Moral Relativism

quote:

---

You can't have a constitution without absolutes to base it on.

---

But we do. The very fact that the constitution has the capability to be amended makes it a relativist document. There is nothing in the constitution that can't be deleted, nothing that can't be changed, and no possibility that can't be added.When they wrote it, they knew they couldn't possibly be absolutely right beyond all shadow of doubt, writing a system of government that would endure for all time. So they added the provision that future generations could say, "Man, these guys had it all wrong!" and change it accordingly.------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

quote:

---

But we do. The very fact that the constitution has the capability to be amended makes it a relativist document. There is nothing in the constitution that can't be deleted, nothing that can't be changed, and no possibility that can't be added.

---

True but I think you are getting to specific. The people who wrote our constitution also created the Judicial branch to interpret and protect the constitution and its basic foundation of absolutes. That is why we have so many court cases that go on that are ruled to be either constitutional or un-constitutional. If something does not go along with the basic founding absolutes of our constitution then our Judiciary protects that such as any threats to our Freedom. Imagine how our society would react if our freedom was restricted to amounts of $ we could earn. Also the premise of having a constitution that can be ammended is not reletivism in action at all. Instead to claim that we don't have everything right so we must make room in our constituion for changes, is in itself an absolute statement that our constituion is based on.

quote:

---

True but I think you are getting to specific. The people who wrote our constitution also created the Judicial branch to interpret and protect the constitution and its basic foundation of absolutes. That is why we have so many court cases that go on that are ruled to be either constitutional or un-constitutional. If something does not go along with the basic founding absolutes of our constitution then our Judiciary protects that such as any threats to our Freedom.

---

And the legislative branch can change those freedoms. A supreme court ruling today could be completely different five years from now if the constitution is changed in the meantime. That's anything but absolute.If a constitutional amendment were entered into law that conflicted with other amendments, it would be struck down by the judicial branch. But if the previously existing amendments were to be altered beforehand so as to prevent the conflict, the judicial branch would have absolutely no authority to strike it (or any law which conflicted with the now non-existent freedoms) down.For instance, Bush Sr.'s flag-burning amendment would have required an overhaul of the first amendment. But had the first amendment been altered, or the new amendment phrased in a way so as to state that it was an exception to the first, it would not have been illegal. I think it would have been immoral to put that amendment into law; others don't. It came down to what the majority thought. Moral relativism in action.

quote:

---

Imagine how our society would react if our freedom was restricted to amounts of $ we could earn.

---

Exactly... how would we react? That is what determines our freedoms. What freedoms do the majority decide we are allowed to have? Sounds like moral relativism to me.

quote:

---

Also the premise of having a constitution that can be ammended is not reletivism in action at all. Instead to claim that we don't have everything right so we must make room in our constituion for changes, is in itself an absolute statement that our constituion is based on.

---

Nope. Because that can be changed too.But even if it couldn't, it seems as if you'd be saying, "It's not relativism, because it's absolutely relative."???-----------
Dan Carroll[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 05-27-2003]

What we do have is precedent. This makes it clear in my mind at least that our forefathers based our constitution with absolutes in mind. Why did they even come over here in the fist place? Why did so many fight and die to protect our freedom? Would you deny that our society and Constitution is not founded on protecting our freedom? Did our soldiers fight and die for nothing. I don't think so. I don't see how we can deny the intent of our founders. This precedence serves as our backbone. Freedom is what the United States was founded on. Even so though even if one day in the future our freedom was compromised in such a drastic way, Which seems unfathomable to me(personal emotion, hey I'm human). I think most of us would concede that the majority is not always right. It's kind of like how 9/11 affected us. We were one day taking our freedom for granted but when we were attacked and threatened, our people quickley came together and united when our freedom was attacked. There were flags everywhere and patiotic banners everywhere. This is why I believe that Freedom is an example of an absolute that our country was founded on. Much blood has been shed for freedom not just by Americans but others as well. You don't have to go far into a deep philosophical debate. I could see these occurances for myself.

quote:

---

Why did so many fight and die to protect our freedom?

