Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A critique of moral relativism
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 219 (413029)
07-27-2007 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by PaulK
07-24-2007 1:42 PM


Re: Listen to what I am saying, as opposed to hearing what you want to hear
quote:
Listen to me, please. When I brought up beastiality, incest, pedophilia, or whatever else, in a context of homosexuality, it was always from a reference from a moral position. The argument I've made is this: how can you say that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, while maintaining that incest or pedophilia is not, all the while defending moral relativism?
Because I can see reasons to object to bestiality which I consider adequate and I can't see similar reasons to object to homosexuality. Why can't I do that ? That's what I'm asking and you aren't answering.
Probably because I haven't heard those objections-- only that you object to it.
You are considered a bigot because you keep making inflammatory comparisons and some take them as representing your true thoughts. How does this contradict moral relativism ?
By doing so, you are making it a rule that by my objecting to homosexuality, I should be automatically villafied for it. Thus, you are making a moral judgement about me, which is all fine and good if you want to do so, but at least admit that is what you're doing.
How it contradicts your relativistic standards is in the application you present. You are calling me a bigot as if its supposed to be meaningful to me. You are tacitly making an appeal for me to use some universal moral in understanding why homosexuality is peaches 'n' cream and daisies swaying in the wind.
And if that's not what you are saying, then all you are doing is voicing your opinion-- in which case, thanks for sharing.
Your second point is even sillier. If I've got a standard I just compare the action against the standard. What on earth is the problem there ? Where's this supposed compromise ?
I'm not sure what you're referring to since I deleted your quote of me. Can you elaborate?
quote:
The ENTIRE point of the argument is that you, as a relativist, cannot defend both positions philosophically without contradicting those beliefs. How has this flown over everyone's head? Seriously. I'm absolutely mystified.
In some cases it is because of your choice of examples. In my case the assertion hasn't passed over my head. It's just that you haven't managed to support it. Even when I ask.
Paul, these are axiomatic maxims were dealing with, not pretentious ramblings. I have presented a philosophical question that appears to be insoluble without amassing contradiction after contradiction. Its just the nature of it.
quote:
Secondly, how is it that people can say that I can't use beastiality, either in an argument on morals or nature, because the sexuality of animals and humans are too different. Yet, these are the same people who have no problem pointing out that homosexual unions are found within nature, and use that as a justification that extends to humans.
So far as I know nobody uses the first argument. The latter in is only used as a refutation of the claim that homosexuality is unnatural - without the qualification that it is only unnatural to humans. True it leaves open the possibility that homosexuality might be unnatural to humans - but it does refute any suggestion that homosexual behaviour should be automatically considered unnatural.
It does nothing of the such because it proves nothing about animal sexuality. But that is an aside issue that is OT. The point is, if someone is going to say that I can't make reference to beastiality and homosexuality from a moral context (because animal sexuality and human sexuality are not similar enough to make any kind of connection), then neither can the opposition cite references that say chimps and dolphins engage in homosexual acts, therefore, it logically extends to humans. That's completely hypocrtitical.

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2007 1:42 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by PaulK, posted 07-27-2007 1:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 219 (413089)
07-27-2007 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by jar
07-26-2007 6:53 PM


Re: morality is unimportant anyway.
Morality is a subset of ethics related to a given religious system.
The dictionary defines morals and ethics as being synonymous. The dictionary defines ethics, as, a system of moral principles. And as far morals are concerned, religion is not a definitional qualifier, also according to Dictionary.
Legality relates to established, written, codified behaviors. They have nothing to do with either ethics or morality, but rather some sense of societal safety and order.
We've been over this multiple times. If laws were not derived by a moral framework, then laws would be completely arbitrary.
I can judge you based against my ethical standards, but that is not subjecting you to anything.
Then why do you not grant me the same permission?
You are a bigot
According to what?
quote:
Then how is it that all of the irreligious folk on this forum plainly say that they have a set of morals, albeit, not an absolute set?
They have ethics. The idea of someone who irreligious having morality, which deals in the concept of sin and accountability to some god, is quite frankly, silly.
First of all, the atheists here claim for themselves that they have morals-- remember, they are trying to defend relative morality?
Secondly, ethics and morals are the same thing.
The problem, it seems, is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding. Now that you can see the difference, perhaps you will understand what I've been saying.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by jar, posted 07-26-2007 6:53 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by jar, posted 07-27-2007 3:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 163 by Jazzns, posted 07-27-2007 6:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 219 (567704)
07-02-2010 9:51 AM


Dredging up the past
Now, as it stands with my beliefs today, I think legally one should be able to do just about anything that does not hurt or impede someone else, but morally I still do not have an answer to that conundrum. I think my initial assesment was right. It ultimately does boil down to opinion if moral relativism is true, and nothing else.
I also still stand by the notion that laws derive from a moral framework, as we don't simply arbitrarily create laws. We create laws with a moral in mind. That, of course, does not mean necessarily that an absolute moral law-giver exists, or if it does, we haven't the ability to distinguish which morals are absolute.
The paradox between moral relativity and moral absolutes still stand in my mind. I haven't been able to solve that quandry. It seems on some philosophical level, both are necessary.
Discuss...

