Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moral Relativism
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 23 of 284 (41214)
05-24-2003 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Paul
05-16-2003 8:04 PM


Didn't Jesus re-phrase the ten commandments because
he said that they needed updating to contemporary society?
What would be an 'absolute moral' anyway?
Surely 'absolute morality' would imply that all individuals
would view certain acts as 'right' or 'wrong' in the same
way. This is not the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Paul, posted 05-16-2003 8:04 PM Paul has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 54 of 284 (46647)
07-21-2003 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by crashfrog
06-07-2003 12:34 PM


quote:
One of those, to me, is that the moral code reduces the suffering of all persons, whenever possible
In that case we don't have any proper moral codes, since most
founded in religions are prescriptive and lead people to act in
a manner that is counter to full enjoyment of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 06-07-2003 12:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by John, posted 07-21-2003 9:43 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 59 of 284 (46682)
07-21-2003 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by MrHambre
07-21-2003 11:46 AM


If we have to affirm them, they cannot be absolute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by MrHambre, posted 07-21-2003 11:46 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by MrHambre, posted 07-21-2003 12:01 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 62 of 284 (46697)
07-21-2003 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by MrHambre
07-21-2003 12:01 PM


OK.
What has that got to do with moral relatavism, except that
it is an example of such?
Sarcasm aside, the number of words in a post is not a good
measure of substance

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by MrHambre, posted 07-21-2003 12:01 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by MrHambre, posted 07-21-2003 12:40 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 65 of 284 (46824)
07-22-2003 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by MrHambre
07-21-2003 12:40 PM


quote:
Evidently your definition of 'relativism' is that everyone affirms his or her own morality and is responsible for his or her own actions. In that case, I am a relativist, so is everyone else, and there is no other reasonable view.
Evidently your definition of 'absolute' is a virtue that is floating in the Plato galaxy, where we can see it with our moral telescopes and are powerless to deny its existence and universality. In that case, there are no absolutes and there is no other reasonable view.
Yes, that's exactly what we've been saying ... but we didn't need
to use all that verbiage.
quote:
We make these choices not on the authority of God or government, but because we recognize that certain virtues are ends in and of themselves.
What a load of [insert derrogatory indication of choice].
People do things. They do not sit and ponder the rights and
wrongs of their actions, they have formed over time a level
of acceptability for different types of actions.
Few people do things to be virtuos (not even religous people),
they do things because things need doing, and some people are
willing to trample over anyone else to get what they want.
Some people will lie, steal, kill, etc. they don't necesarily beleive
that they are wrong to do so, nor do they consider these actions
from a moral PoV (consciously).
Some people, whne undercharged in a shop, will walk out going
never-mind they should be more careful, while others will rush
back and point out the error, and still others will chuckle
and pat the extra money in their pocket.
But they don't think of the moral implications.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by MrHambre, posted 07-21-2003 12:40 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by MrHambre, posted 07-22-2003 9:22 AM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 69 of 284 (46876)
07-22-2003 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by MrHambre
07-22-2003 9:22 AM


quote:
If someone sees their own self-interest is an end in itself, then that's the ideal toward which their actions will strive. All I'm saying is that whatever ideals people affirm become the standards for their behavior, whether we share these ideals with them or not.
OK, but I don't beleive that the affirmation is conscious (in all
cases).
quote:
We all look at these things from some sort of moral perspective, though some perspectives are obviously more humane than others. Doesn't everyone have an ideal for which they would commit extreme acts? Say self-defense?
Mentioning 'humane' and 'extreme act' throws even more subjectivism
into the mixture.
If one considers one's actions in terms of acceptability
or 'right/wrong' then I'd agree that one is operating from
a moral perspective -- what I am saying is by-and-large
that is not how people perceive what they do. The majority
of people are much more self-serving than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by MrHambre, posted 07-22-2003 9:22 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 91 of 284 (47893)
07-29-2003 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Rrhain
07-29-2003 4:32 AM


quote:
Even if it's a rare occurence, there is no justification for risking someone else's life for an unnecessary procedure without his consent
I understand what you are saying, but if this were the way things
actually worked we wouldn't be allowed cars and aircraft.
It's about tolerable risk, and that boils down to probability
of encountering a negative outcome.
The above would mean we shouldn't take out kids in the car
until they are old enough to say whether they want to come
or not.
Added by edit :- maybe we shouldn't I guess.
[This message has been edited by Peter, 07-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Rrhain, posted 07-29-2003 4:32 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Rrhain, posted 07-30-2003 7:43 AM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 93 of 284 (48026)
07-30-2003 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Rrhain
07-30-2003 7:43 AM


There's no necessity to take kids in cars, we could
quite reasonably arrange our lives so that we could walk
everywhere (previous generations had little choice in
this).
If it's about consent then wait till the kids can consent
before doing anything dangerous.
That said I am actually AGAINST ANY unecessary surgery -- but
I'm not sure exactly why -- it's not to do with risk exactly
though. Hmmm .... I better have a think about why I'm against
it and get back to you on that bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Rrhain, posted 07-30-2003 7:43 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 94 of 284 (48028)
07-30-2003 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Rrhain
07-30-2003 7:43 AM


I think I agree on the grounds of consent to a body
altering procedure.
Not because of the risk, but because it's a permanent
body change and one should have the choice in that.
None gives someone a nose job without asking so why do something
elective when the person cannot elect to have it done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Rrhain, posted 07-30-2003 7:43 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024