|
Post by deadendphilosopher on Apr 18, 2008 10:49:42 GMT -5
but isn't it the other way around? the 'absolute' law is absolute and not under discussion - as opposed to relativism where questioning is actually allowed as far as not trying to change someone or confront them - moral relativism does not set up any rules - its just says there is no absolute - and we are free to establish any laws we want - including laws to confront people about their beliefs just because there is no absolute law does not mean people can't confront you about your beliefs if you think murder and pedophilia is good and act on it have fun living in a jail cell But there are different interpretations of absolute law. When people operate under the assumption of an absolute law, they believe it applies to the person they are in disagreement with, and I think this can stimulate people to concern themselves with where others are coming from rather than just throwing their hands up and saying "let's agree to disagree." Of course often times you have to agree to disagree, but it seems like both sides should have a chance to try to show each other their perspectives before this happens. Sorry, I don't really think I'm conveying what I want to say here. I don't mean to imply that moral relativism in general causes this to happen. I was mainly thinking about the people I've encountered who use this perspective to avoid confrontation. I do agree that the absence of an absolute law doesn't mean people can't confront you about your beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Apr 18, 2008 11:54:13 GMT -5
that doesn't make sense - it makes the law relative
no - I am not sure what you are trying to say how does moral relativism encourage you to throw your hands up? it doesn't say lets agree to disagree. relativism or not, we already agree to disagree - no one knows what you think - the problem is actions - if you act on certain beliefs that cause problems for other people you will have to deal with the consequences
if you accept the position that there is no god (or no laws passed down from god) it doesn't make it ok for you to murder people I don't know why this concept is so difficult to grasp for so many people
and in reverse it is evident that acceptance of such beliefs doesn't have all that much stopping power either
you can show your perspectives to each other. many people find it difficult to believe that we can't work out what's best for us on our own and it has to come from some higher power, but to me its only logical.
|
|
|
Post by deadendphilosopher on Apr 19, 2008 8:34:34 GMT -5
that doesn't make sense - it makes the law relative no - I am not sure what you are trying to say how does moral relativism encourage you to throw your hands up? it doesn't say lets agree to disagree. relativism or not, we already agree to disagree - no one knows what you think - the problem is actions - if you act on certain beliefs that cause problems for other people you will have to deal with the consequences if you accept the position that there is no god (or no laws passed down from god) it doesn't make it ok for you to murder people I don't know why this concept is so difficult to grasp for so many people and in reverse it is evident that acceptance of such beliefs doesn't have all that much stopping power either you can show your perspectives to each other. many people find it difficult to believe that we can't work out what's best for us on our own and it has to come from some higher power, but to me its only logical. It may be relative in the sense that not everyone believes exactly the same thing, but it is still absolute in that each individual who believes in absolute law believes it applies to everyone. I wouldn't say moral relativism encourages you to throw your hands up, but I would say that some people use it as an excuse to do so. I have met a fair number of people who do this at college. But we don't always agree do disagree - sometimes when people talk about their different perspective they are forced to question these perspectives, and possibly shift them. I know moral relativism doesn't stop anyone from doing this, but I think people sometimes use it to rationalize why they don't want to question themselves. I guess absolute morality could cause people to do the same thing, though. But I don't think the only issue is actions because people's actions obviously stem from their values much of the time. Yes you may be able to prevent someone from breaking the law with the threat of punishment, no matter what they think in their minds, but there are a lot of things a person can do that are considered acceptable, but might not be in the best interest of themselves or others. I am not saying that the absence of laws passed from God makes it ok to murder. I don't know where I gave that impression. I am agnostic myself, and right now I am operating mostly from a moral relativist perspective. I grew up in a spiritual/religious community, where I don't remember encountering people's unwillingness to talk about and debate over values, and when I came to college I was struck by the fact that a good number of people weren't interested in doing that because they believed it was relative. This is the reason I made my original post.
|
|
|
Post by madiocre on Jun 9, 2008 3:42:28 GMT -5
well yeah we do decide to an extent what is right and what is wrong in our own opinion . But there are in any country you live in a set of laws to be reckoned with. Thats why we choose to live in different countries . Also religious laws are also our choice as we have freedom of religion .
I think it depends how yo interpret it .
there is one way which says well yeah morals are what i think morals are therefor whatever i do is morally right. this causes problems because it says you can do whatever and hurt people but thats ok you dont need to feel guilty you just happen to have a conflict of morals not that you actually did anything wrong .