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by nwr, posted 07-02-2010 10:05 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 219 (567711)
07-02-2010 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by nwr
07-02-2010 10:05 AM


Re: Dredging up the past
No, moral relativism is not true. But then, it is not false either. "Moral relativism" is a good descriptive term for the nature of morality. But it's a term with an evolving meaning, so it's a bit too simplistic to pose it as a true/false issue.
Right, because then it would be absolute.
But what does that mean, and from whence does the framework arise. It seems to me that if there can be said to be a moral framework, then that framework is itself an evolving cultural construct.
What I mean is that when we pass laws, there is always some moral attached to it. At the end of the day, it is illegal to commit murder or rape because it is wrong. The impetus for a law is the moral behind it.
You are a creature of your culture, and some of the cultural assumptions of your culture are so deeply ingrained that you see them as absolutes.
I think you misunderstand me. If some morals are not absolute, then they are precipiced on opnions and cultural dictates. All things being equal, one persons version of morality trumps someone else's. Is that morally correct?

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by nwr, posted 07-02-2010 10:05 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by nwr, posted 07-02-2010 11:10 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 204 of 219 (567732)
07-02-2010 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by nwr
07-02-2010 11:10 AM


Re: Dredging up the past
That (particularly the "always" seems rather too strong. Many traffic laws are simply pragmatic. There's no moral principle involved in whether we should drive on the left side of the road or the right side of the road. But it is important that everyone make the same choice so as to reduce the head-on collisions. And it's not just traffic laws. Many laws actually have a pragmatic basis.
Pragmatic in the sense that unecessarily killing people is wrong.
But that still does not make them completely arbitrary. Going back to the traffic laws, some nations have them to require driving on the right, and some on the left. But I don't know of any that allows everybody to decide for themselves.
The point is that a moral is always in mind. Establishing left/right side driving is so no one gets killed. People getting killed is bad. What I mean is that laws are not arbitrary. We don't make laws without a purpose in mind. Some laws are stupid, in my opinion, but there is a moral of the story, so to speak, in all laws.
Moral relativists usually say that morality is culturally relative, not individually relative. Morality is a system of social/cultural agreements that help to organize a society and reduce frictions between individuals.
I understand how it works in principle, I am questioning whether or not it is at odds with itself. If all morals are relative, then they amount to to the opinions of the law makers.
We have some morals that say that all people are entitled to their opinions equally. We mean that absolutely, but relatively speaking, it is impossible for that to be true in a practical sense. One persons moral outlook at some juncture going to be trumped by another.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by nwr, posted 07-02-2010 11:10 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by nwr, posted 07-02-2010 11:48 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 206 by Rahvin, posted 07-02-2010 11:56 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 208 by DBlevins, posted 07-02-2010 1:43 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 219 (567767)
07-02-2010 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by nwr
07-02-2010 11:48 AM


Re: Dredging up the past
In a representative democracy, the law makers are supposed to be representing the interests of their constituents. They sometime vote in ways that is not in accordance with their own opinions.
And sometimes they pass self-serving laws in their own interests. While I'm certain GWB thought passing the Patriot Act would benefit America, it would not surprise me that his real motivation was to make enacting his own sense of vengence easier.
In any case, I agree that many laws serve a practical purpose, but if you keep breaking down the motivation for the law, there is some moral attached to it. I do X to prevent Y because Y is wrong/bad.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by nwr, posted 07-02-2010 11:48 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by DBlevins, posted 07-02-2010 1:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 211 by Rahvin, posted 07-02-2010 2:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 219 (567772)
07-02-2010 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Rahvin
07-02-2010 11:56 AM


