Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moral Relativism
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 284 (41789)
05-30-2003 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Majorsmiley
05-30-2003 12:10 PM


Also personally how I see that our country is still free and strong is evidence that our freedom is an absolute.
An absolute for us, perhaps. I too love freedom (and hate to see my own government taking it away.)
But is it an absolute for everybody? Many people would rather be safe than free, apparently.
To be absolutist, absolutes have to be universal. If you just pick and choose the absolutes for your society (as the founding fathers did) then you're a relativist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Majorsmiley, posted 05-30-2003 12:10 PM Majorsmiley has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by John, posted 05-30-2003 1:05 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 284 (41794)
05-30-2003 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by crashfrog
05-30-2003 12:43 PM


quote:
Many people would rather be safe than free, apparently.
... which is exactly why our government is taking away our freedoms.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 05-30-2003 12:43 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Conspirator
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 284 (42188)
06-05-2003 8:58 PM


Moral Relativism is self-refuting.

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2003 9:20 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 284 (42191)
06-05-2003 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Conspirator
06-05-2003 8:58 PM


Moral Relativism is self-refuting.
Perhaps, but Moral Absolutism is self-refuting as well. At least Moral Relativism is democratic. I don't see how a Moral Absolutist could allow themselves to be governed by a democracy.
Personally, of course, I don't find anything self-refuting about the idea that morals are something to discover through inquiry and intellect, not by opening some specific book. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on why you disagree? Also if you're a moral absolutist please be prepared to demonstrate how you know your morals are universal and absolutely true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Conspirator, posted 06-05-2003 8:58 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
JosephM
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 284 (42321)
06-07-2003 12:20 PM


Hello everyone.. This is my first of what I hope will be many postings in the evc forum. I would also like to apoligize in advance for my poor spelling.
As far as moral relativism goes I think the stock philosophy answer is that it is self defeating because it is a universal moral law that states there is no universal moral laws. That is not an original insight and im sure most people who feel there is any merit in moral relativism can ignore it with ease. While recognizing our surroundings have a tremendous impact on what is legal, I have never been comfortable with the idea that geography decides whats right and wrong. My disagreement is that mr assumes one culture or society can not be mistaken. There is a sort of circular logic involved with saying in country A abuse is permitted and in country B it is not, therefore it is right in country A and not in B. Why is mr uncapable of considering the fact that absloutely abuse is wrong, country A just has not realized it or does not acknowledge it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 06-07-2003 12:34 PM JosephM has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 51 of 284 (42322)
06-07-2003 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by JosephM
06-07-2003 12:20 PM


As far as moral relativism goes I think the stock philosophy answer is that it is self defeating because it is a universal moral law that states there is no universal moral laws.
That's not really moral relativism.
Moral relativism is the idea that (among other ideas) no finite list of moral platitudes can possibly apply to the infinite number of different situations - therefore, all morals are relative to the situation in which they are applied.
I don't believe there are any truly universal moral codes. What I do believe, however, is that there are universal rules for the generation of "proper" moral codes. One of those, to me, is that the moral code reduces the suffering of all persons, whenever possible. Another such rule is that those that set moral codes must themselves also be bound to them - lawgivers are not above the law.
So long as a society's moral code follows those rules, I'm inclined to accept it as valid. That's how I'm able to judge the morals of another society - not based on how their morals agree with mine but on how well their morals serve all members of their society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by JosephM, posted 06-07-2003 12:20 PM JosephM has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Peter, posted 07-21-2003 7:04 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 58 by MrHambre, posted 07-21-2003 11:46 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
EndocytosisSynthesis 
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 284 (46578)
07-20-2003 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
05-16-2003 8:14 PM


Those cultures commited those atrocities because they didn't believe they would be held accountable for them by any God, so those evil atrocities would bear no eternal consequences. Stalin and Mao are responsible for more unjust deaths than all of the religious crusades combined, and there's no way you can tell me they were religious people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 05-16-2003 8:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 07-20-2003 5:21 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 284 (46584)
07-20-2003 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by EndocytosisSynthesis
07-20-2003 5:03 PM


