|
3 registered members (7th_zorro, Aku_Aku, 1 invisible),
579
guests, and 1
spider. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Moral Relativism
#78454
06/18/06 19:31
06/18/06 19:31
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
nonsense.. this doesnt follow in the slightest. Consciousness--while evolutionarily emergent, allows humans and higher animals to make choices. This leads to question of morality in general.
How does consciousness lead to a question of morality? Whether or not I'm conscious, sex with whomever I want whenever I want is still going to be pleasurable. Why would I wonder if its right or wrong?
Quote:
Morality is obviously derived from early tribal behavior in which poeple in a small to mid-sized social group needed rules of conduct.
Which I'm sure you've concluded from years of on-location research with tribal humans, and hundreds of hours spent writing peer-reviewed papers. That's why its so apparent to you.
Quote:
Similar rules of conduct are visble in great ape social groups as well. The fact is moral codes are advantageous for a society.
Yes, except humans don't have to act on instinct (although we do quite often). We can act based on conscious decisions that literally can override our genetic code. The 'decisions' apes have to make are nothing like human social interaction. Before you say we're pretty much apes, I'll remind you that apes put their fingers in their butts and smell them, we make airplanes. Apes will pee into their own mouths, whereas we make works of art.
Moral codes are good for society, but that doesn't mean people follow them just because they're good. Much of what our genetic code tells us to do is actually bad for us. Being promiscuous is one that society has yet to make a social rule for, but it causes the rapid spread of disease, causes unwanted pregnancies, etc. Not everything bad is prevented by social rules, and in fact social rules cause bad stuff all the time. You provided me with a prime example.
Quote:
This of course creates a problem for moral absolutists, who cant accpet that practics they find abhorent may have been perfectly acceptable in other cultures. Pederasty in ancient Greece was a normal part of life for many poeple (particularly upper class or warrior classes). Regardless of how WE view that behavior, it was viewed in a fundamentally different way by THEM.
Ok, so basically raping little boys isn't really all that bad, because it was socially acceptable? This goes along the same lines of you thinking that technically the nazis would have been right had they won the war. In fact, your position that all morals are relative is an absolute statement. The fact is, you can't avoid absolutes. Its logically contradicting to believe in relativism. But the fact of the matter is you don't like being told what to do. You want to replace your creator as the only absolute for right and wrong.
Quote:
I could also say the love for God of some of us have wars as a result. I would be closer to the truth than you stating that evolution is evil my friend.
But let's look at it this way. Christianity does not teach killing people for not believing. In order to justify that you would have to act contrary to the teachings. However, justifying rape is NOT contrary to evolutionary teaching. In fact, its a good way to propogate your genes if you otherwise wouldn't have much sexual activity. Its VERY easy to justify just about anything when your belief says that the only absolute is that you've survived. From there, its up to you to figure out what you need to do.
This is ok for intellectual atheists who know not to hurt other people (sometimes). However, most atheists aren't intellectuals. They're petty criminals, punk kids, etc. They hear that society is the only standard for right and wrong, but they don't care. If society is the only standard for right and wrong, then all they have to do is not get caught and that means they didn't do anything wrong. Thanks to 'intellectual' atheists, these people are being force fed this philosophy in my country's public schools. Thanks.
Just last night I was nearly t-boned (I probably would have been hospitalized), from someone driving a van like a madman away from a crimescene where they either injured or killed several people. The ambulance sirens must have spooked him into running away. I literally had to drive all the way off the road just to keep from being hit because he didn't stop before merging onto my road.
This person does not care one single bit about anyone but himself. Really, he's playing right into your philosophy. He stopped himself from getting caught, even if that meant hurting one more random collection of chemicals. You can tell him he's wrong, but no moral is absolutely right anyway. So as long as he doesn't get caught, then no big deal. What's the loss of a few more of nature's accidents anyway?
Tell me, if Hitler had taken over the world, would his version of morals have been right? I can't really remember if I got an answer to this one.
Quote:
Apart from that prove to me that other organisms than humans do not 'love' eachother. You can't really expect that a squirrel loves like the way we do, considering the big differences, especially when it comes to consciousness and intelligence.
Squirrels treat each other fairly because they have no choice. Its hard coded in their genes. We treat each other fairly because we Love each other. Its hard coded into our genes to be able to make the choice, not to be forced into the choice. We have the choice to abuse each other, and we might be able to get away with it, but we choose not to. Some of us. Husbands who beat their wives, people who make fun of different kids at school, don't know love. But that they have the choice between treating someone right and wrong, and they sometimes do choose to treat them right, is the difference between love and simple instinct.
