User Tag List

First 71516171819 Last

Results 161 to 170 of 182

  1. #161
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    I'm beginning to think CC, that you actually are a relativist to some extent without realizing it... and that actually your main beef against the concept is actually against a misunderstanding you have about what it's all about, which has possibly come from some people claiming to represent the theory but actually doing it very badly, thereby misportraying it to you.

    IOW I think what you're arguing against isn't the basic principle of moral relativism, but what you've been given to think is the basic principle of MR... etc...

    Course I could be wrong... but it's just an inkling I have...
    Ils se d�merdent, les mecs: trop bon, trop con..................................MY BLOG!

    "When it all comes down to dust
    I will kill you if I must
    I will help you if I can" - Leonard Cohen

  2. #162
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainChick View Post
    Infanticide can in certain instances be morally right, i.e. in less developed nations where birth control is neither used nor known, where families subsist on agriculture and the death of the infant increases the general fitness of the older young.
    You said earlier that murder is always wrong. You say here that infanticide is sometimes right. According to that logic, infanticide cannot be murder, so how do you define murder? How does infanticide differ from it?
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  3. #163
    Senior Member Journey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    You quoted this :

    The way things are for you is not necessarily the way things are for others

    If that isnt (moral) relativism I don't know what is
    Come on now, it seems to me that she was obviously saying she was an ENFP and things are not the way things are for her as that type as they are for another type. Don't jump on her to be a MR when she is not.

  4. #164
    Lallygag Moderator Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Journey View Post
    Come on now, it seems to me that she was obviously saying she was an ENFP and things are not the way things are for her as that type as they are for another type. Don't jump on her to be a MR when she is not.
    Read the post it comes from... it was by reference to internal moral compasses!

  5. #165
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,584

    Default

    There is a distinction between empathy and sympathy that should be noted. Empathy would be the foundation of understanding the moral framework of people very different from self. It is admirable to have personal ideals to strengthen, understand, and sympathize with others. It is also important to have respect when people do think and feel differently. Different from self does not mean less than self, even if they never laugh, or even if they were taught to harm, or to believe something false. Empathy is realizing we are no better. It is realizing we are like this other person and could possibly think and feel exactly as they do if subjected to their experiences. It is embracing someone whom it hurts a little to embrace.

    empathy: the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

    sympathy:
    1. harmony of or agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another.
    2. the harmony of feeling naturally existing between persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  6. #166
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    that's pretty much what I was saying toonia, except you said it better... I was also adding to that, that having one doesn't necessarily always lead to the other, because I think sometimes people wrongly attribute someone's unwillingness to agree with them as being the result of a lack of empathy on their part, when in fact they could empathize perfectly but simply not sympathize.
    Ils se d�merdent, les mecs: trop bon, trop con..................................MY BLOG!

    "When it all comes down to dust
    I will kill you if I must
    I will help you if I can" - Leonard Cohen

  7. #167
    Senior Member Journey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    Read the post it comes from... it was by reference to internal moral compasses!
    I read the post it came from and I stand by my opinion. CaptainChick will have to clarify what she meant to clear this up.

  8. #168
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    that's pretty much what I was saying toonia, except you said it better... I was also adding to that, that having one doesn't necessarily always lead to the other, because I think sometimes people wrongly attribute someone's unwillingness to agree with them as being the result of a lack of empathy on their part, when in fact they could empathize perfectly but simply not sympathize.
    Quite so.

    Victor

  9. #169
    Senior Member Journey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Substitute said that CC didn't understand and that's why she wasn't clear. I'm a librarian and prone to giving correct information. Here is the definition:

    Originally Posted by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    The metaethical position usually concerns the truth or justification of moral judgments, and it has been given somewhat different definitions. Metaethical relativists generally suppose that many fundamental moral disagreements cannot be rationally resolved, and on this basis they argue that moral judgments lack the moral authority or normative force that moral objectivists usually contend these judgments may have. Hence, metaethical relativism is in part a negative thesis that challenges the claims of moral objectivists. However, it often involves a positive thesis as well, namely that moral judgments nonetheless have moral authority or normative force, not absolutely or universally (as objectivists contend), but relative to some group of persons such as a society or culture. This point is typically made with respect to truth or justification (or both), and the following definition will be a useful reference point:

    Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.
    With respect to truth-value, this means that a moral judgment such as ‘Polygamy is morally wrong’ may be true relative to one society, but false relative to another. It is not true, or false, simply speaking. Likewise, with respect to justification, this judgment may be justified in one society, but not another. Taken in one way, this last point is uncontroversial: The people in one society may have different evidence available to them than the people in the other society. But proponents of MMR usually have something stronger and more provocative in mind: That the standards of justification in the two societies may differ from one another and that there is no rational basis for resolving these differences. This is why the justification of moral judgments is relative rather than absolute.

    It is important to note several distinctions that may be made in formulating different metaethical relativist positions. First, it is sometimes said that the truth or justification of moral judgments may be relative to an individual person as well as a group of persons. In this article, the latter will be assumed, as in the definition of MMR, unless otherwise noted. Second, that to which truth or justification is relative may be the persons making the moral judgments or the persons about whom the judgments are made. These are sometimes called appraiser and agent relativism respectively. Appraiser relativism suggests that we do or should make moral judgments on the basis of our own standards, while agent relativism implies that the relevant standards are those of the persons we are judging (of course, in some cases these may coincide). Appraiser relativism is the more common position, and it will usually be assumed in the discussion that follows. Finally, MMR may be offered as the best explanation of what people already believe, or it may be put forward as a position people ought to accept regardless of what they now believe.

  10. #170
    Highly Hollow Wandering's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Relativism is benign in a democratic, multi-cultural society.

    But when this society is under attack by a totalitarian, political religion, relativism then becomes malign.
    Quite the opposite in my opinion: in such a situation, only relativism can lead to a working solution. Anything else inevitably leads to war.

    When confronted with something or someone that will not and/or cannot budge, we have no other choice but to examine the *reasons* behind this stubborn behaviour. Only by understanding WHY the other won't move can we hope to remove the cause of their immobility, and thus reach an agreement acceptable to all.

    Or if you prefer: when confronted to a wall, crashing into it at full speed is not a smart thing to do. Learning how to use a hammer and chip at it a little bit at a time is a far better option where our own physical integrity is concerned.

Similar Threads

  1. Where can I find "The Man Who Loved Dickens"?
    By Red Herring in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-11-2010, 09:42 PM
  2. women who love makeup (and men, too!)
    By velocity in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 03-02-2010, 07:22 PM
  3. Am I the only one who LOVES reality TV??
    By CzeCze in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 12-24-2007, 01:23 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO