Originally posted by MilitantDog
Subjective Good & Evil 101 : The Crusades.Crusaders: We're doing God's will by killing all the Arabs in the birthplace of our Lord. We're Good and they are evil.
Arabs: We're living here not bothering anyone. These Crusaders turn up and start killing us. We fight back to defend ourselves. We're Good and they are Evil.
Wow...limited knowledge of the Crusades...
Anyway, even if good and evil is subjective in terms of how it is used- that does not mean that there is no ABSOLUTE moral truth...it could just be that we ignore it.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavIt also doesn't mean that their is one and as far as I've seen there isn't an ABSOLUTE moral truth.
Wow...limited knowledge of the Crusades...Anyway, even if good and evil is subjective in terms of how it is used- that does not mean that there is no ABSOLUTE moral truth...it could just be that we ignore it.
Originally posted by inimalist
MilitantDog: so, in your opinion, what is the moral justification for killing an innocent person?
Innocent by whos definition? Moral by whos definition? I said Good and Evil are subjective perceptions.
If you were raised in a society where it was the norm for old people on their 60th birthday to be pulled about by horses, you would not think it to be Evil. But if you were to enter that society from the outside you would find that act an Evil one.
Good and Evil were invented by man to classify an action. The same as Right and Wrong.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Wow...limited knowledge of the Crusades...Anyway, even if good and evil is subjective in terms of how it is used- that does not mean that there is no ABSOLUTE moral truth...it could just be that we ignore it.
I simplyfied the situation to make a point that Good and Evil are subjective.
Israel and Hamas are another example. Both feel they are in the right and the other in the wrong. Both sides stand point is subjective from their position.
Originally posted by MilitantDog
Innocent by whos definition? Moral by whos definition? I said Good and Evil are subjective perceptions.
ok, innocent as in, you walk out your front door and there is a stranger on the street. You have no prior knowledge of this individual, they are doing nothing suspicious, and you have no reason to wish them ill will.
you now kill this person. Without adding or taking away from this scenario, how do you justify, morally, the harm done to that individual?
Originally posted by MilitantDog
If you were raised in a society where it was the norm for old people on their 60th birthday to be pulled about by horses, you would not think it to be Evil. But if you were to enter that society from the outside you would find that act an Evil one.
I'm not talking about the 'perceptions' of good and evil in a cross cultural analysis. I'm talking about measurable harm done to individual people.
Also, like I said in discussion with Shaky, any of us can come up with scenarios that are not black or white. This is why I use such a simple one, to lay basic moral groundworks.
If you honestly think right and wrong are entirely relative and subjective, then there should be a relative and subjective moral justification for the killing of an innocent person as described above. True, we just might not be aware of it, but at least I'm not dismissing the principle off hand, and, by the way, with no evidence or even rationale.
Originally posted by MilitantDog
Good and Evil were invented by man to classify an action. The same as Right and Wrong.
science was invented by man to classify the natural world. Does something being the invention of man make it relative and subjective? Would you then follow your logic to claim science is just as subjective as morality?
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not talking about the 'perceptions' of good and evil in a cross cultural analysis. I'm talking about measurable harm done to individual people.Also, like I said in discussion with Shaky, any of us can come up with scenarios that are not black or white. This is why I use such a simple one, to lay basic moral groundworks.
If you honestly think right and wrong are entirely relative and subjective, then there should be a relative and subjective [b]moral
justification for the killing of an innocent person as described above. True, we just might not be aware of it, but at least I'm not dismissing the principle off hand, and, by the way, with no evidence or even rationale.[/b]
I think people are right when they say all morality is ultimately quite relative. Even if some god exists out there, I don't think it would necessarily prove whatever morality he promoted to be the only true or objective one.
Originally posted by backdoorman
Why do you put so much emphasis in the justification? The word itself has connotations of subjectivity: what's just? I could say that the reason I killed that innocent man was to satisfy my wish to do so. If I deem conceiving my every wish to be in line with my personal moral framework then it is a justification.
yes, indeed, people can, on their own, believe many things about many things.
Hence why there is the focus on the justification.
its like light. You can believe all you want about it, like, I could believe it travels at 10 mph.
