Morality

I am not 100% sure you know what extremism means, because it does not mean or is not equal to religious suicide bombings only. Extremism means that you have a belief or point of view that is far more extreme than (most of the time) the people who you agree with.

In politics people who hold or have an ideology that is really far right or really far left could be called extremest. They agree (to a degree) with the leftist and the rights, but their views go even further than that.

In a movement that fights for womens rights there could be an extremest who thinks women absolutely should have more rights than men do, or that men have no say what so ever in reproductive rights or in planned parenthood.

In those two examples, being an extremest doesn't say whether they have mental illness or not, it doesn't say whether they have trauma or not, it doesn't say whether they fear of humiliation or not, but they could still be labeled as extremist.

Being an extremist doesn't mean anything else other than having a more 'extreme' point of view or ideology that usually differs from the majority opinion.

Yes, an extreme ideology can be the by product of mental illness, trauma and other factors, but all i am arguing that it isn't all of the time or even most of the time.




I am not sure what you want me to ask them.




You entirely missed my point or ignored it.

Yes, in our eyes they are terrorists!
In other peoples eyes they are heroes!

This is the whole point why morality is subjective and not objective.




And i have never said all muslims think or agree with the terrorists.




Quran Verse 9:111
"Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph."

Quran Verse 9:5
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Quran Verse 9:29:
"Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low."

Quran Verse 5:33:
"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;"

And believe me when i say i could go on.
To say that islam has EVER been a religion of peace is just outright ridicules.
Everything good coming out of that religion is because of secular morality, not islamic morality.

I tought you were talking about about religious extremists who have no regrets in killing other people.



I am not talking about extreme ideologies, but extremist people.
The most simple things that we see daily like some girl asking for attention on facebook is the product of some kind of problem, big or small. Being an extremist is not an exception.
Or at least that's the conclusion I got by reading and talking to psychologists acquaintances. As I said, you can also look for it on google. If that's not the case then give me proof.



Well you can ignore that if you want, you said (or implied) that killing someone can be justifiable in some cases, and I just wanted to say that killing someone has repercutions on you on the ling term, but I think that it didn't have place in this discussion.



Their war is not about good or right. So morality isn't a factor when it comes to this. They are fighting for power, that's why I said they are terrorists.
Besides I was talking about killing someone. It's not a matter of "for some people it's right, for other it's not", because there are things that are objectively bad or good, like killing people. A life is a valuable thing for at least all religions. Islam included. If you have no regrets in killing someone (as is the case with said terrorsts) then there is something wrong with your head.



See, have you ever gone to Granada (Spain)? You can see a lot of Arab buildings where Arabs would go to reunite and adore their god and just some streets far from those place are a lot of Christian churchs that date from the same time. (Around 1300-1400) Which means that by then at least arabs and christians lived in peace without killing each others.
You seem well versed in Quran (unless you just searched for it on google), but why didn't you mention that it mostly applies when Islam is attacked? That's just how an ideology/religion works. Even the Christian Bible tells about how God helped his chosen people in battles.
There also verses from the Quran that encourage them to always search for more knowledge, to always put effort on education. It wasn't just a matter of secular morality.

Entirely subjective depending on a lot of varying factors. In a short version, what is entirely immoral for one individual can be more acceptable to another individual.

Each person has to consciously decide where they stand on the morality of a subject. Certainly being predisposed to certain factors and circumstances can impact a person towards one direction or another, nevertheless that person still has the free will to discern that which they might be predisposed to choosing, might instead see it as immoral and undesirable.

TL;DR : Yes it's subjective.

Cononutt’s point still stands even with your reply.

An extremist is a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action. This can also hold true for a group as well. Extremism doesn't just relate to religious groups and basically their views can be radical for whatever reason. Raping and sharing a bunch of women, beating people they don’t like, murder, feel like they are fighting for the good of their nation, fight for personal independence are all different things such groups can do if they feel they can do it.