---

Which freedom would that be? Our freedom of no taxation without representation? Or going back farther, our freedom to practice Puritanism? It certainly wasn't full religious freedom, seeing as how Roger Williams founded Rhode Island after being kicked out of Massachusetts for not being a Puritan.Do you see how "freedom" can be a very fluid word? What we consider a basic, undeniable freedom one day can be completely irrelevant the next.

quote:

---

I don't see how we can deny the intent of our founders.

---

I never met them, so I couldn't really speak to their intent. Only to the document they left behind. If they meant something other than what was in the document, they should have phrased it better.

quote:

---

I think most of us would concede that the majority is not always right.

---

You're assuming there is a "right". To the majority, the majority is absolutely right. To the minority, they're very much mistaken. And vice versa. So who's actually right right? Is there any way to actually tell? The best we can hope for is to agree as best we can, and change our minds if we wind up wrong.That's why we have a democracy, instead of setting one person in charge to tell us what is absolutely right.

quote:

---

It's kind of like how 9/11 affected us. We were one day taking our freedom for granted but when we were attacked and threatened, our people quickley came together and united when our freedom was attacked.

---

You saw a different 9/11 than I did, but that's a whole other debate.

quote:

---

This is why I believe that Freedom is an example of an absolute that our country was founded on. Much blood has been shed for freedom not just by Americans but others as well. You don't have to go far into a deep philosophical debate. I could see these occurances for myself.

---

So define "freedom". Freedom of what? Freedom for what? Freedom to what?There's no catch-all FREEDOM that the constitution guarantees. That societal structure is generally referred to by the name "anarchy".Regardless... two years ago you couldn't jail a citizen indefinitely without trial or charges because you had stuck the word "terrorist" on his file. What would have been seen as horrible government misuse of power is now seen as defending freedom. Why? Because circumstances and popular opinion define it that way.------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

A man is not allowed control over his own body...and if he complains, he's whining.

---

​

Yeah, you are whining. By this logic we shouldn't bother tying off the umbilical cord. No surgery should ever be performed on infants, right? Not even beneficial ones?

---

So seeing as how breast cancer is a major killer of women, and there appears to be a genetic component to it, we should perform mastectomies on infant girls, especially those born to women who have family histories of breast cancer, just in case they're one of those that will contract the disease, right?Your argument is of the slippery slope.Should no man ever be circumcised? Of course not. There are medical conditions such as phimosis for which circumcision is a viable treatment.But don't you think that it is up to the man to determine if he wishes to be circumcised? Especially if the reason being given is that "I don't like the way it looks"? Do you seriously think it is appropriate to perform elective cosmetic surgery on a non-consenting patient?And that means parents shouldn't pierce the ears of their infant girls, either. It isn't their body to decide that. There is a difference between body alterations performed out of necessity and those performed out of vanity.A foreskin is not a birth defect.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Let's not forget that we're talking about the US. When was the last time you heard of a girl in the US having anybody go near her genitals with a knife without somebody threatening to kill the maniac?

---

​

Doctors continue to perform the practice on young girls in the US, as a matter of fact. Obviously, it's only in those communities that are originally from cultures that practice FGM but it does happen here.

---

Really? Where? It's illegal in the US. At the federal level.Now, does that mean it never happens? Of course not. But the point is that it is a federal crime to do it to a girl.But do it to a boy, and you're doing him a favor.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Again, serious complications run about 1 in 500. With 20% of the world's male population circumcised, how many do you think that is?

---

​

Complications of what kind?

---

They run the gamut from the immediate such as excessive bleeding at the time of the surgery to long term effects such as cutting off too much making for painful erections or even the need for reconstructive surgery, possible sex re-assignment, and even death.

quote:

---

quote:

---

When was the last time a girl was killed from circumcision in the United States?

---

​

It doesn't matter if they die.

---

Tell that to the boy who was killed for a surgical procedure he didn't need and had no say in its execution.

quote:

---

What matters is that FGM renders a female incapable of sexual enjoyment.

