logout
help
framed forum
go pro
subscriptions
account
create thread
PhilosophyGround >> Moral relativism
| 7/19/09 4:33 PM | |
Atecexa
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 3816 |
i want to get some idea's on this and i'll get into my scenario. I am firm holder of moral absolutes just about everything in life is black and white absolute. what are some thoughts on this...share |
| 7/20/09 4:47 PM | |
|
WizzleTeatsv2
Member Since: 12/22/07 Posts: 2864 |
I am absolutely certain you are wrong. |
| 7/20/09 6:53 PM | |
|
sanguine cynic
Edited: 07/20/09 6:57 PM Member Since: 6/13/04 Posts: 3490 |
No such thing as morality. Only social contract. |
| 7/21/09 3:21 PM | |
|
Atecexa
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 3834 |
"I am absolutely certain you are wrong" about what specifically? "No such thing as morality. Only social contract." explain your definition of social contract? |
| 7/21/09 7:26 PM | |
|
sanguine cynic
Member Since: 6/13/04 Posts: 3493 |
I won't kill you, if you don't kill me. I won't steal from you if you don't steal from me. That is the very very basic gist of it. |
| 7/25/09 2:19 PM | |
|
Atecexa
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 3842 |
well thats all fun and good but once someone violates it then what? and who is it up to set a social contract? what if we all agreed that rape was ok so long as she ws under/over a certain age? or was/wasnt married? would that make it ok just because a group of people say it's ok for them |
| 7/25/09 4:12 PM | |
|
WizzleTeatsv2
Member Since: 12/22/07 Posts: 2891 |
Atecexa - "I am absolutely certain you are wrong" That was irony. Obviously, by stating I'm absolutely certain your idea about absolutes is wrong, I'm implying that I believe the opposite. Except that my statement implies an absolute belief. That's irony. Some people find it vaguely humorous, unless it goes over their heads. |
| 7/25/09 6:24 PM | |
|
sanguine cynic
Member Since: 6/13/04 Posts: 3497 |
"well thats all fun and good but once someone violates it then what? and who is it up to set a social contract? what if we all agreed that rape was ok so long as she ws under/over a certain age? or was/wasnt married? would that make it ok just because a group of people say it's ok for them " You're still under the myth that morals exist by saying is 'this ok' or is 'that ok'..we already have a social contract, it's just called a different name here in America. It's called "LAW". the idea is to set up a system of contracts that allows you to maximize your happiness throughought life. I doubt rape of children would fit into a contract that allows one to maximize happiness. btw, I have my degree in philosophy. And I can tell you this..there is NO ONE, nowadays who still believes in moral absolutism. NO ONE. I'm glad you are interested in this topic, it shows a curiosity most people don't have. I appreciate that. It's also clear you are very young and haven't had time to read all the material that's been covered on the subject. This is a fairly decent introduction on youtube. check it out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv4ZZUrU27c&feature=related |
| 7/25/09 6:35 PM | |
|
sanguine cynic
Member Since: 6/13/04 Posts: 3498 |
And on moral error theory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtqTCaAgy4E&feature=related |
| 7/26/09 11:55 AM | |
|
Atecexa
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 3844 |
"And I can tell you this..there is NO ONE, nowadays who still believes in moral absolutism. NO ONE" well first off you cant say "NO ONE believes" about anything If in your opinion there is no moral absolutism then there really is no right and wrong only legal and illegal |
| 7/26/09 12:57 PM | |
|
sanguine cynic
Member Since: 6/13/04 Posts: 3500 |
It is my personal belief that there is no such thing as right and wrong. This is also shared by a good portion of philosophers and probably the most well respected of all modern ethical theorists suchs as J.L Mackie, Richard Joyce..etc.. However, you can not believe in moral absolutism and still believe in morality. Take a utilitarian for example. This is a person who believes whatever act brings about the most happiness for the greatest number is the right one. Under utilitarianism killing someone would be wrong most of the time, as it usually doesn't bring about more happiness, but what if you were in a situation where you had to kill someone in order to save others (as in war-fighting the Nazi's-, a criminal shootout..etc) then killing a person might actually bring about more happiness for more people and therefore the killing would be justified. |
| 7/28/09 5:32 PM | |
|
Atecexa
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 3851 |
