|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,781 Year: 4,038/9,624 Month: 909/974 Week: 236/286 Day: 43/109 Hour: 0/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Moral Relativism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That's not moral relativism. That sounds like a strawman.
Moral relativism would be "There exists no source of moral absolutes." In the absence of such sources, human societies must use their judgement to arrive at rules everyone can live by that allow for the greatest quality of life for all members. I find that to be a highly valid view, and much more useful than arguing over the moral views of non-existent deities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You call this a highly valid view? One that will allow for the greatest quality of life for all members? Those cultures commit those atrocities because they believe a god who is the source of their morality commands them to do it. If they were relativist, they could step back and say "Hrm, is female genital mutilation really such a good idea?" I'd say that moral absolutism is the greater danger because it means that moral views that are wrong can't be changed. Looks like you overlooked the log in your own eye on this one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Uh no, relativism would say "that's acceptable for them, but it's not acceptable to me so I'm not going to do it" Once you apply any personal morals to someone else, you are no longer a relativist. Um, I think you're confusing moral relativism with a straw man, likely propagated by your church or something. Anyway, in my example, it was the society itself who was determining their own morals. I wasn't applying my personal morality, just demonstration how moral relativism lets one do the right thing without being straitjacketed by inconsistent, authoritarian beliefs. It doesn't mean there's no right and wrong; moral relativism means that societites determine their own morals. I'm free to judge their morals based on the practical results, not on their agreement with my god or whatever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
As well, where in my post did I say salvery was a sin? You lumped it in with female genital mutilation, so we just assumed. Unless you hold FGM up as acceptable, moral behavior? It does seem to happen most frequently (according to the links you provided, which I don't dispute) in cultures who are the most morally absolutist.
For the world to survive and societies to exist and intertwine in the centuries ahead, a global core set of values must be adopted. The many abhoring, and some dangerous, customs of many societies practiced under the claim of "cultural variation", must come to a stop in our modern world. See, as a relativist, I can agree with this. But as a relativist I don't believe we need some absolute moral authority to dictate those terms - especially if there's no reason to believe that authority even exists. Humans are more than capable of coming to a consensus of acceptable behavior that promotes the freedom and dignity of all to the greatest degree possible. In this country, we call this process "democracy". [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-20-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Your speculative and snide remarks undermine and inhibit your credibility. I suggest you refrain if you want to be taken seriously. Weak, dude. Let me ask you then - what research did you do to determine the actual beliefs and positions of moral relativists? Or did somebody just tell you what "moral relativism" means? My church did the same to me, so I hazarded a guess. No matter who misinformed you (or if you came up with it yourself), you're in error about what moral relativism means. it simply means that there is no absolute source of morals. It says nothing about my ability to judge the morals of others. Let me ask you this - why would any reasonable person advance a view that any and all activites, no matter their harm to persons, are acceptable? But of course, from your tone I imagine you don't believe any moral relativists to be reasonable people. If you're going to argue straw men it's your credibility that is on the line, not mine.
You cannot make judgements against societies. You have to remain neutral like Switzerland. To the contrary. You're laboring under a major misapprehension of moral relativism. It simply says that there is no absolute source of moral codes. That doesn't mean that there are no universal moral codes. It just means it's meaningless to say that "my morals are universal because they're from god."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Lets start with the view that "There is no source for moral absolutes" Why do you believe that this is correct? Because nobody can agree on what it is, and there appears to be no good way to determine who is right. So rather than just pick one group at random, let's abandon the idea altogether and start from scratch: "What morals does our society think are appropriate and preserve the dignity and quality of life for all persons to the greatest extent?" There's a testing procedure in there, too - if a society fails to preserve the quality of life for as many individuals as it could be, I have no problem stating "that society has failed to find suitable morals."
