Moral Relativism

Morals are relative to circumstance, yes; relative to other people's views, no.In other words, by moral relativism I mean looking at ten people's unique estimations of what is right and wrong in a particular situation and allowing each view an equal potential validity. Moral relativism says that although I THINK my view is probably right, a couple other contradictory views may also be right and I may be wrong.By absolute moral standards I mean there is a definate right and wrong in every situation regardless of what one person or ten people come up with as right and wrong. One or all may have found the right answer or none of them may find the right answer.In other words, right and wrong exists regardless of whether or not one has found it. Right and wrong is an objective reality, not a man-made concept. Haha... but it is! That's precisely what I'm arguing against. There may sometimes be more than one "right" solution to a moral problem, but to every moral problem there is a definate right and wrong. Yep, pretty much.

Thank you for your reply. I just realized I didn't answer your questions: Nope. The wrong version of killing a person even has its own special word: murder. Killing is okay in a just war, self-defense, and capital punishment. This is self-defense. So its ok.BTW, the word translated "kill" in the KJV of the ten commandments conotes the criminal sense so is actually the word for murder.. so don't let that confuse you. Thats a tough one, but it still depends on the situation. Obviously in most cases, the distinction must be made between civilians and enemy combatants and "collateral damage" must be prevented at all costs, however, in some cases, there is no clear distinction between enemy combatants and civilians. No.

Thank you for your reply.Jar, do not mistake my belief in moral absolutes for inflexibility, and do not mistake my flexibility for moral relatvisim.By moral absolutes, I mean that right and wrong is an objective reality that exists in any moral dillema regardless of our viewpoint.Right and wrong are relative to circumstances, absolutely. They are not relative to one person's viewpoint over another's. Yep.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 08-03-2004 01:18 AM

quote:

---

In other words, right and wrong exists regardless of whether or not one has found it. Right and wrong is an objective reality, not a man-made concept.

---

It is?Show me this reality.Show me "right and wrong" that everyone, regardless of philosophy or creed, agrees upon.

quote:

---

Yep, pretty much.

---

But life is not unambiguous. Life is chock full of complexity and there is a great deal that you cannot know. If you are really considering postgraduate education in the sciences as you said, you really need to get over the idea that you can remove all ambiguity, because that is impossible.There is very little in nature or philosophy that can be reduced to black and white concepts without removing all nuance as well.Simplistic answers are comforting but less truthful than those which reflect the complexity that is undeniably present in nature and philosophy.I would suggest that part of becoming a mature, thinking adult is realizing this.

quote:

---

No.

---

Here I disagree with you.I believe that it is always morally wrong for goverments to kill it's citizens as a form of punishment.

Thank you for your reply. ALWAYS! uh oh... perhaps you believe in an absolute? Do you believe killing is ever justified?This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 08-03-2004 02:33 PMThis message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 08-03-2004 02:44 PM

Good question. First of all, when you wrong another person you are also sinning against God. Your relationship with God is what determines if you get into heaven or not. Therefore, it is more important to ask for forgiveness from God than to ask forgiveness from the person you hurt. If you only ask for forgiveness from the person you hurt, you have still not been forgived by God because you have not asked for it.This is NOT to say asking for forgiveness from others is not important. It is. And I agree it is more impressive because it requires swallowing a lot more of our pride to do it. But it is, in the eternal scheme of things, not as important.

---

If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

Not everyone agrees fully on it because we are all sinful beings led astray by our sinful desires, arrogance, emotionalism, and subjectivity. Nevertheless, there is a sense of right/wrong that everyone strives to define. This intuitive need by all to divide the right from wrong shows that right and wrong are absolute objective qualities that all concientious people pursue. Without God, this is true. With God, everything makes sense. true Complexity and ambiguity are not synonymous. Lack of knowledge of complexity might make understanding ambiguous, but there is a clarity, which we all attempt to approach. In some cases this moral clarity is easy to obtain and in some cases it is more difficult. All I am saying is that regardless of whether we find this moral clarity, it exists.

