Moral relativists who love Edahn

[Grayscale]

if one's morals are, for the most part, the same as the society they grew up in, how would one know whether they were partaking in moral relativism themselves?


in my opinion, the concept of morals is relativist. my "morals" are grounded in what i consider to be logical and fair. actions either make sense or they dont, a lot of what makes sense happens to be synonymous with classical, widely accepted morals, but not all.

 

[SillySapienne]

Grayscale-

I was born with a moral compass that, since three or four, has frequently provided me with direction *separate* from what I was "taught" or "told".

*Most* people innately know the difference between right and wrong, the experiences of guilt/empathy are not some random phenomena, they exist for a reason!

 

[6sticks]

You are expressing your own values.

That's right.

Can you tell us why anyone else should share them, though?

People tend to die less around me. People tend to like that.

I happen to think that genocide is wrong too. But I can perfectly understand why some people would think otherwise, without losing any respect for them.

Well that's just insane. I can understand why people would kill groups of people based only on their ethnicity, but I have absolutely no respect for them.

If I condemned people for believing differently than I do, then I would be no better than those who would kill me for believing differently than they do.

Yes you would. If you condemn them you're both still alive. If they kill you you're dead. I happen to think that's a bad thing.

 

[Wandering]

But I do think there are some absolutes hidden in there. The Nazis (lol Godwin'd) may have justified genocide, but there are many accounts of Nazi guards and so on that were so traumatized by what they'd done that they developed mental illnesses. They seemed to intuitively know what they were doing was wrong.

Wrong in absolute, or wrong according to their own values? It could be both. In the absence of an independent source of truth, all we can say is that their own values conflicted with the values they were being indoctrinated with. That doesn't say anything about the absolute worth of either set of values, though.

A psychologist came and spoke at my university, he wrote this book on the topic:

"Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing" James Waller

And he talks in great length about the psychological damage done to the people who commit those atrocities, regardless of how justified they feel it is.

I do believe that people must be under immense emotional and psychological duress to resort to mass killings. But I don't see that this means their values are necessarily ALL warped: one might choose a wrong means to achieve what they see as a good end.

 

[Kiddo]

Let's find out how morally developed you are CC. Here is a classic moral scenario.

A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

 

[SillySapienne]

Let's find out how morally developed you are CC. Here is a classic moral scenario.

A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Yes, a human life is *worth* more than an unpayed debt of 1000 dollars. The druggist can be payed back later, however her life must be saved now, or never.

 

[heart]

None of these ideas existed before the Enlightenment.

Man's reach for truth is slow.

Most people would prefer to spend their lives exploiting the pleasures of their senses than search for truth. The wheels grind slow.

 

[Wandering]

I was born with a moral compass that, since three or four, has frequently provided me with direction *separate* from what I was "taught" or "told".

And other people are born with a moral compass that provides them with *other* directions. Who's to say whose compass is most pointing towards universal truth (assuming such a thing exists)?

*Most* people innately know the difference between right and wrong,

Yes, but most people do not agree on the *definitions* of right and wrong. That's the problem.

***

Well that's just insane.

No it's not. So there: we have both expressed our opinions. Now what?

If you condemn them you're both still alive. If they kill you you're dead. I happen to think that's a bad thing.

So for you morality is a matter of ends: what matters in a set of morals is what it produces in the end. Am I right?

I think differently. For me, what matters is how close to the universal truth (because I believe in such a thing) a set of morals is. Consequences should be monitored, but they should not determine the acceptability or lack thereof of a set of morals.

 

[SillySapienne]

No, the problem is that *some* people are born with a less, or an entirely lacking, moral compass.


The following are my less logically developed "feelings":

And other unethical people selfishly take advantage of these folk and turn them into *_* "nazis"

Fuel for terror.

Killing machines, who kill each other to feed their "programmer kings".

 

[Grayscale]

Grayscale-

I was born with a moral compass that, since three or four, has frequently provided me with direction *separate* from what I was "taught" or "told".

