2 registered members (Akow, SBGuy),
1,423
guests, and 7
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78504
06/26/06 23:51
06/26/06 23:51
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Bah, that's such a copout. Philosophical positions may lead to paradoxes, but they normally aren't paradoxes themselves.
This from someone who then says:
Quote:
You guys are the ones saying relativism is an absolute truth
This is nonsensical...
No one is saying relativism is an absolute truth, you just use bizare extremes to attemp to reduce our arguments.
Anyway, regardless of that, how do you respond to my earlier point, that morality ought to flexible, to allow chnaging moral standards to suit various present and future circumstances? If all morality is absolute, then it can never change.
Who then determines the absolute moral code? You? The Bible? Because as shown before, the Bible is full of contradictory moral statements. On one hand, the OT says we should murder homosexuals, and Jesus in the NT says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (paraphrased).
The Bible then implicitly confirms that morality is relative; it is dependent on context.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78505
06/27/06 00:02
06/27/06 00:02
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535 Michigan
ICEman
Developer
|
Developer
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
|
I find the most basic and unshakable form of morality is the simplest. For example.. the ten commandments (oh I know I am I gonna get it for this but): Thou shalt not kill This does not contain any ambiguity. It does not say..thou shalt not kill...humans... or thou shalt not kill.. animal. It says Thou shalt not kill. Meaning.. Dont kill...anything which lives. This is because.. you wouldnt want someone to kill you..right? it's painful and permanent. The best way to evaluate what is right and what is wrong is to truly put yourself on the recieving end of the questionable infraction..and evaluate whether or not you'd like them to do that infraction to you, you being the victim or recieving end of immediately subsequences. The next time you ask.. "I wonder if there are acceptions to " thou shalt not kill/steal/ covet someones partner" because its so short a more that it appears elastic.. ask yourself.. if you were a bug, other man, other woman..would you want to be killed/ stolen from/ or have someone take you husband/wife. If your answer as applies to yourself contains no ambigiuity, neither should your position about the activity whos morality youre questning. We read into things and try to find elasticities and loopholes because its our nature to lean toward the wicke,d but in reality, simple right and wrong are not open to interpretation.. as they woulndt be open to interpretation if you were the victim or subject to be "questionably" wronged. I find myself doing all sorts of wrongs.. on a daily basis sometimes.. but thats not because I dont know theyre wrong, or have to think about it. Sadly I operate on a different system..one which includes good..evil..neccesary and unneccesary evil . These are personal things tho. I know right from wrong in most everything I do..but the above is where choice plays a part in me believing one thing and doing another .
I'm ICEman, and I approved this message.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78507
06/27/06 01:22
06/27/06 01:22
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718 Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
This is nonsensical...
No one is saying relativism is an absolute truth
But if relativism isn't absolutely true, then that means there are absolutes. So you're still wrong.
Quote:
you just use bizare extremes to attemp to reduce our arguments.
No, I'm using logic.
These aren't bizarre extremes. If relativism is true, then its an absolute truth, and it defeats itself because it says there are no absolute truths. If relativism isn't absolutely true, then by the definition of relativism there must be absolute truths. That's not extreme, its just common sense.
Quote:
Anyway, regardless of that, how do you respond to my earlier point, that morality ought to flexible, to allow chnaging moral standards to suit various present and future circumstances?
Flexible in what way? Can you give an example?
Quote:
Who then determines the absolute moral code? You? The Bible? Because as shown before, the Bible is full of contradictory moral statements. On one hand, the OT says we should murder homosexuals, and Jesus in the NT says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (paraphrased).
This topic is relativism (and by extension absolutism) not the bible. Let's just get down whether or not relativism or absolutism makes more sense, and we can go from there.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78508
06/27/06 06:17
06/27/06 06:17
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Morality has to be flexible, partly becasue it must change to accept new ideas. For instance, homosexuality was considered widely immoral in the past, now most popel accept as morally ok, even if they dont approve of it themselves. This is an example of how flexible morality can save many poeple a lot of pain.
And, there is no one source everyone can agree on to establish an absolute morality, so therefore, any absolute moral code has to be imposed on everyone, making the whole system corrupt.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78509
06/27/06 18:27
06/27/06 18:27
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718 Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
If people find homosexuality to be wrong, what harm did that do? I think you're attributing the hatefilled actions of the closeminded minority of people with anyone who says homosexuality is wrong.
So, let's say that instead of society saying homosexuality is ok, we all just agreed that even if we think its wrong to be homosexual, its just as wrong to hate someone for being homosexual. That would have saved all sorts of pain. What would be the difference?
Besides that it wouldn't have changed any absolutes. Hating people (for any reason) could just as well be an absolute.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/28/06 05:49.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78510
06/27/06 20:03
06/27/06 20:03
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535 Michigan
ICEman
Developer
|
Developer
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
|
I dunno I just know what to and not do to as a decent human being.
Typically I find the more flexible morale codes are, the more room for loopholes get found. And morals to me shouldnt be aubject to debate that way.
I'm ICEman, and I approved this message.
|
|
|
Amazon touts anti-Israeli views,
[Re: Pappenheimer]
#78511
07/21/06 17:36
07/21/06 17:36
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
{edit: off-topic spam removed by request.}
Last edited by Doug; 07/22/06 05:48.
|
|
|
|