I am a moral relativist. It is my belief that 'morals' are personal and sometimes societal leanings on various issues. I dont believe that any particular belief (moral) can be shown to be absolutely correct. While some 'norms' and 'mores' are almost universally respected, it is the variations that would support my argument and the norms further justify it through solidarity.
anyone care to agree or disagree? we can have a lively discussion.
I know religion in general loves to tout absolute morality. Like, it can be decreed that god wishes to punish nonbelievers via rape murder and such things, so within the confines of such a system, the act of rape with a sledgehammer, while a bit detailed, would not be an immoral act.
As for the justification for such a system...good luck.
So yeah...not a big fan of people claiming there are moral absolutes. It so often allows them to act in immoral ways because they think it will please their god.
--
There is no shame in not knowing; the shame lies in not finding out
The thing with religion versus secular moral absolutes is that religion is using a set of rules and beliefs that have been established, while the latter do not. In a lot of cases in religion you can be right, wrong or more wrong. In secular you can be accepted or rejected.
Hell, the act of rape occurs in nature. Can a natural phenomena be inherently wrong?
If you are among a small group of post apocalyptic survivors and have an obligation to breed for the survival of the human race, would rape not be permissible if for some reason the surviving females declined such a burden?
--
There is no shame in not knowing; the shame lies in not finding out
Rape is bad unless the person wants to be raped. But then it's not rape because they are willing. So, essentially it's bad because it's forcing someone to do something against their will (and usually involved hurting the person).
And don't respond with "forcing people to go against their will is taboo and so is hurting people, but what makes those bad?"
From: SovietOmega | #016 Hell, the act of rape occurs in nature. Can a natural phenomena be inherently wrong?
I hate when people start mentioning points like this. We are not discussing rape in nature, we are discussing rape in the context of human civilization. If you remove the context, then yes, rape doesn't really mean anything, but pretty much no action really means anything.
OInsaneOne32 posted... From: SovietOmega | #016 Hell, the act of rape occurs in nature. Can a natural phenomena be inherently wrong? I hate when people start mentioning points like this. We are not discussing rape in nature, we are discussing rape in the context of human civilization. If you remove the context, then yes, rape doesn't really mean anything, but pretty much no action really means anything.
So, humans are not natural to you? Why are you trying to make an arbitrary distinction where none really exists?
I see nothing wrong with actions lacking any meaning behind them. It is almost as if things could then be right or wrong depending on how a society wants to view an action!
--
There is no shame in not knowing; the shame lies in not finding out
I wouldn't say morality is absolutely relative. We're limited to a finite number of cultures on Earth. Surely there's some common ground between all of them. And for that matter, I have no obligation to accept something I personally find immoral, even if another culture would accept it.
--
"God Hand is the ultimate expression of the joy of humanity, specifically the punching part of the joy of humanity."-Shigeru Miyamoto
nature is the basis for human civilization though....just because something is taboo, you still have to support your notion that it is inherently wrong. justification is really not necessary in any scenario to support my position....no one can show how and why something is universally wrong.
A suicidal genius wants to blow up Earth with fifteen hundred nuclear missiles.
Right around 6.93 billion people might find something wrong with that. Well, minus you of course.
--
Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman she meets and then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again. Wonderful movie.
OInsaneOne32 posted... From: SovietOmega | #021 It is almost as if things could then be right or wrong depending on how a society wants to view an action! That's basically a definition of morals.
Also, as far as thinking goes, humans are separate from the rest of nature.
So yes, in nature, there are no morals. In human society, there are.
A bit presumptuous to know the minds of animals eh?
--
There is no shame in not knowing; the shame lies in not finding out
I don't see animals forming religions or organizing governments. Yes, some exist in hierarchical societies, but you're not really going to argue ants think at the same level humans do.
no one is denying the existence of morals(we all have our own personal moral codes)....just the existence of any particular 'absolute' moral right or an 'absolute' wrong. it defies logic, and cannot be shown to exist.
Moral relativism is great and all until you realize it has piss poor application in real life. If a student writes a paper describing how all actions are morally relative, going by his own views, he should be fine with it when his professor gives him an F because "it felt right". There are no absolutes, but there are things that swing far enough to one side to be called generally objective.
From: Andel | #029 no one is denying the existence of morals(we all have our own personal moral codes)....just the existence of any particular 'absolute' moral right or an 'absolute' wrong. it defies logic, and cannot be shown to exist.
I think me and Omega were kind of going off on a tangent from your point.
As for 'absolutes,' true, they don't exist. Morals are a group consensus. Someone went "Killing someone is wrong" and everyone else (or at least the majority) went "I wouldn't like to be killed, makes sense to me." But even with that you have counterexamples like the death penalty and such. I doubt you're going to find many people in this great God-loving nation that will say Osama did not deserve to be killed. So even the 'absolutes' society has decided upon are only situational.
The only reason it can't be absolutely bad is because someone who is committing said horrible act has it justified in his head. There's always someone who can justify a crime in their own way.
But when the majority thinks something wrong, they will punish that person for his wrong doing. So yes, it would near impossible to find a crime that every human brain in the world thinks is wrong.
An extinction event from an alien race is probably the closest I can come to thinking of an event where all the human race would agree something is wrong.
But even then, the aliens who are invading would have it justified in their own heads, making not truly an absolute across all parameters.
--
Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman she meets and then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again. Wonderful movie.
This is why I think Philosophy is neat and worth studying as it give you an 'out of the box' perspective on stuff, but I seriously don't understand how Philosophy Majors exist....and make any money.
From: OInsaneOne32 | #035 but I seriously don't understand how Philosophy Majors exist....and make any money.
I'm a philosophy major pretty much purely because I find it super enjoyable. Though I'm also a journalism major, had to do something to make myself somewhat employable. >_>
Morality is defined by society and those within it. Believing that morals are relative doesn't mean you have to accept all morals. Even if they are relative it doesn't stop you and those around you from having, and often sharing, a moral code.
This is why I think Philosophy is neat and worth studying as it give you an 'out of the box' perspective on stuff, but I seriously don't understand how Philosophy Majors exist....and make any money.
even if everyone on the planet deemed an act 'bad' or 'evil', I still wouldnt be dissuaded. the fact that someone justifies an act is not really what discredits absolutism, it is the possibility of different situational scenarios and lack of any tangible justification that does the ideal in.
Like, personally I feel that free will is an illusion. One impulse in your brain will cause you to do/think this, another might make you do/think that. It all boils down to physical structures and is really not in your control at all. Do I believe that means nobody can be held accountable for anything? Not at all.
From: CeraSeptem | #038 Or work in an entirely unrelated field!
I plan to become a writer of some kind, I figure the philosophy major will help me quite a bit with coming up with good stories! Here's hoping the journalism major lands me a fair enough job to last me till that happens. >_>
I plan to become a writer of some kind, I figure the philosophy major will help me quite a bit with coming up with good stories! Here's hoping the journalism major lands me a fair enough job to last me till that happens. >_>
Yeah I plan on lawyering up so I figure the logic and arguments may come in handy but it's not like it was totally necessary!
to say that humans are the only things that show compassion for others and similar such things does a disservice to the complexity that we find in nature.
--
There is no shame in not knowing; the shame lies in not finding out
I suppose there are various degrees of moral relativism, but one can be morally relativistic and still understand that rules and laws (such as marking rubrics) must exist for pragmatic reasons.
Andel posted... no one is denying the existence of morals(we all have our own personal moral codes)....just the existence of any particular 'absolute' moral right or an 'absolute' wrong. it defies logic, and cannot be shown to exist.
Yes it can, no matter how many times you respond with essentially the same thing >_>