|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A critique of moral relativism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Why is this even a question? Everyone is a moral relativist. Everyone. Except the people that do not believe there are multiple equally valid constructions of morality. Obviously those who are relativists do not think they are right and that the absolutists are also relativists and visa versa. One cannot declare that relativism is correct by fiat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: But it seems fundamental to your argument that moral laws are essentially arbitrary. Even if they are arbitrary rules invented by God then are still arbitrary rules.
quote: You know better than that You already know that there are differing ideas of murder. The simple answer is that anyone who judges an act to be murder judges it to be morally wrong. Because that is the distinction we make between murder and simply killing. Thus the answer is "wrong" by definition. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Jar writes: It depends on the context. The Captain of the Airship Hindenburg may say that whether or not anyone smokes in the privacy of their cabins is very much his business since the results could affect the whole ship. Immorality is also totally irrelevant except between the individual and that individuals God. Quite frankly, immorality is nobody's business other than the individual. I don't see where sex between two consenting adults would affect society,but others may say that there needs to be standards or else everyone could bring down the overall standard. Murder is different. Anytime there is a murder, the perpetrator most definitely can and does potentially affect society. You hit the nail on the head when you asked "whose business" a particular action may be. Consider: At Columbine High School, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris personal lives and behaviors were said to be the business of their parents and authorities who should have seen it coming and attempted to stop them. At whatever point society attempts to impose standards on others, we need to ask ourselves if the reason is that it is everyones business or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Modulus responds to me:
quote:quote: Except that when you examine their behaviour, they show that they really do. Their own morality is relative. It doesn't really matter what they say. It only matters what they do. If they can't even maintain their own morality without lapsing into relativism, then their claim that they are absolutists fails. The only question is what the parameters are. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Modulous responds to me:
quote: Incorrect. You, yourself, responded to nemesis_juggernaut's invocation of homosexuality in this thread. It seems that you can't discuss the issue without thinking homosexuality has a legitimate connection to bestiality. I guess, in essence, the experiment is over: You were unable to do so. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Incorrect. You, yourself, responded to nemesis_juggernaut's invocation of homosexuality in this thread. It seems that you can't discuss the issue without thinking homosexuality has a legitimate connection to bestiality. I guess, in essence, the experiment is over: You were unable to do so. So because I answered a question about relative morality with regards to homosexuality and bestiality that determines that I am unable to discuss bestiality without thinking it has a legitimate connection to homosexuality? I don't think there is a legitimate connection to cheese making and abortion (replace the words in my reply to nemesis and see how it is just as valid), but I can discuss relative morality in those terms if somebody specifically brings it up. However, since I discussed bestiality in the OP without connecting it in any way to homosexuality, that falsifies your statement that I am unable to do so. All you have shown is that I am able discuss the two at the same time, hardly an interesting insight, is it? It has hardly the same as 'thinking homosexuality has a legitimate connection to bestiality' Edited by Modulous, : No reason given. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Except that when you examine their behaviour, they show that they really do. Their own morality is relative. It doesn't really matter what they say. It only matters what they do. If they can't even maintain their own morality without lapsing into relativism, then their claim that they are absolutists fails. That is how I feel, and that is essentially how some absolutists feel about relative morality. The purpose of this thread is to correct the thinking of absolutists with regard to relative morality. As I said - moral studies often about just defining the various ways morality can be looked at. There are people that think there is only one morally right course of action in any given situation and we call these people absolutists. You can state that you think they are wrong if you like, but that does not stop them from being absolutists. They become people that believe there is only one correct morality despite their being numerous. They are still absolutists though, even if their morality is actually relative. All relative moralists will inevitably say that absolutists actually use relative morality to make moral decisions and absolutists vice versa. This is self evident: The argument of absolutists vs relativists is about which is actually correct, both sides arguing that the other side is wrong. Relativists point to absolutists and show that their morality is relative. Absolutists point to relativists and show that their morality is absolute. It's kind of like saying that atheists are really Christians who pretend not to believe because they want to get away with immorality. It's a non-argument. Absolutists exist, whether they are right or not is not relevant to this thread. This thread is only about describing the reasoning behind relative morality (the moral philosophy that holds that morality can only be described relative to the moral standard of something else)- which is contrasted briefly with absolutist morality. In essence an absolutist believes a moral judgement statement is either true or it is false, but never both. "Killing an innocent is wrong' can be a moral judgement that is true, or it can be false. With a relativist the statement can be true or false depending on the standard we are comparing it to (in our society for example killing an innocent is sometimes wrong, and it is sometimes right - euthanasia for example is sometimes forgiven - but in another society we might find it considered always morally wrong).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4520 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
The problem as i see it is that there are no absolutes , unless you pick up some as part of a religion , our you get universal agreement .
