no societies in which any of these behaviours were considered morally bad.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-02-11-seven-moral-rules-found-all-around-world

You're wrong. Deal with it.

Forcing your children to wear suicide vests in order to kill themselves along with others is murder.  Parents murder their own children.  And they believe it's good.

Nomenclature

@Sonofason

Forcing you children to wear suicide vests to kill themselves along with others is murder.

It's murder suicide, like I've just explained. You have provided no evidence that any culture considers it morally good for parents to murder their own children. You won't accept airtight reasoning as proof that you are wrong, you won't accept peer-reviewed scientific research as proof that you are wrong, so I see little point in continuing in a circle where I prove you wrong and you refuse to accept it. Have a nice night.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: It's An Ongoing Debate

The question of whether morality is subjective or objective is a continuing topic of debate in philosophy.

On one hand, proponents of moral subjectivity argue that morality is subjective and varies from person to person and culture to culture. They argue that what is considered morally right or wrong depends on an individual’s personal beliefs, feelings, and experiences, and that there are no objective moral truths.

On the other hand, proponents of moral objectivity argue that morality is objective and grounded in universal principles that apply to all people and cultures. They argue that there are objective moral truths that can be discovered through reason and that these truths exist independently of individual beliefs, feelings, and experiences.

Ultimately, the answer to this question depends on one’s philosophical perspective and worldview. While some people may believe that morality is subjective, others may argue that it is objective. It’s important to note that this is a complex and nuanced topic, and there is no clear consensus among philosophers on the nature of morality.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

The question of whether morality is subjective or objective is a continuing topic of debate in philosophy.

I don't think it's a strict dichotomy. Morality has both subjective and objective aspects. It is largely subjective, but there are nevertheless certain larger questions about which there tends to be universal or near-universal agreement. In my opinion, these are probably rooted in biology.