Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
31 online now:
AZPaul3, GDR, kjsimons, Tanypteryx (4 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,466 Year: 18,502/19,786 Month: 922/1,705 Week: 174/518 Day: 48/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moral Relativism
nator
Member (Idle past 454 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 256 of 284 (135044)
08-18-2004 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Hangdawg13
08-17-2004 5:01 AM


Re: Nope
Of course, the Christian may be less willing to fight and die for virtues and beliefs because they believe that they are "saved", and thus guaranteed a place in heaven.

quote:
Being saved is no excuse for being a coward, and I don't know of any specific case of someone becoming more cowardly BECAUSE they were saved.

What do you call the fundamentalist Christians who do what they can to escalate and promote the conflict in the middle east because they believe that by doing this they will bring about Armageddon?

What about the Christians, like Buzsaw and PecodGeorge, who are all too willing to forget all about "love thy neighbor" and "do unto others" when Muslims are concerned?

or because they do not believe they have to do good works towards their fellow man to earn their place in heaven.

quote:
there is much said to warn believers of taking this mindset particularly in James. If one does not love and forgive his neighbor he does not love God.

But I have had dozens of Christians tell me over the years that once you are "saved", that's it, you're going to heaven.

You don't have to earn your way through good works at all.

Just because they aren't "supposed" to think this way according to you doesn't mean that millions of Christians don't, in fact, think this way.

Ah, but yes, I can certinly objectively show you evidence to suggest that a sense of right and wrong are products of evolution.

quote:
Yes, that's some very interesting information, but what does it have to do with the relative existence of right and wrong? Even the animals have a sense for it. What's right is right. What's wrong is wrong. You can't get away from it.

I never said right and wrong, as concepts, don't exist.

I am saying that there is no absolute right and wrong.

What is right or wrong is relative to the culture and situation, always.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-17-2004 5:01 AM Hangdawg13 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by jar, posted 08-18-2004 8:03 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 258 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-18-2004 8:39 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 259 by General Nazort, posted 08-18-2004 11:46 PM nator has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31462
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 257 of 284 (135094)
08-18-2004 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by nator
08-18-2004 6:24 PM


On Christians and morals.
What do you call the fundamentalist Christians who do what they can to escalate and promote the conflict in the middle east because they believe that by doing this they will bring about Armageddon?

There have always been unstable lunatic fringe folk in any group. In this case I would call them Anarchists. Big time Anarchists.

What about the Christians, like Buzsaw and PecodGeorge, who are all too willing to forget all about "love thy neighbor" and "do unto others" when Muslims are concerned?

Terrorists.

But I have had dozens of Christians tell me over the years that once you are "saved", that's it, you're going to heaven.

You don't have to earn your way through good works at all.

Just because they aren't "supposed" to think this way according to you doesn't mean that millions of Christians don't, in fact, think this way.

True, many believe that. We have a few here. But all we can do is try to show them how wrong they are. It's not easy, but that is what we must do.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by nator, posted 08-18-2004 6:24 PM nator has not yet responded

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 3190 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 258 of 284 (135109)
08-18-2004 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by nator
08-18-2004 6:24 PM


Re: Nope
What do you call the fundamentalist Christians who do what they can to escalate and promote the conflict in the middle east because they believe that by doing this they will bring about Armageddon?

Stupid.

What about the Christians, like Buzsaw and PecodGeorge, who are all too willing to forget all about "love thy neighbor" and "do unto others" when Muslims are concerned?

I don't know what you are speaking of specifically so I cannot judge.

Just because they aren't "supposed" to think this way according to you doesn't mean that millions of Christians don't, in fact, think this way.

So what's your point? The path that leads to salvation is narrow.

I am saying that there is no absolute right and wrong.

What is right or wrong is relative to the culture and situation, always.

Okay, whatever.. I'm tired of this fruitless debate anyways.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by nator, posted 08-18-2004 6:24 PM nator has not yet responded

    
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 284 (135124)
08-18-2004 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by nator
08-18-2004 6:24 PM


Re: Nope
Right and wrong depend on the situation, obviously, but there are some situations in which the culture does not matter - situations in which every single person, regardless of his/her culture, should do one specific thing. This is a moral absolute.