So your now using a bitchy girl posting on Facebook as your counter argument….. this doesn't really equate to what the discussions about because usually people who are nasty over the internet just like to dick/troll around. Also keep in mind an extreme person =/= an extremist because the morals are lacking. Another way you can look at it is if a person says something nasty to you, will they back up their threats? Extreme people may do stupid and crazy things, but they lack the conviction to go through with it rationally and their morals don’t have to be extreme.

I would suggest taking a psychology class, because comparing Facebook to extremists is a bit of a stretch that isn't very factual. If anything it was quite the contrary for the main reason I just stated.




Actually one of the main goals of terrorists is to cause chaos and to intimidate others/cause harm to other humans. The goal behind it can be for many reasons, but power is not the main one. What coconut says is not false; not everyone will agree with terrorists, but there are people who would side with them and their cause. Morally people side with who they want to side with because personally everyone has the ability to choose for themselves.

You morally feel that terrorists are bad and that is a majority decision that is felt with most people. Those who practice terrorism or even extreme ideals will feel that the morals behind their causes are right even if proven otherwise.

Btw you know that even in religious groups that the death of another person can happen too? There are many stories about religious figures and groups having scandals, illegal financial transactions, and even murder? I remember some guy who ran a church back home pretty much slept with the whole convent. I think he was killed because he was laundering money or he tried to skip town on some shady people or something. Anyways the point of this is to say, even in religious settings things can happen. People can say they value a life, even preach it, but that doesn't mean that they morally uphold so or will do it in the face of corruption. The seven deadly sins are a powerful thing that can corrupt even the most holy of sanctions.

NOTE: I'd suggest reading/watching the story of Jim Jones. He was a religious leader who started with good morals and ideals, but those slowly got corrupted over time. In the end he killed his own followers via the iconic death "Kool-Aid and cyanide poisoning" which lead to the death of over 900 people and 300 children. Even though he was religious and morally lead is convent with good intentions, those morals became corrupt and lead to him convincing others to take their lives for his cause. Worst part was he did realize he was morally wrong even till the end and took a cowards death via gunshot to the head. Adds to the notion that morals are subjective because if a person can be swayed to change their views then their morals can change along suit.


It sounds like you’re mixing up personal feelings with the concept of factual notions. Just because you yourself see extremists and terrorists in a certain fashion, does not mean that your arguments will hold up in a debate. People may personally agree with your views, but factually you are letting your personal feelings on such subjects get in the way of you seeing the bigger picture.

I can personally think that terrorists are bad and that extremists can be annoying, but I write my stances similar to coconutt’s because your personal vendetta’s do not prove for fact.

Not sure if you would understand this bit, but take a debate class or watch some politics on the news and you’ll see how people can easily make such points defensible.

Misaki_Chi wrote some good points so i try not to repeat them.




At first i was, but then you said that there is a connection between extremism and having a trauma or weak mind or fear of humiliations and i commented on that.




I can't prove that every single extremist doesn't have a psychological problem no more than you can prove that they do have one. If you actually knew what the word means (even though i tried to explain it to you), i think you would understand what i am talking about.

The point is you don't have to have mental problems in order to do extreme things, because if a human believes without a shadow of a doubt that what he does is legal, moral, acceptable, right and justified, in spite of opinions and evidence proving you wrong, a human can do anything.




I didn't ignore anything, i just didn't understand your point.

And of coarse killing another human being has repercussions, but if you are not willing to live with those repercussions the alternative to that is that you can, might or will die (in the examples of self defense and defending yourself against an attacking nation).




What the hell are you talking about, of coarse the war with ISIS is about good and right. They (ISIS) believe that what they are doing is moral right given to them by god. That is the whole point as to how they justify the war to themselves. They think it is moral for them to invade other nations, acquire more power and land and resources to themselves from others.

And again you saying they are terrorist carries as much weight as another person saying they are heroes.




