|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Moral Relativism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: ... which is exactly why our government is taking away our freedoms. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Conspirator Inactive Member |
Moral Relativism is self-refuting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JosephM Inactive Member |
Hello everyone.. This is my first of what I hope will be many postings in the evc forum. I would also like to apoligize in advance for my poor spelling.
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 is not an original insight and im sure most people who feel there is any merit in moral relativism can ignore it with ease. While recognizing our surroundings have a tremendous impact on what is legal, I have never been comfortable with the idea that geography decides whats right and wrong. My disagreement is that mr assumes one culture or society can not be mistaken. There is a sort of circular logic involved with saying in country A abuse is permitted and in country B it is not, therefore it is right in country A and not in B. Why is mr uncapable of considering the fact that absloutely abuse is wrong, country A just has not realized it or does not acknowledge it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EndocytosisSynthesis  Inactive Member |
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. Stalin and Mao are responsible for more unjust deaths than all of the religious crusades combined, and there's no way you can tell me they were religious people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: In that case we don't have any proper moral codes, since mostfounded in religions are prescriptive and lead people to act in a manner that is counter to full enjoyment of life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Agreed. I tend to think, though, that moral codes have less to do with enjoyment and more to do with survival. That said, we are smart enough to weave in the happy-camper factor, if we could just leave out the superstition. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: ...except that we can change those if we want to...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: quote: No, it's not the same thing. The equivalent to cutting off the clitoris would be cutting off the penis. (In general, though, I do agree with you about male circumcision. I think it is completely cosmetic and uneccessary.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
quote:In that case, moral relativism is wrong. How ironic that the validity of even relativism depends on how you look at it. I'm not going to argue that moral absolutes exist, in some Platonic ideal way. However, they exist insofar as we affirm them. In deciding freely that certain things like freedom are ends in and of themselves, we affirm that they are not merely means to any other ends. Similarly, we deny that laws (whether God-mandated or governmental) are the source of morality. Any authority must be based on respect for our ideals, not the ideals on respect for authority. What we apply to every situation are the absolutes that we affirm. ------------------Quien busca, halla
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
If we have to affirm them, they cannot be absolute.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Peter,
Thank you for your substantial reply. You'll notice I said virtues don't exist in some Platonic fairyland. They are absolute in that we affirm that they are 'good' in and of themselves. Authority in any sense is independent of these virtues and must respect them. ------------------Quien busca, halla
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024