If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by nator, posted 08-18-2004 6:24 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by jar, posted 08-18-2004 11:58 PM General Nazort has not yet responded
 Message 261 by nator, posted 08-19-2004 12:52 AM General Nazort has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31462
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 260 of 284 (135128)
08-18-2004 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by General Nazort
08-18-2004 11:46 PM


Re: Nope
situations in which every single person, regardless of his/her culture, should do one specific thing. This is a moral absolute.

You keep saying this but when it gets down to specifics, they never seem to prove out. So once again, can you give us an example of a moral absolute?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by General Nazort, posted 08-18-2004 11:46 PM General Nazort has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 454 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 261 of 284 (135136)
08-19-2004 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by General Nazort
08-18-2004 11:46 PM


Re: Nope
quote:
situations in which every single person, regardless of his/her culture, should do one specific thing. This is a moral absolute.

OK.

What are a couple of examples of absolute morality in which every single person should do one specific thing?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by General Nazort, posted 08-18-2004 11:46 PM General Nazort has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by General Nazort, posted 08-19-2004 2:26 PM nator has not yet responded

    
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 284 (135190)
08-19-2004 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Sleeping Dragon
08-17-2004 12:36 PM


quote:
But who judges how much impact a loss will have on any individual? A selfish, egocentric scrooch may value his/her millionth dollar more than a generous individual value his/her hundredth dollar. Is percentage or proportion a sufficiently good basis for measuring impact?

I didn't at any point introduce subjectivity into the argument. I don't particularly give a shit about personal feelings in this regard becuase, this is a social system and everyone has feelings; no one persons can be prvileged.

Capitalism makes value subjective; I think this is a faulty analysis. The criteria I apply is exploitation, and the capacity to exploit.

quote:
Hmmmmmmmmmm..........I kind of understand what you are referring to, though it sounds more like an economic wealth allocation problem than morality.

Exactly so. Property rights are social structures; property does not carry an inherent moral quality. Which is exactly why it is NOT evident that theft is morally wrong. The moral wrongness of theft is a device our society uses to persuade people not to steal.

quote:

A progressive tax (such as income tax) is already doing such a great job of allocating wealth from the rich to the poor - must we really change Possession Law?

IMO, yes. Not least because the gap between riuch and poor is expanding in most OECD states, and so this strategy is clearly failing.

quote:
I don't know if I am interpreting this correctly, but you seem to be saying that in a better system, all individuals can only obtain and possess a certain amount of wealth (x), and that any wealth they generate past this amount must be forfeited to the society. Is this Communism?

No. I am saying that a field is not possessed by a person merely because they put a stake in it. Either the field is under the plow, in use, and the person working it is befitting from it, or it is not in use, and should be freely available for use by those who need it and are willing to work. I assert actual exploitation crtiteria are more sensible than abstract property criteria for allocating social resources to users.

And yes, this is very much Communism, as long as you don;t stoop to cheap lies like "everything is owned by the coercive state".

quote:
Why would people work harder to earn past the minimum quota (since they can't retain the wealth anyway) - Promotion of laziness.

This is an elderly and gross lie. Anyone who had read Capital would know how to answer this; it circulates in the West only as propaganda.

The reason is, because I can gain benefit from a shitload of stuff. A house, a TV, a video player... and as technology improves, I stand to benefit even more. I am using all of this stuff, and therefore have the right to claim it be socially protected.

What I do NOT have the right to do is say that someone else cannot use a resource to meet their own needs, and that it should be socially protected on my behalf, if I am not using it. That is the situation as it applies in capitalism, and it is in fact in capitalism that there is no motivation to work beyond the miniumum: the things I create through my efforts are owned by the boss, not by me, so there is no incentive for me to do more than the minimum.

quote:
How do people who can't even earn the minimum amount of wealth survive?

Charity. But in an induatrialised society, we can easily feed and house everyone, so the issue is largely moot. Modern property owning socities treat their disabled and elderly much worse than most primitive communisms.

quote:
Can you explain this "better system" in greater detail please?

