Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
This could be true, but I think the lust for lucre will prove to be irresistible.Look at the relationship between China and 'The West'...Here is a communist, authoritarian state dealing with capitalistic democracies.
Maybe. Capitalism always seems to be the logical apotheosis of economic systems. However that's a whole other topic.
Do people think 'right' and 'wrong' exist independently of our conceptions of them, or do we imbue them with their value?
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Do people think 'right' and 'wrong' exist independently of our conceptions of them, or do we imbue them with their value?
I think that it will always come right down to independent conceptions unless it is something reasonably clear cut. In which case there will still be the people who believe the opposite.
(I just got your text. Mug, actual mug)
-AC
IMO, when people start to question whether or not "right" and "wrong" exist as moral absolutes, they are engaging in (among other things) moral relativism (one of those "other things" could be rationalization). "There are no moral absolutes." But then, they've just contradicted themselves by stating one. In other words, there is no such thing as moral relativism.
The physical world has absolutes (eg, conservation of mass, speed of light); the biological world has absolutes (self-preservation); so does the mental-symbolic world (principles of math and logic). It would seem inconsistent to state that there are no moral absolutes.
(Of course, if you believe in a spiritual dimension to reality, then to stay consistent there are spiritual absolutes, in which case there exists - among other things - a "Higher Authority" which establishes what is right and wrong. But, with respect to atheists, we don't have to go there at the moment).
One could argue that moral absolutes (independent of Spiritual Authority) are defined as those by which a society prospers, not just in terms of material wealth (perhaps least of all in material wealth), but in compassion, adaptation, longevity, between its members and with other societies as well as with its physical environment. "Murder is wrong" would be an obvious example. Any society which sanctions murder will bring perhaps short-term material gain, but also eventual extinction. I'm no historian, but I think history does bear this out. Witness most recently the extinction of the Soviet Union, the second most powerful politico-military entity ever to exist.
True, nothing lasts forever. But respect for What Is Not Me brings us closer to that than anything else.
And now, back to our regularly scheduled program...
I pretty much agree with Mr. Ship here. The thread starter is clearly just trying to assert the idea of moral relativism, which is one that I, and many others, simply reject.
But if you want to be literal about it- the view of society and democratic judicial pricess is what makes it wrong.
If you want to define 'wrong' purely as a concept then I'll move this to Philosophy.
BTW, that was a very awkward start to the thread and a poor way to introduce the idea. I recommend not making potentially offensive thread titles like that again, thankyou.
Well, there are still some countries in Africa where rape is not a crime, I heard, by some customs you can marry a woman by raping her.
And there is the matter of Islam countries- in large number of them raped woman can be killed for bringing the family dishonor.
Morality is based on society, though some values are universal.
Moral relativism..oh great..another one of those everything is "shades of gray" arguments. What the hell have you people been smoking. There is right and wrong. Black and White. We don't live in a world that's full of "relativity." We live in a world full of "absolutes."
What makes something wrong, well from a Christian Philosophical perspective..I believe it's self indulgence. Anything done by an individual for the purpose of pleasing one self..and not helping or pleasing others is wrong. Simple as that. Now stop the daydreaming people...and get that 70's hippie hazelike-demonic mentality, out of your heads.
Damn ellitist spoiled little rich people..don't have anything to worry about, so they make up stupid philosophies about "moral relativism" to justify any type of inhumane/evil action that their heart desires. How about I put one of you in an inner city prison, and have you get a-raped by some big Brotha. Then maybe you'll be drawn into reality..and realize the silliness behind the concept of "moral relativism".
Fin..or is it?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Moral relativism..oh great..another one of those everything is "shades of gray" arguments. What the hell have you people been smoking. There is right and wrong. Black and White. We don't live in a world that's full of "relativity." We live in a world full of "absolutes."
Claiming there is right and wrong, black and white and a world FULL of moral absolutes is almost as bad as claiming nothing is wrong or right. Because at least it can be discussed. If you created a thread saying "There is no relativity to morals" it would be killing itself wouldn't it? Yes.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
What makes something wrong, well from a Christian Philosophical perspective..I believe it's self indulgence. Anything done by an individual for the purpose of pleasing one self..and not helping or pleasing others is wrong. Simple as that. Now stop the daydreaming people...and get that 70's hippie hazelike-demonic mentality, out of your heads.
Perfect. Another one of "those". Your view of wrong and right is heavily based on the belief that pleasing yourself is wrong (one of the worst logic patterns ever) and pleasing others before yourself (not your responsibility) is right. I don't believe that. So your "simple as that" theory now doesn't seem so simple. It's my life, why should I not indulge myself? Why should I spend my time trying to please others? By no means am I saying rape is right or murder is right or anything like that, just trying to show you how silly your point is. Because let's not be confused into believing it's anything other than silly to say "wrong" is self indulgence.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Damn ellitist spoiled little rich people..don't have anything to worry about, so they make up stupid philosophies about "moral relativism" to justify any type of inhumane/evil action that their heart desires. How about I put one of you in an inner city prison, and have you get a-raped by some big Brotha. Then maybe you'll be drawn into reality..and realize the silliness behind the concept of "moral relativism".Fin..or is it?
Stop being a moron. He wasn't trying to justify anything evil, he stated his purpose multiple times.
You have no place talking about "reality" or realistic views Mr. You aren't allowed to indulge yourself without indulging others first.
-AC
Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Depends is it wrong when a bunch of English noblemen rape Scots who have just been married if there is a law giving them the right?What about the Romans?
Well then if there is a law that permits forced intercourse, it's not legally wrong. I'd still think it's morally wrong because of reasons already stated.
-AC