Quote:
I'd say love is a pretty irrelevant argument, not just because while sometimes it strikes you down in a split second and you know 'wow, I'm in love', sometimes it takes time to develop, but maybe you haven't witnissed this yet.
My family is a witness to God's love working to create love. Long story short, there were problems with my parents, and they were on the verge of divorce. However, at some point they became christians, and they also reconciled. I basically owe my life to God. Since God changed their lives through the prayers of my father's uncle, they've been a great example of love for me. I may not have experienced love yet, but I have witnessed it.
Quote:
What implications on my practical live? Again, we can love just like they can .. Infact it's quite arrogant of them to think they can do better, they are not saints and most of them are not acting like they could become one either...
You refuse to accept that nothing really matters, because you're just a random collection of chemicals. That emotions, including love, really have no meaning. That the purpose you think you have in your life is just an illusion because in the end anything you do doesn't matter whatsoever, except that your accidental combination of genes is tricking you into thinking it does matter.
Those implications.
"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]
#78455
06/18/06 20:18
06/18/06 20:18
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
How does consciousness lead to a question of morality?
How else can moral choices be made?
Quote:
Yes, except humans don't have to act on instinct (although we do quite often). We can act based on conscious decisions that literally can override our genetic code. The 'decisions' apes have to make are nothing like human social interaction. Before you say we're pretty much apes, I'll remind you that apes put their fingers in their butts and smell them, we make airplanes. Apes will pee into their own mouths, whereas we make works of art.
This is just so dumb its funny.
Quote:
Ok, so basically raping little boys isn't really all that bad, because it was socially acceptable?
Once again you completely miss the point. First of all greek pederasty didnt involve "raping little boys". It usually involved a voluntary relationship between an older man and a younger man, probably a teenager. Generally anal sex wasnt involved.
The fact is, regardless of how we view this behavior due our cultural conditioning, this was viewed as normal to ancient Greeks. As Greece established one of the great civilizations of history, this practice must not have been harmful in the long run, and may have had benefits. I dont personally approve of this kind of behavior, but so what?
Quote:
Tell me, if Hitler had taken over the world, would his version of morals have been right? I can't really remember if I got an answer to this one.
This is kind of thing doesnt even require a response.
Quote:
My family is a witness to God's love working to create love. Long story short, there were problems with my parents, and they were on the verge of divorce. However, at some point they became christians, and they also reconciled. I basically owe my life to God. Since God changed their lives through the prayers of my father's uncle, they've been a great example of love for me. I may not have experienced love yet, but I have witnessed it.
Its arrogant and silly to suggest that god takes a personal interest in your family, when so many other familes DO end in diviorce or worse. What make you better than them? Like those retarded athletes who thank god for letting them win the race, etc.
See, this is what I have long suspected. Your INSISTENCE that Gos exists, that evolution is false, etc, comes from purely emotional reasons. Why cant God help poeple even if they dont pray to him? He's supposed to be omnicient. So becasue no one knew about God until 30 AD, he didnt give a damn about anyone before that and let parents get divorces? Give me a break.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78456
06/18/06 21:35
06/18/06 21:35
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
How else can moral choices be made?
Moral choices are made because of our consciousness. However, our consciousness doesn't automatically set rules for us. We decide on the rules, or we're told what the rules are and they determine our behavior. But I seriously doubt that serial killers aren't conscious.
Quote:
This is just so dumb its funny.
You compared ape social behavior to humans as if it had any bearing. I know you think we came from monkeys, but that's because you're mislead. If you want to compare the ability to make choices, birds would have been a better choice.
Quote:
Once again you completely miss the point. First of all greek pederasty didnt involve "raping little boys". It usually involved a voluntary relationship between an older man and a younger man, probably a teenager. Generally anal sex wasnt involved.
A pederast is "A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy." I'm sure boys willingly asked for things to be shoved up their butt.
Either way, this isn't a really good example, because its going to come down to our disagreement on whether homosexuality is wrong. Its pretty difficult to prove homosexuality is wrong, but we can move on to more important examples.
Quote:
As Greece established one of the great civilizations of history, this practice must not have been harmful in the long run, and may have had benefits.
Yes, having anal sex, or even just getting a blowjob from a boy, or something equally perverted could have numerous benefits.
Quote:
Tell me, if Hitler had taken over the world, would his version of morals have been right? I can't really remember if I got an answer to this one.
This is kind of thing doesnt even require a response.
