Moral Relativism

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?I've got no foreskin; I can still readily enjoy sex.There's a huge difference between the two. You might say it's one of degree only (I personally don't agree,) but the difference is still there.------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

quote:

---

You can't have a constitution without absolutes to base it on.

---

But we do. The very fact that the constitution has the capability to be amended makes it a relativist document. There is nothing in the constitution that can't be deleted, nothing that can't be changed, and no possibility that can't be added.When they wrote it, they knew they couldn't possibly be absolutely right beyond all shadow of doubt, writing a system of government that would endure for all time. So they added the provision that future generations could say, "Man, these guys had it all wrong!" and change it accordingly.------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

quote:

---

True but I think you are getting to specific. The people who wrote our constitution also created the Judicial branch to interpret and protect the constitution and its basic foundation of absolutes. That is why we have so many court cases that go on that are ruled to be either constitutional or un-constitutional. If something does not go along with the basic founding absolutes of our constitution then our Judiciary protects that such as any threats to our Freedom.

---

And the legislative branch can change those freedoms. A supreme court ruling today could be completely different five years from now if the constitution is changed in the meantime. That's anything but absolute.If a constitutional amendment were entered into law that conflicted with other amendments, it would be struck down by the judicial branch. But if the previously existing amendments were to be altered beforehand so as to prevent the conflict, the judicial branch would have absolutely no authority to strike it (or any law which conflicted with the now non-existent freedoms) down.For instance, Bush Sr.'s flag-burning amendment would have required an overhaul of the first amendment. But had the first amendment been altered, or the new amendment phrased in a way so as to state that it was an exception to the first, it would not have been illegal. I think it would have been immoral to put that amendment into law; others don't. It came down to what the majority thought. Moral relativism in action.

quote:

---

Imagine how our society would react if our freedom was restricted to amounts of $ we could earn.

---

Exactly... how would we react? That is what determines our freedoms. What freedoms do the majority decide we are allowed to have? Sounds like moral relativism to me.

quote:

---

Also the premise of having a constitution that can be ammended is not reletivism in action at all. Instead to claim that we don't have everything right so we must make room in our constituion for changes, is in itself an absolute statement that our constituion is based on.

---

Nope. Because that can be changed too.But even if it couldn't, it seems as if you'd be saying, "It's not relativism, because it's absolutely relative."???-----------
Dan Carroll[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 05-27-2003]

quote:

---

Why did so many fight and die to protect our freedom?

---

Which freedom would that be? Our freedom of no taxation without representation? Or going back farther, our freedom to practice Puritanism? It certainly wasn't full religious freedom, seeing as how Roger Williams founded Rhode Island after being kicked out of Massachusetts for not being a Puritan.Do you see how "freedom" can be a very fluid word? What we consider a basic, undeniable freedom one day can be completely irrelevant the next.

quote:

---

I don't see how we can deny the intent of our founders.

---

I never met them, so I couldn't really speak to their intent. Only to the document they left behind. If they meant something other than what was in the document, they should have phrased it better.

quote:

---

I think most of us would concede that the majority is not always right.

---

You're assuming there is a "right". To the majority, the majority is absolutely right. To the minority, they're very much mistaken. And vice versa. So who's actually right right? Is there any way to actually tell? The best we can hope for is to agree as best we can, and change our minds if we wind up wrong.That's why we have a democracy, instead of setting one person in charge to tell us what is absolutely right.

quote:

---

It's kind of like how 9/11 affected us. We were one day taking our freedom for granted but when we were attacked and threatened, our people quickley came together and united when our freedom was attacked.

---

You saw a different 9/11 than I did, but that's a whole other debate.

quote:

---

This is why I believe that Freedom is an example of an absolute that our country was founded on. Much blood has been shed for freedom not just by Americans but others as well. You don't have to go far into a deep philosophical debate. I could see these occurances for myself.

---

So define "freedom". Freedom of what? Freedom for what? Freedom to what?There's no catch-all FREEDOM that the constitution guarantees. That societal structure is generally referred to by the name "anarchy".Regardless... two years ago you couldn't jail a citizen indefinitely without trial or charges because you had stuck the word "terrorist" on his file. What would have been seen as horrible government misuse of power is now seen as defending freedom. Why? Because circumstances and popular opinion define it that way.------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

quote:

---

Regardless this is just another example of our founders intent. Would this happen today? No because the constiution protects our freedom of religion.

---

Unless the constitution gets altered. According to law, there is no freedom we have that cannot be taken away. If the founding fathers didn't intend that, they really shouldn't have put it in the constitution. Because as it stands, their intent counts for exactly squat. We can rewrite the constitution to the point where it doesn't even resemble the original document, and they're the ones who allowed us to do it.

quote:

---

At least I believe that there is a right and wrong that applies to everybody. If you don't, how can you even argue with me? If you claim there is not right or wrong then I cannot be wrong not right and neither can you thus making debate futile.

