|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 301 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A critique of moral relativism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
I'm asking if murder is right or wrong. Not a single person has answered that honestly. NO circumstances are needed to answer the question. You are conflating between determing whether something is murder with the very definition of murder. Exactly. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human. If someone has killed another human in self-defense, in defense of another, in an accident, or in an otherwise justifiable circumstance/manner, then it is by definition not murder and therefore not wrong. I don't understand what you are trying to prove with this example. Are you trying to trick the "relativists" into declaring murder to be "absolutely" wrong? If so, it doesn't prove your point at all, because the definition of the word itself equates it with wrongdoing based on the circumstances! However, the Biblical absolutist does have quite a conundrum because the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" all by itself leaves no leeway. The absolutist must then become a relativist because he must then define circumstances in which killing is justifiable (some of which are done for him by levitical law proscribing stoning to death for many infractions, God commanding the killing of every man woman and child in enemy cities, etc). Do you see what we mean by relative, now? It is not a free for all with no boundaries like you seem to think. Absolutes are defined through law and depend on extenuating circumstances. They can also change over time. We accept the "absolutes" that society has formed and, if we don't, we can work to change them. BTW...I found this quote in a book I'm reading and I thought it highly applicable. I think it will be my new signature. (The protagonist Ernest Everhard is speaking to a group of clergymen at a dinner party). "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
PaulK writes: I disagree on that point - I would certainly use the term murder to refer to technically legal killings that I found morally unacceptable. (And English law calls accidental killings "Manslaughter" where US law would call them "Murder in the 3rd Degree" - IIRC). We have manslaughter charges also. IIRC murder to any degree depends on whether it was an abetted or aided murder, and whether someone was the actual 'murderer' or just the accessory. There is also 'justifiable homicide'. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2794 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
[Post removed as ground has already been covered by others saying the same things as I was writing!]
Edited by bluegenes, : wipe post!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 301 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
However, the Biblical absolutist does have quite a conundrum because the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" all by itself leaves no leeway. The absolutist must then become a relativist because he must then define circumstances in which killing is justifiable (some of which are done for him by levitical law proscribing stoning to death for many infractions, God commanding the killing of every man woman and child in enemy cities, etc). In fairness, the Hebrew word is ratsach - which is complicated. It is used in Judges 20:4 to mean what we would call murder. In 1 Kings 21:19 it is used to refer to an assassination plot. Job 24:14 it refers to a theif who kills the poor and needy. Psalm 62:3 uses it as a threat against a musician who imagines mischief against man. Proverbs 22:13 refers to what a lion does to a slothful man. Hosea 6:9 has immoral priests doing it to travellers. So it's kind of a flexible word it seems - though debate rages even on that matter. Just to let you know it isn't as simple as that ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member (Idle past 191 days) Posts: 4001 From: Adirondackia Joined: |
English is a grand and supple language, and you can certainly use the word "murder" in that fashion; but the primary definition of murder hinges on unlawfulness, not moral wrongness.
Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18043 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Either way NJ's argument fails. Only the moral definition allows for a definite answer -and that only because it's a tautology.
[Added]I've got a guess as to what he's trying. I think that he wants to bring up abortion - and since abortion is legal he's going to have to use the moral definition of murder if he wants to try that. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
PaulK writes: [Added]I've got a guess as to what he's trying. I think that he wants to bring up abortion - and since abortion is legal he's going to have to use the moral definition of murder if he wants to try that. Nah, he is just asking if completely unjustified, cold blooded, irrational killing of another person can be considered 'absolutely' wrong, or whether anyone, past or future, might find it morally acceptable. As long as most people want to stay alive, 'murder' as defined above, will be unlawful, I hope. For the record, looking for one universal moral is barking up the wrong tree IMO. Only a minority of people believe that an action is always wrong, or always right, regardless of circumstance. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18043 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Well if he meant that then he shouldn't have tried to use murder as his example. And he definitely shouldn't have accused others of being dishonest for not working out what he meant. And even then I have to ask myself whether he intends to use examples where the definition is doubtful - or where historically it HAS been acceptable.
