Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A critique of moral relativism
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 190 of 219 (415852)
08-12-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Archer Opteryx
08-12-2007 7:25 AM


sorry i seemed to rush to cynicism , but i was merely rushing to reality , we are all very bad at agreeing what society is and what it should be , way before we get to objectivly considering how to "positively contribute to working together as a society" and how to "balance personal interest with the interests of others?".
in most cases we need along run up to remeber that others have intrests .
most peoples moral system is a short cut , a way to avoid having to think about the question , and having to use Straggler's formula , they want a list of responces so society see them as moral . When pushed to say why they answer a question is that they do , most act as if there are moral absolutes ..which need no explaining ...
"murder is wrong cos well is murder, everyone knows its wrong "
this is why i wanted someone to put up the contents of a moral code .. so we can examine it to see how and why it produces the answers it does .. to see is there a comman tread and where does that come from and go to .. . .
while Stragglers formula ( gosh fame for Straggler i hope hes reading this )is excellent and is what we SHOULD be doing for each and evey qusetion as they arise .. its not what is done , ... i know cos im as guilty as everyone else .....
i would be so happy for you to show how wrong i am about people , but i think you will struggle to find a significant % that are as good as we both agree we should idealy be ..more power to Straggler's formula is what we need ....
Is there a forum for posting such ideas a Straggler's formula , as a reference list of good ideas ??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-12-2007 7:25 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 192 of 219 (416031)
08-13-2007 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Rrhain
08-12-2007 11:48 PM