---

Only certain types. Not all methods of FGM are infibulation.And let us not forget, the reason that the West took up male circumcision was to prevent masturbation. And from what we can tell, circumcised men don't feel the same sensations during sex as uncircumcised men do.In short, circumcised men have reduced sexual enjoyment.I don't deny the problems associated with FGM. What I am saying is that MGM is not "just cutting off a little piece of skin."

quote:

---

Not to mention it greatly complicates childbirth and urination, even to the point of serious health risk.

---

I don't deny this.But if you're going to say that we shouldn't do this to girls because of the horrible consequences that can result, why do you not extend the same courtesy to the boys?Tell the infant boy who died from his circumcision he didn't need that he shouldn't be complaining.

quote:

---

These are two clearly different topics. Circumcision isn't even in the same ballpark as FGM and it's disingenuous to compare them.

---

The justifications for MGM are identical to FGM and it is disingenuous to trivialize the mutilation of boys as if they aren't connected.

quote:

---

I can imagine any purpose to such a comparison except for people to hijack the reasonable outrage people feel when faced with FGM and apply it to circumsision as well, where it's simply not appropriate.

---

I can't imagine any purpose to such a trivialization except for people to perpetuate the sexist attitude of man=bad/women=good, that if it happens to a man, he needs to suck it up but if it happens to a woman, it's the worst thing in the world. It is yet another example of how women are valued more than men.Of course, my full opinion is that everyone is devalued. Men get devalued in certain situations while women get devalued in other situations. F'rinstance, there is the attitude that a man needs to be promoted over a woman because he needs to "provide for his family" (and what about her?) But when it comes time to put one's life on the line, the death of a man is not considered as tragic as the death of a woman.I am hard pressed to call one "worse" than the other.

quote:

---

You're just riding on the coattails of people doing real work to stop FGM.

---

No, I was against MGM before I even knew that people tried to do something similar to women.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to John:

quote:

---

Look, I'm not trying to defend circimcision (although I just don't think it's that bad, and will probably have it done to any sons of mine). I'm just saying it's nowhere near as bad as the practice of FGM, which renders women incapable of sexual function in the vast majority of cases. It's outrageous to even compare them.

---

MGM renders many men incapable of sexual function, too, crash.If it's a horrible thing to do that to a girl, why do you hesitate when it comes to boys?Here's a thought: Why don't you let your sons determine what to do with their bodies?A foreskin is not a birth defect.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But unnecessary surgery?

---

​

I think it's up to the parents and their doctor to decide what is necessary and what is not.

---

(*blink*)So if the parents and the doctors get together and say, "You know, the mother's family has a long history of women dying early from breast cancer which we have seen has a genetic component...and in fact that it shows up early is fairly indicative of genetic-based breast cancer, so therefore we will do a prophylactic mastectomy on your daughters in order to make sure they don't get breast cancer," you'd consider that a decent thing to do? To completely alter the physical corpus of an infant on the odd chance that something might happen?There is a difference between circumcision performed for an actual physical dysfunction such as phimosis. But in the absence of any pressing medical need, what possible justification is there?

quote:

---

For many people, circumcision counts as necessary.

---

How? How is it any more necessary than FGM or mastectomy?

quote:

---

Since it's basically a harmless, cosmetic procedure,

---

Harmless? The removal of one of the most sensitive part of a man's skin, even more than the glans, even more than your fingers is "harmless"? A procedure that routinely results in complications up to and including the death of the patient is "harmless"?

quote:

---

I don't have a problem with that justification.

---

"Be a man and suck it up."

quote:

---

I don't have a foreskin; I've never missed it.

---

How can you miss what you've never had?

quote:

---

None of my partners have ever said "I wish you had a foreskin." In fact they've expressed the opposite sentiment.

---

So you're saying that your parents were justified in mutilating your body because your potential sex partners might not find it attractive?Don't you think you should have been the one to determine that?

quote:

---

A young guy I know went in for the procedure at age 14 because he didn't want to have a foreskin.

---

Good for him. It's his body. It's his to do with as he pleases.

quote:

---

As far as I know it's as useless as tonsils or the appendix. (Which is to say, not entirely useless, but not missed either.)

