I have a fear, no... I know that if I KNEW for sure, that there was absolutely no doubt that relative morality is correct I'd become one of the most immoral guys in this planet.
I doubt it. You clearly know it to be true and still, you are not out there raping and killing. Instead, you are here enjoying yourself talking about it with us over the internet.
I know this isn't the case for most. For many I know this wouldn't change much in their life but in mine... I KNOW I would become like that and I have no idea why I wouldn't want to be like that, now that I know (not KNOW) that relative morality is in fact correct.
I don`t think you would. the reason you wouldn`t want to become a imoral person is because that`s not who you are. Your morality comes from within you and a simple change in your understanding about how the world operates wouldn`t make a dent. denying your own nature would be unbearable.
For example, a good friend once reminded me while we were discussing a particular moral issue, that I cannot impose my morality onto others.
After several days it hit me... So I called him and I asked him, 'Why'? 'Would it be wrong to do so'?
If morality is not a real and objective thing, then how can we protest anything?
Someone might argue that it`s not a question of right and wrong. It really is a question of true and untrue. If there happens to be to real god (a logical possibility) then there is no absolute morality. It would be (is) up to us as human beings do find for ourselves what we consider to be right or wrong (not a simple matter, but hey! who said it had to be simple?)
I think it is insidious and diabolically clever, for a philosophy like moral relativism to claim neutrality, when there is no possible way to apply it without labling it's alternative (objective morality), as 'wrong'.
Not wrong. just incorrect. That`s a huge difference. wrong implies a moral reason for us to drop the absolute morality, as oposed to as simply not being a good mirror for reality. You seem to have this absolute way to look at things rooted so deeply in your being that you find it hard not to think in terms of rights and wrongs.
Will liars suddenly start becoming honest with me out of respect for my belief in truth? I don't think so...
What`s that`s got to do with anything? really?
So in my mind, it is nonsense to even suggest such things as relative morality, because for it to work, we must assume another morality to be at work to support it, and that is one of respecting others, as you wish to be respected.
May be in your mind. But out here in the real world your pseudoparadox doesn`t seem to hold water.
Furthermore, if morality is relative, then so is justice and mercy. The whole idea that life is meaningful, would very quickly devolve into meaningless chaos.
I agree. But even if it were not a non sequitur, it would still be appealing to consequences. Rob seems to think that if something leads to internal chaos (inside his mind), then it cannot possibly be true.
Tell a mother who's child was murdered by a drive by, that it was just a mistake.
Was Nazi Germany a mistake?
Is child Molestation a simple error?
I said it once, and I`ll say it again. what`s that got to do with anything???
I didn`t say those things are mistakes. I said it is a mistake to think that they are wrong because of some absolute morality. Correct would be to say that those things are wrong because we as human beings (with our relative morality) find those things abhorent (probabily misspeled).
Don`t you wish it would be so easy?!!
I have to wonder what sin you like so much, that it is worth justifying things that are evil as mistakes?
I`m not trying to justify anything. I`m just concerned with truth, and whether there really is an absolute morality handed down from god to man. I`m convinced that there isn`t, and I`m fine with that. I`m not any less moral for it if you want to know.
And that's why people try to relativize it away, and come up with their own system.
I don`t think people com up with moral systems because they want to do away with someoneelse`s moral system. We all do it because we are moral beings. It is in our nature. We just can`t help it. That does not make those morals absolute, though. they are relative because they were created by men, not gods. they are just the best we could com up with, as human beings.
Rules will not save us.
. salvation seems to be such a selfish reason for anybody to try to be moral. It`s so blatantly contradictory that I don`t see how it could possibily work.
Some people do good things because they feel good when they do it. But you seem to believe that people will only do the right thing if they are handed the (absolute) rules by some higher being (god). If that`s true, I have to say I do not envy you. you really must have a joyless life if you keep doing the right thing and still don`t get any pleasure out of it.
Actually, most of my friends are what I consider immoral, drink, have one night stands, some use drugs
Now you`ve opened an entirely new can of warms. Why would those things be considered immoral? but I suppose this question might be off topic here.
But consider that: I may have had one or two one night stands in my entire life. If I said I didn`t enjoy them, I would be lying. So why haven`t I had any more? simply put, I enjoy long term relationships even more. But other people may have different inclinations. I don`t feel the need to label their behaviour as immoral, though. If a couple decides to have a one-time-fling, how does that hurt me or anybody else? How could I honestly lable their behaviour as immoral?
That`s not ut to you to decide. Every person has to decide by themselves what gives them self worth.
You fulfill a basic animalistic tendency which is not of any worth
Just your opinion. I, for instance, am very proud of being an animal.
Mill calls these type of pleasures that all animals enjoy "lesser pleasures". I elaborate on that by saying they are indeed, lesser because he in fact did not refer to them as lesser in regards to their value.
I couldn`t care less about Mill`s (who the heck is him?) opinion.
Besides being an instance of "appeal to authority" fallacy, what you said makes no sense.
You do not actually love the person that you use. This degrades the value of love.
There are many forms of love. Besides, love is stronger then you are implying.
By having a "one-time-fling" solely for immediate gratification and not founded on love you only hurt yourself.
Who are you to decide what`s hurtfull to other people? That`s their prehogative, not yours.
You make yourself sick
Someone told me ignorance is not bliss and for the sake of humanity I must believe it.
A completely irrelevant conclusion to your post. (which, by the way, is not entirely surprising...)
Mill is an authority on morality having fathered utilitarianism I guess I'm not guilty.
Sorry, but I just don`t buy that. Your arguments in these fora must stand on their own. Besides, as I pointed out, what you said made no sense. No external "Authorities" will change that. (May be you just misstyped?)
Is that all you could come up with against my previous post?
I'm discussing morality with people that are wanton about knowledge.
Your immorality will catch up on you.
Unecessary prsonal attacks. Your debating style isn`t doing much to further your points, in case you haven`t noticed...