|
2 registered members (AndrewAMD, 1 invisible),
1,369
guests, and 1
spider. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Pappenheimer]
#78484
06/24/06 22:13
06/24/06 22:13
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
You need to stop trying to be sophisticated, becasue it doesnt work.
I am once again floored! You have wowed me with your brilliant observations. 
Quote:
Please please read first an answer as a whole, then think about it, and after you get the coherence and relations within the thought (or thoughts) and what is meant, then answer!
My last two posts were about that 'relative' does NOT mean 'arbitrary'!
You said, "Your imputation is that relativism is something which makes anything arbitrary - and that is wrong." So I was responding to the "meaning" that relativism makes everything (actually just truth) arbitrary, not that relative means arbitrary. Relativism does make everything arbitrary. But relative doesn't literally mean arbitrary.
Quote:
The only responses that I get by you show that you completely ignored or missunderstood nearly anything that I wrote!
I thought I was responding literally to every word you wrote down. I make it a point to try and read an opponent's post as thoroughly as possible.
Quote:
[Your way of arguing makes no sense at all. What you are doing is more like a reflex movement.]
I've tried to establish why, logically, relativism is self-defeating, and that you guys probably aren't even relativists.
The only response I've gotten is, "No, relativism isn't self defeating, there are no absolutes." And, "You're not understanding my words."
So your way of arguing makes no sense to me. You guys won't admit that you're either hypocrites (you take absolute positions on things when there are no absolutes), or you won't admit that yeah, some of the really bad things people have done, technically aren't bad.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/24/06 22:14.
"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]
#78485
06/25/06 03:58
06/25/06 03:58
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 363
Ottawa
MathewAllen
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 363
Ottawa
|
OK.
Morals exist. I said it.
They are not there because some big stupid god said they are.
They are not part of the universe like some lame fantasy novel.
They are certainly not built into some cosmic justice system.
Morals are a byproduct of love.
Well, more a byproduct of fear, as anyone can see by the way many religious folk see them.
Let me explain....
First of all, love:
We all have people we love, we all have things we love. Most healthy people love themselves. We all have a grudging love for our tribe, our society, even the rebels, who always seem more in love with the concept then the reality... but anyways, we all love. Love being merely a word for our midns forming a strong conceptual connection between our well-being and the well-being of something else - at times to the point where it's seen as more important. ie. you love a girl, truly love her, you want to see her happy more than you want to be with her.
Now, morals:
Morals, morals, morals...
look at every moral you have, and you can find some link to protecting something you love. I challenge you to submit one which is not so.
Example: murder - if you kill, you may be destroying your loved ones' views of you, you may be destroying your own life, you may even think so far as to realize the destruction you are having on society.
You abhorr murder in others because you fear that someday it might happen to you, or one you love, and even thinking that sends shivers down your spine. You may even experience empathy. The ability to realize that other people would also feel those shivers, and that those terrible feelings are nothing to the sudden disconnection of the actual loss of a loved one.
Of course, added to this for theists - is the fact that they fear the loss of their salvation, that they will be less in their lord's eyes, and worst of all, that they may be denied reunion with loved ones beyond the grave... Does this make them 'morally superior'??
No. For atheists, the fear is just as great, for we feel a cold certainty that we will NEVER see anyone we lose again. That any life we ruin is gone forever. We think how we would feel in these situations, and it is not pleasent.
When you love nothing but yourself, or when you believe that the only way to achieve the love of others is trough respect, and thus by force, this is when you can become 'amoral'.
Hitler? He was deluded. He believed that he was destroying all those lives to create a foundation for a future where all would be happy, where his love (power) would be permenant. The rage i mentioned before was there as well - I think he truly believed that the jews were destroying everything he loved. It's sad in many ways.
Are morals relative? The answer is apparent. They are relative from person to person based on what they love, and what they fear to lose, but some are more-or-less constant between societies because the vast majority of humans - when it comes right down to it - don't want to live in a world where anyone can kill them or a loved one on a whim.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78488
06/25/06 06:04
06/25/06 06:04
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 796
U.S.A. Michigan
exile
User
|
User
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 796
U.S.A. Michigan
|
I am sort of new to this whole thing and it is my first post in this topic, but here it goes. Morals are a byproduct of social norms. Social norms are things which are consitered normal in society. Now, morals are the unforced laws that a society has to keep social norms in place. For example, in our society we would consider eating with our hands to be rude and barbarrac. But to another society, it may be a norm that everyone does. Morals vary from different cultures all the way down to different families. Morals are not absolute because of their variance. HOWEVER, Mores are absolute. Mores are pretty much morals, but on a global scale. Laws are created to prevent mores from happening. Things like murder, child rape, or robbery, are considered mores. In conclusion, Morals = relative, Mores = absolute. I took a sociology class which we debated these types of subjects, so i'm pretty sure I know what i'm talking about. But, if anyone finds me wrong, please let me know. Thank you.