You can't escape your own conclusions. You've told me time and time again that our own personal societal choices determine right from wrong. So tell me, had Hitler taken over the world, would not his view of right and wrong become THE view of right and wrong, and there would be no point in questioning it? You can't escape your own conclusions here, I just want you to admit to everyone watching how absolutely twisted your views are. You keep bringing up ideologically friendly examples like Man-Boy love, why won't you answer this one?
The parallel is crystal clear. You reference another culture that has a different view on man-boy love. Why won't you discuss another culture that has a different view on the value of other people's lives?
I'm happy that you're avoiding the answer, because its obvious your own viewpoint is threatening, even to you.
Quote:
Its arrogant and silly to suggest that god takes a personal interest in your family, when so many other familes DO end in diviorce or worse. What make you better than them?
He takes a personal interest in EVERYONE's lives. I may have the advantage of good parents, but I also have many disadvantages. However, this is going to take us down a track of what effect a Godly life has on people, and that's a dead end argument with someone like you.
Quote:
Why cant God help poeple even if they dont pray to him?
God didn't force my parents to do anything good, He gave them a way to do the right thing in a world that teaches there really is no right thing to do.
Quote:
See, this is what I have long suspected. Your INSISTENCE that Gos exists, that evolution is false, etc, comes from purely emotional reasons.
Have I ever been emotional in any of my arguments against evolution? You, sir, are the one who argues with emotion.
Quote:
So becasue no one knew about God until 30 AD
No one knew about God until 30 A.D.? So then who was Jesus talking about his entire life? And who did the prophets, who predicted Jesus' coming, believe in for years and years and years before Jesus even arrived on the scene?
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/18/06 21:37.
"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]
#78457
06/19/06 00:46
06/19/06 00:46
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Yes, having anal sex, or even just getting a blowjob from a boy, or something equally perverted could have numerous benefits.
Im sorry but you need to read some of the history here, as you are clearly ignorant of the facts. These kind of relationships mainly functioned as a sort of bonding and teaching environment. I'm not defending it from an absolute moral stance, just that here you totally dont realize the actual facts. Most of the young men who had relationships with older men remained good friends with them later in life.
If you havent rad the ancient greek sources, and the modern commentaries, you dont really have a clue what you are tlaking about in this case.
The point is not wether we believe that this behavior was right, but whether they belived it, and whether it had harmful effects on society--You topic was on moral relativism.
That morality is relative is self-evident to anyone who any exposure to other cultures.. What is taboo in some societies is perfectly acceptable in others. Nudity is generally not considered acceptable to be viewed by children in the USA, but in places like Japan it is not at all discouraged.
On an even more obvious note, morality is relative on an individual and even *context* basis. Many men may think using a prostitute is wrong, but then they may think it is all right in some circumstances, like at a bachelor party.
There do some to be some universal standards of morality, but even then these rules are not hard-and-fast, and change with time.
Thus the example of ancient Greek pederastic relationships. In Greece this was considered an important part of a young man's education and emotional and sexual development. In the modern Western world this is considered harmful. Who is right?
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78458
06/19/06 01:39
06/19/06 01:39
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
You still haven't answered my question. If everything is relative, then by extension if Hitler had taken over the world, his view of right and wrong would have been ok? You seem to feel strongly about relativism. Why are you afraid to discuss this? Quote:
These kind of relationships mainly functioned as a sort of bonding and teaching environment.
Yes, but no one argues whether or not teaching and bonding are ok. The question is whether or not grown men having sex with teenage boys is ok.
Whether or not they're teaching or 'bonding' with them, they're still having sex with them!
Quote:
The point is not wether we believe that this behavior was right, but whether they belived it, and whether it had harmful effects on society--You topic was on moral relativism.
So then you're against promiscuousness? You believe its absolutely wrong to be promiscuous? You then have to tell teenagers that they're absolutely wrong to have unprotected sex (both of these things have harmful effects on society), but to do that you would have to convince them that there are moral absolutes.
You're starting to sound like an absolutist here, its very contradictory.
Quote:
That morality is relative is self-evident to anyone who any exposure to other cultures.. What is taboo in some societies is perfectly acceptable in others.
That proves that people can't agree on right or wrong. That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, and didn't come up with some rules about what's right and wrong.
Quote:
Thus the example of ancient Greek pederastic relationships. In Greece this was considered an important part of a young man's education and emotional and sexual development. In the modern Western world this is considered harmful. Who is right?
Anyone who believes that a grown man having sex with boys isn't wrong, is wrong.
Quote:
There do some to be some universal standards of morality, but even then these rules are not hard-and-fast, and change with time.
Ok, so then murder and rape are only wrong because we've decided they were wrong? This is what I hear you saying. Can you just confirm this for me?
