Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moral Relativism
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 176 of 284 (130169)
08-03-2004 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by General Nazort
08-03-2004 3:37 PM


Re: Won't accept forgiveness?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by General Nazort, posted 08-03-2004 3:37 PM General Nazort has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-03-2004 10:11 PM nator has not replied
 Message 184 by General Nazort, posted 08-04-2004 11:07 PM nator has replied

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


Message 178 of 284 (130175)
08-03-2004 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Hangdawg13
08-03-2004 3:43 PM


Re: Nope
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-03-2004 3:43 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-03-2004 10:37 PM nator has replied

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


Message 179 of 284 (130176)
08-03-2004 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by General Nazort
08-03-2004 3:45 PM


Re: Nope
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by General Nazort, posted 08-03-2004 3:45 PM General Nazort has not replied

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


Message 181 of 284 (130178)
08-03-2004 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Hangdawg13
08-03-2004 10:03 PM


Re: Nope
quote:
Are you absolutely sure this is the correct moral stance? If so, how do you know? Might you be wrong?
Sure, I might be wrong.
I am pretty sure that it is the correct moral stance because of what I have learned about the system, talking to other people about it, my moral upbringing, my sense of fairness, etc.
I'm a work in progress and always will be.
quote:
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?
It has been well-known for a long time that the death penalty is not a deterrant to crime.
The US has the most citizens incarcerated as a percentage of our population, by far, compared to other Western nations.
We tend to like to spend lots and lots of money building prisons and incarcerating people instead of spending less money on after school programs, education, literacy and job training, drug treatment, and other preventative programs.
quote:
What magnetism is your moral compass guided by?
My morality is based upon doing and supporting that which harms the fewest people and helps the most.
quote:
and are you sure that magnetic north is true north?
No, I can't be certain, but I have never heard an alternative morality that even makes ssense to me.
quote:
Is killing ever justified when there is a chance innocent may be killed as well?
Yes, I can imagine a situation like that.
quote:
What is more valuable: life or principle?
What does this mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-03-2004 10:03 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by bob_gray, posted 08-05-2004 11:19 AM nator has not replied

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


Message 183 of 284 (130495)
08-04-2004 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Hangdawg13
08-03-2004 10:37 PM


