Moral Relativism

If you moral absolutism does not exist, you'd have no room for argument. Period. We'd have no basis to even conduct this debate. Everything would be “opinionated.” We both know, that the world does not work like that.

Moral absolutism is imperative; without it, we lack the ability to judge, at least with authority. Otherwise, moral standards would be up for sale.

Because it has nothing to do with the "how," and under "what" circumstance(s). Killing to defend is right; killing for fun—just because—is wrong. Do I really need to explain?

So... an “attempt” to harm you would not create or provoke a sense of “wrong-doing” against you? Please! Oh wait... I see, you would just respect their opinion and/or willingness to survive.

Moral absolutism has nothing to do with a “purpose,” but everything to do with an “objective” standard in which we human beings judge and/or deem right from wrong. This is precisely what separates man from the animal kingdom—robots!

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.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Also!

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

🙂

Originally posted by ushomefree
[B]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. [/B]

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 😄

Ronald W. Reagon

YouTube video

Ronald W. Reagon

Ronald W. Raygun was a tool

How so?

Did backdoorman own this thread?

I started this thread.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I started this thread.

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

But he personally beat up Soviet Russia.

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

Correct on both accounts.

Originally posted by ushomefree
[B]If you moral absolutism does not exist, you'd have no room for argument. Period. We'd have no basis to even conduct this debate. Everything would be “opinionated.” We both know, that the world does not work like that.[/B]

It would be morally opinionated. Moral relativist do not necessarily claim that everything is relative. Just morals. "Are there absolute moral laws" is not a moral question and might very well have an absolute answer.

Originally posted by ushomefree
[B]Because it has nothing to do with the "how," and under "what" circumstance(s). Killing to defend is right; killing for fun—just because—is wrong. Do I really need to explain?[/B]

That's your moral basis. The point I was making is that you randomly chose what aspect you judge an action by. You could judge it by any other aspect just as well.

Originally posted by ushomefree
[B]Moral absolutism is imperative; without it, we lack the ability to judge, at least with authority. Otherwise, moral standards would be up for sale.[/B]

You can have authority without an absolute standard. And moral are basically up for sale, the reason why in our cultures there is no chaos is that a) people got indoctrinated to accept certain morals, or came to accept them through reasoning and b) because the government will **** you up your ass big time if you don't do as it wants. The authority in this case, as you can see, comes from guns...not absolute truth.

Originally posted by ushomefree
[B]So... an “attempt” to harm you would not create or provoke a sense of “wrong-doing” against you? Please! Oh wait... I see, you would just respect their opinion and/or willingness to survive. [/B]

I would tolerate their willingness to survive, but my own willingness to survive would beat that tolerance and I would protect myself. Whether I would feel that I have been done "wrong" has nothing to do with whether there are absolutes involved.

Originally posted by ushomefree
[B]Why did you respond to this post?[/B]

I assume because I thought you were incorrect and I wanted to educate you on a believe I hold, I also enjoy debates. Though, don't hold me to it, it was almost a year ago.

Originally posted by ushomefree
[B]Telling you to go f—ck your mother would be one, but you being “relative” and all, I'm sure that doesn't bother you. Of course, I do not mean such statements, I was merely making a point; and I think it was effective. Still, I apologize, with all the sincerity I can muster. If I was serious, it would offend you, because I was <drum-roll> wrong! [/B]

How can telling me to go **** my mother be in any way "wrong" really. It's a suggestion on your part, which may or may not insult me and which I may or may not follow. It is neither right nor wrong, really, is it? I mean, not even to a moral absolutist.

Originally posted by ushomefree

[B]Why is this “circular” reasoning to the extreme?[/B]

Because your argument starts with the premise that moral absolutes exist and tries to prove that moral absolutes exist.

Originally posted by ushomefree

[B]What does it mean, then?[/B]

It means that they do not believe that there are absolute morals. They might very well tolerate the morals an absolutist holds and the absolutist himself.

Originally posted by ushomefree
[B]How?[/B]

Self-preservation. For example. Maybe even empathy. Probably a few other explanations.

Originally posted by ushomefree
[B]In what way is this "circular" reasoning? In answering, do not be "objective." You know how people feel about being “intolerant.”[/B]

Why should I not be objective in answering your questions. As I said before you try to prove that absolute morals are correct with the premise that absolute morals are correct. This premise is not correct imo though. I do not accept it.

Originally posted by ushomefree
[B]Robots do know they are robots; furthermore, robots do not know what it feels like to be a robot! But humans know they are human, and they know what it feels like—to be human. More specifically, you, Bardock42, knows what its like to be you! Snatch a toy from a new born and it will cry; it does not hurt physically. It hurts “emotionally.” This was never taught. [/B]

Interesting, but off topic.

I will see if I reply to your next part today, though more likely tomorrow, if you want you can refute my points here already, though, honestly, they are sound.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Moral Relativism is more easily understood in comparison to Moral Absolutism. Absolutism claims that morality relies on universal principles (natural law, conscience . . . the Golden rule if you will). Christian absolutists believe that God is the ultimate source of our common morality, and that it is therefore as unchanging as He. Moral Relativism asserts that morality is not based on any absolute standard. Rather, ethical "truths" depend on the situation, culture, one's feelings, etc.

There are several arguments for relativism depending on the type one asserts, however several things can be said of them all which demonstrate their dubious nature. First, while many of the arguments used in the attempt to support these various claims might sound good at first, there is a logical contradiction inherent in all of them because they all propose the right moral scheme – the one we all ought to follow. But this is absolutism. Second, even so-called relativists reject relativism in most cases – they would not say that a murderer or rapist is free from guilt so long as they did not violate their own standards. Third, the very fact that we have words such as "right," "wrong," "ought," “better,” etc. show that these things exist. If morality were truly relative, these words would have no meaning - we would say, "That feels bad to me," not, "That is wrong."

