Moral Relativism VS. Absoulte

Originally posted by Philosophicus
How can you prove there are objective/absolute concepts? Have you got cosmological authority?

The mere fact of the existence of interpretation and ideas countering absolutism and subjectivism proves that all is subjective.

Do you need cosmological authority to prove that it is the absolute nature of a triangle to be a geometric figure the sum of whose interior angles equals 180 degrees? All that the existence of interpretation is proof of is that perception is subjective.

Well, I said I was going to make a thread on it and I have.

I know most members of KMC defend this point of view. I, as you probably know, do not. Tell me why you believe that this is (or is not) the correct view on ethical behavior.

In my ethics class, we just read an essay about it. The author used the example of Japan and the testing of samurai swords on random wayfarers by means of bisection--my view on this is that it was barbaric and inhumane to chop people in two to test the sword and that, morally, it was wrong. Someone might say that I cannot judge a culture because I do not understand all the aspects of the culture during the period of time discussed. I maintain, though, that it was wrong.

I'd like your input on this.

Civilly, please.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Well, I said I was going to make a thread on it and I have.

I know most members of KMC defend this point of view. I, as you probably know, do not. Tell me why you believe that this is (or is not) the correct view on ethical behavior.

In my ethics class, we just read an essay about it. The author used the example of Japan and the testing of samurai swords on random wayfarers by means of bisection--my view on this is that it was barbaric and inhumane to chop people in two to test the sword and that, morally, it was wrong. Someone might say that I cannot judge a culture because I do not understand all the aspects of the culture during the period of time discussed. I maintain, though, that it was wrong.

I'd like your input on this.

Civilly, please.

Expediency dictates that we pretend there are moral absolutes; no modern, reasonable society could function in any other way. Therefore the pretence is a completely beneficial construct.

I don't believe that moral absolutes exist, as an abstract concept. Without either position being backed by proof, moral relativism is the default stance.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I maintain, though, that it was wrong.

I agree. The killing of the innocent is immoral regardless of culture or time frame.
The people being chopped in two for the testing of a sword did absolutely nothing to deserve or provoke this.
There are many other methods to test the effectiveness of a weapon.

The proble is that for morals to be absolute they woud have to be unchangable and everlasting. But I wouldn't know how a theoretical concept like morals could be that. I think there is no reason to believe that morals are in any way objective. I would, on the other hand, like to know why you, FM, think they are absolute. Is their a reasoning behind that or do you just view your own morals as superior?

Obviously a matter of philosophy- moved.

Originally posted by Echuu
I agree. The killing of the innocent is immoral regardless of culture or time frame.
The people being chopped in two for the testing of a sword did absolutely nothing to deserve or provoke this.
There are many other methods to test the effectiveness of a weapon.

Innocent? Hitler was innocent of evil to many people, to many he was doing a good thing.

Killing someone usually means that the perpetrator may believe they are guilty of SOMETHING.

-AC

Originally posted by Echuu
I agree. The killing of the innocent is immoral regardless of culture or time frame.
The people being chopped in two for the testing of a sword did absolutely nothing to deserve or provoke this.
There are many other methods to test the effectiveness of a weapon.

2) A runaway train is headed towards a busload of people stuck on the railway tracks. If you push a rotund railway worker into the path of the oncoming train this will bring the train to a halt. Do you push the man?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
1) A runaway train is on a track. A bus with a busload of people are stuck on the tracks. You are standing next to a switch that will divert the train onto another track where a railway worker is caught on the tracks. Do you flip the switch?

2) A runaway train is headed towards a busload of people stuck on the railway tracks. If you push a rotund railway worker into the path of the oncoming train this will bring the train to a halt. Do you push the man?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
1) A runaway train is on a track. A bus with a busload of people are stuck on the tracks. You are standing next to a switch that will divert the train onto another track where a railway worker is caught on the tracks. Do you flip the switch?

2) A runaway train is headed towards a busload of people stuck on the railway tracks. If you push a rotund railway worker into the path of the oncoming train this will bring the train to a halt. Do you push the man?

1) I wouldn't flip the switch purely because that would be causing the death of someone by my hand. If the people on the bus die, it's not my fault. It's unfortunate that they got caught there. I'm not about to kill an innocent man just because of that.

2) Depends if the man will survive or not.

-AC

I think a variant of this question was used in a study. Interestingly people tended to answer yes for the first question, but were inclined to answer no for the second.

Oh and AC, the rotund man will die. But a man large enough to stop a speeding train isn't going to live that much longer anyway.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I think a variant of this question was used in a study. Interestingly people tended to answer yes for the first question, but were inclined to answer no for the second.

Oh and AC, the rotund man will die. But a man large enough to stop a speeding train isn't going to live that much longer anyway.

Maybe it is Superman 😐 ....chances are you wouldn't be able to push him though.

As I see it, the catch-22 with any kind of statement which denies absolutes is that, that denying statement becomes itself the first absolute.

I see values and morals as intertwined. If I value human life, then it is immoral to kill. If I value relativism--there are no moral absolutes--then this becomes my absolute.

I suppose that many people see morals/values and religion/God as intertwined. Thus, if there is no God (or at least, no certainty that he exists), then there is no certain base from which absolute morals come.

I don't see this God-morals connection as necessary. IMO, there are absolutes in the mental-symbolic sphere (eg, If a=b and b=c then a=c; a self-defining absolute), just as there are absolutes in the physical-sensory sphere (physical constants in our type of universe, which make our universe the type it is).

