41 replies to this topic

[Euas_warrior_ally]

Moral relativism has no grounds. Is the holocaust a right thing or a wrong thing? Is freedom to vote by women before 1920, wrong or right? Was slavery wrong or right?

HERE are some of the flaws:
1.) Relativists can't accuse anyone of doing something wrong. Why?- because that would then be saying that they are right. If a moral relativist is right, then EVERYONE is right. This of course, is contradictory.
2.) Relativists can't complain about or solve evil (because evil has a standard) Relativists think the holocaust was wrong, thus making the ones who did the holocaust WRONG. If their opinions are attacked, they say they are RIGHT.
3.) Relativists can't put blame or praises. This would imply a standard of right and wrong, good or bad, would it not?
4.) Relativists can't make charges of fairness or justice. This too would imply right and wrong, good and bad.
5.) Relativists can't improve themselves because there is 'no' absolute standard.
6.) Relativists can't hold a meaningful, moral discussion since there is no standard in which to hold it up to
7.) Relativists can't demand tolerence (If they do, that's attempting to force their opinion of tolerence on you, which of course, isn't tolerence for YOUR opinion of intolerence, and if there is no right and wrong, then you being intollerent is just as right as one being tolerent.)

TRUTH. There IS truth.
Murder and stealing and lying: all cultures agree it is wrong. Funny... if there is no absolute Truth.

Absolute morals: truth and morals whether you like it or not

[Frizzle]

All cultures may believe that murder, lying and stealing are wrong, but who's to say they are right?

[TheWu]

Moral relativism has no grounds. Is the holocaust a right thing or a wrong thing? Is freedom to vote by women before 1920, wrong or right? Was slavery wrong or right?

HERE are some of the flaws:
1.) Relativists can't accuse anyone of doing something wrong. Why?- because that would then be saying that they are right. If a moral relativist is right, then EVERYONE is right. This of course, is contradictory.
2.) Relativists can't complain about or solve evil (because evil has a standard) Relativists think the holocaust was wrong, thus making the ones who did the holocaust WRONG. If their opinions are attacked, they say they are RIGHT.
3.) Relativists can't put blame or praises. This would imply a standard of right and wrong, good or bad, would it not?
4.) Relativists can't make charges of fairness or justice. This too would imply right and wrong, good and bad.
5.) Relativists can't improve themselves because there is 'no' absolute standard.
6.) Relativists can't hold a meaningful, moral discussion since there is no standard in which to hold it up to
7.) Relativists can't demand tolerence (If they do, that's attempting to force their opinion of tolerence on you, which of course, isn't tolerence for YOUR opinion of intolerence, and if there is no right and wrong, then you being intollerent is just as right as one being tolerent.)

TRUTH. There IS truth.
Murder and stealing and lying: all cultures agree it is wrong. Funny... if there is no absolute Truth.

Absolute morals: truth and morals whether you like it or not

Uh.... ok. That is some messed up reasoning . I can't even tell what you're trying to argue, either. All I know is that moral values are based off public opinion... what the majority of the world considers right is right, and what they concider wrong is wrong. It is all opinions, anyways.

[Mumei]

Murder and stealing and lying: all cultures agree it is wrong. Funny... if there is no absolute Truth.

Absolute morals: truth and morals whether you like it or not

not in all situations

it's all relative

is it right to steal water if you're dieing of thurst with no other way to get it?
is it right to lie to save someone's life?
is it right to kill 1000 animals to save one human?
is it right to murder one human to save a million?
is it right to kill 1000 humans of another culture to save 1000 humans of your culture?

There certainly is no such thing as absolute morals, some of the worse crimes have been commited in the name of morality.

In my opinion - The only morality that exists is the one of Karma, because the only true morallity is personal.

[BlackHawk]

is it right to kill 1000 humans of another culture to save 1000 humans of your culture?

This gets vaguely close to racial prejudice and Holocaust... :ermm:
And explains it quite well!

[Mumei]

yup BH - that's exactly my point - during the holocaust they believed they were being morally superior, and racisism is about genuinely believing that one race is inferiour to another and therefore can be treated as a 2nd or 3rd class person (or even like an animal in some cases)

Karma has a very simple way of dealing with this LOL

[414de7fe6]

im more of a destiny believer than a karma one..After all, words cant really change someone's luck.

A side note: Animals are no comparison to humans. I'd gladly kill 10000 of them to save people.

[Mumei]

A side note: Animals are no comparison to humans. I'd gladly kill 10000 of them to save people.