that whole concept is just a copout mindset for people to rationalize doing whatever they want as long as it makes/keeps them happy. and there is a big difference between right and justifiable. just because something can be justified doesn't mean it is good or even right to do. "However, you can not believe in moral absolutism and still believe in morality." this makes no sense at all "It is my personal belief that there is no such thing as right and wrong. This is also shared by a good portion of philosophers and probably the most well respected of all modern ethical theorists suchs as J.L Mackie, Richard Joyce..etc..." I wonder if any of the afformentioned including yourself have children. |
| 7/29/09 1:36 AM | |
|
sanguine cynic
Member Since: 6/13/04 Posts: 3531 |
"this makes no sense at all" Is it wrong to lie? Always? Should you always tell the truth no matter what? If a serial killer was after your daughter, who was hiding somewhere and the killer asked you where she was, would it be acceptable to lie to the killer and send him off in the wrong direction? Or would that be morally wrong? Is it ALWAYS wrong to kill? Would it wrong to kill the Nazi's to keep them from killing us? Moral absolutists would think that it would be wrong to lie or kill NO MATTER WHAT. It would be wrong to lie (meaning you shouldn't do it) even it if meant your daughter would have to die. Very few people accept that, and that's why there are very few IF ANY moral absolutists. |
| 7/30/09 2:36 PM | |
|
Atecexa
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 3857 |
there is a big difference between killing and murder. murder is wrong period 100% of the time no matter what, now self defense, protecting a loved one, solider in warfare etc is still not morally good because a human life is being taken but it is justifiable. there is also a big difference between a girl lying to her parents about having had an abortion or a spouse lying to their partner about their infidelity than sending a serial killer off in the wrong direction this is why in our judicial system we have motive as part of the process, even back in Moses' time motive played a part too. they had safe towns where someone could go if they comitted a justifiable homicide that was not a murder like when Moses killed the Egyptian who was beating the hebrew slave |
| 7/30/09 6:35 PM | |
|
sanguine cynic
Member Since: 6/13/04 Posts: 3538 |
What makes murder..or anything wrong? What is your justification for morality? Also a girl lying to her parents, especially if they are religous nutjobs, about having an abortion may be in the best interests of all. |
| 7/31/09 2:56 PM | |
|
Atecexa
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 3867 |
first off that is a question only being asked to incite an argument. if i went to your house and murdered you, your child, wife etc you would have a serious problem with that and i doubt you would sit and contemplate whether or not it was wrong before you did something about it or tried to stop it what is your justification for using religious and nutjob as one and the same? and for clarification look up the definition of religion. defined as "a set of values" everyone has a set of values so everyone is religious so i guess everyone is a nutjob. in the best interest of who?...obviously not the baby that is being murdered. and to answer your first question about what makes murder wrong refer to Exodus 20:13 or Deuteronomy 5:17 |
| 7/31/09 6:26 PM | |
|
sanguine cynic
Member Since: 6/13/04 Posts: 3554 |
Even if God did exist (which is lying saying even if Santa Claus realy existed) Morality would not depend on God. It's called Euthyphro's Dilemma and can be found in a dialogue of Plato. Is murder wrong because God (or in PLato's case Zeus) says it's wrong, or is it wrong for some other reason and God is just letting us know what he thinks? If murder is wrong just because God says murder is wrong, then it's completely arbitrary and he could say murder was right and then we would all be thinking murder was great. I'm sure you don't believe this. Therfore, you will agree that things are right or wrong independent of just what God says (otherwise they would be arbitrary) and therefore are too be judged by some other rubric. Now why would I stop you from killing my childrend (because my sense of desires comes from EVOLUTION ..and it would not be advantageous for my genes for you to kill my offspring. Your sense of MORALITY COMES FROM EVOLUTION, this is a scientific fact, about as debateable as arguing the earth is round. What you think is right or wrong is really just behaviors that are good (right) or bad for your genes (wrong) |
| 7/31/09 6:33 PM | |
|
sanguine cynic
Member Since: 6/13/04 Posts: 3555 |
By the way since you are quotin Deutoronomy..let me know if you agree with these quotes... Kill everyone who has religious beliefs that are different from your own. 17:2-7 Anyone who will not listen to a priest or a judge must be executed. 17:12-13 If you have a "stubborn and rebellious son," then you and the other men in your neighborhood "shall stone him with stones that he die." 21:18-21 If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death." 22:23-24 You can't go to church if your testicles are damaged or your penis has been cut off. 23:1 If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her. 22:28-29 If two men fight and the wife of one grabs the "secrets" of the other, "then thou shalt cut off her hand" and "thine eye shall not pity her." 25:11-12 |