Well said! In every situation there is a right and a wrong thing to do. That is NOT moral relativism. As stated earlier, moral relativism is "there exists no source of moral absolutes." Just because you should do something in a different way in different situations does not mean there is not an objective right and wrong way to do that thing in each situation.With that said, I agree to some extent with schraf when he says that "life is chock full of complexity and there is a great deal you cannot know." However, in almost every situation I beleive that you can know enough [not all, but enough] to make the right choice. And if you don't know enough but made the best choice you could, I don't think God would look at that as a sin.

---

If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

quote:

---

ALWAYS! uh oh... perhaps you believe in an absolute?

---

No, this is a belief based in the circumstances of government; how the judicial system is racist and imperfect, therefore should never take the chance that even one person will be put to death by mistake.

quote:

---

Do you believe killing is ever justified?

---

Killing in general? Yes, there are many cases in which I can imagine it being justified.

quote:

---

This is NOT to say asking for forgiveness from others is not important. It is. And I agree it is more impressive because it requires swallowing a lot more of our pride to do it. But it is, in the eternal scheme of things, not as important.

---

Well, then, I guess that we Agnostics and Atheists are just a lot more concerned with our effect on other people.It seems that your God likes followers who are kind of weak in the responsibility department. I mean, you just told me that it's more important to get forgiveness to God than the person you wronged, but who sufffers more from your wrong? The person or God?Man, I thought that Christians were all about stepping up to the ethical and moral plate, but I guess not.

Are you absolutely sure this is the correct moral stance? If so, how do you know? Might you be wrong?Might it be better to put to death certain criminals knowing that this deterence factor would end up saving far more innocent lives than would be lost by wrongful conviction?What magnetism is your moral compass guided by? and are you sure that magnetic north is true north? Is killing ever justified when there is a chance innocent may be killed as well?What is more valuable: life or principle?

quote:

---

Not everyone agrees fully on it because we are all sinful beings led astray by our sinful desires, arrogance, emotionalism, and subjectivity. Nevertheless, there is a sense of right/wrong that everyone strives to define. This intuitive need by all to divide the right from wrong shows that right and wrong are absolute objective qualities that all concientious people pursue.

---

Humans having a "sense" of right and wrong may be universal, but this is not at all the same thing as saying that a given conception of right and wrong are universal, objective, and not man made.As soom as someone's concept of right and wrong are applied, it becoes an exercise in moral relativism.Unless you can show me that algorithm into which you plug all the relevant factors and you get a "right or wrong" solution, you have no absolute morality. [/qs]But life is not unambiguous.[qs]

quote:

---

Without God, this is true. With God, everything makes sense.

---

With God or without, there is plenty that doesn't make sense.What you mistake as "making sense" of ambiguity is simply post hoc reasoning. You can explain any and every moral or ethical dilemma by invoking mysteries, miracles, justice in the afterlife, etc.Therefore, you explain nothing. You just make up excuses for God as you go along.

quote:

---

All I am saying is that regardless of whether we find this moral clarity, it exists.

---

This is a statement of faith.You may believe this, but you cannot show me this objectively.

quote:

---

Just because you should do something in a different way in different situations does not mean there is not an objective right and wrong way to do that thing in each situation.

---

Show me the method by which I can know this objective right and wrong for every situation.It should be objective, not religious or faith-based, remember.

Actually, I must correct the general here.Forgiving others is a requirement of being forgiven by God.There is a passage, I forget the reference exactly, that says: "if you do not forgive your brother, I will not forgive you." And in another passage, Peter asks Jesus how many times he must forgive his brother; seven times he asks? Jesus says, no, seventy seven times... in otherwords, never stop forgiving.
And in another passage it says: speak and act as one being judged by the law that brings freedom. No mercy will be shown to those who show no mercy to others. Mercy triumphs over judgement.