Moral Relativism

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



ushomefree

Bardock42

Adam_PoE

Sandai Kitetsu
Whob?

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Whob?

whobdamandog, JesusIsAlive, Thundarr, et all.

Alliance
I CANT READ IT...CAN YOU MAKE IT LARGER?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Alliance
I CANT READ IT...CAN YOU MAKE IT LARGER?

I can't read it because it is too loud. eek!

ushomefree

ushomefree

Goddess Kali
So far I beleive that if Absolute Morality exists, then it can only exist in the most extreme cases...i.e. If you torture someone for fun...I could never ever see how that is right, and I would bet that most people would agree that was wrong as well.


However, most situations and actions are Grey, and i do not beleive that every single action and situation can be applied to "good" or "evil", some things have nothing to do with morality.


If i scratch my ass, that's not good or evil. That just is.

If I drink Kool Aid at 3:00, is that good or evil?


etc.





Then you have more complicated issues such as Abortion, Gay Marriage, Sex Before Marriage, Birth Control, Death Penalty, etc.


How can you have absolute right or wrongs with these issues being as complicated as they are. If you find these issues simple, then you are TRULY BLIND

Shakyamunison
There is no absolute right or wrong because you always have to have something to compare against. An absolute stands alone.

Goddess Kali

Shakyamunison
Goddess Kali, remember they wrongly believe that humans are not animals.

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Goddess Kali, remember they wrongly believe that humans are not animals.


I know, even though it is scientific fact that humans are animals.


Also because of the Bible and Quran, many religious people tend to beleive that we have every right to treat any animal as we wish, because "God put the animals here to serve us"


They don't realize that animals have thier own lives, independent of human beings.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I know, even though it is scientific fact that humans are animals.


Also because of the Bible and Quran, many religious people tend to beleive that we have every right to treat any animal as we wish, because "God put the animals here to serve us"


They don't realize that animals have thier own lives, independent of human beings.

And that way of thinking has lead to great evil against animals.

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And that way of thinking has lead to great evil against animals.



I know, to many religious people, animal rights is a joke.

ushomefree
Goddess Kali-

I can take heat, and I can take disagreement. But sometimes people just want to be difficult, and they want to be heard--not that they have anything to contribute to the conversation, they just want to be heard. And that is you, Goddess Kali. You had points to convey, but the majority were completely short sighted. Its like you want to tear apart my reasoning by means of questioning the "product" and not the "origin!" I only felt like commenting on one thing, such as:





You have totally under minded my point! Just because one has more influence and/or money in the bank does NOT dictate who is MORALLY RIGHT! (The same applies to the United States!) People like you are so quick to attack--and judge--that you can't even give me the "benefit of the doubt." I appreciate the diversity, but c'mon. Let's be fair. I am through with this thread. I'm sorry to be such a poor sport. All of you can reach a conclusion. Take care all, and happy debating.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I know, to many religious people, animal rights is a joke.

But when people get used to tormenting and killing animals, they find it easier to tormenting and killing people. Most serial killers started by killing animals.

DigiMark007
Any distinction in life is arbitrary. Nothing - not words, religions, acts which would be describe as 'moral' or 'immoral' - has any intrinsic meaning in and of itself until we give it meaning for ourselves.

So yeah, according to Osama, the eradication of, say, America would be 'moral' whereas many others would label it 'immoral'. Both are inherently arbitrary, and far from absolute. Good/evil, right/wrong...don't exist except in our perceptions of them. There's no standard basis for it.

I don't really know what the central point behind Ushomefree's rant is (likely just trying to destroy the idea of relativism)...there's been a lot of topics covered and counter-points made, so it's hard to follow. But you've spent the last few posts simply attacking Kali and getting upset, rather than debating...and when you do, there's large leaps in logic that don't really fit. That isn't really productive for anyone, and just shows that you're incapable of discussing things with people who disagree with you. You don't have to change your mind (you're always entitled to your opinion) but the progression of talk in this thread has degenrated into immaturity in a hurry.

erm

DigiMark007
Also!