Re: Dredging up the past
Morality is determined subjectively - it has to be
I agree that for all practical purposes, it is this way. But to even raise the question, one must first have a moral framework in mind.
One culture is saying that you cannot starve your people because it is so tragically immoral, where the other says, who are you interfere in the affairs of our culture? Each side is moralizing to other, appealing to the other in hopes that they will acquiesce to some sort of UNIVERSAL standard that we should all know and adhere to without rebuttle.
One side says it is wrong to starve your own people, and another side says it is wrong to interfere with the affairs of sovereign nations. Ordinarily we might agree with both positions, but at times the two opposing morals clash. Which is more morally right? How do we decide? Doesn't it come down to one opinion vying for supremacy over another one?
When you say, "don't do that, because it's wrong." Well, it may be wrong to you, but right to them. Does it not then come down to mere opinion?
Remember that there is a difference between being allowed to hold an opinion and being allowed to act upon it. Our 1st Amendment boils down to the right to hold and express any opinion your conscience allows, but it doesn't grant the right to act on such opinions.
I'm not disagreeing with you that relative morals exist and that they utilitarian purposes. What I am asking is whether or not absolute morals exist too? What intrinsic principle makes murder universally wrong, even if they don't agree on what constitutes murder?
Being entitled to one's opinion in no way conveys that anyone else needs to treat that opinion with respect - many (most?) opinions are simply wrong.
Do you mean that absolutely?
The moral outlook of individuals is trumped by the outlook of the community all the time.
By the theory of might makes right, absolutely. But is that, in and of itself, morally acceptable?

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Rahvin, posted 07-02-2010 11:56 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Rahvin, posted 07-02-2010 4:45 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 219 (567779)
07-02-2010 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by DBlevins
07-02-2010 1:43 PM


Re: Dredging up the past
What do you mean my trumped? Do you mean trumped as in 'rightfully' or 'lawfully' superceded by? Or do you mean trumped by the process of acculturation?
I'm talking trumped in terms of sheer numbers (might makes right). Let's face it, during the Holocaust there was of course a lot of objection to the massacre from a moral basis.
One person says it is wrong to kill Jews because they're human beings. Another group says it is not wrong because the Jews infect society. Both have good intentions in mind, but they hold diametrically opposed positions on how to create a greater good.
Which is right? You can't say one is wrong in an absolute sense. you can only say that you think it is wrong. If morals are relative, then they come down to the differing, individual opinions.
If you say, well, obviously Hitler and the Nazi's were wrong, that's still your opinion if morals are always relative. And if they are always relative, then that is an absolute phenomenon.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by DBlevins, posted 07-02-2010 1:43 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by DBlevins, posted 07-02-2010 3:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 219 (567799)
07-02-2010 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by DBlevins
07-02-2010 3:20 PM


Re: Dredging up the past
I'm not so sure that that is correct. While I believe that there was concern among some about the 'plight' of the jewish populations, there were many who believed that jews had brought some of it upon themselves. It wasn't until after the holocaust was brought out (toward the end of the war) and people saw the horror that had been inflicted, that people felt sympathy for what had happened.
I think for most people in the New World, who were by geography far removed, didn't initially realize the extent of the atrocity. That is, until we marched in to Nazi-held territory and it became apparent just how insane the Nazi's really were. We knew some crazy shit was going on, but not to that extent (at least not the general public. The government may have been a different story).
But I'm referring to the Germans who silently objected and risked their lives knowing the full extent of it.
Morally, I think many during the holocaust could be said to be ambivilant toward the plight of the jewish populations.
Most probably were, I'm sure. Hitler couldn't have done that without a very large percentage of the population backing him. Even still, there was a huge underground movement. So much so, that members of his own military attempted to kill Hitler several times. (Operation Valkerie being the closest)
I think a good analogy of how many people felt would be the same way that many felt about the genocide in Rwanda: It's not our problem.
Well, I know for America, we believed in the Monroe Doctrine. But that is precisely what I mean. Is it better to intervene or is it better to respect the soveriengty of others? There is a moral dilemma there.
I don't think I can agree with your label 'good' intentions. It was labeled more as a 'final' solution to the problem. The intention wasn't good, and they knew it, otherwise they wouldn't have tried to hide their culpability to it.
Not necessarily. The Nazi's knew the world would object, they felt they were doing a good that would not be understood until subsequent generations viewed it.
If I had been raised in such a culture I might likely see nothing wrong with the practice. That is what I think is meant by moral relativity.
So the question is, we know how we would respond relatively to a situation like that. But is there an absolute standard?
Laws are not inherently moral. They can be immoral. Laws can be and have been used to take away the rights of others. As an example : Laws preventing women from voting were not moral in any sense. They simply felt women were too 'simple-minded' to be allowed to vote.
Too stupid to vote, and them voting stupidly would have deleterious effects. I think if you really analyze it, there is always some moral attached to it. It doesn't mean I agree with the moral, but the framework seems to be there.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by DBlevins, posted 07-02-2010 3:20 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by DBlevins, posted 07-02-2010 5:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 218 by DBlevins, posted 07-02-2010 11:42 PM Hyroglyphx 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