Its the old concept of the commons. Many "primitive" societies have for example grazing ranges over which everyone holds right of exploitation, but no-one holds right of exclusive exploitation. The result is that the grazing lands serve as a resource to the whole community with which individuals can achieve wealth through their own efforts, skill, and luck. But everyone also recognises that your cows are your cows. A person caring for a herd of cows has the exclusive exploitation rights to that herd because it has been brought about through their efforts; but they they do not have exclusiove property rights over the grazing lands because the land does not exist as a result of that persons efforts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 08-17-2004 12:36 PM Sleeping Dragon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 08-19-2004 10:14 AM contracycle has not yet responded

  
Sleeping Dragon
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 284 (135212)
08-19-2004 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by contracycle
08-19-2004 7:02 AM


To contracycle:

Thank you for your reply.

Reply to your post:

Capitalism makes value subjective; I think this is a faulty analysis. The criteria I apply is exploitation, and the capacity to exploit.

Ahhhhhh....interesting concept. Comments further down.

Exactly so. Property rights are social structures; property does not carry an inherent moral quality. Which is exactly why it is NOT evident that theft is morally wrong. The moral wrongness of theft is a device our society uses to persuade people not to steal.

Alright. Granted, I can see things from your perspective, and even gems of practicality in your argument too. I still see problems, though that may be because I don't know your theory well enough. Comments further down.

IMO, yes. Not least because the gap between riuch and poor is expanding in most OECD states, and so this strategy is clearly failing.

Well, there could be other factors - such as education and the wealth inheritance cycle. It has been prostulated, for example, that the rich are more knowledgable in how to make their money grow (or in avoiding taxes).

No. I am saying that a field is not possessed by a person merely because they put a stake in it. Either the field is under the plow, in use, and the person working it is befitting from it, or it is not in use, and should be freely available for use by those who need it and are willing to work. I assert actual exploitation crtiteria are more sensible than abstract property criteria for allocating social resources to users.

Ok, there is sense in this. May I ask what resources (aside from land) would be considered "public"? And also, what happens when this resource (or any other) is being used at maximum capacity?

And yes, this is very much Communism, as long as you don;t stoop to cheap lies like "everything is owned by the coercive state".

I don't care what it is as long as it works.

This is an elderly and gross lie. Anyone who had read Capital would know how to answer this; it circulates in the West only as propaganda.

So I have been taught a lie. Hmmmmm....reminescence of my Anglican primary school days.

The reason is, because I can gain benefit from a shitload of stuff. A house, a TV, a video player... and as technology improves, I stand to benefit even more. I am using all of this stuff, and therefore have the right to claim it be socially protected.

So there ARE property rights, but only stuff that you are using, right?

Question:

1) Can you build your house as big as you want it? (How much is exploit-able?)
2) Can you buy a TV for every room in your 200-room mansion?
3) Does this mean you can own as much money as you can earn but you can't buy more things than you can use?

it is in fact in capitalism that there is no motivation to work beyond the miniumum: the things I create through my efforts are owned by the boss, not by me, so there is no incentive for me to do more than the minimum.

But you can create your own company under Capitalism.

Also, your ability to make money for the company increases your worth to it, and thus increases your income. (If this does not happen, you can change over to another company that recognises your worth)

So under your system, all the companies would be state owned, and your wages would be performance-tagged? (Everyone owns everything + direct incentives to work harder)

Charity. But in an induatrialised society, we can easily feed and house everyone, so the issue is largely moot. Modern property owning socities treat their disabled and elderly much worse than most primitive communisms.

I won't buy into the idea of charity supporting the elderly and disabled on the grounds that charity is not guaranteed to generate sufficient funds. If you say taxes, then the issue is moot, yes.

As for the latter point, my knowledge in primitive societies and their treatment of the disabled and elderly is limited and prevents me from making any constructive comments, though I have reasons to believe you're probably right.

Its the old concept of the commons...but they do not have exclusiove property rights over the grazing lands because the land does not exist as a result of that persons efforts.

Again, I must ask:

So it doesn't matter how many cows/TVs/cars/boats/jets/shoes etc. you can own, but land is common? What else is common?

Is it ok if I come over to your house and take your Porsche out for a spin while you are watching TV, and so obviously not exploiting it?

Patiently awaiting your reply.


"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by contracycle, posted 08-19-2004 7:02 AM contracycle has not yet responded

  
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 264 of 284 (135282)
08-19-2004 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by nator
08-19-2004 12:52 AM


Re: Nope
What are a couple of examples of absolute morality in which every single person should do one specific thing?