---

And that is where you're wrong. Circumcised men have reduced sexual function compared to uncircumcised men.

quote:

---

That's just my personal experience, but that experience has led me to believe that it's just not that bad, and preferable in the culture in which I live as an American.

---

By this logic, why did the US make female circumcision illegal, then? Why is there such an outcry against the procedure across the world? Every single justificiation for FGM is identical to the justifications you have made for MGM so if it is an atrocity to do it to a girl, why is it hunky-dory to do it to a boy?

quote:

---

Honestly, though, if the culture changes, and foreskins become preferred, well, that's what my son will have.

---

Why don't you let your son make that decision for himself? Once it's gone, you can't get it back (really). It's his body, let him decide.

quote:

---

My opinion on this is insufficiently strong to force me to swim against the tide.

---

So why not punt and let your sons decide for themselves?

quote:

---

But so far, circumcision is the norm in America.

---

And that makes it right?So far, circumcision is the norm in many place in Africa, and yet you seem to think that's a horrible thing.Why can't you extend the same courtesy to boys that you do to girls?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Dan Carroll responds to me:

quote:

---

Are you actually saying that it's the same thing to cut off the foreskin as it is to remove the clitoris and/or sew up the vagina?

---

Yes.By the way, not all female circumcision is infibulation.

quote:

---

I've got no foreskin; I can still readily enjoy sex.

---

As much as you would if you had one?The fact that you got through the procedure with sufficient sensation to achieve orgasm doesn't mean it is "harmless." There is a complication rate to MGM that renders many men incapable of having sex.Some even die.

quote:

---

There's a huge difference between the two.

---

There is no difference at all between the two.The justifications for MGM are identical to the ones for FGM ("It's cleaner." "It's more attractive." "It better for sex." "It prevents excessive sexual activity.")If it's wrong to do it to a girl, then it's wrong to do it to a boy.Tell the little boy who just died from a surgical procedure he didn't require that he should just suck it up because it's "harmless."

quote:

---

You might say it's one of degree only (I personally don't agree,) but the difference is still there.

---

There's no difference at all.Little boys die because of this. Isn't that a good enough reason not to do it?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Dan Carroll writes:

quote:

---

If a constitutional amendment were entered into law that conflicted with other amendments, it would be struck down by the judicial branch. But if the previously existing amendments were to be altered beforehand so as to prevent the conflict, the judicial branch would have absolutely no authority to strike it (or any law which conflicted with the now non-existent freedoms) down.

​

For instance, Bush Sr.'s flag-burning amendment would have required an overhaul of the first amendment.

---

Incorrect. Conflicting amendments are not a problem. If there were a constitutional amendment outlawing flag burning, it would not be a violation of the First Amendment precisely because the prohibition against flag burning is at the same level.We have such a case already in the Constitution. The Eighteenth Amendment prohibits the sale of alcohol. The Twenty-Second repeals the Eighteenth.But the Eighteenth is still in there. The later amendment supercedes it.So if another amendment came along and said flag burning is prohibited, then it is prohibited no matter what the First Amendment says.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Three huge messages don't help preserve topic continuity, Rrhain. If you want to hash out circumcision, I'm willing to do so, but open a new thread. This isn't the place to do it.

quote:

---

Which freedom would that be?

---

Well take the 1st Amendment. It was the first one so I think it's safe to say that it was the most important. That's not to say that it stops there.

quote:

---

I never met them, so I couldn't really speak to their intent

---

I'm just weighing the evidence at the time. Seeing how there were actual people that witnessed the time and that much of the history was recorded by eyewitnesses, there are piles of resources that would back what their "intent" was"

quote:

---

seeing as how Roger Williams founded Rhode Island after being kicked out of Massachusetts for not being a Puritan.

---

Dead Scotsman? hehe. Regardless this is just another example of our founders intent. Would this happen today? No because the constiution protects our freedom of religion.

quote:

---

You're assuming there is a "right". To the majority, the majority is absolutely right. To the minority, they're very much mistaken. And vice versa. So who's actually right right?