*Most* people innately know the difference between right and wrong, the experiences of guilt/empathy are not some random phenomena, they exist for a reason!

genetics, popular suggestion, who knows... besides my point. not everyone has the ability (or should) try to gauge what is really right and wrong in a given situation, the general approach that morals offer is the best solution for most people since it doesnt require critical thinking.

correct me if im wrong, but what youre saying is that internally determined values are the final word when it comes to right and wrong, and not what is deemed "ok" by society?

what i am asking is... do we really know where this internal sense of right and wrong comes from?


to me, the concept of "morals" is needed for people who are unable to think rationally and independently on a case-by-case basis (most people). most "morals" happen to be synonymous with what makes sense in the bigger picture, but are too general to be perfect in every situation.

 

[Kiddo]

Yes, a human life is *worth* more than an unpayed debt of 1000 dollars. The druggist can be payed back later, however her life must be saved now, or never.

It seems you have one step to go according to Kohlberg. You ignored the fact that other people may need the medicine and their lives are just as significant.

 

[Wandering]

No, the problem is that *some* people are born with a less, or an entirely lacking, moral compass.

How would you know that?

More importantly: do you assume this to be the case of everyone who happens to strongly disagree with you on morality? Like for example, do you think every moral relativist lacks such a moral compass?

 

[SillySapienne]

It seems you have one step to go according to Kohlberg. You ignored the fact that other people may need the medicine and their lives are just as significant.

Uh, um, well, *a* human life implicitly means *everybody*.

 

[Kiddo]

Uh, um, well, *a* human life implicitly means *everybody*.

So let's say he steals the medicine and as a result, a little girl, whose father could have paid the price for the medicine, will not get the medicine and will die. Was it moral of him to value his wife's life over the lives of those who could pay for the medicine?

 

[6sticks]

No it's not. So there: we have both expressed our opinions. Now what?

Nothing, cause this is the internet. I just figured the anti-genocide position needed a voice.

So for you morality is a matter of ends: what matters in a set of morals is what it produces in the end. Am I right?

Yeah. As in Yojimbo.

I think differently. For me, what matters is how close to the universal truth (because I believe in such a thing) a set of morals is. Consequences should be monitored, but they should not determine the acceptability or lack thereof of a set of morals.

I believe there's nothing after this life so I intend to make this life as good as possible for myself and others.

 

[nemo]

It seems you have one step to go according to Kohlberg. You ignored the fact that other people may need the medicine and their lives are just as significant.

That's very misleading. Lawrence Kohlberg didn't care what the answer was, just the argument. Saving the wife's life could still get you to the last "step".

Also, fuck Kohlberg.

Yes, I took psych 101 too.

 

[Kiddo]

That's very misleading. Lawrence Kohlberg didn't care what the answer was, just the argument. Saving the wife's life could still get you to the last "step".

Also, fuck Kohlberg.

Yes, I took psych 101 too.

He makes a lot more sense than an inborn "moral compass". I wonder if feral children have morals.

It's socialization that breeds morals, not biology or some spiritual force.

 

[Wandering]

I just figured the anti-genocide position needed a voice.

This is an unneeded jibe. Nobody on this thread supported a pro-genocide position.

Yeah. As in Yojimbo.

Never saw it, sorry.

I believe there's nothing after this life so I intend to make this life as good as possible for myself and others.

That's a position I understand. But I do not share it. Do you think it is wrong of me not to share it?

Edit: actually, I share the second half of it, it's just my motivation that's different. And obviously, we don't agree on what "making this life as good as possible for ourselves and others" might entail

 

[SillySapienne]

Also, fuck Kohlberg.

nemo

You took the words right out of my, er, hands?

I was sooooooo close to posting that, but chose to be "ladylike" instead, lol.

 

[Grayscale]

Nobody on this thread supported a pro-genocide position.

most people dont bat an eye at sanctioned over-hunting of species that upset the ecosystem. that seems a lot like genocide... but it's other animals, so it's ok.

where's "morality" there? there isnt any, because morality is just a very generic approach derived from de-facto logic, and what's logical to us is to facilitate the survival of our species.