This lack of absolutes means anything is up for discussion , and given the human skill at bending and twisting rules .. well you can get away with murder . ****Moral code it is just a personal score card you invent or adopt , you want to be a morally good american use this set of rules , to be british use this varient , for french see this set , for iranian use this code , for chinese use this one ...if you want to join the golf club follow this moral code . its just away to see if you fit in .. it might as well be a dress code ... ****which is a good case in point ... we cant even agree as to when its murder ... a national leader sends armed men to shoot other people is it murder , war , counter terroisuum , self defence , " the only language such people understand " , a sad but nessary duty ... and what of the soliders .. are they blindly following orders , are they following moral orders , are they just as bad as those they shoot , are they heroic defenders risking their own lives , and remember both side can use the same reasoning we use "our" moral codes as a stick to beat other much more often that we use it to correct are own behaviour ... Edited by ikabod, : tidy up
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If you will all oblige me by listening to it, I think you'll see that whether you ultimately agree with his and my premise, the point is still a legitimate one. Without a foundation, without a reference point, there is no coherence. Well - I listened to the whole thing and found nothing of value. Is it just me or was most of the sermon a collection of anecdotes and quotes? It's not that I disagree with him, but that his talk doesn't seem to have any foundation or reference point and it is incoherent. He blathers on about some anecdotal student (who sounds like one of Hovind's infamous 'fall-guys') who, it turns out, is leading some kind of life style that sends contradictory signals to the individual and how physiology has become theology. He never explains what that string of nonsense means - do you have any idea? What is his point, that morality and decisions are a lot more complicated and gray and difficult to assess when you don't choose to believe in the writings of biblical authors? That is all I can see coming from it - and I agree entirely with that. The point is - what is so bad about it being harder to make moral judgements when you have to think for yourself, and weigh your decisions based on the consequence and weigh it against the morality of those around you? Yes, it becomes more involved to reach moral decisions about things - but morality is not something I think we should be lazy about. It should be hard work and it should not be about accepting the absolute moral doctrines of an collection of old ideas for fear of impending social collapse should you decide to think for yourself. Arriving at moral conclusions should be a journey of hard thought, questioning, scepticism, and reasoning. It should not be a short journey to the morality feeding machine ready to serve the local brand of absolute morality which is not to be questioned, there is to be no scepticism about the morality and reasoning is permitted only if it never degrades into the prohibited thought processes mentioned previously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: 32And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. 33And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. 34And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. 35And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. 36And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. You forgot to copy and paste the very next line.
quote: Care to answer the question?
If you were to stone someone to death for collecting firewood on a Sunday in the modern U.S.A., you would receive either a life sentence or a death sentence for murder. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time -John 8:3-9
Only a superstitious fool would try and apply the rules directly from this ancient culture to a modern western one. Then is it right for Middle Easterns, to which you referred to as being "semi-barbaric," to stone people or not? You speak about it in a way that indicates your contempt for it. So tell me: Is it wrong for these men, in all of their barbarism, to throw stones because of their superstition? Or is it just one culture expressing a different opinion than another? "The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So tell me: Is it wrong for these men, in all of their barbarism, to throw stones because of their superstition? Or is it just one culture expressing a different opinion than another? Moral relativism: There is no way to assess if it is wrong to stone this person to death. It is one way of structuring a society. We can decide whether it is wrong relative to a certain standard of morality. Let us say that it is right, relative to their standards and wrong relative to mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
nemesis writes: You forgot to copy and paste the very next line. No, I didn't.
