Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A critique of moral relativism
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 29 of 219 (411206)
07-19-2007 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by bluegenes
07-19-2007 10:02 AM


Re: Answering Jazzns from another thread
bluegenes writes:
I referred to a specific ancient Middle-Eastern culture as being barbaric. By their law, it wasn't murder. By my personal values, your God, as portrayed here, is a sick and evil entity. Don't you agree?
bluegenes, we still have capital punishment today. 'Barbarians' are people who required death sentences for much lesser crimes. It seems to me that what has changed over the years is our reaction to adultery. It's not so 'evil' now, as it was to the Israelites, who viewed fidelity as a direct command of God.
The point is, that relativism has no means to decide that it is just to require someone's life as payment for a crime. In a few decades, society may decide that the crimes committed were not such a big deal after-all. That happens very frequently. Then, all of a sudden, the old culture becomes barbarian to our eyes. There is no doubt that what is considered moral changes over time, but we ALL act like absolutists. We act like we know the truth, we act like we are superior, and we don't hesitate to judge others according to our ways.
If this was not true, no one would continue harping upon the 'evil' God of the OT as some kind of proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by bluegenes, posted 07-19-2007 10:02 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by bluegenes, posted 07-19-2007 2:37 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 32 by Modulous, posted 07-19-2007 2:56 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 33 of 219 (411227)
07-19-2007 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by bluegenes
07-19-2007 2:37 PM


Re: Answering Jazzns from another thread
bluegenes writes:
Please read carefully.
I know you said 'by my personal values', but would I be correct to assume that you think your values are 'better' than the ones in the Bible stories? Not in a snooty way, but just as in 'humans are becoming more moral with time'?
Because,well, 'values' are in fact, values. Things which we hold dear, which we think are important. Dare I say 'true'?
The things which a given society finds important may indeed change. I still feel that everyone acts upon what they feel, deep down, to be important or just behaviour. IN that sense, all are absolutist. They see a scale in their minds, where actions range from atrocious, to nearly perfect. No one stops, in daily life, to consider that these actions may or may not be 'really' good. I have the opposite opinion from you, and that is: relativism can not work.
I also question why it is only the "religious" who talk about absolutes? Why is it either or, and all atheists end up in the relativist camp? Can't atheists also believe that there may exist an almost perfect way of life? I do understand that what is perfect will be very different for some groups and some individuals. We need to have a perfect code for societal behaviour, for family behaviour, and for individual behaviour. That we continue to look for these codes, and strive for them, and enforce them, is evidence that we are all absolutists at heart.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by bluegenes, posted 07-19-2007 2:37 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by ringo, posted 07-19-2007 3:39 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 39 by bluegenes, posted 07-19-2007 4:53 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 35 of 219 (411236)
07-19-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Modulous
07-19-2007 2:56 PM


Re: Answering Jazzns from another thread
Modulous writes:
Moral relativists can have their own personal moral outlook with which judge 'goodness' or 'evil', but they appreciate that it is only 'evil to them' or 'evil relative to the morality of our culture'.
That sounds nice, but I don't find it in practice too often. In fact, whenever there is a morality topic and I say something like 'only the individual doing the action can decide whether or not it was moral' then folks start twisting it around to mean 'whatever we think is good, is good'. People hate that thought. They think I am condoning Hitler or something. It's the relativists who don't understand that this is their philosophy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Modulous, posted 07-19-2007 2:56 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Modulous, posted 07-19-2007 5:36 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 36 of 219 (411237)
07-19-2007 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by ringo
07-19-2007 3:39 PM


Ringo writes:
You're talking about perfectionists, not absolutists. And we're not all perfectionists.
Hm...you sound like a perfectionist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ringo, posted 07-19-2007 3:39 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ringo, posted 07-19-2007 4:08 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 42 of 219 (411251)
07-19-2007 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Modulous
07-19-2007 5:36 PM


Re: understanding their own morality.
Mod writes:
Plenty of people who would be classified as relativists have not studied morality in any detail whatsoever and so when they try to formally describe their views they sound muddled and confused. The same goes for absolutists. This thread was designed to explain the principles of relative morality to both relativists who did not know the details of relativism and those absolutists who don't know the details of it.
Well I hinted at one problem. It seems that because Christians are generally talking about absolutes, the atheists automatically feel they belong in the opposite camp, but don't always know what 'relativist' means.
Let us not fall into the trap of saying 'It's the relativists who don't understand that this is their philosophy.' without also referring to the those absolutists who are not aware the details and problems associated with their philosophy.
Sure, I just speak way more frequently with relativists, and this was not intended to be a generalization.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Modulous, posted 07-19-2007 5:36 PM Modulous has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 62 of 219 (411406)
07-20-2007 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by PaulK
07-20-2007 1:25 PM


Re: Arbitrary or deliberate?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2007 1:25 PM PaulK has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 67 of 219 (411454)
07-20-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by PaulK
07-20-2007 3:21 PM


Re: Arbitrary or deliberate?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2007 3:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2007 5:43 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 69 of 219 (411474)
07-20-2007 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by PaulK
07-20-2007 5:43 PM


Re: Arbitrary or deliberate?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2007 5:43 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2007 5:33 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 89 of 219 (411693)
07-21-2007 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by PaulK
07-21-2007 5:33 AM