Last edited by exile; 06/25/06 06:05.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: exile]
#78489
06/25/06 09:09
06/25/06 09:09
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,655
testDummy
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,655
|
Quote:
What you are doing is more like a reflex movement.
Quoted Pappenheimer.
Looks more like a dangerous, self-destructive impulse or compulsion to me, but what do I know?
Although I wouldn't have used the term "love", I like MathewAllen's post and I believe there is some truth to it. (It contains a principle or two in common with what I had written earlier but didn't post.)
Quote:
I think Matthew Allen is wrong here, morals are not a byproduct of love. Moral codes likely developed as a needed set of rules of behavior in small tribal groups.
Quoted Matt_Aufderheide.
From my idiot's perspective:
I don't really see a true conflict with some principles that were hinted at in MathewAllen's post and what was stated in Matt_Aufderheide's post.
I for one, do not want myself, nor my mate(s), nor my offspring to be raped and/or killed (not in preferred order) by other members of my species (edit: not by whales either).
I would rather not be a member of a society which allows such acts.
I think that societies may have "evolved" over time to support somewhat "absolute" rules which are beneficial to the survival of the members of those societies or groups (specific members of the species) and those which are also beneficial to the survival of the species as a whole. I think that a society that does not support rules which are productive or beneficial for the species, may be consumed by a society with better, more productive rules. (Please cite examples where creatures which are a members of a herd, kill other members of their herd periodically or often. Now please debate whether or not these "herd creatures", which may or may not have forms of consciousness, debate "absolute" or "relative" morals. Deduct 5000pts if anyone mentions ants for some reason. Deduct another 2500pts if someone states that "herd creatures" rape each other often, and that, for human beings, rape is a good means by which to reproduce.)
Without some form of natural empathy or sympathy, an individual may not protect its mate(s) and offspring and may not supply its mate(s) and offspring with needed resources, food, shelter, etc. If there is, indeed, some form of natural or innate form of empathy or sympathy, it is maybe not so difficult to conceive of instances where empathy and sympathy are extended to other somewhat unrelated members of the species. To some degree, if unrelated members sacrifice excess time and resources, those resources which can be spared without serious detrimental effects to related members, to aid other unrelated members in need of such resources, then such behavior (when replicated) might be beneficial to the survival of the species as a whole.
I'm a fool, but I still think that its absurd, a waste of time, utterly ridiculous, a true mark of insanity, to try to get anyone to claim that, Hitler and slavery are only wrong based on context, if the current applicable contexts (personal + group) force such to be absolutely wrong for the groups individuals belong to and themselves. I can not pretend that my context has no meaning, nor can I completely, immediately, separate myself from my context...not even to make absolute statements such as "slavery is only wrong based on context" or "Hitler is only wrong within context." (edit:This may be a general limitation of being a simpleton which might be overcome in another paragraph.) Sorry, but both slavery and Hitler may still be absolutely wrong from my context. Morals and beliefs may be generally relative, but relative to me, my morals and beliefs may be absolutes.
@Irish_Farmer
Really, from the dummy's perspective, what you seem to be trying to do, looks more like a setup for some form of "catch the stupid" trap. I'm probably just dumb enough to try to spring it..."Ok, I'm a super, mega, ultra, platinum, gold, die-hard, true-blood, professional version bad kitty...I mean relativist (whatever that might be...strange...some dictionaries don't have an entry for it). There is no right or wrong. If Hitler had won, and at the time he just so happened to be a Confederate general, killing "subhumans" that don't make good slaves, might now be the "right" thing to do. If I take everything out of context, including myself, Hitler and slavery are at the very top of the "right tree", and when mixed together, are like peanut butter and chocolate...two great tastes that taste great together. Again, Hitler is only wrong because he lost the war blah blah blah. I reckon, raping your jewish slaves (a good way to reproduce (edit: more slaves?)) is only "wrong" because raping slaves is illegal in these here parts (and specifically over yonder at 2:42 p.m. on Tuesdays)."
Idiots like myself, can only wonder if something else happens now.
Last edited by testDummy; 06/25/06 10:47.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78491
06/25/06 21:01
06/25/06 21:01
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
Quote:
I've tried to establish why, logically, relativism is self-defeating, and that you guys probably aren't even relativists.
So, your idea of relativism is wrong. It is your isolated creation of a meaning which doesn't relate to its actual meaning.
Quote:
So your way of arguing makes no sense to me. You guys won't admit that you're either hypocrites (you take absolute positions on things when there are no absolutes), or you won't admit that yeah, some of the really bad things people have done, technically aren't bad.