AH - that's the point isn't it, we are talking about comparison

which animals is it ok to kill to save a person?

10000 slugs?
10000 cute kittens?
10000 dolphins?
10000 chimpanzees?
10000 neanderthal men?
10000 african men?
10000 non aryan?
(I am not being racist here, im just pointing out that in the past morality has been based on public perception and at one time anyone who was little more than animals - this is obviously an opinion I DO NOT hold)

[Euas_warrior_ally]

(puts head in hands*) You all totally missed the meaning of    moral relativism    : the belief that there is no absolute right or wrong and that morals and truths are at one's discretion. im sorry if I didn't not make it clear the first time.

There is no ground to    moral relativism .

OF COURSE it is ok to kill animals to save a human. Of COURSE it is understandable to kill one human to save 1000, etc... These are obvious Absolute Truths.

There is a book on Moral Relativism, I believe titled: "Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air". There is no better sentence I can think of then this to explain the philosophy of Moral Relativism.

A moral relativist would be contradictory to their philosophy if they said that the holocaust is wrong. If a moral relativist believes that everyone's opinions are right, then they cannot say that someone who says the holocaust was a good thing, is wrong. This would imply a standard of Right and Wrong.

I KNOW this might be hard for some of you to understand, but are you STARTING to understand now?

[Frizzle]

I'd gladly eliminate 10,000 humans to save an animal. Or did I miss the point?

[414de7fe6]

Psychopath >.>

Mumei:

im sorry, im not a evolutionist, so none of those animals are even able to be compared to humans.

[Euas_warrior_ally]

Moral Relatvism is crap! That's my POINT and that there IS such a thing as Absolute Truth: true whether one likes it or not. im not an evolutionist, since I think it doesn't hold any grounds (it's kindas feeble, don't you think?), but I know some people do believe in it and hey, if it happened, it happened, but I HIGHLY doubt it. Of course animals are lower than humans. You don't have to believe in evolution to know that.

[jillian]

TRUTH. There IS truth.
Murder and stealing and lying: all cultures agree it is wrong. Funny... if there is no absolute Truth.

Absolute morals: truth and morals whether you like it or not

*gives Euas a funny look* Nice stealing something someone else said.

I act in a way that allows for the most amount of happiness for the most amount of people.  That is why I can promote tolerance: tolerance is letting other be different when their difference does not cause others pain.

There is a book on Moral Relativism, I believe titled: "Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air". There is no better sentence I can think of then this to explain the philosophy of Moral Relativism.

This is not an argument, so it holds no place in a debate.  It's a silly side-comment.

A moral relativist would be contradictory to their philosophy if they said that the holocaust is wrong.

No, because the holocaust caused pain. A situation in which the Holocaust did not exist causes more happiness than one where it did.

I KNOW this might be hard for some of you to understand, but are you STARTING to understand now?

Euas, you missed all the good points people are saying, ignoring others' beliefs while you try to patronizingly envangilicize your own. It's silly and this thread is pointless if you won't bother to take a look at the opinions of others.

im not even starting in on evolutionism, but I just shake my head and smile at the idea that it "doesn't hold any grounds."

(haha, im back for fifteen minutes and I find a rabid conservative right away, hoorah)

[Stryyp]

Where did this whole arguement/debate whatever you want to call it, come from?   It seems somewhat arbitrary to be arguing over something where no ones beliefs are going to change, and it is mainly just a single person flat out saying others beliefs are wrong. 

Just seems kinda moot to me.

Edited by Stryyp, 20 May 2005 - 12:02 PM.

[Euas_warrior_ally]

Keh. You don't know what moral relativism, is, huh? It is the philosophy that MORALS AND RIGHT AND WRONG ARE IN OPINION and that truths depend on the person! Which means they CAN'T say that Holocaust was wrong and believe what they said to be TRUE. I mean, they can, but it's CONTRADICTORY to their belief. By what you wrote, you are obviously a moral relativist. (shakes head*)  >_< 

[jillian]

Keh. You don't know what moral relativism, is, huh? It is the philosophy that MORALS AND RIGHT AND WRONG ARE IN OPINION and that truths depend on the person! Which means they CAN'T say that Holocaust was wrong and believe what they said to be TRUE. I mean, they can, but it's CONTRADICTORY to their belief. By what you wrote, you are obviously a moral relativist. (shakes head*)  >_< 

*glare* Don't tell me I don't know anything about what I believe. I don't just take whatever im spoonfed, like some people, my dear. I know what im talking about.