---

You're mistaking "correct" and "incorrect" for "right" and "wrong". One can be logically correct, just not absolutely morally right.

quote:

---

However you obviously have issue with my stance so you do have an idea of what you believe is right an wrong and thus apply that to everybody.

---

Oh, I absolutely have my own ideas about right and wrong that I project on others. As I'm sure you do. As I'm sure everyone else on this thread does, and everyone else on the planet does as well.Um... did you intend to argue for moral relatavism there?

quote:

---

By all means please open up a new thread to discuss this. I am really interested to hear your thoughts on this.

---

Oh, dear lord no. If there's one thing I've learned about message boards its that arguing about 9/11 is one of the most exhausting things in the world. Everyone gets really angry really quickly, and NOTHING GETS ACCOMPLISHED.

quote:

---

No, because people want to be able to live freely from the threat of terrorism and the impact that it has on us.

---

Except those suspected of the crime. Not charged, I might add. Suspected.

quote:

---

Terrorism is anti democracy you see. It hates it. And most of us recognize the reason behind it. When our democracy and Freedom are threatened, we will go to great lengths to protect it. Not only our own, but other counties as well.

---

In other words, we are willing to sacrifice our civil liberties in the name of freedom?Leaving the contradiction aside, do you see how this is an example of our country re-examining what freedoms we find important, chucking the founding fathers' intent out the window, and establishing a new moral code for our day?------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

quote:

---

I think it stands for something. Their intent merited reason and is the foundation for this country. The root of a subject is where the answer lies.

---

Their original intentions also allowed for slavery, and for not allowing women to vote. The fact that our founding fathers wanted it is no proof that it's good.To the founding fathers, these were absolutes. But again... they knew that future societies might not agree with their morals. So they allowed for the possibility that what they viewed as an absolute was not necessarily one. They acknowledged that their desires for society counted for squat outside of their society.This is moral relativism at it's core. I don't see why you keep dancing around that.

quote:

---

But you won't reveal your thoughts so I really don't know what your angle is.

---

No angle. Modern politics is just too dear and involved a subject for me to shoot off an occasional five-minute response on a message board. If you're ever in Chicago I'd be happy to buy you a drink and talk about it in person, at more length.

quote:

---

This is what we have been seeing. Most notably people are giving up some rights allowing themselves to be searched at airports more rigorously.

---

If you think this is the most notable example, you need to pay more attention. Read the USA Patriot act over a couple times. It directly contravenes what you refer to as an absolute... the bill of rights. No less than three constitutional amendments (of the originals, put down by our founding fathers) are pissed on. And the polls show that people are just fine with that, too. How is that not adjusting our moral compass?In other words, in order to protect our American Freedoms, we will give up those exact same American Freedoms. It has nothing to do with minor inconveniences versus basic freedoms. America has redefined what matters, and it certainly isn't the constitution.Anyway, I hope it's not your last post, because I'm not sure I've been making myself clear enough, and I would like to get this idea through.-----------
Dan Carroll[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 05-29-2003]

quote:

---

They are absolute in that we affirm that they are 'good' in and of themselves.

---

How exactly would we go about doing that?

Oh.Well, sure. Then I'm with you on that.

Technically, way back when this began, I asked you was a simple question... if you felt that cutting off the foreskin was the same as cutting off the clitoris and/or sewing up the vagina. By bringing other forms of female circumcision in, you projected content on my post that wasn't there.I didn't comment on it at the time, because I didn't feel it was exceptionally important. But all schraf did was establish that she agreed with you on other forms, and then return it to my original question. Out of curiosity, how many boys have died? I don't mean that to say, "I bet it's none, butt-hole!" I'm honestly curious.

quote:

---

Depending upon the estimates, a couple hundred every year in the US alone.

---

What's the exact cause of death? If it's infection or similar, the problem would just be that it's not done under clean conditions and isn't given proper care once complications set in, wouldn't it? The higher death rate in tribal cultures would seem to support this.

quote:

---

The problem is that statistics aren't kept, either by the government or by the medical assocations, regarding circumcision. It is the most performed surgery in the United States. In 1990, for example, there were about 2.1 million boys born in the US. About 59% of them were circumcised. There is a complication rate (meaning all complications from excessive bleeding all the way up to death) from about 2% to 10%, meaning that in that year alone, somewhere between 25,000 and 125,000 boys had complications in their circumcision.

---

Unfortunately, without specifics, statistics are kind of useless in this case. I mean, even assuming 10% of cases have complications, who knows if 99% of that 10 is a minor complication? I'm not saying a more involved study isn't warranted, it's just that there don't seem to be stats that are of any use at present.

quote:

---

In studies in the UK and Australia, it was observed that between 9.5% (UK) and 66% (Australia) of those who were circumcised at birth needed re-circumcision later on since too little skin was taken at first.

---

This is a good example of bad stats. In Australia, what percentage of circumcisions noted are done in hospitals with scalpels, and what percentage are done by aboriginal cultures with flat rocks?

quote:

---

"Just"?