---

At least I believe that there is a right and wrong that applies to everybody. If you don't, how can you even argue with me? If you claim there is not right or wrong then I cannot be wrong not right and neither can you thus making debate futile. However you obviously have issue with my stance so you do have an idea of what you believe is right an wrong and thus apply that to everybody.

quote:

---

You saw a different 9/11 than I did, but that's a whole other debate.

---

By all means please open up a new thread to discuss this. I am really interested to hear your thoughts on this.

quote:

---

Regardless... two years ago you couldn't jail a citizen indefinitely without trial or charges because you had stuck the word "terrorist" on his file. What would have been seen as horrible government misuse of power is now seen as defending freedom. Why? Because circumstances and popular opinion define it that way

---

No, because people want to be able to live freely from the threat of terrorism and the impact that it has on us. Mainly our freedom to live. Terrorism is anti democracy you see. It hates it. And most of us recognize the reason behind it. When our democracy and Freedom are threatened, we will go to great lengths to protect it. Not only our own, but other counties as well.

quote:

---

Regardless this is just another example of our founders intent. Would this happen today? No because the constiution protects our freedom of religion.

---

Unless the constitution gets altered. According to law, there is no freedom we have that cannot be taken away. If the founding fathers didn't intend that, they really shouldn't have put it in the constitution. Because as it stands, their intent counts for exactly squat. We can rewrite the constitution to the point where it doesn't even resemble the original document, and they're the ones who allowed us to do it.

quote:

---

At least I believe that there is a right and wrong that applies to everybody. If you don't, how can you even argue with me? If you claim there is not right or wrong then I cannot be wrong not right and neither can you thus making debate futile.

---

You're mistaking "correct" and "incorrect" for "right" and "wrong". One can be logically correct, just not absolutely morally right.

quote:

---

However you obviously have issue with my stance so you do have an idea of what you believe is right an wrong and thus apply that to everybody.

---

Oh, I absolutely have my own ideas about right and wrong that I project on others. As I'm sure you do. As I'm sure everyone else on this thread does, and everyone else on the planet does as well.Um... did you intend to argue for moral relatavism there?

quote:

---

By all means please open up a new thread to discuss this. I am really interested to hear your thoughts on this.

---

Oh, dear lord no. If there's one thing I've learned about message boards its that arguing about 9/11 is one of the most exhausting things in the world. Everyone gets really angry really quickly, and NOTHING GETS ACCOMPLISHED.

quote:

---

No, because people want to be able to live freely from the threat of terrorism and the impact that it has on us.

---

Except those suspected of the crime. Not charged, I might add. Suspected.

quote:

---

Terrorism is anti democracy you see. It hates it. And most of us recognize the reason behind it. When our democracy and Freedom are threatened, we will go to great lengths to protect it. Not only our own, but other counties as well.

---

In other words, we are willing to sacrifice our civil liberties in the name of freedom?Leaving the contradiction aside, do you see how this is an example of our country re-examining what freedoms we find important, chucking the founding fathers' intent out the window, and establishing a new moral code for our day?------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

quote:

---

Because as it stands, their intent counts for exactly squat. We can rewrite the constitution to the point where it doesn't even resemble the original document, and they're the ones who allowed us to do it.

---

I think it stands for something. Their intent merited reason and is the foundation for this country. The root of a subject is where the answer lies.

quote:

---

Um... did you intend to argue for moral relatavism there?

---

No, the opposite. You'd be surprised how many people will actually claim that there is no such thing as right or wrong, that its all relative.

quote:

---

If there's one thing I've learned about message boards its that arguing about 9/11 is one of the most exhausting things in the world. Everyone gets really angry really quickly, and NOTHING GETS ACCOMPLISHED.

---

And this would be predictable. I see this as evidence that people are quick to defend their freedom when it gets threatened or even questioned. Despite the freedom that you have to express your views, when you question the feedom of our nation you are going to find that a quick response. But you won't reveal your thoughts so I really don't know what your angle is.

quote:

---

In other words, we are willing to sacrifice our civil liberties in the name of freedom?