| 8/1/09 7:58 PM | |
|
Atecexa
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 3904 |
"If murder is wrong just because God says murder is wrong, then it's completely arbitrary and he could say murder was right and then we would all be thinking murder was great." God is not arbitrary. What he says is what he says period end of story he is the same yesterday, today and forever. He does not change with the wind like man does BS on only defending your family because of evolutionary gene protection...you obviously do not have children or probably a wife that you love. And if evolution explains everything for you would you agree that in addition to our bodies and brains having to eveolve through time it would make sense that our individual bodily processes would evolve over time also right? I'll respond to your deuteronomy quotes when I get home and can read the surrounding verses...it may also take a day or two...not ducking just will take some time to answer properly |
| 8/1/09 8:44 PM | |
|
sanguine cynic
Member Since: 6/13/04 Posts: 3561 |
"God is not arbitrary. What he says is what he says period end of story he is the same yesterday, today and forever. He does not change with the wind like man does" Then why did God say murder is wrong? What's his reason? If he has a reason..then he is appealing to something other than what he says for right and wrong, some sort of independent evaluation of morality. If he doesn't have a reason, then it is arbitrary..even if it doesn't change. "And if evolution explains everything for you would you agree that in addition to our bodies and brains having to eveolve through time it would make sense that our individual bodily processes would evolve over time also right?" What do you mean individual bodily processes? |
| 6/29/11 6:40 PM | |
CALI NATIVE
Member Since: 10/14/08 Posts: 608 |
Atecexa - "If murder is wrong just because God says murder is wrong, then it's completely arbitrary and he could say murder was right and then we would all be thinking murder was great." It's been nearly two years....and no answer yet? |
| 8/8/11 10:41 PM | |
|
Atecexa
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 4543 |
""And if evolution explains everything for you would you agree that in addition to our bodies and brains having to eveolve through time it would make sense that our individual bodily processes would evolve over time also right?" What do you mean individual bodily processes?" Processes such as blood clotting, mending of a broken bone, regenration of tissue, basic reproduction, the immune system. If evolution of simple to complex were to be proven true it would have to also be true that at some point of man's evolution we did not have an immune system so you would die from simple illness like a cold. At one point we did not have the ability for blood to clot so you die from bleeding out if you get a simple cut. At one point our reproductive systems were not fully developed so the species dies off because you can't reproduce. Evolution just simply does not make sense whether from a standpoint of faith or science. |
| 8/8/11 11:10 PM | |
|
Atecexa
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 4544 |
""And if evolution explains everything for you would you agree that in addition to our bodies and brains having to eveolve through time it would make sense that our individual bodily processes would evolve over time also right?" What do you mean individual bodily processes?" Processes such as blood clotting, mending of a broken bone, regenration of tissue, basic reproduction, the immune system. If evolution of simple to complex were to be proven true it would have to also be true that at some point of man's evolution we did not have an immune system so you would die from simple illness like a cold. At one point we did not have the ability for blood to clot so you die from bleeding out if you get a simple cut. At one point our reproductive systems were not fully developed so the species dies off because you can't reproduce. Evolution just simply does not make sense whether from a standpoint of faith or science. |
| 8/9/11 9:34 PM | |
|
Atecexa
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 4545 |
noone has ever been able to explain to me yet how man survived evolution before he had the ability to clot blood or fight off illness |
| 8/11/11 10:27 AM | |
|
Martinez!
Member Since: 12/22/07 Posts: 4014 |
Atecexa - noone has ever been able to explain to me yet how man survived evolution before he had the ability to clot blood or fight off illness lol, you must be trolling. No one is actually this stupid. |
Reply Post
You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.