I am a utilitarianist which is a relative ethical belief. Utilitarianism is a moral system which strives for the greatest good in all ethical decisions based on an individual bases, based on the belief that there is no absolute right which applies to every single one of the infinite cases of moral dilemmas going on in the world. You don't know what you're talking about.

How about you try to think about what you're saying instead of just relaying it all from wherever you heard it? We can listen to propaganda anytime we want. Which is never.

(Anyone remember in Star Wars, when someone said "only the Sith deal in absolutes" [I believe it was Obi-Wan but I can't rightly recall, I was so tired...]? That was hilarious. I turned to one of thes kid I came with, the most stoic little mean kid, and said "Darth Bush?!" and he giggled like a little girl )

Stryyp: Yah, I know. That's how ethics debates go, though it can be possible to change the mind of an intelligent, open-minded person. I've done it.

Oh, and by the way, Euas, you don't know everything aobut every culture so you can't say that all cultures believe your ideals are right.

[414de7fe6]

There is no such thing as an "Absolute Truth".

People determine the right or wrong of their actions themselves. Humans follow one rulebook, and its Law. No others. Humans are free.

And isnt it funny, we can be a "moral reletatist" and not even know it.

Sounds to me that someone's gotten you on the end of a flagpole.

[jpt]

Erm.. Jess, just stop before this turns ugly. >.<

[redlion]

*glare* Don't tell me I don't know anything about what I believe. I don't just take whatever im spoonfed, like some people, my dear. I know what im talking about.

I am a utilitarianist which is a relative ethical belief. Utilitarianism is a moral system which strives for the greatest good in all ethical decisions based on an individual bases, based on the belief that there is no absolute right which applies to every single one of the infinite cases of moral dilemmas going on in the world. You don't know what you're talking about.

How about you try to think about what you're saying instead of just relaying it all from wherever you heard it? We can listen to propaganda anytime we want. Which is never.

(Anyone remember in Star Wars, when someone said "only the Sith deal in absolutes" [I believe it was Obi-Wan but I can't rightly recall, I was so tired...]? That was hilarious. I turned to one of thes kid I came with, the most stoic little mean kid, and said "Darth Bush?!" and he giggled like a little girl )

Stryyp: Yah, I know. That's how ethics debates go, though it can be possible to change the mind of an intelligent, open-minded person. I've done it.

Oh, and by the way, Euas, you don't know everything aobut every culture so you can't say that all cultures believe your ideals are right.

Utilitarians forever!  Finally someone who knows the true path! The problem with utilitarianism is that what happens when the happiness of the majority requires the death of the minority? Or maybe just their enslavement? Or their humiliation? In a way, Nationalism is utilitarian, but its different. The ruling party in a utilitarian government is the ultimate dictator, except they have no power themselves. Their power comes from the people. Unless you manipulate the people into believing something they didn't believe before (I.e. Hitler and his propaganda) and therefor maintain control.

by the way, whatever the original purpose of this thread, it has now been hijacked. Sorry

[TheWu]

What do you want us to talk about, exactly? When we talk about our beliefs and what we percieve of Moral relativism, you tell us we're wrong. What are we to talk about?

[pyke]

I'd gladly eliminate 10,000 humans to save an animal. Or did I miss the point?

Seems like you missed the point. I think your a candidate for PETA . Although I saw a video of animal torture once, and I must say I wouldn't mind putting those animal tortuing freaks through the most excruciating pain I could think of.

As for my opinion of moral relativism... none of this psycho babble "there is no real truth" crap. Ending the lives of others for no reason besides your own personal gain is immoral. Stealing for naught but your personal gain is immoral. You are putting other people through stress/pain for notihng but your own gain.

[jillian]

im only utilitarian by ethics. I don't know about a utilitarian government state.

Pyke, the only ethical system which thinks it's okay to kill someone for a single personal gain is anarchy. Read what I said: utilitarianism/ relativism is for the greatest good.

So it's okay to kill aperson if it makes more people happy than people sad. And in 99% of cases, it makes more people sad than happy.  my point is that there are a few cases, say, a mass serial killer, where killing may be a better option and the greater good. (There is a middle ground called Rule utilitarianism where they concede and make a rule that says, in most cases, killing isn't a good idea. The point is that they accept exceptions.) Get it? or no? or don't care?

[pyke]

There are exceptions to every rule, I think you may be trying to get that point across .

[jillian]

And that's the point of rule utilitarianism!

Plain Utilitarianism just takes the long way and considers every case's worth individually.