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/7559/dino34zy2.jpg

backdoorman
Haha this makes no sense.


The illusion of moral absolutism plays an important role in today's society, sure but don't confuse that with the notion that moral absolutism is real.


You really do. I can see how people might not be too crazy about people they care about being killed but the lack of objective moral standards doesn't have anything to do with it. You can keep spewing the same sensationalist bullshit, you cannot prove any form of absolute and objective moral standards.


Are you saying that all actions that provoke a sense of "wrong-doing" are objectively moral wrongdoings? Christ.


And who decides what these standards should be? An upper-class, white, Christian businessman from the US? Taliban leaders in Afghanistan? Guerrilla soldiers in Colombia?

You keep going with the same "would you like it if I killed your mother?" bullshit, it doesn't mean ****. The lack of proof supporting your beliefs, on the other hand, should be enough for you to drop all this nonsense.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Also!

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/7559/dino34zy2.jpg

...this doesn't deserve bottom of the page.

smile

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by ushomefree
Goddess Kali-

I can take heat, and I can take disagreement. But sometimes people just want to be difficult, and they want to be heard--not that they have anything to contribute to the conversation, they just want to be heard. And that is you, Goddess Kali. You had points to convey, but the majority were completely short sighted. Its like you want to tear apart my reasoning by means of questioning the "product" and not the "origin!" I only felt like commenting on one thing, such as:





You have totally under minded my point! Just because one has more influence and/or money in the bank does NOT dictate who is MORALLY RIGHT! (The same applies to the United States!) People like you are so quick to attack--and judge--that you can't even give me the "benefit of the doubt." I appreciate the diversity, but c'mon. Let's be fair. I am through with this thread. I'm sorry to be such a poor sport. All of you can reach a conclusion. Take care all, and happy debating.



I answered your rant respectfully. If you saw nothing useful in my responses, than you are blind and a waste of time to argue with.


I did not attack you, so your assumption that I was merely attacking you and not taking your argument seriously, is your own delusion.

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But when people get used to tormenting and killing animals, they find it easier to tormenting and killing people. Most serial killers started by killing animals.


That is true, its like a ladder.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
That is true, its like a ladder.

So, if we cherished all life and saw all animals as brothers, we would learn how to see each other as brothers and sisters.

mattrab
We live in a sea of relativity, where Moral law itself is culture bound, and nothing more

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by mattrab
We live in a sea of relativity, where Moral law itself is culture bound, and nothing more

The sea of relativity. I like it. big grin

ushomefree
Ronald W. Reagon

lvg7lRsCVJ8

Devil King
Ronald W. Raygun was a tool

ushomefree
How so?

Bardock42
Did backdoorman own this thread?

ushomefree
I started this thread.

Bardock42
Originally posted by ushomefree
I started this thread. I meant "own" as in "handed you your ass" though, admittedly, after I did already.

Robtard
Originally posted by Devil King
Ronald W. Raygun was a tool

But he personally beat up Soviet Russia.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
I meant "own" as in "handed you your ass" though, admittedly, after I did already.

Correct on both accounts.

Bardock42

Deja~vu

Bardock42

inimalist
ushome: So, uh, I'd consider myself a moral absolutist...

What is your point? this is the religion, not philosophy, forum

surely you can't be proposing that the morals of the bible are the absolutes, when it unquestionable promotes the suffering and enslavement of others, something that few, if any, non religious moral arguments can be made for.

Bardock42
Originally posted by inimalist
I'd consider myself a moral absolutist...



Sick.

Neo Darkhalen

inimalist
Originally posted by Bardock42
Sick.

like malaria

Bardock42
Originally posted by inimalist
like malaria No, that's a sickness I believe. More like eating the flesh of toddlers you killed with an axe.

inimalist
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, that's a sickness I believe. More like eating the flesh of toddlers you killed with an axe.

possibly

but my street cred hits for 6

willRules
sorry if this has already been posted, I don't have time to read the thread atm...