And i already established that there is nothing wrong in killing somebody for self-defense. Not legally and not morally. And this fact shows how there is no absolute moral when it comes to killing another human being. Killing another human being is not objectively bad.

If you don't understand that, i go as far as to say there is something wrong in your head.




That is a very cute single instance of religious people behaving non-religiously. And i seriously doubt the history in that time and that place went as 'smoothly' as you describe it went.

And again you are either missing the point or ignoring the point, which is that when ever religious people behave nicely, it is because they are not following their religious books like the bible and quran. It means they are following their secular morality.




I didn't mentioned it because it doesn't mention that. Those rules apply all the time and always according to muslims. So to imply "that is how an ideology/religion works" is just false.




And what is your point? That it was moral for the religious people to massacre the men, women and children of the other tribes and nations because god helped them?




How adorable that the books with the worst moral guidance also have few 'nice' advices, so that we can occasionally act nicely in between the verses where god commands us to stone homosexuals to death and also behead the people who decide to leave the faith.

Yes, and I already apologized for doing so. But still , my point about religious extremists who go around killing other people is the same.





Again as above.
And I said the facebook girl as an example just to show how every act can be explained psychologically. And going by that any act of extremism can be explained too.



As I said, just ignore it if you just feel it adds nothing to this. I agree with it.



That's just an excuse, many other Islamic groups have manifested their opposition to them.
I agree you are right, in their views they are doing what's morally correct, but then again even then killing without hesitation is not something a sane person would do.



I understand that, but the fact that killing someone is not objectively bad still makes me think. Somehow it makes it seem that killing is sometimes good, even if it was self-defense. Or perhaps I might be seeing it the wrong way.
But oh well.



That's part of history of Spain. Feel free to look for it and prove me wrong.



I seriously doubt secular morality was even something at that age given that the regions and people by that time were heavily influenced by religion.



You mean fundamentalists ones, those who always try . If that were the case then as I said every muslim now and before would be on a killing spree disregarding secular morality. That's why the Quran clearly says that in times of peace noone should do bad things. Only when others threaten them, then their actions become "justifiable". Not that I'm in favor of that or something.



See above.



I also think that said actions are debatable. But ignoring the good teachings the Quran has because of the other bad parts is just being unbiased.



I admit that, personally, I think that these "whatever reasons" have a psychological background.
I repeat myself, maybe I went too far as saying that they had mental illness and the like.



It's not a counter argument, I'm just giving an example that even the most simple thing has a psychological background. Even troll attitudes can sometimes be explained (but I wasn't talking about them).
As I said, if that's not the case, feel free to give me proof.






I'm fully aware that these things happen, but what I'm just trying to say is that it has a psychological background. Again, if that's not the case then I will gladly change my point of view.
What I was talking about in the first was how religious extremists don't count when it comes to saying how morality is subjective when they are acting like life is something with no value. (as is the case of psychopaths). But I think it got out of my hands, as I said, I was too hard for saying that they were mentally ill.



If this was a full debate on how extremists are mentally ill or not, then I'd agree and, as I said before, I made the wrong of choice of words and it eventually got out of my hands. I apologize for that. But some points I made still stand.

There are objective moral truths, but there is also a large grey area.

Your facebook girl example doesn't show or prove that some kind of problem even exist in that girl. And we have explained to you how being an extremist does not necessarily mean that you have some kind of problem.

Sure, human behavior can be explained psychologically, like if you are shy or you seek attention or you are extremist. But that doesn't mean you have any type of problem.




No, that's not an excuse, that is their subjective opinion about morality. And no, not every single religious extremist has problems of any type. They have simply come to a vastly different conclusion about reality than you have.




Again you are making an statement without considering context. Soldiers in war, for example, do just that, kill without hesitation and they are totally sane. Killing another person without hesitation, in self-defense for example, can be entirely done by instinct and again done by totally sane people.

There is nothing 'insane' about killing another human being without hesitation (depending on the context of coarse).