Relativists may argue that different values among different cultures show that morals are relative to different people. But this argument confuses the actions of individuals (what they do) with absolute standards (whether they should do it). If culture determines right and wrong, how could we have judged the Nazis? They were following their culture's morality after all. Only if murder is universally wrong were the Nazis wrong. The fact that they had “their morality” does not change that. Further, although many people have different out workings of morality, they still share a common morality. For instance, abortionists and anti-abortionists agree that murder is wrong, but they disagree on whether abortion is murder. So even here absolute universal morality is shown to be true.

Some claim that changing situations make for changing morality - in different situations different acts are called for that might not be right in other situations. But there are three things by which we must judge an act: the situation, the act, and the intention. For example, we can convict someone of attempted murder (intent) even if they fail (act). So situations are part of the moral decision, for they set the context for choosing the specific moral act (the application of universal principles).

The main argument relativists appeal to is that of tolerance. They claim that telling someone that their morality is wrong is intolerant, and relativism tolerates all views. But this is simply misleading. First of all, evil should never be tolerated. Should we tolerate a rapist's view that women are objects of gratification to be abused? Second, it is self-defeating because relativists do not tolerate intolerance or absolutism. Third, relativism cannot explain why anyone should be tolerant in the first place. The very fact that we should tolerate people (even when we disagree) is based on the absolute moral rule that we should always treat people fairly – but that is absolutism again! In fact, without universal moral principles there can be no goodness.

The fact is that all people are all born with a conscience and we all instinctively know when we have been wronged or when we have wronged others. We act as though we expect others to recognize this as well. Even as children we knew the difference between "fair" and "unfair." It takes bad philosophy to convince us that we are wrong.

http://www.gotquestions.org/moral-relativism.html

Interesting topic, indeed. I will probably read more than I post and I don't feel that USHOMEFREE is a sock since he's been around for such a long time...but time will tell.

I lean towards relativism because one culture will state something is wrong when another finds no fault in it. I think there are degrees of wrongs but again it's relative. It must be asked who makes the decision on what makes it wrong or right. For instance the difference between murder and killing. Even the Bible makes the differences between though not many understand this. It is Murder that is wrong, not killing. And is murder really wrong in the right circumstance? It's all relative. I, myself would never murder, yet according to the Bible just thinking of doing so makes you guilty of doing it. And again people lie, but when is a lie good. When it spares someones feelings? Is that awful? It hurts no one, yet the Bible teaches things that alludes to this are very much a sin. If so, then during WWII when the NAZI'S came to Christian houses or others that they would lie and say that there were not any Jews in their homes. That makes them guilty of breaking all the 10 commandments. As is stated by Paul, if you break one then you are guilty of all of them.

In the end, the Bible is relative.

Originally posted by ushomefree
[B]Moral absolutism has nothing to do with a “purpose,” but everything to do with an “objective” standard in which we human beings judge and/or deem right from wrong. This is precisely what separates man from the animal kingdom—robots![/B]

I don't understand how this response relates to my statement. I told you that moral relativist hardly ever (never) propose absolute moral standards in their writing (a claim you made). What I told you is that they might have a standard they think people should live by for a subjective reason, which is absolutely different.

Originally posted by ushomefree

[B]You missed the point. Despite all your fancy explanation, one who embraces moral relativism, would still share the views of a moral absolutist—murder and rape is wrong, at least when attributed to themselves. You simply cannot dispute this.[/B]

Except for some individuals you are right, but, it does not follow from this that morals are absolute not even the ones that say "You shall not kill" and " You shall not rape". They can just as well be explained through evolutionary processes or societal conventions.

Originally posted by ushomefree

[B]Your statement is completely out of context. Moral objectivity is not a “concept,” rather, it professes that persons have value—intrinsic value.[/B]

That is a concept.

Originally posted by ushomefree

[B]You are over-simplifying things. Stating, “That is wrong,” would be powerless in a moral relative world; you'd have no right to make such a claim—only “That feels wrong to me.” Such would be merely a “personal” opinion.[/B]

Incorrect. That is wrong can for one be used without a moral context and also be used as a relative term. Equal to "That is wrong by this or that system". And, it is a personal opinion. Such is the world you live in, uhf.

Originally posted by ushomefree

[B]Your questions are completely naked to the truth! Murder is “universally” excepted as wrong, while love is praised. Crooked governments and the powers-that-be do not change they way they feel about murder upon themselves; they would proclaim, “How dare you do this to me!” They'd further think, “This is wrong,” never, “This is wrong to me!”[/B]

That's all no proof for absolute morals.

Originally posted by ushomefree

[B](Relative) laws? We base “objective” morals on our will? What are you talking about?[/B]

1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.
2. power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition: My hands are obedient to my will.
4. wish or desire: to submit against one's will.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=will

I am saying we base our moral codes on our needs, wants, wishes, feelings, desires...

Whether you subscribe to it or not, the concept of moral relativity is just as vial (if not much more so) then moral absolutism. You try to disprove it in your initial post and you fail as there are no logical contradictions in the theory.

Originally posted by ushomefree

[B]So, if I understand your statement correctly, Osama bin Laden could be labeled morally just in destroying the United States (if only he succeeded)? Talk about dangerous minds.[/B]

Yeah. He would be, by himself and by his followers. Not by the US obviously, but since they'd be destroyed no one would be there to say anything about that, really.

Originally posted by ushomefree

[B]The will to “survive” as an organism has absolutely didly-squat to do with morality—right and wrong. [/B]

I agree, since there is no absolute right or wrong. The will to survive has much to do with why relative morals exist and also with why people believe they are absolute.

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.

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

Sick.