We've had this discussion before, because I've posted this reasoning before.

I would also argue that moral absolutes can be highlighted from an evolutionary point of view: those values which enable a group of people to survive and prosper; and heck, who doesn't wanna survive and prosper (wouldn't that be an absolute hard-wired into human being)? I would think that any society which tests its weapons on its own people would do neither, or at best, do so short-term compared to a society which tests its weapons on other people. 😉

IMO, absolute "moral relativism" smacks of mind thinking itself "enlightened" and free of all cultural shackles from the past. "We've learned from past mistakes." It implies some kinda pinnacle of moral development; and considering that homo sapiens have been around for only 150,000 years--large societies for only about 5,000 years--I respectfully submit that this is likely not the case.

Thanks for listening.

Originally posted by Mindship
As I see it, the catch-22 with any kind of statement which denies absolutes is that, that denying statement becomes itself the first absolute.

I see values and morals as intertwined. If I value human life, then it is immoral to kill. If I value relativism--there are no moral absolutes--then this becomes my absolute.

I suppose that many people see morals/values and religion/God as intertwined. Thus, if there is no God (or at least, no certainty that he exists), then there is no certain base from which absolute morals come.

I don't see this God-morals connection as necessary. IMO, there are absolutes in the mental-symbolic sphere (eg, If a=b and b=c then a=c; a self-defining absolute), just as there are absolutes in the physical-sensory sphere (physical constants in our type of universe, which make our universe the type it is).

We've had this discussion before, because I've posted this reasoning before.

I remember you posting that, I think it was in my thread.

I don't really agree with it though. To argue against moral absolutes doesn't preclude the existence of an absolute statement, otherwise logically any denial of fact would lead to the conclusion that no truths exist at all.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
1) A runaway train is on a track. A bus with a busload of people are stuck on the tracks. You are standing next to a switch that will divert the train onto another track where a railway worker is caught on the tracks. Do you flip the switch?

2) A runaway train is headed towards a busload of people stuck on the railway tracks. If you push a rotund railway worker into the path of the oncoming train this will bring the train to a halt. Do you push the man?

The greater good is different than someone randomly cutting people down to test a weapon.
As for what I would do... it depends. I liked AC's answer on not having that workers death on your hands but there are many things to take into account in the situation. Is there a chance that some of the people on the bus may survive? How big is the bus? If I flipped the switch is there a possibility that the worker could get himself un-caught in time? I would have to experience this situation first hand for me to be forced to make an decision.

AC----but what have the 'innocent' wayfarers done? It's the testing of a weapon on random people... it's not like those people were guilty of murder or anything.
What could a 5 year old Jewish girl have possibly done to Hitler to make her worthy of death? Just by being a Jew? Some people may have thought he was doing good but those people were flat out wrong.

Originally posted by Echuu
The greater good is different than someone randomly cutting people down to test a weapon.
As for what I would do... it depends. I liked AC's answer on not having that workers death on your hands but there are many things to take into account in the situation. Is there a chance that some of the people on the bus may survive? How big is the bus? If I flipped the switch is there a possibility that the worker could get himself un-caught in time? I would have to experience this situation first hand for me to be forced to make an decision.

AC----but what have the 'innocent' wayfarers done? It's the testing of a weapon on random people... it's not like those people were guilty of murder or anything.
What could a 5 year old Jewish girl have possibly done to Hitler to make her worthy of death? Just by being a Jew? Some people may have thought he was doing good but those people were flat out wrong.

Hitler believed they were guilty of being "not pure" and polluting the world. He obviously thought they were at fault enough to wipe them out, so whether we agree or not, he didn't think he was wrong. Nor did many others.

-AC

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
1) A runaway train is on a track. A bus with a busload of people are stuck on the tracks. You are standing next to a switch that will divert the train onto another track where a railway worker is caught on the tracks. Do you flip the switch?

2) A runaway train is headed towards a busload of people stuck on the railway tracks. If you push a rotund railway worker into the path of the oncoming train this will bring the train to a halt. Do you push the man?

That's quite an interesting study. It's an already difficult decision to decide whether you should intervene if your intervention can save lives, albeit with a smaller loss of life caused directly by you. The variable is obviously the proximity and level of interference. Therefore it's tempting to take the objective moral stance on the switch-flicking option, but shy away when you need to actively push someone to their death.

For myself, I wouldn't intervene either way, unless there were some other factors involved, such as personally knowing and liking someone I was about to leave to die. Slightly selfish, but it's an almost impossible decision anyway.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Hitler believed they were guilty of being "not pure" and polluting the world. He obviously thought they were at fault enough to wipe them out, so whether we agree or not, he didn't think he was wrong. Nor did many others.

-AC

I agree with you on how he and others didn't think it was wrong. But does that make it any less wrong?

Originally posted by Echuu
I agree with you on how he and others didn't think it was wrong. But does that make it any less wrong?

You're asking me what my opinions on his actions were, though.

That's just me. If a million people think it's wrong, it doesn't alter the fact that Hitler had legions of followers who believed, and still do believe, that he was correct.

Relative morals.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're asking me what my opinions on his actions were, though.

That's just me. If a million people think it's wrong, it doesn't alter the fact that Hitler had legions of followers who believed, and still do believe, that he was correct.

Relative morals.

-AC

Yes yes I agree... I'm assuming you take the same position on the wayfarer?