Re: Nope
quote:
So what do you believe constitutes "right"?
I'm not sure what you mean.
quote:
and how did this sense evolve?
It evolved along with all the other social senses and emotions we have as a means to communicate and interact with each other, and they also tend to maintain clan or group identification.
quote:
There are a variety of values, or as Jar said a moral foundation, upon which the circumstances can be reviewed to divide right from wrong. Almost everyone has a scale of values. It takes a properly constructed scale of values and set of virtues, plus humility, and wisdom to "process" the "relevant factors" to get a right or wrong solution.
I'm with you up to this point.
quote:
There are a set of absolute virtues and proper scale of values that upon application will yield the "right" solution.
OK.
Show me.
Show me this unchanging absolute.
quote:
For example: You being an atheist believes that there is no afterlife.
Actually, being an Agnostic, I don't know if there's an afterlife or not, and I further do not believe that anyone can know if there is an afterlife or not.
...but for argument's sake, we can pretend that I am an Atheist.
quote:
You believe that this life that we are experiencing right now is all we will ever have. This places a premium value of a "good" life on your scale. This leads to a variety of different philosophies, some of which seem contradictory to a person of my beliefs. You may want to abstain from something like capital punishment for fear of wrongly killing one innocent person, thus depriving that innocent person of "the good life". On the other hand, if a fetus is doomed to grow up in a bad society with unprepared teenage parents, it is better to end that life because the chances are it will not be "good".
Your placement of this life so high on your scale of values also leads to other philosophies that people who believe in God deem cowardly. If, as Maximus Decimus Meridius said, "what we do in this life echoes in eternity" then our virtues and beliefs may become more important to us than life itself. The athiest may be less willing to fight and die for virtues and beliefs when all virtues are relative anyway and there is nothing to believe in.
Of course, the Christian may be less willing to fight and die for virtues and beliefs because they believe that they are "saved", and thus guaranteed a place in heaven. They may therefore be more willing to be complacent and silent in the face of injustice and inequity because the people being treated badly aren't also "saved", say, or because they do not believe they have to do good works towards their fellow man to earn their place in heaven.
So, Both Christians and Atheists may be less willing to fight and die for virtues and beliefs, but for completely different reasons.
More moral relativism.
quote:
Well, neither can you objectively show me that the qualities of right and wrong are products of evolution, so I guess its a stalemate.
Ah, but yes, I can certinly objectively show you evidence to suggest that a sense of right and wrong are products of evolution.
This so so cool!...
"MONKEYS REJECT UNEQUAL PAY"
SARAH F. BROSNAN AND FRANS B. M. DE WAAL
Living Links, Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, USA
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to S.F.B. (sbrosna@emory.edu).
During the evolution of cooperation it may have become critical for individuals to compare their own efforts and pay-offs with those of others. Negative reactions may occur when expectations are violated. One theory proposes that aversion to inequity can explain human cooperation within the bounds of the rational choice model, and may in fact be more inclusive than previous explanations. Although there exists substantial cultural variation in its particulars, this 'sense of fairness' is probably a human universal that has been shown to prevail in a wide variety of circumstances. However, we are not the only cooperative animals, hence inequity aversion may not be uniquely human. Many highly cooperative nonhuman species seem guided by a set of expectations about the outcome of cooperation and the division of resources. Here we demonstrate that a nonhuman primate, the brown capuchin monkey (Cebus apella), responds negatively to unequal reward distribution in exchanges with a human experimenter. Monkeys refused to participate if they witnessed a conspecific obtain a more attractive reward for equal effort, an effect amplified if the partner received such a reward without any effort at all. These reactions support an early evolutionary origin of inequity aversion.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...nkeyfairness.html#main

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-03-2004 10:37 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by nator, posted 08-07-2004 10:45 AM nator has not replied
 Message 252 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-17-2004 5:01 AM nator has replied

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


Message 186 of 284 (130610)
08-05-2004 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by General Nazort
08-04-2004 11:07 PM


Re: Won't accept forgiveness?
quote:
Please don't mischaracterize Christianity. Of COURSE we are concerned with personal responsibility, ethics, morals, and the effect we have on other people. I NEVER said we were not. I would argue that we are actually MORE concerned about how we treat others because we want to be good representatives for our God and make Christianity attractive.
Perhaps, but Christians often believe they are "saved" and are guaranteed a place in heaven.
There is a gret deal of the gay hate and woman hate that many Christians promote and practice as they feel they are justified by their religion to do so.
It sure seems like a wash to me between the Christians and the non-believers.
quote:
However, when you ask a question like "what is more important being forgiven by humans or being forgiven by God" I am going to answer what is more important in the eternal scheme of things.
And again, I will say that this stance is not as good for our society, and thus less moral, because you are more concerned with youself than you are with others.
Ultimately, that's a self-centered attitude.
quote:
And again, let me emphasize that a crime agaist a fellow human is ALSO a crime against God.
Well, what's a "crime against a fellow human" to a Christian?
Is it a "crime against a fellow human" to require a woman to submit her adult will to men?
Is it a "crime against a fellow human" to work to pass legislation to deny a segment of our population the same rights as you have?
I would say so, but a Christian quite likely would not. They would justify and rationalize their "crime against a fellow human" with the Bible.
...and thus, moral relativism.
quote:
God feels each and every sin against him and is deeply saddened, and angered, by them.
Why?
God sounds pretty human.
quote:
You should ask for forgiveness FROM BOTH humans and God.
But if given a choice, you only REALLY have to get forgiveness from God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by General Nazort, posted 08-04-2004 11:07 PM General Nazort has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by General Nazort, posted 08-06-2004 9:35 PM nator has not replied

