|
3 registered members (AndrewAMD, Quad, M_D),
1,217
guests, and 1
spider. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Doug]
#78464
06/19/06 21:37
06/19/06 21:37
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
I can see your point. But I'm not trying to appeal directly to emotion. Matt keeps bringing up liberal-friendly examples like homosexual pedophilia.
If that example, of another culture's traditions which we find wrong, can be used. Then why not naziism?
American slavery is possibly a better example because its benefit to society is easier to recognize, even though its universally understood to be a bad thing.
I'm not attacking them, they aren't attacking me. Its still on friendly terms.
However, I think avoiding the question would just be unfair. That would be like me asking them to prove evolution, but they can't use any pieces of evidence that contradict creation. Furthermore, how do you measure emotional response? How do you know that people in the debate weren't victims of pedophilia and so they react strongly to his use of pederasty.
Its all quite subjective, but in the greater idea of whether or not morals are absolute, American slavery, murder, and the nazis are relevant. I could just use the more general use of the word 'murder', but then they might say that no culture universally accepts murder. Then I'd give the example of hitler and we'd be right back where we started.
"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]
#78465
06/19/06 21:49
06/19/06 21:49
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
OK, here is your main error: you equate ancient Greek pederasty with Nazis or American slavery. They are not even remotely similar.
I said that the Greek practices seemed to have no ill effect on society, or most poeple who took part..I'm not saying WE should view it as right.
However, Nazism and slavery have had terrible and long-lasting consequences which in some ways the world has still not recovered from--and may not for hundreds of years.
For instance, Africa itself was horribly damaged by the slave trade; whole generations of poeple were stolen away, whole villages dissappeared, families were split up, tribes fought against other tribes, and so on. The sorry state of affairs in Africa today have deep roots in the European slave-trade.
Similar things happend in Eastern Europe becasue of the Germans. The Jewish holocaust was just one part of an even greater destructive program that scarred the region deeply.
Morality is a complex thing, and simplifiying it gets you into all sorts of trouble.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78466
06/19/06 22:41
06/19/06 22:41
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Its all quite subjective, but in the greater idea of whether or not morals are absolute, American slavery, murder, and the nazis are relevant. I could just use the more general use of the word 'murder', but then they might say that no culture universally accepts murder. Then I'd give the example of hitler and we'd be right back where we started.
This doesn't make much sense at all. Again you are claiming that the 'nazi-germany culture universally accepted murder', and you know this is nonsense. Infact, Matt told you this, but you seem to deliberately have missed it, or?
What exactly are you trying to find out through this thread? Like Doug said, what's the 'question'?
I think the debate has long ended, since you think there is something as 'moral absolutism', which quite clearly doesn't exist. And we think there is indeed moral relativism, infact the hitler example you keep bringing up is a good example of this, but would be flawed in a way, since you generalize to easy and don't see how it's relative. Not every german was wrong in that war you know... 
And yep, an often heard 'excuse' for the nazi behavior was indeed that someone from top-down gave orders and they just executed them.
Quote:
I said that the Greek practices seemed to have no ill effect on society, or most poeple who took part..I'm not saying WE should view it as right.
That's what I meant with that Irish can't relativate.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78467
06/19/06 22:59
06/19/06 22:59
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,973
Bay Area
Doug
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,973
Bay Area
|
Quote:
I can see your point. But I'm not trying to appeal directly to emotion. Matt keeps bringing up liberal-friendly examples like homosexual pedophilia.
I can't see where calling pedophilia a liberal-friendly example does NOT appeal directly to emotions. But, all in all, you are behaving remarkably well for a such a hot-topic.  I'm still wondering if you are actually arguing the same thing.
Moral Relativism, as far as I understand, is the idea that morals are not absolute but reflect a particular time/place/culture. While morals tend to reflex what's best for a particular society, it doesn't have to.
Quote:
American slavery is possibly a better example because its benefit to society is easier to recognize, even though its universally understood to be a bad thing.
This is a good example. Are you saying that American slavery is universally understood to be a "bad thing" morally? Back in the 18th century, a majority of American didn't think so at all. And, as much as I hate it, even today slavery is not universally understood to be morally bad. Isn't that Moral Relativism?
