Moral Relativism vs. Raising Happy, Well-behaved Children

[CamillaCalamity]

Kids act up more now because they are lazy spoiled brats who recieve no discipline or guidance from their parents. The schools can't even discipline the kids without getting sued.

[db247310]

@CamillaCalamity why would schools be responsible for disciplining kids? Is it their job to punish children? I don't send my children to school to learn moral values. I send them there to learn algebra.

[CamillaCalamity]

@db247310 Schools should be allowed do deal with kids like they used to be before everyone was afraid of getting sued. If a kid acted like an idiot, he'd get his ass kicked by a teacher. If he did it again, he'd get kicked out and the parents would have to beg to keep him in school. Those were the days when people didn't take crap and more was expected of humanity.

[AColonDashSix]

I like Paul and agree with him most of the time, but I think he missed the point in his first bit of dialouge.

Micheal however made some good arguments.

[Nononsenseman]

We need more of these discussions. My home, America prefer folksy wisdom and solutions are in one liners.

Hard solutions exist in a process. And the problem with kids are like this program said: lack of parental interaction, distractions from gadgets, and poor life strategy(moral relativism). Moral relativism neglects reality's axiom: cause and effect. You act like an ass, you won't be happy, and you will be lonely. You want love, you have to attract people with kindness.

[Orygyn]

Paul's sppech there almost made me sick:

One Possible Translation: "We should all forget about our dreams and submit to a boring and robotic life in which somehow there is an objective good and evil, despite there being no basis for it."

[Sluttybags]

reality and rational selfishness is the basis of an objective morality. go look up Objectivism.

[Orygyn]

No. A basis for objective morality means that the moral absolutes which an objective morality must have must come from somewhere. It cannot be a human mind because they are not themselves absolute or unchanging. And it is a mind to begin with. It cannot be any religion because even the Gods have minds. For there to be moral absolutes, they have to come from somewhere but there logically can't be anywhere. As for the message, if people forget about their dreams they have nothing to shoot for.

[Sluttybags]

Reality is absolute. For a man to achieve his dreams and values properly (ie without infringing on the rights of others) he must have an objective code of morals and ethics based on Reality.

To achieve his dreams, a man must first choose to live. In choosing to live, there are good and evil choices, ie eating an apple vs eating poison. The mind, after perceiving that the apple will feed him and seeing that the poison will kill him, must make a conscious choice to eat the apple and...

[BrooklynRagtag]

@Sluttybags I like Ayn Rand as much as the next guy, but I think egoism is missing something. We are biologically wired for empathy (particularly toward members of our own tribes). It's an evolutionary trait that makes sense for pack animals and it is narrow-sighted to ignore the way in which that influences our standards of morality.

[Sluttybags]

@BrooklynRagtag I haven't seen the video in a long time, and I'm not going to watch it again just now so I don't know the entire context of my last comment. However, I can say that egoism and rational selfishness doesn't imply a lack of empathy. In fact, a properly selfish man who is guided by the virtue of justice when dealing with other men should feel empathetic to those men who deserve it - those who have suffered through no fault of their own or those who have suffered an injustice.

[Sluttybags]

@Sluttybags But though he might feel an emotion like empathy, that does not tell him how he should act. His own reason and knowledge of his own situation should be the guide of if or how he helps the person he feels empathy for.

[paulk314]

Nice job blasting the mind-body dichotomy! Twice! Hooray for a materialistic desire for the i-Pod, a product of the rational spirit!

[pitcalco]

I am rather of two minds about the hostess. She is undoubtedly clever, but sometimes I wonder if she is even listening to the guests. "It's about balance", was totally not what I think Paul was saying.

[FpInternational]

I agree with your assessment. I suspect she has to split her attention somewhat. These segments are pressure-cookers, time wise, and she inevitably must play the role of juggler as much as of conversationalist.

[obmax1212]

Isn't that usually the case with a host on this type of show? She seems like a nice lady, and she at least has real variety on the show.