If you don't believe your worldview encourages the most dangerous of relativist people, then I'll reference you back to the original rape quote.
Quote:
In A Natural History of Rape, Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer argue that rape is an adaptation--that it has evolved to increase the reproductive success of men who would otherwise have little sexual access to women. Their analysis of rape then forms the basis of a protracted sales pitch for evolutionary psychology, the latest incarnation of sociobiology; not only do the authors believe that this should be the explanatory model of choice in the human behavioral sciences, but they also want to see its insights incorporated into social policy.
Coyne and Berry, Nature, Vol. 404, 9 March 2000, “Rape as an Adaptation” page 121
It would be one thing if this were contradictory to evolution. But evolution doesn't teach anything about right or wrong, and says that the only right or wrong is whatever provides a reproductive advantage. So while this may offend our morals (which aren't really a sure thing anyway), technically its ok.
Let's keep your worldview out of society.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/19/06 01:41.
"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: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78461
06/19/06 20:28
06/19/06 20:28
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
We've had this argument already ... which is why I will not respond to it. You go on about how evolution could not possibly provide a healthy society, which is obviously a crappy viewpoint to say the least.
That's not the point. Evolution has nothing to do with this. Is is whether or not moral reletivism is even a valid viewpoint. Stay on topic. 
Quote:
What's next? Claiming we are in denial? I for one am not afraid to discuss anything, you just repeat the same stuff over and over again.
The only answer I get is that, "I won't dignify that with a response." That's why I have to keep asking.
Ok, since you seem to have some trouble even elaborating on your own viewpoints, I'll do it for you. Tell me if I make any mistakes. Hitler was wrong, because the allies won the war and so the majority rule decided that killing people is wrong. Not because murder is wrong.
If you say murder is always wrong then you're imposing a moral absolute, in which case morals are not relative and you're still wrong because you said that morals are not absolute.
If one culture CAN get it wrong, and call murder ok. Then perhaps one culture can get it wrong and call homosexual pedophilia wrong. Perhaps there is an ultimate standard for right and wrong, and humans can't always figure out what it is, but sometimes we get it right.
If you say that there isn't an ultimate standard for right and wrong, then if the majority says its ok to kill minorities, and society doesn't falter for it, then you so, "So what? Who are we to say anything is wrong?" If you say that they were wrong, even if the majority accepted it, then you're imposing an absolute moral, in which case your viewpoint is still invalid.
So either you say, anything goes as long as it works for society, (which would include slavery, which certainly helped the economy) and you then have to admit that your relativist viewpoint is dangerous (or not admit it, but it'll be blatantly obvious), or you have to admit that there are absolute morals, in which case morals are not relative, and are absolute. Furthermore, since we can't always seem to get it right, it might seem we're only partially discovering some higher, ultimate truth. Whether or not you think that ultimate truth comes from a creator or not is irrelevant. However, it would seem logically obvious there are moral absolutes. I think we should give God credit for them, and obey them, you think we should figure out for ourselves what they are.
I don't think we disagree that there are absolutes, you just want to be able to decide what those absolutes are for yourself, to sum it up.
Unless you're going to say that American slavery, and Hitler weren't really all that bad because they worked out for those societies at the time.
"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: Doug]
#78463
06/19/06 21:33
06/19/06 21:33
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Yes I know about Goodwin's Law, and I agree with it.
It seems some poeple dont have the common sense to realize that Hitler and Nazis are aberations, they are the exception that proves the rule. Most of the world hated Nazism, including many Germans. So even if Germany had won the war, the majority of the world would have still belived that nazism and the holocuast, etc, were wrong.
one of the interesting things about the holocuast is that ordinary (non-psychopaths) participated in mass killing. They would later explain that they were taught to belive, throgh pervasive mass propaganda, that the Jews were dangerous subhumans who wanted to destroy Western civilization (in much the same way that Amercans are now taught that muslims are intent on destroying us--so Bush can do what he wants).
The point is, the majority of these poeple probably didnt belive that mass slughter was morally ok, but in the case of the Jews they had been convinced they were human, and so killing them justified. This is not an excuse, but it does show that morality is very complicated, and dependent on context, and what pople are told is right and wrong.
Thus, the "top-down" moral approach is actually shown to be flawed by the case of the Nazis. If poeple weren't told what was right and wrong by a central authority (whether its Hitler or Pat Robertson), perhaps such outrages would not occur so frequntly. It were better if poeple were able to think for themselves, to determin their own personal morality, rather than listen to what the mob demands.
|
|
|
|
) but I will give some links to try to keep this more intellectual rather than emotional.