Bardock42
Originally posted by willRules
sorry if this has already been posted, I don't have time to read the thread atm...
Haha, and he calls atheism simplistic. Too funny.





Horrible argument to begin with, doesn't prove either really.




Relative morals and coditioning.



To what you would think would be better for you or other humans or whichever view you choose to base your morals on.



Decent point, which shows the silliness of his initial idea, and possibly moral absolutism generally.




Yeah, should have maybe done it and found a more reasonable approach against God.



If absolute morals existed. Regardless of whether God did.



An idiot.




Nonsense. Someone's not very good at making logical points. He assumes that our ideas of right and wrong have to relate to some absolute right or wrong. That's circular at best.


So, I don't know that guy, but his simplistic analysis as well as naive thoughts on the subject of God and atheism make him sound like one of those moronic Christian Apologetics. They usually don't have much standing to start with and then go on to pretend that from this one idea they have they can now talk bullshit about everything else. Pretty sad quote.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by ushomefree
gotquestions Bejebus. I've got a questions.

Why. Can't. You. Post. Like. A. Normal. Person?

You can't even quote people normally? What are you functionally retarded on the DSM-IV?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
So, I don't know that guy, but his simplistic analysis as well as naive thoughts on the subject of God and atheism make him sound like one of those moronic Christian Apologetics. They usually don't have much standing to start with and then go on to pretend that from this one idea they have they can now talk bullshit about everything else. Pretty sad quote.

You don't know who CSLewis is? Seriously?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You don't know who CSLewis is? Seriously?

I am pretty sure I heard the name. It was in connection with something dull though. After looking at his wikipedia, I assume Narnia. Also, if that movie wouldn't seem to be about children in a closet meeting a lion and I needed any more reason not to ever watch or read it this inane quote would be enough.

willRules
Originally posted by Bardock42
I am pretty sure I heard the name. It was in connection with something dull though. After looking at his wikipedia, I assume Narnia. Also, if that movie wouldn't seem to be about children in a closet meeting a lion and I needed any more reason not to ever watch or read it this inane quote would be enough.

You call his comments naive yet you're barely aware of arguably one of the most entertaining authors of classical British literature????? confused

Bardock42
Originally posted by willRules
You call his comments naive yet you're barely aware of arguably one of the most entertaining authors of classical British literature????? confused

I am sorry I wasn't brought up around the same children's books English speaking natives were. And my evaluation of his quote has nothing to with his achievements in the past. Russell or Einstein could have said that and I'd call out the bullshit just the same. All he said in there are most basic thoughts of a High School sophomore and they usually get countered in the following thought by the thinker himself. That seems not to be the case with him, so either he is a flat out moron, or he is, like so many, not able to reason when it comes to Religion.

red g jacks
it all depends on who's right.

if god exists then morality is absolute and given directly from god to the people.

if god doesn't exist then all of our morals are not absolute, just general consensus usually motivated by sympathy or indirect self-preservation

chithappens
Originally posted by red g jacks
it all depends on who's right.

if god exists then morality is absolute and given directly from god to the people.



I don't agree.

If God created you and gave you a free will, then why would his morals be absolute? Because he can burn you forever?

red g jacks
what need would there even be for morality if he didnt give me free will?

chithappens
I'm asking why it would even matter what God thought was moral.

red g jacks
well i actually was wrong in my initial statement, cause in my mind i was refering more to the jew god. i guess god could exist and just put us here to watch us run around and kill eachother.

chithappens
Which (according to belief) God does not do that

red g jacks
say wat

Bardock42
Originally posted by red g jacks
it all depends on who's right.

if god exists then morality is absolute and given directly from god to the people.

if god doesn't exist then all of our morals are not absolute, just general consensus usually motivated by sympathy or indirect self-preservation Nah, even if God exists morals are still relative.