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


Message 205 of 284 (131302)
08-07-2004 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by nator
08-04-2004 9:13 PM


Re: Nope
bump

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by nator, posted 08-04-2004 9:13 PM nator has not replied

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


Message 240 of 284 (133840)
08-14-2004 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Phat
08-12-2004 1:15 PM


Re: Absolute dignity vs relative obscurity
Sproul hasn't read any evolutionary Biology or Psychology, that's for sure.
quote:
To establish human dignity without acknowledging the God of creation, the humanist must act in an arbitrary and irrational fashion.
Absolutely untrue.
Humanists act in a completely rational fashion.
The term is "enlightened self-interest." We do what is good for ourselves and also what is good for the group. There are negative consequences from the group if we act like a jerk too often, and benefits from the group if we help the group thrive.
quote:
If humans rose by chance from chaos,
...which we didn't.
We rose just like any other organism; random mutation combined with natural selection.
Selection is the opposite of random.
quote:
would dignity be ascribed to them?
Sure, just like any other physical or social trait we have.
It all evolved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Phat, posted 08-12-2004 1:15 PM Phat has not replied

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


Message 241 of 284 (133841)
08-14-2004 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by General Nazort
08-12-2004 10:51 PM


Re: Nope
quote:
As for homosexualy marriage, I disagree than banning it would harm homosexuals.
Do you think it was harmful to mixed race couples to ban them from getting married?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by General Nazort, posted 08-12-2004 10:51 PM General Nazort has not replied

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


Message 251 of 284 (134453)
08-16-2004 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Hangdawg13
08-16-2004 12:28 AM


Re: So what is absolute morality?
Welcome back.
Just so it doesn't get missed...
a reply to message 183, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-16-2004 12:28 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

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


Message 256 of 284 (135044)
08-18-2004 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Hangdawg13
08-17-2004 5:01 AM


Re: Nope
Of course, the Christian may be less willing to fight and die for virtues and beliefs because they believe that they are "saved", and thus guaranteed a place in heaven.
quote:
Being saved is no excuse for being a coward, and I don't know of any specific case of someone becoming more cowardly BECAUSE they were saved.
What do you call the fundamentalist Christians who do what they can to escalate and promote the conflict in the middle east because they believe that by doing this they will bring about Armageddon?
What about the Christians, like Buzsaw and PecodGeorge, who are all too willing to forget all about "love thy neighbor" and "do unto others" when Muslims are concerned?
or because they do not believe they have to do good works towards their fellow man to earn their place in heaven.
quote:
there is much said to warn believers of taking this mindset particularly in James. If one does not love and forgive his neighbor he does not love God.
But I have had dozens of Christians tell me over the years that once you are "saved", that's it, you're going to heaven.
You don't have to earn your way through good works at all.
Just because they aren't "supposed" to think this way according to you doesn't mean that millions of Christians don't, in fact, think this way.
Ah, but yes, I can certinly objectively show you evidence to suggest that a sense of right and wrong are products of evolution.
quote:
Yes, that's some very interesting information, but what does it have to do with the relative existence of right and wrong? Even the animals have a sense for it. What's right is right. What's wrong is wrong. You can't get away from it.
I never said right and wrong, as concepts, don't exist.
I am saying that there is no absolute right and wrong.
What is right or wrong is relative to the culture and situation, always.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-17-2004 5:01 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by jar, posted 08-18-2004 8:03 PM nator has not replied
 Message 258 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-18-2004 8:39 PM nator has not replied
 Message 259 by General Nazort, posted 08-18-2004 11:46 PM nator has replied

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


Message 261 of 284 (135136)
08-19-2004 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by General Nazort
08-18-2004 11:46 PM


Re: Nope
quote:
situations in which every single person, regardless of his/her culture, should do one specific thing. This is a moral absolute.
OK.
What are a couple of examples of absolute morality in which every single person should do one specific thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by General Nazort, posted 08-18-2004 11:46 PM General Nazort has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by General Nazort, posted 08-19-2004 2:26 PM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024