Just because i say killing another human being is not objectively bad doesn't mean that i support killing, with the exception of rarest occasions. Obviously human race would be better off if not a single human was killed by another human for any reason.

But, because i live in reality, i understand the fact that, if it is a matter of life and death, subjectively it is good to kill depending on the situation, it is better to kill than be killed. Of coarse it isn't good for the other party, but that is why it is subjective.




I am not gonna look it up, for one: you haven't proved yourself right, and for two: this 'debate' is about morality and not about history.




Religious people claim that we get our morality from religion, therefor when ever you go against the morality of the religion or behave differently than what is preached in the holy books, that is secular morality.

Obviously i am not claiming everything bad in the world is because of religions and everything good is because of secularism.




Obviously all the religions of the world have evolved for the better, but that evolution is caused by outside influence and that is secularism. Religious morality has not been improved by religious morality, it has been improved by secular morality.

You have been constantly asking me to prove you wrong, but at least once i would like you to prove yourself right about anything, just for once. Where in the Quran it says 'clearly' that in times of peace none should do bad things?




I don't see anything. Nothing you have said explains this. I don't understand your point about god helping his chosen people in battles.




I don't understand what you mean by that. How is ignoring the good teachings because of the bad teachings being unbiased?

And i am not ignoring the good teachings, i am ignoring the whole book. I am criticizing the people who think quran is a moral book and who think it is a good guide to live by. I am criticizing the people who try to tell other people how to live their lives based on a immoral and incoherent book that is full of contradictions.




Such as?

A lot of winded text below so read at your leisure since I'll probably end here with this. In the future be careful about the extent to which you apply psychology to life. It's a great way to understand other's way of thinking, but it shouldn't be used as the sole theory to explain all of life. Life in essence is a mystery full of complexities and anomalies that cannot be fully grasped by one theory alone. You can also be more or less judgmental when you aren't properly trained in the field and you're just getting your information from others or whatever you come across on the internet. Sure it makes you look smart and educated, but at the end of the day it doesn't mean your right or that you have true knowledge over a subject.

Sorry, just adding postcount

Hey, sorry for the very late post, but at that time I was making a long ass reply but for some reason it didn't show up back then so I just said fuck it.
Anyway, I was re-reading the conversation and I admit I was wrong in some cases, and maybe continuing it would lead to nowhere.
So, sorry for bothering you there. And meh.

Do you know what time it is? Its time for....*drumroll*

Why is this in random?

You can teach an old dog new tricks, but you can't teach Madonna to act.

It's subjective.

i read everything, why did i read everything. my mind is going to explode

Read the playwrite by Albert Camus called "The "Just" Assassins".

He's an absurdest with a dark sense of humor and the whole thing is around the fact that morality is so subjective.

Moral is subjective.

The thing is, when someone does something even when he/she thinks what's doing is wrong/evil/bad, that's called a bad person. The other thing is, it's hard that everyone shares the same moral code, laws are an attempt to do so, but people rarely respects them when they collide with their personal beliefs. When that happens, arguments arise, fights begins and wars engulfs us.

It's OK to try to force your moral way to see the world on others? Most likely yes, even if can cause conflicts. The problem is that us, humans, we're highly imperfect, so we tend to be hypocrite, lie and other things about it (so getting extremist about it is most likely evil as it'll collide your own base belief, silly imperfect creatures we are). It may be a good idea if you think what is the objective of morality in the first place and see if your specific code archives that, but people rarely thinks too much about it.

As for me, I think morality is for archiving the best balance possible between happiness (of everything alive), sustainability and fairness in each individual scenario and in the long run. So I judge if something is incorrect or correct thinking how much the action/way did get away or did get nearest from that objective. Flexibility and accept own imperfection (so you can request help) are a good way to get nearest my way to see morality.

If morality was universal, or had a definite answer to each and every question of morality, I think the world would be void of all conflicts. There would be no war, no starving individuals, no disagreements of any sort, and etc.