Moral Relativism

Is Moral Relativism a valid View. Take the statement "What is true for you is not true for me." Your thoughts please.

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.

quote:

---

Um, I think you're confusing moral relativism with a straw man, likely propagated by your church or something.

---

Your speculative and snide remarks undermine and inhibit your credibility. I suggest you refrain if you want to be taken seriously.

quote:

---

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.

---

You can use any example you want but the premise remains the same. Based on relativism in a society you cannot say that such things as slavery, apartheid, communism,imperialism,or killing baby girls is wrong. You cannot make judgements against societies. You have to remain neutral like Switzerland.

Well if there is one thing that I have learned in the past few days is that people definatley have different ideas of what Relativism is or refers to, and I'm sure it doesn't stop with Relativism. Though cumbersome I guess we should take each idea or interpretation at a time. Well for discussions sake lets take each idea of relativism that we have separatley and discuss why or why not it works with consideration of opinion and experience. Lets start with the view that "There is no source for moral absolutes" Why do you believe that this is correct? The immediate problem with this I see is if we focus on the source we utlimatley lead this discussion to the question of "Is there a God or is there no God?" Which in case would tangent us somewhat but if it leads us there so be it. Most of the suggestions I have heard about how we get our morality are simple. 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?

quote:

---

Still, the question at hand is: Why do absolutist cultures tend to have more barbaric practices than those that aren't?

---

I don't believe this to be true. All cultures are absolutist if you think about it. They base their constitutions and governments on absolutes such as our Bill of Rights. Just take the 1st amendment for example. Our biggest absolute is Freedom and our constitution is prepared in such a way that our freedom is to be protected. The value placed on freedom and equality in this country seems to qualify as an absolute that our constitution is based on. You can't have a constitution without absolutes to base it on. Therefore I wouldn't say that any culture is more absolutist then another.

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.

---

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

What we do have is precedent. This makes it clear in my mind at least that our forefathers based our constitution with absolutes in mind. Why did they even come over here in the fist place? Why did so many fight and die to protect our freedom? Would you deny that our society and Constitution is not founded on protecting our freedom? Did our soldiers fight and die for nothing. I don't think so. I don't see how we can deny the intent of our founders. This precedence serves as our backbone. Freedom is what the United States was founded on. Even so though even if one day in the future our freedom was compromised in such a drastic way, Which seems unfathomable to me(personal emotion, hey I'm human). I think most of us would concede that the majority is not always right. 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. There were flags everywhere and patiotic banners everywhere. 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.

quote:

---

Which freedom would that be?

---

Well take the 1st Amendment. It was the first one so I think it's safe to say that it was the most important. That's not to say that it stops there.

quote:

---

I never met them, so I couldn't really speak to their intent

---

I'm just weighing the evidence at the time. Seeing how there were actual people that witnessed the time and that much of the history was recorded by eyewitnesses, there are piles of resources that would back what their "intent" was"

quote:

---

seeing as how Roger Williams founded Rhode Island after being kicked out of Massachusetts for not being a Puritan.

---

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

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?

---

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. 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.

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

Um... did you intend to argue for moral relatavism there?

---

No, the opposite. You'd be surprised how many people will actually claim that there is no such thing as right or wrong, that its all relative.

quote:

---

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.

---

And this would be predictable. I see this as evidence that people are quick to defend their freedom when it gets threatened or even questioned. Despite the freedom that you have to express your views, when you question the feedom of our nation you are going to find that a quick response. But you won't reveal your thoughts so I really don't know what your angle is.

quote:

---

In other words, we are willing to sacrifice our civil liberties in the name of freedom?

---

This is what we have been seeing. Most notably people are giving up some rights allowing themselves to be searched at airports more rigorously. It seems their freedom to live and be safe holds more mustard than waiting in line a little longer at the airport. This isn't contradictory. It shows what values we hold dearest and we are willing to give some minor things up due to circumstances so that these more important rights are protected. This isn't just my opinion. This is from polls.

quote:

---

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?

---

No, because it just reveals that the same freedoms that our forefathers held dear are the same ones that we still hold dear today. This is hardly representative of our moral code changing. It is indicative of the same code that has been there all along. Anyway this topic seems to be dwindling. This will be my last post. I suppose we can agree to disagree?

quote:

---

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.

---

The absolute for the founding fathers was based on several things. The first and foremost was freedom and democracy. Also they did allow for the constitution to be amended. The mere fact that they realized and recognized their own human flaws and thus allowing for the constituion to be changed due to circumstances which may arise in the future, is itself an absolute that they defined and still exists today. In other words, The absolute was "We can't expect to get everything right so we must allow the possibility for change" Ultimatley they devised a system of checks and balances so as to not allow anyone to possess too much power. Even if the democracy would change, it would be because the people wanted it to. Slavery, sufferage and even prohibition you could say didn't last because the people realized that these things in some way contradicted our freedom. The idea of democracy is an absolute in that the people of the country should have the freedom to choose their government. I like to think that most people recgonize the freedom that we have as an absolute. I believe this based on the evidence of our behavior when our freedom is threatened. However I would presume to say that most Americans so precioulsy hold their freedom to realize that to change our democracy would threaten that very freedom. That's why our government works. We can agree and disagree about politics but the base has always been the same.If I understand you correctly, you are saying that since the founding fathers allowed for the constituion to be changed, that they could not expect their intent for the basis of the country to continue into the future therefore their intent really meant nothing. Am I right? If so the problem I have with this is mentioned above. Also personally how I see that our country is still free and strong is evidence that our freedom is an absolute.