Re: Reality check
ok so i guess i understand your metohd of debate now ...
first you claim the person is not being clear ....
then you claim they are not using words in the way YOU demand they are used .. this confusing any hope of discussion ...
you always demand the burden of proof lie on the opersite side to any stance you take ....
lets try once more .... [qs] you said
If you can't follow your own code, then you don't believe in it.
i said
.. then no one really belives in morality , or truth , or freedom , or justice , or human rights , or good , or bad .
.
you reply
Huh? How does that follow. Just because morality and truth and freedom and justice and human rights and good and bad are relative doesn't mean they don't exist.
so what is not clear , you set a rule ....dont follow = dont belive ,
people are not always truthfull therefore they dont belive in a code of truth ,
insert fredom , justice , good , bad , morality for truth .. and it semm clear from your rule .......
for a moral code to be belived in people cant break ANY of its rules ..
why did you introduce the term relative...?? the code is the code , absolute or relative .... a realtive code is just as breakable ..
unless you are now talking about a "moral excuess code" which really consists of "why this does not applly to me" statements ??
ok your monoploy ...
NO the rules are absolute with in the realm of monopoly , you dont use the rules for bingo to play monpoly , just as when your being moral you dont use the rules for being a US Marine
.. the monpoly rules are specfic to the prupose they were drawn up for .... they are printed on paper and are fixed unchanging ... if you chosse to break , modifie or plain ignore those rules , the printing on the paper remains the same ... and for those who do follow the paper rule there is no change.What you do does not effect the printed rules .
They are no more arbitrary that any human constructed set of rules , like freedom , human rights , and morality ..(****)
Change does occur over time ..but the new variant becomes as absolute as the old one , players cant play the game each using a different variant ,they split in to 2 camps the traditionalist.. and the New rulists ... in human society this would lead to a split into two or more societies , as history shows..
the traditionalist still follow the original set of absolutes ....
the New rulist follow the new set of absolutes ....
( ****) ... i will remind you i said there are people who belive in a absolute set of moral rule .. i never said i was or was not one of them ..
Yes, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. You cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon. That is why we call it the theory OF evolution. The theory OF evolution seeks to explain the FACT of evolution. We know that evolution happened. The only question is the precise method by which it did.
no evolution is not a fact .. becasue not all of this details are know or proven .. thus it cant be defined, scientifical , to that degree to make it a fact .. evolution is the best working theory based on what facts we currently have .. parts are constantly being updated as new data becomes avaiable ..
you seem to demand the ToE to be treated as a "holy of holies" its not is a working theory
and btw this line ."the theory OF evolution seeks to explain the FACT of evolution.." how unscientific can you get
would you allow this .. in science the theory of creation seeks to explain the FACT of creation ???
science does not presume there are "facts of evolution" .. just facts .. which may show the predictions of the theory are correct .
Incorrect. The definition of atheism is the lack of belief.
gosh atheist are unable to belive .. what even in santa , or the tooth fairy .. or freedom , or justice ..they belive in the non- exsistance of a god/gods , if they had proof they could make a fortune on TV chat shows , writing books etc .
NO they belive that their view that there are no god/gods is the way the world really is .
i asked
how do you know there is not a god ???
you said
Ask an atheist. By the way...please define "god." After all, the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. It is theists who are claiming the existence of god, so it is not the responsibility of atheists to define it or prove it.
why are you giving the words of a atheist more value that the theist .. or are you just demanding your view is the correct one ..
to answer such a major question as is there a god , you would simple ask some jo public who has alrady stated his view ...
so do you ask bugerking who makes the best fast food , do you ask ford ,who make the best family car .. do you ask george bush was the USA right to go into iraq.. do you ask a nazis if israel has a right to exsist ...
as to burden of proof
i made the point before neither side can PROVE the question of the exsistance of god ... so to be scientific about it , the question being does god exsist.. the burden is equal ..unless YOU wish to show favour to one side ...science takes the neutal point add looks for facts , the see which view is supported or not.
OR do you wish a non scentific proof ??
now you want a me to define god ..??/why dont you have a working idea .. or have you only spoken to a atheist .. did they not tell you what they dont belive in ?
We're not talking about the means by which the ability to make moral decisions comes from. We are assuming that such an ability already exists.
are , oh , so you belive humans have a inbuilt ability to to make moral decisions ..?? what is this ability based upon ..
inherantly knowing a moral question when it arises ? does it flash red so to speak ....
do we each have a filter that shunts moral questions to the morality lobe of the brain ...?
please explain what you mean here
the reason some people belive in moral absolutes is this gives them the ability to make moral choices.. with out absolutes they are adrift is a sea of uncertaincy and they cannot function that way , and if they break that code they still go back to the absolute because that have to , they need the absolutes .
Not all people are like this some have enough certainty about the value of their own views that the can make up a personal moral code , the feel safe and confident in making personal choices , their selfvalue allow them to place their veiw above the view of others .
i said
how do you teach it with out examples , which are absolutes by their nature ...
you said
You're now equivocating "absolute" to mean "generalized."
Here i must say sorry i was not clear ..
how do you teach it with out examples , when the examples you use are not absolutes ...in that the example you use to teach a moral point only has one moral answer.
if as you pointed to using "generalized" example these by their nature can lead to different possible moral answers .... how do you answer the question "which is the right answer" ..
and if you say none or all .. are you not saying morality is a matter of persoanl taste ...regulated by social peer pressure ... like say fasion , music , painting ??
Edited by ikabod, : quotes boxes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Rrhain, posted 08-12-2007 11:48 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Rrhain, posted 08-18-2007 6:35 PM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 194 of 219 (417084)
08-19-2007 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Rrhain
08-18-2007 6:35 PM


