|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Moral Relativism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: 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 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: 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: You saw a different 9/11 than I did, but that's a whole other debate.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: 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: You're mistaking "correct" and "incorrect" for "right" and "wrong". One can be logically correct, just not absolutely morally right.
quote: 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: 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: Except those suspected of the crime. Not charged, I might add. Suspected.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: How exactly would we go about doing that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Oh.
Well, sure. Then I'm with you on that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Yes, you did. Here is what I actually said:
Yes. By the way, not all female circumcision is infibulation. Here is what you quoted:
Yes. 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.
How many boys need to die before it becomes equivalent? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, "just." As in, if there is just a solvable problem, let's solve it. This is not a negative attitude.
quote: 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: 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: 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: Damn my quest for further knowledge on a subject before reaching a personal conclusion. DAMN IT STRAIGHT TO HELL!
quote: There we go. There's more information. Is that so hard?
quote: And hey, more insults. Those are easy, aren't they?
quote: 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: Why are you taking such offense at my asking for more information?
quote: Excellent, a source for information. See how much better this is?
quote: 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: When did I even imply any of this? Where's that bias, again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
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?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
A rich person should not steal money from someone poorer than him. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Taking money from the poor person in this scenario will not help them. That is part of the scenario. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
And heck... I'm up for a challenge:
A man should not murder his neighbor and rape the wife and children. 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024