Moral Relativism

quote:

---

As for homosexualy marriage, I disagree than banning it would harm homosexuals.

---

Do you think it was harmful to mixed race couples to ban them from getting married?

I've asked that question before but so far no one has been able to show that absolute morality.Can you show it to us?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Absolute morality is that which you ought to do in a given situation.

---

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

So it depends on the situation? In one situation something might be absolutely moral but in a different situation the same action might be absolutely immoral?Is that realtively what you are saying?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think you're missing the point.Morality is COMPLETELY situationally oriented. IOW the distinction between right and wrong depends entirely on the situation.The point is that a particular action in a particular situation cannot be BOTH right and wrong at the same time depending on who is observing.

How was your trip, guy? Hope you had a great one. How about a coffeehouse narative for us, with pictures. Remember, if there are no pics it never happened. So you are saying it is absolutely relative to the situation? Save that one for phase two.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It was awesome! We had a ton of fun.I spose I could do that after I get the pictures off of my friend's computer tomorrow. Umm... Yes? Some situations are always alike. Some are more complicated. But in any moral situation something is right and something is wrong. Alright... whatever that is?

Well, it's conceivable that there could be a situation where both sides are moral. Unfortunately in life, there are shades of gray (or grey).

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think I see what you are saying.For example, in the civil war:A Virginian might be fighting to maintain freedom, status quo, and his state's sovereignty. A Yankee might be fighting to preserve the unity of the nation and end the South's form of slavery.On the battlefield, both could fight and die honorably in the right even though the war itself may be wrong.Many situations are unique and every variable must be considered to determine whether an action is right or wrong.

Very, very good, sir. An excellent example. Once again, I salute you.So to the Thread Title. Is Morality Relative, depending on society, time, place and environment?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Welcome back.Just so it doesn't get missed...a reply to message 183, please.

I will drop the whole evolution debate within this debate, since I currently have no position on evolution. Being saved is no excuse for being a coward, and I don't know of any specific case of someone becoming more cowardly BECAUSE they were saved. There is much said to warn believers of taking this mindset particularly in James. If one does not love and forgive his neighbor he does not love God. Yes, that's some very interesting information, but what does it have to do with the relative existence of right and wrong? Even the animals have a sense for it. What's right is right. What's wrong is wrong. You can't get away from it.

Even the animals have a sense for it. What's right is right. What's wrong is wrong. You can't get away from it. If I cooked and give you human flesh to eat, would you take it?if not, why not?

quote:

---

So....what if you do? Are you going to steal from A and not from B simply because A can afford to be stolen from? To me, your argument is very much invalid and I can't see how it could be otherwise.

---

Exactly so. That illustrates my point: the NOMINAL impact which someonbe MIGHT suffer is taken as an absolute, and applied even in circumstances in which no impact will be felt.

quote:

---

If you are going to challenge the notion of preservation of property rights as a universal principle, I'm all ears.

---

Absolutely so. I don't dispute that an individual can lay to the exploitation of some necessary good or resource. My concern arises when someone has socially endowed property rights far beyond what they can actually personally exploit. Under those conditions, a property system that protects such property only serves to make others dependant on that person. A better system would not extend property rights to things an individual is not or is not capable of exploiting, and leave everything else free to be exploited by others. IMO our property system is a hindrance to innovation and welath creation.

To contracycle:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: But who judges how much impact a loss will have on any individual? A selfish, egocentric scrooch may value his/her millionth dollar more than a generous individual value his/her hundredth dollar. Is percentage or proportion a sufficiently good basis for measuring impact?Note: if the millionth dollar mattered so little to scrooch, why did he/she bother earning it in the first place? The fact that he/she now possess the wealth must mean that he/she values the dollar. How do we weigh subjective valuation of assets? Oh good. Well we don't disagree on this at least. Hmmmmmmmmmm..........I kind of understand what you are referring to, though it sounds more like an economic wealth allocation problem than morality. A progressive tax (such as income tax) is already doing such a great job of allocating wealth from the rich to the poor - must we really change Possession Law?I don't know if I am interpreting this correctly, but you seem to be saying that in a better system, all individuals can only obtain and possess a certain amount of wealth (x), and that any wealth they generate past this amount must be forfeited to the society. Is this Communism?Why would people work harder to earn past the minimum quota (since they can't retain the wealth anyway) - Promotion of laziness.How do people who can't even earn the minimum amount of wealth survive?How do you measure "ability to exploit"? Can you explain this "better system" in greater detail please?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

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