A man should not murder his neighbor and rape the wife and children.

A rich person should not steal money from someone poorer than him.

These examples apply to all people.


If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by nator, posted 08-19-2004 12:52 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-19-2004 3:52 PM General Nazort has responded
 Message 269 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-19-2004 4:39 PM General Nazort has not yet responded

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 284 (135303)
08-19-2004 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by General Nazort
08-19-2004 2:26 PM


Re: Nope
A rich person should not steal money from someone poorer than him.

The rich person knows for a fact that the poor person is in withdrawl from addictive drugs, and will put the money toward a relapse. He steals it so that the poor person will be unable to reinforce their addiction.


"Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine, it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read, 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous, and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.' The page has been universally condemned by church leaders."
-Rob Grant and Doug Naylor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by General Nazort, posted 08-19-2004 2:26 PM General Nazort has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by General Nazort, posted 08-19-2004 3:56 PM Dan Carroll has responded

  
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 266 of 284 (135304)
08-19-2004 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Dan Carroll
08-19-2004 3:52 PM


Re: Nope
The rich person knows for a fact that the poor person is in withdrawl from addictive drugs, and will put the money toward a relapse. He steals it so that the poor person will be unable to reinforce their addiction.

Lol, sorry In this scenario, that is not the case.

Taking money from the poor person in this scenario will not help them. That is part of the scenario.


Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-19-2004 3:52 PM Dan Carroll has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2004 4:23 PM General Nazort has not yet responded
 Message 268 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-19-2004 4:23 PM General Nazort has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 284 (135314)
08-19-2004 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by General Nazort
08-19-2004 3:56 PM


Post Deleted
Come to think of it, Dan can probably handle this himself.

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-19-2004 03:24 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by General Nazort, posted 08-19-2004 3:56 PM General Nazort has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-19-2004 4:39 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 284 (135315)
08-19-2004 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by General Nazort
08-19-2004 3:56 PM


Re: Nope
Taking money from the poor person in this scenario will not help them. That is part of the scenario.

You should probably specify that up front, then. If you're trying to establish absolute morals, you can't really leave room for exceptions.

Of course even within these new boundaries... a rich person sets up a computer scam that will steal five dollars apiece from every customer of a bank. The poor are not specifically targeted, but the majority of the bank's customer's are definitely in the very-low-income bracket. The rich person covers his tracks well, gets away with it, and uses the money to build an orphanage. The orphanage in no way helps those who had money stolen from them to build it, as they are not orphans. The price of the orphanage was such that the rich man, despite his wealth, would not have been able to build it without the initial bank scam.


"Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine, it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read, 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous, and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.' The page has been universally condemned by church leaders."
-Rob Grant and Doug Naylor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by General Nazort, posted 08-19-2004 3:56 PM General Nazort has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by General Nazort, posted 08-19-2004 5:27 PM Dan Carroll has responded

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 284 (135320)
08-19-2004 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by General Nazort
08-19-2004 2:26 PM


Re: Nope
And heck... I'm up for a challenge:

A man should not murder his neighbor and rape the wife and children.

A virulent plague wipes out everyone on Earth, except for you, your neighbor, and his wife and two daughters. Your neighbor is impotent. Additionally, he flies into a furious rage every time to you attempt to procreate with his wife and daughters, and swears that if you manage to somehow impregnate any of them behind his back, he will abort the child. You kill him, in order to ensure the future of mankind.

Upon killing him, you discover that his wife and daughters refuse to sleep with the man that killed their husband/father. You exhaust every possible avenue of courtship, until it becomes clear that they would rather let the human race die out than have sex with you. For the very continuation of the human species, you rape them.


"Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine, it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read, 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous, and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.' The page has been universally condemned by church leaders."
-Rob Grant and Doug Naylor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by General Nazort, posted 08-19-2004 2:26 PM General Nazort has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by jar, posted 08-19-2004 4:53 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 284 (135321)
08-19-2004 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by crashfrog
08-19-2004 4:23 PM


Re: Post Deleted
Come to think of it, Dan can probably handle this himself.

Moral ambiguity is my playground.


"Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine, it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read, 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous, and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.' The page has been universally condemned by church leaders."
-Rob Grant and Doug Naylor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2004 4:23 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019