Feel free to expand though. So you have now murdered someone for the personal gain. Why is that benefit offsetting, or even a moral consideration, and how does it not condone slavery then by an extension of that logic (harm to some for benefit of others)?
Originally posted by backdoorman
I think people are right when they say all morality is ultimately quite relative. Even if some god exists out there, I don't think it would necessarily prove whatever morality he promoted to be the only true or objective one.
which is actually the topic of my thread
EDIT: ie, can the material consequences of the tenants of a faith be used to judge the moral character of the deity of that faith?
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, indeed, people can, on their own, believe many things about many things.Hence why there is the focus on the justification.
its like light. You can believe all you want about it, like, I could believe it travels at 10 mph.
Feel free to expand though. So you have now murdered someone for the personal gain. Why is that benefit offsetting, or even a moral consideration, and how does it not condone slavery then by an extension of that logic (harm to some for benefit of others)?
which is actually the topic of my threadEDIT: ie, can the material consequences of the tenants of a faith be used to judge the moral character of the deity of that faith?
Originally posted by backdoorman
I would hardly say "harm to some for the benefit of others" could ever be completely eradicated in any society, but saying it does follow that slavery should be accepted, it still does not suggest any of the two (murder out of a personal whim or slavery) are objectively wrong. Sure slavery will likely suck for a lot of a people but that's about as far as one can go and it's a long way from that to moral absolutism.
however, harm to another is morally wrong. That is my point. You can disagree, though I think you would have trouble doing so without just dismissing the idea of morality altogether (which, imho, is essentially what relativism does).
It can be justified in any number of ways, and by no means am I proposing a campaign against harming people, as it is even necessary at times. I'm just trying to frame morality in a concrete form that escapes the abstracting to grey and overly complex situations.
Originally posted by backdoorman
Sounds rather more interesting than the current topic really.
I thought so at least
Originally posted by inimalist
... You can disagree, though I think you would have trouble doing so without just dismissing the idea of morality altogether (which, imho, is essentially what relativism does)....
Relativism does not dismiss morality. What it does is take away the ability of powerful people to manipulate the masses. If we all think that morality is absolute, then we have to get this absolute morality from someone. While if we realize that morality is relative, then we can make the best choice for our selves. This does not mean we will all go out and kill each other. This means that we will not be tricked into going over and killing someone else just because someone wants power.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Relativism does not dismiss morality. What it does is take away the ability of powerful people to manipulate the masses. If we all think that morality is absolute, then we have to get this absolute morality from someone. While if we realize that morality is relative, then we can make the best choice for our selves. This does not mean we will all go out and kill each other. This means that we will not be tricked into going over and killing someone else just because someone wants power.
morality is about the way people should treat eachother
that people in power abuse things is irrelevant. Authoritarian governments abuse Buddhism for their personal motivations, however it does not take much to show that Buddhism still exists independent of the motives of the powerful.
Also, that people who believe morality is relative don't act in that way (as in, they have very similar moral codes) sort of, at least to me, proves my point.
Originally posted by inimalist
morality is about the way people should treat eachotherthat people in power abuse things is irrelevant. Authoritarian governments abuse Buddhism for their personal motivations, however it does not take much to show that Buddhism still exists independent of the motives of the powerful.
Also, that people who believe morality is relative don't act in that way (as in, they have very similar moral codes) sort of, at least to me, proves my point.
Just because something is relative and not absolute does not mean we can't agree on a system of morality.
What do you mean by "Also, that people who believe morality is relative don't act in that way"? Are you expecting someone who understands that morals are relative to be a Hitler type? If you believe that, then you are wrong. In Buddhism morality is relative, and IMHO some of the most moral people I know are Buddhists.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just because something is relative and not absolute does not mean we can't agree on a system of morality.What do you mean by "Also, that people who believe morality is relative don't act in that way"? Are you expecting someone who understands that morals are relative to be a Hitler type? If you believe that, then you are wrong. In Buddhism morality is relative, and IMHO some of the most moral people I know are Buddhists.
that is almost what I am thinking of though, a sort of absolutism through consensus.
and seriously, for the amount of people on this board alone who say things like "oh, if there weren't a law...." or "If I wouldn't get caught I....", were morality actually relative, my feeling is that there would a much larger incidence of these types of actions.