Care to answer the question? Meaning "is murder wrong." It's relative. Check your dictionary for the definition of murder, and you'll see what I mean. Unlawful killing would, obviously, depend on the laws.
quote: Tell me, is this example of your God's behaviour, combined with the example that I gave further up the thread, supposed to illustrate the consistency that your preacher friend (Ravi?) is talking about in the audio you linked to in your first post? Is this the kind of stuff you draw your moral absolutism from?
Then is it right for Middle Easterns, to which you referred to as being "semi-barbaric," to stone people or not? You speak about it in a way that indicates your contempt for it. I referred to a specific ancient Middle-Eastern culture as being barbaric. By their law, it wasn't murder. By my personal values, your God, as portrayed here, is a sick and evil entity. Don't you agree?
So tell me: Is it wrong for these men, in all of their barbarism, to throw stones because of their superstition? Or is it just one culture expressing a different opinion than another? Well, they're following one of the great prophets of your religion, which presumably is the basis for your moral absolutism, so why don't you tell us if their behaviour is eternally right, or eternally wrong? Edited by bluegenes, : missing quote box Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It depends on the context. The Captain of the Airship Hindenburg may say that whether or not anyone smokes in the privacy of their cabins is very much his business since the results could affect the whole ship. Part of the problem seems to be that the Christian Communion of Bobble-heads are unable to read or comprehend the meaning of words and their relation to reality. What you describe has nothing to do with morality. The Captain of the Hindenburg may pass rules based on some criteria, in this case the risk of fire, but that has NOTHING to do with whether or not smoking in the cabin is moral or immoral.
I don't see where sex between two consenting adults would affect society,but others may say that there needs to be standards or else everyone could bring down the overall standard. Once again, that has nothing to do with morality or immorality. Morality is a religious construct. It is relative to the individual and that individuals god.
Murder is different. Anytime there is a murder, the perpetrator most definitely can and does potentially affect society. However, as I said, it will be the particulars of an individual, unique event that even determines whether or not the act was murder, and then a determination will be made as to whether or not it was justified. God murdered the people in Sodom. The effect of murder on society has NOTHING to do with whether or not it is immoral. In some societies the moral thing to do is to kill girls that have extra-marital sex. That is moral, and in their society legal, and I still see it as wrong.
At Columbine High School, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris personal lives and behaviors were said to be the business of their parents and authorities who should have seen it coming and attempted to stop them. Yes, under the current social mores, parents are responsible for their children. But that is a social contract, it has NOTHING to do with morality or immorality.
At whatever point society attempts to impose standards on others, we need to ask ourselves if the reason is that it is everyones business or not. What does that have to do with morality and immorality? No one is saying that there should not be some standards. We are trying to talk about morality, not standards. You seem to be confusing laws and morality. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin and add some more on murder. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5980 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
bluegenes writes: I referred to a specific ancient Middle-Eastern culture as being barbaric. By their law, it wasn't murder. By my personal values, your God, as portrayed here, is a sick and evil entity. Don't you agree? bluegenes, we still have capital punishment today. 'Barbarians' are people who required death sentences for much lesser crimes. It seems to me that what has changed over the years is our reaction to adultery. It's not so 'evil' now, as it was to the Israelites, who viewed fidelity as a direct command of God. The point is, that relativism has no means to decide that it is just to require someone's life as payment for a crime. In a few decades, society may decide that the crimes committed were not such a big deal after-all. That happens very frequently. Then, all of a sudden, the old culture becomes barbarian to our eyes. There is no doubt that what is considered moral changes over time, but we ALL act like absolutists. We act like we know the truth, we act like we are superior, and we don't hesitate to judge others according to our ways. If this was not true, no one would continue harping upon the 'evil' God of the OT as some kind of proof.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Everyone is a moral relativist. Everyone. Everyone is a moral solipsist.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024