Though I guess you could argue even if God didn't exist that there can be absolute morals. Not that I would know how, should ask Ush about it.

chithappens
Originally posted by red g jacks
well i actually was wrong in my initial statement, cause in my mind i was refering more to the jew god. i guess god could exist and just put us here to watch us run around and kill eachother.

Why does it matter if its jew god

red g jacks
well cause jew god believes in morality. hence the 10 commandments. and since he is god and all.. i would think his opinion counts?

Bardock42
Originally posted by red g jacks
well cause jew god believes in morality. hence the 10 commandments. and since he is god and all.. i would think his opinion counts? It does. Just no more than mine. Being more powerful doesn't mean your ideas are absolute. Sure I could beat up my little brother, but it doesn't make my views better than his.

xmarksthespot
Your morals are defined by neurobiology and upbringing ergo they aren't absolute.

red g jacks
actually being all knowing as god supposedly is does mean your ideas are absolute.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by red g jacks
actually being all knowing as god supposedly is does mean your ideas are absolute.

An omnipotent creature could easily have relative morals.

red g jacks
not really. if he is all knowing his ideas always have to be right. so either he doesnt have morals and they dont exist or he does have morals and they are absolute.

Bardock42
Originally posted by red g jacks
not really. if he is all knowing his ideas always have to be right. so either he doesnt have morals and they dont exist or he does have morals and they are absolute. If he is "all-knowing" he might just know that there are no absolute morals.

red g jacks
in which case he'd have no morals hence them not existing.

chithappens
Originally posted by red g jacks
not really. if he is all knowing his ideas always have to be right. so either he doesnt have morals and they dont exist or he does have morals and they are absolute.

Knowledge is not good or bad so that is irrelevant.

Facts are objective. You can not argue a fact. For example, the GDF people were talking about the cops shooting at a car 50 times - is that excessive? The opinions we express are truths. The cops shooting at the car 50 times, that is a fact.

Morals work the same way as opinions: they can never be completely objective.

Facts are objective and can often just be summed up as "the event that took place." Facts can not be changed because someone changed their mind. It happened or it didn't. It is or it is not.

Example: God does not exist or God does exist - opinions (relative)

Let's say God shows himself - fact (even if those who did not believe in God accept God or not)

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by red g jacks
not really. if he is all knowing his ideas always have to be right. so either he doesnt have morals and they dont exist or he does have morals and they are absolute.

Or this absolute god is something invented by humans to establish an absolute morality in a relativistic world.

red g jacks
^possible. like i said depends on who's right.
Originally posted by chithappens
Knowledge is not good or bad so that is irrelevant.

Facts are objective. You can not argue a fact. For example, the GDF people were talking about the cops shooting at a car 50 times - is that excessive? The opinions we express are truths. The cops shooting at the car 50 times, that is a fact.

Morals work the same way as opinions: they can never be completely objective.

Facts are objective and can often just be summed up as "the event that took place." Facts can not be changed because someone changed their mind. It happened or it didn't. It is or it is not.

Example: God does not exist or God does exist - opinions (relative)

Let's say God shows himself - fact (even if those who did not believe in God accept God or not) well there is a difference between opinion and fact, the only part thats debatable is whether morality is a matter of opinion or fact. now scientifically we can't prove it exists but that doesn't mean it can't. obviously from a secular point of view morality is always opinion but from a religious point of view god decides what is right and wrong since god created the universe these rules apply to. he can't have subjective opinions if he always knows the right answer.

Bardock42
Originally posted by red g jacks
^possible. like i said depends on who's right.
well there is a difference between opinion and fact, the only part thats debatable is whether morality is a matter of opinion or fact. now scientifically we can't prove it exists but that doesn't mean it can't. obviously from a secular point of view morality is always opinion but from a religious point of view god decides what is right and wrong since god created the universe these rules apply to. he can't have subjective opinions if he always knows the right answer. As I said before. Even an allknowing God doesn't mean that there are absolute morals.

red g jacks
not if that all knowing god doesn't have morals. however if that all knowing god does have morals they'd have to be absolute.