(Note: I think human slavery is morally bad, but I believe that is because of my up-bringing and not an absolute moral value everybody owns.)
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Doug]
#78471
06/20/06 19:10
06/20/06 19:10
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Well the answer is clear: there is no absolute moral code. There are however common morals shared by most or all societies, such as prohibitions against murder or rape. These common rules appear to be arrived at independently, in all societies, for reasons of social survival. It would be impossible to maintain a tribal group, for instance, if rape, murder, and theft were allowed internally.
However, these rules seem to apply in certain circumstances, such as internally in a given society, and the same protections will often not be afforded to external groups or individuals. Thus the almost unverversal notion that it is "OK" to kill or steal from foreigners, or outsiders.
Therefore, when a group of poeple is considered sufficiently different to render them not "human", its becomes OK to slaughter them. This can be seen in all times and places, from ancient to modern.
HOWEVER:
There can and should be a higher morality. This would be a morality defined by cetain enlightened individuals, and can transcend the common "mob morality".
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78472
06/22/06 04:53
06/22/06 04:53
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
I can't see where calling pedophilia a liberal-friendly example does NOT appeal directly to emotions.
Just homosexual pedophilia. I'd assume that if these were grown men having sex with teenage girls, people wouldn't be so tolerant.
They wouldn't rationalize it by calling it teaching.
For the time being, unless someone has an objection, I'm referring to relativism as "A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them."
I believe that there are universal truths, even if we disagree on what they are.
The relativist also has a hard time because the idea itself is contradictory. Saying that all truth is relative is an absolute statement. But if that isn't absolutely true then that means that truth is absolute. Relativism makes no sense.
I understand what you guys are saying. Some people disagree on what is morally ok to do. And that's a fact of nature. But just because people don't agree, doesn't mean that there isn't an absolute truth. I'll illustrate below.
Quote:
This is a good example. Are you saying that American slavery is universally understood to be a "bad thing" morally? Back in the 18th century, a majority of American didn't think so at all. And, as much as I hate it, even today slavery is not universally understood to be morally bad. Isn't that Moral Relativism?
Ok. So then you admit why relativism is so dangerous. It says that slavery wasn't really bad. Since we disagree on what's right and wrong, blacks are just lucky that the ones who thought slavery were wrong won out in the end. That's the only truth of the matter. I hate to use an 'emotional' argument, but try telling a holocaust survivor that the holocaust wasn't absolutely wrong, but just that we think its wrong and 'good thing we won the war.'
Relativism says that since people disagree about slavery, no one is right. I say that even if we disagree, slavery is ALWAYS wrong.
Quote:
Maybe the misunderstanding here is that Irish_Farmer thinks that accepting the fact that morals are relative to a culture means embracing their morality ?
Nope. I doubt much would change for the time being if everyone were a relativist. But I find that some relativists are the most contradictory. They say no one is for sure right, and then spend their lives trying to change everyone else's morals to fit their own view better.
Quote:
Now for the really tricky question, is there really such a thing as absolute morals? Things that are *always* good or *always* bad (even if a society thinks otherwise)? Or is everything relative? Can you have absolute morals without some powerful "overseer" (like God)?
You're the only one who has actually managed to catch the point of everything I've been saying. They're off on a tangent about whether or not everyone agrees. I don't care if everyone agrees. The point is whether or not you're going to believe that some bad things really are bad (that the evil of slavery isn't just an illusion) or whether they're only bad because we all agree they're bad.
I just want the relativists to admit that's what they believe. But they seem to be pretty good at dodging around their own conclusions.
I mean, they have all but admitted it, but I want to hear them say it. It'll make happy that they at least aren't denying their own worldview to themselves.
Quote:
There can and should be a higher morality. This would be a morality defined by cetain enlightened individuals, and can transcend the common "mob morality".
I finally got it! The admission that there are absolute morals (in a relative sense, in other words whatever seems best at the time), and that it takes 'enlightened' people to tell the majority what they are. Interesting. This is why I resist relativism.
Its a dangerous position, especially when people like Matt hold it to be true.  That's only a half-joke.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/22/06 04:56.
"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."
|
|
|
|