---

Yes, "just." As in, if there is just a solvable problem, let's solve it.This is not a negative attitude.

quote:

---

And that makes it any better? 200 boys a year die in the US from complications of their circumcision and that isn't enough to cause one to demand it stop? How many boys have to die before it becomes an issue? Give me a number so I won't have to bother you until it's "bad enough."

---

If you had read my post, I didn't deny that it was an issue. I asked what the cause of death was. If it's an avoidable cause of death, let's avoid it. If the only way to avoid it is by abandoning circumcision, let's do so.Please stop projecting on me.

quote:

---

Ah yes...it can't possibly be that bad. 200 boys a year die in the US and it's "useless."

---

Yes, as statistics go, it's quite useless. It's vague, and possibly misleading. Which is why I said that a more involved study was warranted.

quote:

---

That any boy has to die from this should be sufficient to cause outrage, but you react as if we have to justify why we subjected an infant to a completely unnecessary procedure that caused him to die! You're actually saying that there is some level of acceptable loss?

---

I'd love for you to point to where I said anything of the kind.Again... all I did was ask what the cause of the deaths were, and the circumstances under which they occurred.

quote:

---

Congress made it a federal crime to perform any form of FGM in the United States when we couldn't find any instance of it happening in any systematic way. And yet, boys die from MGM and you're whining about needing to know the intimate details of the procedure before you'll even begin to care.

---

Damn my quest for further knowledge on a subject before reaching a personal conclusion. DAMN IT STRAIGHT TO HELL!

quote:

---

By the way, the estimated 2-10% complication rate is for medicalized circumcision. For tribal circumcision, the rates are even higher.

---

There we go. There's more information. Is that so hard?

quote:

---

So tell me how bad it has to be before you start to care.

---

And hey, more insults. Those are easy, aren't they?

quote:

---

Who cares? The fact that even one boy dies from this is sufficient to have it be considered barbaric.

---

Yes, but what's the source of the barbarism? As I said, if there is a condition on circumcision that causes the deaths, eliminate it. If the condition is intrinsic to circumcision, get rid of it.

quote:

---

How many boys have to die before you care?

---

Why are you taking such offense at my asking for more information?

quote:

---

Why don't you look at the British Journal of Urology? That complication of the circumcision actually causing phimosis occurred in 2% of the UK circumcisions...sometimes so severe as to create urinary tract infections.

---

Excellent, a source for information. See how much better this is?

quote:

---

They were all medical circumcisions performed in a hospital. Every single one.

---

Fantastic. More info. When you deliver it calmly like this, circumcision looks worse and worse. I'd think you'd welcome the chance to deliver it, rather than jump down the throat of the person asking for it.

quote:

---

Do you see what I mean when I say you have a bias? It can't be that bad. You're certain that it can't be that bad. No matter what I show you, you're certain that there is some way to explain it away as if the death of a baby at the hands of an adult when it didn't have to die is not something to be concerned about.

---

When did I even imply any of this?Where's that bias, again?

So perhaps I am ignorant of the ramifications of surgery, in which case I will gladly read up on the matter. I don't see how that warrants accusations like "How many little boys have to die before you care?"

The rich person knows for a fact that the poor person is in withdrawl from addictive drugs, and will put the money toward a relapse. He steals it so that the poor person will be unable to reinforce their addiction.

---

"Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine, it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read, 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous, and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.' The page has been universally condemned by church leaders."
-Rob Grant and Doug Naylor

You should probably specify that up front, then. If you're trying to establish absolute morals, you can't really leave room for exceptions.Of course even within these new boundaries... a rich person sets up a computer scam that will steal five dollars apiece from every customer of a bank. The poor are not specifically targeted, but the majority of the bank's customer's are definitely in the very-low-income bracket. The rich person covers his tracks well, gets away with it, and uses the money to build an orphanage. The orphanage in no way helps those who had money stolen from them to build it, as they are not orphans. The price of the orphanage was such that the rich man, despite his wealth, would not have been able to build it without the initial bank scam.

---

"Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine, it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read, 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous, and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.' The page has been universally condemned by church leaders."
-Rob Grant and Doug Naylor

And heck... I'm up for a challenge: A virulent plague wipes out everyone on Earth, except for you, your neighbor, and his wife and two daughters. Your neighbor is impotent. Additionally, he flies into a furious rage every time to you attempt to procreate with his wife and daughters, and swears that if you manage to somehow impregnate any of them behind his back, he will abort the child. You kill him, in order to ensure the future of mankind.Upon killing him, you discover that his wife and daughters refuse to sleep with the man that killed their husband/father. You exhaust every possible avenue of courtship, until it becomes clear that they would rather let the human race die out than have sex with you. For the very continuation of the human species, you rape them.

---

"Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine, it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read, 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous, and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.' The page has been universally condemned by church leaders."
-Rob Grant and Doug Naylor