Really, if morality is relative, why doesn't everyone steal? sure, we all could have come to the exact same conclusions through our individually relative set of morals, or, there are clear reasons available even to the most irrational person as to why taking the property of another person is immoral.
Like, art is subjective and relative, and for this reason, there are pieces that push every imaginable border of expression, and almost assuredly something that each individual would find off colour. I don't see the distribution of morals through societies as the same.
For instance, while the definition of "personhood" or "ingroup" may change, there has never been a society that allowed for the murder of innocent "people" from the "ingroup".
I don't expect people who believe in moral relativism to be Hitler, I might expect a different distribution of moral ideas and much less overlap between individuals though.
Originally posted by inimalist
that is almost what I am thinking of though, a sort of absolutism through consensus.and seriously, for the amount of people on this board alone who say things like "oh, if there weren't a law...." or "If I wouldn't get caught I....", were morality actually relative, my feeling is that there would a much larger incidence of these types of actions.
Really, if morality is relative, why doesn't everyone steal? sure, we all could have come to the exact same conclusions through our individually relative set of morals, or, there are clear reasons available even to the most irrational person as to why taking the property of another person is immoral.
Like, art is subjective and relative, and for this reason, there are pieces that push every imaginable border of expression, and almost assuredly something that each individual would find off colour. I don't see the distribution of morals through societies as the same.
For instance, while the definition of "personhood" or "ingroup" may change, there has never been a society that allowed for the murder of innocent "people" from the "ingroup".
I don't expect people who believe in moral relativism to be Hitler, I might expect a different distribution of moral ideas and much less overlap between individuals though.
What keeps people in check is the need to survive. Anarchy will always erupt into order even if that order is graves. Morality is a reflection of this need to survive, and not the other way around. The biggest problem that this world has been faced with is not the actions of the individual, but the actions of the group. When societies that have set morals are confronted with other societies with contrary morals, war and death is almost always the outcome. If these societies had the understanding of moralist relativism, when it comes to the group, they would have the flexibility to cope with conflict. Just look at what is happening today in the world.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What keeps people in check is the need to survive. Anarchy will always erupt into order even if that order is graves. Morality is a reflection of this need to survive, and not the other way around. The biggest problem that this world has been faced with is not the actions of the individual, but the actions of the group. When societies that have set morals are confronted with other societies with contrary morals, war and death is almost always the outcome. If these societies had the understanding of moralist relativism, when it comes to the group, they would have the flexibility to cope with conflict. Just look at what is happening today in the world.
I don't disagree that much...
maybe we need a way to distinguish between the over-encompassing moral beliefs (though not necessarily behaviour) of a culture and the moral beliefs about how people actually behave with each other on a personal level.
And, as to the point on Anarchy, there are some fairly salient examples of what would have been stable anarchist societies, should they not have been destroyed by non-anarchist societies.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't disagree that much...maybe we need a way to distinguish between the over-encompassing moral beliefs (though not necessarily behaviour) of a culture and the moral beliefs about how people actually behave with each other on a personal level.
I understand what you are trying to do. However, separating how we treat each other and how we treat other nations is part of the reason we are in the trouble we are in today.
Originally posted by inimalist
And, as to the point on Anarchy, there are some fairly salient examples of what would have been stable anarchist societies, should they not have been destroyed by non-anarchist societies.
Isn't "anarchist societies" an oxymoron?
Originally posted by inimalist
however, harm to another is morally wrong. That is my point. You can disagree, though I think you would have trouble doing so without just dismissing the idea of morality altogether (which, imho, is essentially what relativism does).It can be justified in any number of ways, and by no means am I proposing a campaign against harming people, as it is even necessary at times. I'm just trying to frame morality in a concrete form that escapes the abstracting to grey and overly complex situations.
I thought so at least
The general consensus or the attitude most of us may adopt towards certain things (e.g. a repulsion towards what we deem to be unjustifiable murder) or even biological factors that influence our feelings towards those acts do not necessarily imply an objective moral code.