Or you could just take it that yeah i have my morals others have theirs that means i dont need to go around converting them however it means that we all need to watch out because morals are double sided . If you think you shouldn't do something its wrong well you need ppl to know that because they might not recognise that. and as it a learning growing process of development we can learn from others .
morals are not about taking high ground its about trying not to hurt others.
i personally am liberally catholic and find many things the dalai larma says helpful to my own set of morals for instance.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Jun 10, 2008 10:49:32 GMT -5
it does not say that its ok to hurt people - what it says is that we created our own morals - they were not passed down by some divine being and since we agree that it is not ok to hurt people then it really is not ok to hurt people - if you don't agree with these morals and have your own - it is not ok by any means among those that have agreed upon this - and you will just end up spending time with like minded people
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Mar 1, 2009 9:00:40 GMT -5
There's a guy on YouTube called ' The Amazing Atheist' He writes a book: In Defense Of Evil: Why Good Is Bad And Bad Is GoodTextbook moral relativism.
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Mar 1, 2009 13:55:22 GMT -5
There's a guy on YouTube called ' The Amazing Atheist' He writes a book: In Defense Of Evil: Why Good Is Bad And Bad Is GoodTextbook moral relativism. i don't think angry, hate-filled people accomplish anything good in this world, whether they're of atheist, christian, or any other religious or philosophical persuasion.
|
|
|
Post by nelo on Mar 1, 2009 14:20:01 GMT -5
Sounds like an interesting book.
|
|
|
Post by madiocre on Mar 12, 2009 6:24:43 GMT -5
this is off topic but there is a book i have heard of forgetthe name and author but basically it argues that conscience is an evolutionary factor and that aproxx 20% are born without it and that we need those 20% because they make us stronger as a society . if it was less we would be too trusting and vulnerable if it was more we wouldnt e trusting or happy enough .
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Mar 14, 2009 15:03:33 GMT -5
to move our discussion to a more appropriate place, so 'funny clips and shows' can once again be funny, i'll post my response to the waterboarding discussion here. in my opinion, the US needs to lead by example. if we model torture behavior for the world, we will increase the amount of torture going on in the world. people will follow our example. if we sign the geneva convention and then torture people, we're also modeling lying, cheating, dishonesty and hypocrisy for the entire world. the US is a world leader, and it is very important for us to remember that the world is always watching.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Mar 14, 2009 15:49:11 GMT -5
This is a continuation of the debate started in another thread. in my opinion, the US needs to lead by example. if we model torture behavior for the world, we will increase the amount of torture going on in the world. Using Waterboarding on 3 people to save lifes hardly qualifies as "model torture behaviour", but as using torture as the last resort. Yes, just like a Christian who is a policeman or a soldier is a lying, cheating, dishonest for being in a position where he can feerly violate the 10 Commandments where he can be mean to people and even kill them. Not buying that argument and I don't think that's fair to just throw out those words like that. I understand Waterboarding is a slippery slope with Geneva Convention. In Article 3 of the Geneva convention it says: "Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms [..] shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."So you could argue that waterboarding is not treating them humanely. Some would probably say that interrogation techniques are not treating them humanely. But so what? It was done to protect lives. All 3 lived and waterboarding itself was very short - under 3 minutes. If I had a choise to dunk somebody in the water and save my fellow citizens, or do nothing, I'd dunk the guy in water all day long.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Mar 15, 2009 13:13:54 GMT -5
we are better then terrorists? not so fast
you are forgetting the collateral damage that a war causes lets take the most simple example we bomb some neighborhood in Baghdad and 25 innocent people are killed or severely crippled
how many innocent civilians were killed as a direct result of our assault? how many were killed as a result of the chaos that engulfed the country?
and don't forget that iraq was clean of terrorists before we started the war - now its full of them
its ridiculous to try to claim such a moral highground
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Mar 15, 2009 13:49:52 GMT -5
Show me a major war in the last 100 years where civilians didn't die. You aren't sure that we are better than the terrorists? Well, the USA is not blowing up it's own people, intentionally. They blow up their own countrymen, even kids. They don't care. Iraq was a dictatorship before America went there. Saddam was killing his political dissentors. Now they have free elections where women can be on the ballot. Huge victory from women's rights. You may have forgotten, but even the Russian intelligence was saying that Iraq was planning an attack on USA.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Mar 15, 2009 14:19:41 GMT -5
that is not a justification for war
USA is was intentionally blowing up parts of iraq resulting in many civilian deaths
so what? now there are people killing each other every day
that is laughable now they also have people killing each other on daily basis
you have no idea what the russian intelligence was saying and what kind of information the russian intelligence actually had remarks like this are not evidence of anything
as a side note 'russsian intelligence' was also saying that the government was not interested in the biggest russian oil company a short while before the company's leadership was arrested and the company was split up by the government
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Mar 15, 2009 14:45:28 GMT -5
that is not a justification for war It's not. In what major war in the last 100 years have we seen no civilian casualties? Targeting terrorists. Are you saying the USA is targeting civilians? You know it's not for nothing that Bill Clinton has a statue in Kosovo. He saved them from genocide in 1999. Likewise, Americans have freed Iraq from a dictatorship. Both interventions by the USA and NATO. It may be a "so what" to you, because you don't care, but it's not for the Iraqis. The violence is down dramaticly and they'll withdraw in a few years, because they can - they're winning.
|
|