I'm absolute precisely in my thoughts.
Quote:
I thought I was responding literally to every word you wrote down.
...and that is exactly what I discribed as a completely wrong way of discussion, because you take it literally, you can't get the thought. Within a thought a sentence gets its precise meaning by its context! Or, to explain it the other way round, each sentence can have a range of meanings, and only through the context within the other sentences it gets its precise meaning.
(By the way, if you don't understand this, you won't ever understand a theory, because the words in a theory at its best are like x,y,z in a big mathematical function, wherein you finally after reading the whole theory understand the meaning of x,y,z, because of the 'context' of the 'function'.)
Let's compare it to coding:
Can someone understand a line of code without knowing the other lines? Maybe, sometimes. But, at least, the more complicating this code is, the more you have to investigate this single line of code _within the context_ of the whole code and its functions. Now, imagine an AI code. Is it more complicating than intelligence in reality, or less?
[My question to others than Irish Farmer: Can you understand me? Or is it my fault that Irish Farmer cannot understand what I write?]
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Pappenheimer]
#78492
06/25/06 22:03
06/25/06 22:03
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
There are about seven posts which amount to the same, tired, irrelevant argument that people disagree. How many times do I have to say that it doesn't matter whether or not people disagree? Quote:
Really, from the dummy's perspective, what you seem to be trying to do, looks more like a setup for some form of "catch the stupid" trap.
It may seem that way, but all I'm asking people to do is pick a side. Which they seem completely and utterly incapable of doing. They avoid my question at all cost, because a relativist who isn't completely out of his mind can't answer it without making himself sick. Many of you have 'answered' it by giving me your opinion of Hitler. But I'm not asking your opinion of Hitler and what he did, I'm asking what your perception of the truth of his morals are.
Quote:
If Hitler had won, and at the time he just so happened to be a Confederate general, killing "subhumans" that don't make good slaves, might now be the "right" thing to do. If I take everything out of context, including myself, Hitler and slavery are at the very top of the "right tree", and when mixed together, are like peanut butter and chocolate...two great tastes that taste great together.
There is no gradient of right and wrong when it comes to relativism. There is no 'right tree'. Its all relative. Hence, relativism.
But it sounds like you're saying its easy for us to say slavery was wrong, as long as we aren't a dictator like Hitler? That's kind of fuzzy logic. As I recall, the confederates weren't Hitler, and they still thought slavery was ok. What makes you more right than them?
Quote:
So, your idea of relativism is wrong.
Ok, you made a claim, now can you back it up? I pulled an exact quote of the definition of relativism. I can post it again if you want. You can argue my definition of relativism, but you can't escape its implications unless you can prove I'm somehow wrong about it.
Quote:
and that is exactly what I discribed as a completely wrong way of discussion, because you take it literally, you can't get the thought.
I'm sorry, you're not my girlfriend so I'm not going to translate what you 'meant to say' out of what you actually said.
I don't really see many other ways to take what you said. If you feel that there's an underlying thought to what you're saying, and you want me to grasp it better, find a better way to communicate it.
Can I get an answer to the question? Was Hitler absolutely wrong, or was he only relatively wrong? Or-Is racial slavery absolutely wrong or is it only relatively wrong? Its a simple question.
If you have a problem with my definition of relativism then please point it out. Don't just say, "You're wrong."
"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]
#78493
06/26/06 00:26
06/26/06 00:26
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 363
Ottawa
MathewAllen
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 363
Ottawa
|
Let me sum up here what I've tried to say, in a less... elaborate... way.
1) Morals exist
2) Everyone creates their own morals based on their needs, social pressures etc.
3) Even the worst acts in history were either almost definetly seen as morally right by the perpetrators
Here matt would say: morals are not created for the individual! they are created for the species/society
And Irish would say: Eloquent post, but you didn't answer whether there are absolute morals, or relative. Remember if you pick relative hitler was a good guy.
So.
Relative morals.
Well, of course.
If there is one thing we've found out about this world, it's that the only constant is that there are no absolutes, no constants in this universe.
What about mathematical constants, you ask.
They almost unimaginably slowly change. At least one of them does. A very fundamental one. So why can't the others? It's just recently been discovered, but it's true that the fine-structures constant is changing inexorably slowly.
Anyways...
The thing is, I'm not saying hitler was right. I'm not saying mussolini was right. I'm certainly not saying Bush is right. I'm saying that nothing is inherently wrong OR right. It's people who decide what is right and what is wrong. We all agree hitler was wrong. Therefore he was wrong in our frame of reference. That's all that really matters.
Besides (jokingly) maybe some alien race is looking at us right now, the destruction we wreak on the world, and figuring anything that kills millions of us is morally right?
|
|
|
|
