Moral Relativism

So what you are saying is that a country that practices these acts is less moral than a country who does not, right?

---

If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

Well, since those were all acts by the US, what would you say?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, obviously... I never said the USA was perfect.Now answer MY questions.

---

If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

It is not possible to determine if one Nation is more moral than another, IMHO.What you can say is that certain actions were immoral.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You can determine if one nation is more moral than another. Lets say nation A is exactly like nation B except in nation A they think it is ok to kill random people walking down the street. Which nation is more moral?Let's consider second statement, "you can say that certain actions were immoral." If you say this, you have to be comparing this action to a standard in order to say that it was immoral. This standard is an absolute moral standard.

---

If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

Well, in reality, there have never been a nation sloely like that and almost all nations have behaved like that at one time or another. So you can say that Germany in 1990 was more moral than the US in 1831. It's all relative. I have always said the there is a certain basic level of morality. It revolves around love your neighbor as yourself. But so far no one has been able to so any absolute moral standards. It is always necessary to see them in relation to other behaviors.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To jar: I agree that what you have said contains a sense of morality, though I would hardly consider that the basic level. "Love thy neighbour as you love yourself" is hard, if not impossible. It implies total selflessness (or the absolute non-existence of selfishness) and to me, this seems more applicable as a goal to strive for rather than a basic level to start off with.A basic level would be, I believe, something along the lines of "don't kill other people". From there onwards, higher levels can incorporate "don't harm others", "altruism", and finally "love others as you love yourself".What do you think?Food for thought: sometimes, people will consider "help" or "love" from other people as harm or annoyance. For example, fundamentalists strive to "help" others to see the light; parents subject their children under immense pressure to achieve certain goals for their own good, etc.In these cases, perhaps the moral highground is simply to "leave others alone" and "mind your own business".Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

The problem when you get to specifics such as don't kill others or even don't harm others is that there are always exceptions. Someone is trying to kill you so you defend yourself as an example.The golden rule, or the 6 ways of Buddha IMHO are better. You may not suceed, but doing right should be the goal.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To jar:But most rules have exceptions. Love others as you love yourself is not applicable when you have to choose between saving yourself and saving others. What I'm trying to say is that in the aim of establishing a so-called "fundamental level of morality", one should really look at something that everyone will agree to.The Golden rule is only applicable to a small group of enlightened individuals (by applicable, I mean "actually actively practiced in everyday life"). If you consider it in terms of pursuing a goal, then I'm with you. If you're establishing it as a basic tenant of morality that everyone will agree upon, then I'm afraid it simply will not be practical. After all, selfishness, much like altrusim, is a survival mechanism.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

Why?Actually, IMHO it is very much applicable. If you would like to be saved yourself in such an event, then you too would try to save others.Frankly, I think almost all of the other things you have mentioned really are simply dependant on that basic rule.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To jar:I think you have probably misunderstood my comment. I am not suggesting that the Golden Rule is not a worthwhile goal to pursue. Surely if everyone abides by the rule of "Love others as you love yourself", then the world will be paradise.However, that will only work if people are intrinsically selfless in all actions and endeavours, and this is simply impossible to accomplish. This is why I am suggesting that it is not a viable "basic level of morality". Perhaps you misunderstood what I mean by "basic"?Consider:I suppose you will agree that if everyone on earth are Christians with pure Christian values, then the world will be paradise (no conflict).And I suppose this can be generalised to almost all religions - everyone on Earth is Muslim/Buddhist/Mormon/Catholic/Jewish etc. The world will be paradise.The reason why the above will never happen is because everyone has a different idea of what they would like to pursue, hence the existence of deviance and variations in ideas and attitudes - conflict.Similarly, "love others as you love yourself" cannot be practically accomplished because it runs along the grains of selfishness, which is one of the key human attributes. Perhaps you can even say that greed is the foundation of Capitalism. Thus I question the practicality of making the Golden Rule the basic tenant for morality - it is a goal worth pursuing, but it will not be practiced by everyone.Am I making myself a little clearer now?Perhaps you would like to explain what you mean by "basic level of morality"?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

First, if the world were filled with Christians with pure Christian values.
.
.
.
.
it would be just about the same as it is today.People are human. They will behave just about the same way regardless of the system they use as a basis.If you will work with me perhaps I can explain my position in a way that makes it clearer.Would you agree that things like lying, stealing, cheating and murder are wrong?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To jar: In general, yes, I will agree. It is wrong in the sense that it will compromise certain concepts we value - such as trust, possession, loyalty, life, etc.Please continue.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

Hang in with me if you will, a few more questions coming.But would you agree that there might be times when each of those might be appropriate and moral behavior as well? For example, the idea of stealing food to keep someone from starving might be excusable and even moral if no other option was available.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To jar: Perhaps I would be one of the few people who feel this way, but no I wouldn't agree. In the case you have stated, stealing is wrong, and the ends do not justify the means - it is not moral nor excusable. I don't believe that we should rationalise away the process just because it seems to provide greater good.Afterall, the person you stole from may starve as a result of your actions.Provide me with another example if you wish.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"