A. There is a God who instilled in us certain "moral absolutes". or B. Our morality is a result of evolution or more accuratley natural selection. Certain morals were imperative in the survival of our species so we carried those benefical morals on with us. What do you think? Well, obviously I choose B. If A, why then can no one agree on what those moral absolutes are - even among people who believe in the same god? So, B looks more right to me. Societies evolve in the same way species do - they change over time, and they either adapt or die out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Personally I find it highly disingenous to compare male circumcision in any way to the awful, barbaric, and permanently damaging atrocity that is female genital mutilation.
Anyway, the studies indicate that circumcised men experience a smaller chance of sexual dysfunction at any point in life and, in general, lead more interesting and varied sexual lives. I have no memory older than about 2 or 3. I certainly don't remember being circumcised. (FGM is usually done to pubescent girls.) If nobody remembers the pain, why bother with dangerous anesthesia?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
A man is not allowed control over his own body...and if he complains, he's whining. Yeah, you are whining. By this logic we shouldn't bother tying off the umbilical cord. No surgery should ever be performed on infants, right? Not even beneficial ones?
Let's not forget that we're talking about the US. When was the last time you heard of a girl in the US having anybody go near her genitals with a knife without somebody threatening to kill the maniac? Doctors continue to perform the practice on young girls in the US, as a matter of fact. Obviously, it's only in those communities that are originally from cultures that practice FGM but it does happen here.
Again, serious complications run about 1 in 500. With 20% of the world's male population circumcised, how many do you think that is? Complications of what kind?
When was the last time a girl was killed from circumcision in the United States? It doesn't matter if they die. What matters is that FGM renders a female incapable of sexual enjoyment. Not to mention it greatly complicates childbirth and urination, even to the point of serious health risk. These are two clearly different topics. Circumcision isn't even in the same ballpark as FGM and it's disingenuous to compare them. I can imagine any purpose to such a comparison except for people to hijack the reasonable outrage people feel when faced with FGM and apply it to circumsision as well, where it's simply not appropriate. You're just riding on the coattails of people doing real work to stop FGM.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Look, I'm not trying to defend circimcision (although I just don't think it's that bad, and will probably have it done to any sons of mine). I'm just saying it's nowhere near as bad as the practice of FGM, which renders women incapable of sexual function in the vast majority of cases. It's outrageous to even compare them.
But unnecessary surgery? I think it's up to the parents and their doctor to decide what is necessary and what is not. For many people, circumcision counts as necessary. Since it's basically a harmless, cosmetic procedure, I don't have a problem with that justification. I don't have a foreskin; I've never missed it. None of my partners have ever said "I wish you had a foreskin." In fact they've expressed the opposite sentiment. A young guy I know went in for the procedure at age 14 because he didn't want to have a foreskin. The healing was a little painful but no adverse effects, so far. As far as I know it's as useless as tonsils or the appendix. (Which is to say, not entirely useless, but not missed either.) That's just my personal experience, but that experience has led me to believe that it's just not that bad, and preferable in the culture in which I live as an American. Honestly, though, if the culture changes, and foreskins become preferred, well, that's what my son will have. My opinion on this is insufficiently strong to force me to swim against the tide. But so far, circumcision is the norm in America. Now, what were we talking about before? Moral relativism or something? And why FGM is supported - in every incidence - by cultures that hold to strict traditions of moral absolutes? So far none of the anti-relativist folks have addressed why this would be true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Honestly I think we're getting off-topic with this, but...
So ear piercing is necessary? Hair perming is necessary? For some people, in order to identify with a culture or group they identify as theirs, sure. I'm not saying that rationale is enough for everyone to circumcise their sons, but to me it's certainly sufficient rationale to allow those parents that choose to have that procedure done to allow them to do so. Still, the question at hand is: Why do absolutist cultures tend to have more barbaric practices than those that aren't?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Three huge messages don't help preserve topic continuity, Rrhain. If you want to hash out circumcision, I'm willing to do so, but open a new thread. This isn't the place to do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024