But more likely he intended a trap and he's just angry nobody fell into it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Paul,
Do you feel that murder, as in, killing someone for no reason whatsoever, or for a trivial reason like owed debts, or even hatred, is morally, as well as legally, wrong? The point is really simple, and if you get it, you can argue it. If you condemn murder, you may do so for a number of reasons. These reasons may or may not be absolutes. For example, it may ALWAYS be wrong to take a life. Or It may be ok to take a life when a greater good will be gained from it. Once you put a finger on the 'greatest good' possible, that is your absolute. That is your standard. Against that, all other actions may be weighed. Almost everyone is absolutist in that sense. Consider if you had/have children. Their happiness would be the 'absolute' and all things would be graded according to how well they performed. In a job, production is foremost. The thing is, absolutists are idealists, and they believe there is a 'best possible solution' for life, while relativists believe that all solutions are temporary and only relevent for one society or time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2486 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Why wouldn't it be murder? Lots of people would consider it murder. In the case of the diseased child, a court of law would definitely consider it murder. Let's add that the man who decides to shoot the four year old before she pulls the pin of the grenade is also a serial killer of children, and was planning to kill her anyway, and was going to take great pleasure in doing so. The fact that he also saved 20 adults by killing her was just a happy side effect. Did he murder her or not? The action is the same, either way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2486 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
![]() Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2486 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
![]() ![]() ![]() Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 324 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Modulous responds to me:
quote: Yes. Obviously so. If you didn't think that there was a legitimate connection between homosexuality and bestiality, you would have been dumbstruck at the suggestion that there were. And after you finished spluttering at the complete non sequitur, you would have asked what on earth he was talking about since it makes no sense to bring it up. But you didn't. Instead, you treated the connection between sex between people of the same sex and sex between individuals of different species without batting an eyelash. Ergo, you think there is some sort of connection.
quote: Oh, please. One swallow does not make a spring. That fact that there is a post where you didn't bring it up doesn't mean you don't connect the two. You obviously do because when someone else brought it up, you went along with it without hesitation or question.
quote: Incorrect. Instead, it is quite telling. As there is no connection between the two, the fact that you are discussing both indicates that you think there is a connection.
quote: On the contrary. It is precisely that. Again, if you didn't think so, you wouldn't have responded to n_j's comment as if it were legitimate. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 324 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Modulous responds to me:
quote: When they prove themselves to be relativists, it most certainly does. Again, it doesn't matter what they say. It doesn't matter what they believe. It only matters what they do.
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? They can redefine their actions simply by willing them to be what they're not? Never mind that they behave identically to one whose morals are relative...if they simply say they're absolutists, then they are? Are you a Republican or something?
quote: No, they don't. They try, but they don't. This is the same argument as that between creationists and scientists. The creationists claim that they have proven their claims, but they haven't. Classic example: Those who claim to be "pro-life." They are often the same people who are for the death penalty. How can it be that they follow the "absolute" claim that all life is sacred if they also feel that people can be put to death? Simple: They don't believe in the absolute they claim to. Instead, they are relativists: In certain situations, life is not to be taken but in other situations, it can be. Now, obviously not everybody has this particular claim (the official position of the Catholic church, for example is that both abortion and the death penalty are wrong), but if you look closely at anybody, you will find that they don't follow their absolutes. After all, even the Christian god is a relativist: Thou shalt not kill....unless I tell you to.
quote: Precisely. There are no absolutists. Everybody is a relativist. Everybody.
quote: No, they don't. Why do we allow certain things to adults but not to children? Because morality is relative. It depends upon the circumstances.
quote: Perhaps, but it is being compared to something that doesn't exist. Now, I certainly understand the desire to understand what we are and compare it to other possibilities that don't really exist, but let's not pretend that it is anything other than self-reflection, not a comparison between two things that truly exist. Everyone is a relativist. Everyone. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18043 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
No, most absolutists are those who believe that they HAVE the answers. And many are not so idealistic that they won't find excuses and make exceptions when covenient for them (some are completely self-righteous and will break their own moral code without even thinking).
You're wrong about relativists, too. Relativism covers a range of positions and generalising is a bad mistake. I recognise that morals are subjective and that to us an absolute moral code is a mirage. Nobody has found any practical or theoretical basis for one that holds up.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025