PaulK writes:
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.
Look it up, absolutism covers a range of positions too. Most absolutists are not saying there is any moral code which will always work.
We may say 'love of God' is always good, or 'love of neighbor' is always good' but the ways and means for accomplishing love are always relative.
Absolutism has flaws. I may believe that I can love God by killing those who hate God. That is, unless I believe that God condemns killing.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2007 5:33 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2007 8:34 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 107 of 219 (412033)
07-23-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by PaulK
07-23-2007 6:55 AM


Re: Oh, Christ...not again
PaulK writes:
But it must be pointed out that "both are forbidden in the OT" is not a relevant connection for the purposes of NJ's argument. Two reasosn to consider are the fact that Christians happily permit some things forbidden in the OT without seeing anything wrong with them - and forbid things accepted in the OT. (Therefore not even NJ thinks that that alone is an adequate reason). Secondly it assumes that the only reason for fobidding something is that it is forbidden in the OT - which conradicts NJ's assertion that there are reasons behind the prohibitions.
Paul, if it helps, the Christian mainstream position is that any form of sex except between a man and woman mutually intending to bear offspring in a monogamous relationship, is absolutely morally wrong. The consent of another person to have sex in any other way will not legitimize the act. Society's acceptance of any other type of sexual relation will not condone the relation in their minds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2007 6:55 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2007 5:01 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 111 of 219 (412074)
07-23-2007 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by PaulK
07-23-2007 5:01 PM


PaulK writes:
That's not true, though is it ? Even the Catholic Church allows the use of NFP techniques as contraception. The mainstream Protestant churches - and most of the rest - are even more liberal. And no Christian church I know of regards fertility as a necessary requirement for marriage.
You can find people who take both sides in all of the above, but forget that I said 'mainstream'. Let's leave it at 'some' Christians, of which nemesis is one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2007 5:01 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2007 5:46 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 115 of 219 (412089)
07-23-2007 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by PaulK
07-23-2007 5:46 PM


PaulK writes:
Does he ? Does he think that all forms of contraception - even "natural" NFP techniques - are immoral ? Does he think that infertile people should not be allowed to marry and should never have sex ? Has he actually said so, or are you simply assuming that he takes a very rare position ?
Please don't make me discuss what another member thinks. This was not about fertility or contraception. Those issues come up with the advent of technology. I went to church initiated marriage classes, and this was the rap:
Man and woman
Previously unmarried
Committed to a monogamous relationship
Committed to children if and when they come
NFP is supposedly taking advantage of nature. Some like it, some don't. Other kinds of contraceptives may be interfering with nature. None of that is particularly relevent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2007 5:46 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2007 6:25 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 117 of 219 (412122)
07-23-2007 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by PaulK
07-23-2007 6:25 PM


Paul, none of this stuff has anything to do with the topic.
My first post to you said all I needed to say. You are picking it apart, and that is fine, but I don't want to do that here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2007 6:25 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2007 2:04 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 142 of 219 (412403)
07-24-2007 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by PaulK
07-24-2007 2:44 PM


Re: Listen to what I am saying, as opposed to hearing what you want to hear
PaulK writes:
Why not ? It doesn't follow from the arguments raised. You get called a bigot because you keep making these assertions without providing any reason why you need to do it. Your behaviour does raise the reasonable suspicion that you think that all these activities are equivalent.
Paul, please, don't be so naive. In the religious moral system of a great, large, huge amount of people, ALL forbidden sexual behaviours ARE equivalent. That is, they are ALL wrong. In Catholicism, for example, they are all as wrong as murder, as genocide, as suicide. They are 'mortal sins'.
I know that feels extremely harsh, because we are conditioned to believe that morality is determined by how we affect others. In actuality, that is NOT how many Christians make moral judgements, even though behaviours which harm others are generally condemned.
I hope you can understand that in the context of moral relativity, there are many different standards. Please understand that with different standards for 'right' there are different equivalent 'wrongs'. No one is forcing you to like it, but those are the facts.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2007 2:44 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by PaulK, posted 07-27-2007 1:48 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 165 of 219 (413137)
07-27-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Tusko
07-27-2007 6:48 PM


Re: Listen to what I am saying, as opposed to hearing what you want to hear
Tusko writes:
Personally I think this is probably simplifying the issue, but it's an answer that people give. These people consider consent to be fundamental to their moral understanding. You don't. In a universe where there appears only to be relative morality, as I believe this one to be, there is no moral bedrock, and yet all of us with our differing conceptions of morality have to rub along together.
Tusko, pardon the intrusion. The issue is not consent, per se. We don't generally look for the consent of animals when we decide to eat them, keep them as pets, or use them for milk and wool.
What we do look for is respect, equality, and love for our fellow humans. It is irrelevent whether we believe overall in an absolute morality, or in a relative morality. At this very moment, we have to make decisions AS IF our morality was the only one in existence.
So...one person feels that love of God is of utmost importance in morality. God only 'allows' certain persons to marry, so any other marriage is immoral.
Another person does not believe in God, but feels that love of neighbor is of utmost importance in morality. Thus, any marriage which may be harmful to someone is immoral.
It can be demonstrated to a point whether certain marriages are harmful, as in, when someone can not legally give consent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Tusko, posted 07-27-2007 6:48 PM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Tusko, posted 07-27-2007 7:55 PM anastasia 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