Those cultures commited those atrocities because they didn't believe they would be held accountable for them by any God, so those evil atrocities would bear no eternal consequences.
You don't believe Islamic Fundamentalists (for instance) believe in a god? To the contrary - the Taliban did the horrible things it did because they felt they would be held eternally accountable if they hadn't done them.
Don't get me wrong - atheists have done just as many bad things as religious people. It just goes to show that badness is an intrinsic human quality. The good news is - so is goodness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-20-2003 5:03 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 54 of 284 (46647)
07-21-2003 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by crashfrog
06-07-2003 12:34 PM


quote:
One of those, to me, is that the moral code reduces the suffering of all persons, whenever possible
In that case we don't have any proper moral codes, since most
founded in religions are prescriptive and lead people to act in
a manner that is counter to full enjoyment of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 06-07-2003 12:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by John, posted 07-21-2003 9:43 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 284 (46660)
07-21-2003 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Peter
07-21-2003 7:04 AM


quote:
... since most founded in religions are prescriptive and lead people to act in a manner that is counter to full enjoyment of life.
Agreed. I tend to think, though, that moral codes have less to do with enjoyment and more to do with survival. That said, we are smart enough to weave in the happy-camper factor, if we could just leave out the superstition.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Peter, posted 07-21-2003 7:04 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 56 of 284 (46674)
07-21-2003 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Majorsmiley
05-27-2003 1:56 PM


quote:
All cultures are absolutist if you think about it. They base their constitutions and governments on absolutes such as our Bill of Rights.
...except that we can change those if we want to...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Majorsmiley, posted 05-27-2003 1:56 PM Majorsmiley has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 57 of 284 (46676)
07-21-2003 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Rrhain
05-27-2003 9:43 PM


quote:
Dan: Are you actually saying that it's the same thing to cut off the foreskin as it is to remove the clitoris and/or sew up the vagina?
quote:
Yes.
No, it's not the same thing.
The equivalent to cutting off the clitoris would be cutting off the penis.
(In general, though, I do agree with you about male circumcision. I think it is completely cosmetic and uneccessary.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Rrhain, posted 05-27-2003 9:43 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Rrhain, posted 07-22-2003 6:07 AM nator has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 58 of 284 (46679)
07-21-2003 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by crashfrog
06-07-2003 12:34 PM


quote:
Moral relativism is the idea that (among other ideas) no finite list of moral platitudes can possibly apply to the infinite number of different situations - therefore, all morals are relative to the situation in which they are applied.
In that case, moral relativism is wrong. How ironic that the validity of even relativism depends on how you look at it.
I'm not going to argue that moral absolutes exist, in some Platonic ideal way. However, they exist insofar as we affirm them. In deciding freely that certain things like freedom are ends in and of themselves, we affirm that they are not merely means to any other ends. Similarly, we deny that laws (whether God-mandated or governmental) are the source of morality. Any authority must be based on respect for our ideals, not the ideals on respect for authority. What we apply to every situation are the absolutes that we affirm.
------------------
Quien busca, halla

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 06-07-2003 12:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Peter, posted 07-21-2003 11:55 AM MrHambre has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 59 of 284 (46682)
07-21-2003 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by MrHambre
07-21-2003 11:46 AM


If we have to affirm them, they cannot be absolute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by MrHambre, posted 07-21-2003 11:46 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by MrHambre, posted 07-21-2003 12:01 PM Peter has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 60 of 284 (46685)
07-21-2003 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Peter
07-21-2003 11:55 AM


Peter,
Thank you for your substantial reply. You'll notice I said virtues don't exist in some Platonic fairyland. They are absolute in that we affirm that they are 'good' in and of themselves. Authority in any sense is independent of these virtues and must respect them.
------------------
Quien busca, halla

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Peter, posted 07-21-2003 11:55 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-21-2003 12:05 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 62 by Peter, posted 07-21-2003 12:23 PM MrHambre has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024