Re: Reality check
OK clearing up a few points the BACK to the OP
thank you for a perfect example of you debating style .. you avoid all the questions ,
you are clearly NOT stuipd, and yet you fail to read what is writen and put your own spin on it ,
you claim sole usage of the english language , and thus divertaway from the debate bt trashing whta is written .
you demand that you set all agenda and your stand point is the only one .
this is not meaniong fully , it is clear you have fixed view of reality and refuse to be drawn into any discussion that challenge those view
clearly to you evolution is the sacred cow .. no one mustr defame its glory or most holy words
the mere surgestion of a god/gods ,even as adebating point , sends you running to the hills of "na na fingers in my ears , i cant hear you "
Why are you so defensive , did a theist once bite you ??
Right lets get this clear .....
you E.Coli experioments is genetics in action , it shows change with in the gene pool , it shows selection by imunity , it show many things , BUT that is not the ToE , the ToE is much more ..
the ToE does not , yet , have access to all the data , from a wide range of sciences to make it a fact ... on a very simple level , just cos E.Coli can mutant to do some thing does not mean it did , you have shown a possible means for evolution to take place .
As i have said ToE works for me to , BUT i take the scientifc stance that there is still alot more to be learned and we do not have all the FACTS need to say that the ToE is complete , its still a woke in progress .
Now im sorry you will have to live with that as a FACT .. end of ToE debate .. its off topic .....
......................................................................
ok sorry for long qoute but nice example .....
quote:
gosh atheist are unable to belive .. what even in santa , or the tooth fairy .. or freedom , or justice ..they belive in the non- exsistance of a god/gods
Huh? How did we get from Santa and the Tooth Fairy to "freedom" and "justice"?
I see that you have turned "belief" into a meaningless word.
quote:
if they had proof they could make a fortune on TV chat shows , writing books etc .
Logical error: Shifting the burden of proof.
It is not up to atheists to prove the non-existence of god. Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. Those that claim there is a god are the ones who need to show that god exists.
ok ill use little words ..
Santa ,the Tooth Fairy , freedom ,justice are not real , they are things we make up , they only have a "reality" if we belive in them ,
if as you keep saying atheist do not belive in things then they dont belive in Santa ,the Tooth Fairy , freedom ,justice .
However if they do belive in Santa ,the Tooth Fairy , freedom ,justice .. they COULD belive in god/gods BUT they make a choice NOT to ....thus the amount of belief they direct to god /gods is ZERO , BUT there is still potential belief , even atheist can change their mind ...
now as to you fav phrase ...Burden of proof ...
you assume the ground state of reality is atheist , why ?? is this personal , or do you have access to some hidden knowleged ??
we live in a reality where some belive in god/gods and some dont , anyone growing up is exposed to both views , they have to pick a view , just as they have to pick a stance on freedom , justice , human rights , equality ... while doing this they are faced with imput from many biased propogandists .. they have to sift the facts ....
these poeple belive in god/gods .. these dont belive in god/gods...... which is correct .. ie equal burden of proof .....
if you had never been exposed to the concept of god/gods you wouldd not be a atheist , you would have no stance .
if you had been raised in a world where every one else belived in a god /gods ..you would have to prove to you self god did not exsist to become a atheist ...
......................................................................
ok no more on any of that ...let focus on the OP .....
moral relativism ...
we got to ..
quote:
how do you answer the question "which is the right answer"
Depends. What are the circumstances?
ok it turn it around .. with out absolutes .. what is the right question ?...
if every thing is dependant on the circumumstances , how do you know when to ask the question .. "is this moral?"
and to which parts of the event do you aim the question at.. the act , the motive , the out come , the value , the limits .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Rrhain, posted 08-18-2007 6:35 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Rrhain, posted 08-19-2007 10:04 PM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 196 of 219 (417304)
08-20-2007 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Rrhain
08-19-2007 10:04 PM


Re: Reality check
oh im so tempted .. but no as i said keping to the OP ..
rephrasing ... when do you identify that a moral question has arisen .. if everything is realtive and dependamt on circumstance .. with no fixed points to refere how do you spot the moral question ?
Because morality is a construct of social interaction. If the action is not a social one, what on earth is the point in asking if it is "moral"?
but as we are talking about the use of morality ..of course we are talking about social interaction... are you saying ALL aspects of social interaction result in a moral question ?
quote:
and to which parts of the event do you aim the question at.. the act , the motive , the out come , the value , the limits .
you say
Why limit it? Surely you've heard the concepts of "short term" and "long term," yes?
fine im happy with you answer ,i was just asking where you place the moral burden , you take the event as a single unit .
yes ive heard of short and long term , do you mean in referance to the question or the answer ..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Rrhain, posted 08-19-2007 10:04 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Rrhain, posted 08-25-2007 2:33 AM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 198 of 219 (417890)
08-25-2007 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Rrhain
08-25-2007 2:33 AM


Re: Reality check
ok you managed to answer all my questions, even the one you where unclear on ...)..
i now have a idea of how you view morality .. which is different to me , and i do not think we will agree or draw closer .. so lets leave it at that ......
to answer your etiquette and morality point .. yes totally different , etiquette can allow you to be a snob and very " not nice" while remaining "polite"
.. my example is , i always try to open a door and stand to one side as someone else comes along , man or woman , i try to be PC , if they ignore me and walk through the held open door , i will smile and say "thank you" in a neutral voice ..yes i can be a swine .. oh the fun responces .. from hrrrmph ,to mock shame ,to incressed walking speed , to a stumbled err yes thanks erer . Happly i must say most people say thanks or speak to me as i hold the door .
you example seems to be selfcentered/ selfimportant thinkers who have no etiquette .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Rrhain, posted 08-25-2007 2:33 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Rrhain, posted 08-25-2007 5:26 AM ikabod 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