---

This is what we have been seeing. Most notably people are giving up some rights allowing themselves to be searched at airports more rigorously. It seems their freedom to live and be safe holds more mustard than waiting in line a little longer at the airport. This isn't contradictory. It shows what values we hold dearest and we are willing to give some minor things up due to circumstances so that these more important rights are protected. This isn't just my opinion. This is from polls.

quote:

---

Leaving the contradiction aside, do you see how this is an example of our country re-examining what freedoms we find important, chucking the founding fathers' intent out the window, and establishing a new moral code for our day?

---

No, because it just reveals that the same freedoms that our forefathers held dear are the same ones that we still hold dear today. This is hardly representative of our moral code changing. It is indicative of the same code that has been there all along. Anyway this topic seems to be dwindling. This will be my last post. I suppose we can agree to disagree?

quote:

---

I think it stands for something. Their intent merited reason and is the foundation for this country. The root of a subject is where the answer lies.

---

Their original intentions also allowed for slavery, and for not allowing women to vote. The fact that our founding fathers wanted it is no proof that it's good.To the founding fathers, these were absolutes. But again... they knew that future societies might not agree with their morals. So they allowed for the possibility that what they viewed as an absolute was not necessarily one. They acknowledged that their desires for society counted for squat outside of their society.This is moral relativism at it's core. I don't see why you keep dancing around that.

quote:

---

But you won't reveal your thoughts so I really don't know what your angle is.

---

No angle. Modern politics is just too dear and involved a subject for me to shoot off an occasional five-minute response on a message board. If you're ever in Chicago I'd be happy to buy you a drink and talk about it in person, at more length.

quote:

---

This is what we have been seeing. Most notably people are giving up some rights allowing themselves to be searched at airports more rigorously.

---

If you think this is the most notable example, you need to pay more attention. Read the USA Patriot act over a couple times. It directly contravenes what you refer to as an absolute... the bill of rights. No less than three constitutional amendments (of the originals, put down by our founding fathers) are pissed on. And the polls show that people are just fine with that, too. How is that not adjusting our moral compass?In other words, in order to protect our American Freedoms, we will give up those exact same American Freedoms. It has nothing to do with minor inconveniences versus basic freedoms. America has redefined what matters, and it certainly isn't the constitution.Anyway, I hope it's not your last post, because I'm not sure I've been making myself clear enough, and I would like to get this idea through.-----------
Dan Carroll[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 05-29-2003]

quote:

---

To the founding fathers, these were absolutes. But again... they knew that future societies might not agree with their morals. So they allowed for the possibility that what they viewed as an absolute was not necessarily one. They acknowledged that their desires for society counted for squat outside of their society.

---

The absolute for the founding fathers was based on several things. The first and foremost was freedom and democracy. Also they did allow for the constitution to be amended. The mere fact that they realized and recognized their own human flaws and thus allowing for the constituion to be changed due to circumstances which may arise in the future, is itself an absolute that they defined and still exists today. In other words, The absolute was "We can't expect to get everything right so we must allow the possibility for change" Ultimatley they devised a system of checks and balances so as to not allow anyone to possess too much power. Even if the democracy would change, it would be because the people wanted it to. Slavery, sufferage and even prohibition you could say didn't last because the people realized that these things in some way contradicted our freedom. The idea of democracy is an absolute in that the people of the country should have the freedom to choose their government. I like to think that most people recgonize the freedom that we have as an absolute. I believe this based on the evidence of our behavior when our freedom is threatened. However I would presume to say that most Americans so precioulsy hold their freedom to realize that to change our democracy would threaten that very freedom. That's why our government works. We can agree and disagree about politics but the base has always been the same.If I understand you correctly, you are saying that since the founding fathers allowed for the constituion to be changed, that they could not expect their intent for the basis of the country to continue into the future therefore their intent really meant nothing. Am I right? If so the problem I have with this is mentioned above. Also personally how I see that our country is still free and strong is evidence that our freedom is an absolute.