Bardock42
Originally posted by red g jacks
not if that all knowing god doesn't have morals. however if that all knowing god does have morals they'd have to be absolute. No. They could just be relative as well.

red g jacks
relative applies mostly to human perspective. if we're talking about the creator of the universe it seems a bit silly that he'd have "opinions" in his own universe does it not?

Bardock42
Originally posted by red g jacks
relative applies mostly to human perspective. if we're talking about the creator of the universe it seems a bit silly that he'd have "opinions" in his own universe does it not? Not really. Why would you have to accept his morals?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Your morals are defined by neurobiology and upbringing ergo they aren't absolute.

chithappens
Originally posted by red g jacks
relative applies mostly to human perspective. if we're talking about the creator of the universe it seems a bit silly that he'd have "opinions" in his own universe does it not?

Well then why give people free will?

red g jacks
^well truth be told you're asking the wrong guy. contrary to popular belief im not god.

however.. hypothetically speaking... if god were to create a set of rules and a concept of right and wrong for the earth's inhabitants.. that would lead me to believe that free will is a vital part of that concept.. since without the choice to disobey the rules, "morality" really means nothing
Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. Why would you have to accept his morals? u dont have to accept them. i believe that's commonly referred to as 'sin'

Bardock42
Exactly, sin is going against God's subjective morals. Which he punishes. Cause he is really strong.

red g jacks
or punishment is enforcement of god's absolute morals. which he created. cause he's really smart.

Bardock42
Originally posted by red g jacks
or punishment is enforcement of god's absolute morals. which he created. cause he's really smart. But why are they absolute? How are they absolute? Why do I have to accept them as absolute? Why are they better than my morals?

red g jacks
because he's god. because he's always right. you dont. because he's god.

Bardock42
Originally posted by red g jacks
because he's god. because he's always right. you dont. because he's god. Nah, that doesn't cut it. There needs to be a real reason why the morals he gives are absolute. Why everyone has to follow them other than because they get their ass whopped. Why they are "right" so to speak.

chithappens
I give up lol

red g jacks
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, that doesn't cut it. There needs to be a real reason why the morals he gives are absolute. Why everyone has to follow them other than because they get their ass whopped. Why they are "right" so to speak. i assume we're speaking hypothetically. if god is all knowing and always right then that's reason enough why his morals would also be "right."

Bardock42
Originally posted by red g jacks
i assume we're speaking hypothetically. if god is all knowing and always right then that's reason enough why his morals would also be "right." If he is all knowing, he might just know that there are no absolute morals. I still don't see how absolute morals can exist. Can you explain it.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by red g jacks
because he's god. because he's always right. you dont. because he's god.

Circular logic.

red g jacks
the way i look at it morality requires a backbone. those who argue that nothing is "right" or "wrong" basically have no sense of morality. they simply avoid victimizing others out of sympathy or even a sense of self-preservation or karma, or to protect their self-image. you can acknowledge morals as subjective but that just means they vary on a personal basis, if you dont even believe that your own idea of morality is right then you have no morals. so if god doesn't believe his morality is right then being a perfect being he couldn't have morals. which is a possible scenario. but that's called not having morals, not having subjective morals.

i don't think absolute morals do/can exist in the current way we view them based on human perspective. anyones opinion is as good as anyone else's. however if there is an intelligent supernatural force which created the universe it's not out of the realm of possibility that they could also create a code of conduct for that universe. in that scenario "right" and "wrong" are not as we commonly think of them as human ideas, but absolute law enforced by the creator. its far fetched but if we're already assuming such a creator could exist then this is far from the most shocking aspect of that belief.

chithappens
Originally posted by red g jacks
the way i look at it morality requires a backbone. those who argue that nothing is "right" or "wrong" basically have no sense of morality. they simply avoid victimizing others out of sympathy or even a sense of self-preservation or karma, or to protect their self-image. you can acknowledge morals as subjective but that just means they vary on a personal basis, if you dont even believe that your own idea of morality is right then you have no morals. so if god doesn't believe his morality is right then being a perfect being he couldn't have morals. which is a possible scenario. but that's called not having morals, not having subjective morals.

i don't think absolute morals do/can exist in the current way we view them based on human perspective. anyones opinion is as good as anyone else's. however if there is an intelligent supernatural force which created the universe it's not out of the realm of possibility that they could also create a code of conduct for that universe. in that scenario "right" and "wrong" are not as we commonly think of them as human ideas, but absolute law enforced by the creator. its far fetched but if we're already assuming such a creator could exist then this is far from the most shocking aspect of that belief.

God regretted creating humans. The all-knowing, perfect God (check chapter 6 of Genesis) actually had regret.

To regret such a decision, one can't already have known what would happen. If one were to believe in Christianity, you are following laws that God "changed".

Just because someone does not believe God the authority of all things does not mean they do believe in some form of right and wrong as it pertains to morality. In your world, followers of God are more right than others because they follow the real morals of God and so on.

red g jacks
im not christian, and i never said you have to adapt christian morals to have morality. but if you don't have any conviction in your own morals then what sense of morality do you really have?

you may still follow most of the rules. i'd chalk that up to fear more than anything else. you may still feel bad for people and not want to victimize them, but that's just sympathy. if you don't believe in your own idea of right and wrong then you simply have no morals. i'm not dissing just stating. i am far from the most moral individual.

chithappens
Originally posted by red g jacks
im not christian, and i never said you have to adapt christian morals to have morality. but if you don't have any conviction in your own morals then what sense of morality do you really have?

you may still follow most of the rules. i'd chalk that up to fear more than anything else. you may still feel bad for people and not want to victimize them, but that's just sympathy. if you don't believe in your own idea of right and wrong then you simply have no morals. i'm not dissing just stating. i am far from the most moral individual.

You can believe what you do with conviction and understand that not everyone will feel that way. Doesn't make it bullshit

red g jacks
like i said you can acknowledge morals as subjective because they vary on a personal basis, but if everytime the issue of morality comes up you argue that "right and wrong don't exist" then what use are your morals in the first place. might as well do away with them an just live your life as you see fit.

chithappens
Originally posted by red g jacks
like i said you can acknowledge morals as subjective because they vary on a personal basis, but if everytime the issue of morality comes up you argue that "right and wrong don't exist" then what use are your morals in the first place. might as well do away with them an just live your life as you see fit.

It doesn't matter if everyone agrees with you or not. We are not talking about the responsibilities to a society (that's another subject altogether). We are talking about individual understandings of morality and how one lives.

red g jacks
i'm getting tired of this debate. can't we just be friends?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by red g jacks
i'm getting tired of this debate. can't we just be friends?

Wrong forum. stick out tongue

chithappens
When did we stop?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by chithappens
When did we stop?


Being friends or JUST being friends? wink

chithappens
Shhh! touch, no tell

Classic NES
Originally posted by chithappens


Morals work the same way as opinions: they can never be completely objective.



That depends on the context, are we talking about Morality objective implications or subjective implications? Because only one is truly relative.

chithappens
Implications just exist without aything being assigned to them.

Classic NES
I mean't which one is the focus of this debate.

Classic NES
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, that doesn't cut it. There needs to be a real reason why the morals he gives are absolute. Why everyone has to follow them other than because they get their ass whopped. Why they are "right" so to speak.

Well, if there was an omnipotent entity it wouldn't really need a reason to justify it's morals because it can simply making them right. Since Omnipotent in essence is super-logical as well. smile

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Classic NES
Well, if there was an omnipotent entity it wouldn't really need a reason to justify it's morals because it can simply making them right. Since Omnipotent in essence is super-logical as well. smile

It also allows people who claim this omnipotent entity as their god to rationalize anything they wish.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.