Moral relativists who love Edahn

[SillySapienne]

Which is a personal view, but why is it any more "morally right" than the views of those who treat nature (eg the life of a dolphin) as being as important and those of humanity?

Because any person who would view a human life as being inferior in worth to that of a dolphin's, is an idiot.

 

[Wandering]

You yourself said you wouldn't lose any respect for someone who didn't think genocide was wrong.

Which isn't anywhere the same thing as being neutral on genocide. Understanding and tolerance are not acceptance and support.

You said adhering to the "universal truth" is what's important, regardless of the consequences.

No I didn't: I said that consequences are not what, to me, should determine the validity of a set of morals. Not the same thing at all. And most definitely NOT the same thing as "disagreeing with preventing physical harm to others"!

 

[Wandering]

Because any person who would view a human life as being inferior in worth to that of a dolphin's, is an idiot.

Why?

And what about "equal in worth"?

 

[Geoff]

Because any person who would view a human life as being inferior in worth to that of a dolphin's, is an idiot.

I actually said "as important" not superior, but that's of no matter.

....you state that a person with this view is an idiot. Is that by reference to your morals as per your upbringing, or inherent in you? Is someone brought up in a culture that reveres a dolphin as being as important as humanity, also "an idiot" or do they just have a different cultural upbringing and therefore morals? Do you see the point?

[and if you think the "dolphin" example is silly, think Sacred Cows and India]

 

[Grayscale]

Yeah, and your point? I comfortably draw the line at the species level, i.e. to me, human beings, ultimately matter more than other species.

this is about as simply as i can put it..

morals are a simplified approach to what is logical for our species. since it is simplified, any form of "morality" will not apply to everything. it doesnt make much sense to claim that morals relative to yourself are intrinsically better than morals relative to society, or anything, really. they're all overly-simplistic at the end of the day, but still necessary because most of society lacks the critical thinking required to decide what is really right and wrong in any given situation.

it is my suspicion that others or yourself have deemed you as having a "good moral compass" simply because you are more logical than the average bear, and as stated earlier, morals are derived from a sect of logic.

if someone would like to disagree, i will ask this question proactively: if morals arent derived from logic, where do they come from and why should we follow them?

 

[6sticks]

Which isn't anywhere the same thing as being neutral on genocide. Understanding and tolerance are not acceptance and support.

Okay, well I'm intolerant of murderers. I don't support dictators. I guess we'll just have to call it even.

No I didn't: I said that consequences are not what, to me, should determine the validity of a set of morals. Not the same thing at all. And most definitely NOT the same thing as "disagreeing with preventing physical harm to others"!

Okay, so you agree that following your morals is more important than the consequences. If the consequences were physical harm to someone but you still were able to follow the "universal truth", then that's what really matters to you, right?

 

[Wandering]

Okay, well I'm intolerant of murderers. I don't support dictators. I guess we'll just have to call it even.

I support neither murderers nor dictators.

Okay, so you agree that following your morals is more important than the consequences. If the consequences were physical harm to someone but you still were able to follow the "universal truth", then that's what really matters to you, right?

Technically, yes. In practice... In practice, there would be A LOT of other issues to consider, to say the least.

 

[nightning]

Morals are RELATIVE!

morals are a simplified approach to what is logical for our species. since it is simplified, any form of "morality" will not apply to everything. it doesnt make much sense to claim that morals relative to yourself are intrinsically better than morals relative to society, or anything, really. they're all overly-simplistic at the end of the day, but still necessary because most of society lacks the critical thinking required to decide what is really right and wrong in any given situation.

Because I'm lazy...

Purpose of faith and logic... my guess would be ways of making decisions based on incomplete sets of information. It's how life works... we're never given all the data. So we make do with what we have. Faith, a system of values, is nothing more than an empirically derived set of rules that are passed down over generations which seems to work for most scenarios. Where as logic, a system of steps and procedures also established in the past, is deemed efficient in drawing conclusions by evaluating a limited set of information.

This is my take for the reason why some things seems absolutely "right" and other things seems absolutely "wrong".

Why is killing another person wrong? Because we've been socially conditioned... and I dare say evolutionary/genetically promoted for survival... Humans survive by being in groups... therefore harmony between social groups (and not killing) is selected for. But what about if you change the situation?

You have a psycho mass murder running around... Is it wrong to kill him? I DARE YOU TO SAY THAT IT'S WRONG TO KILL HIM! No sane person will go with that... So please tell me, how is morality not relative? It depends on the individual and it depends on the situation.

 

[6sticks]

In practice, there would be A LOT of other issues to consider, to say the least.

Well that basically sums it up. Which is why I rarely talk about this stuff - because it really doesn't matter in the real world what one person or another thinks about morality. Anyway, good talking to you.

 

[Hexis]

Sorry to disapoint you, im a moral relativist. Not a hardcore one, but I do not believe there is anything that is ultimately moraly wrong, only what society says there is. Which in my oponion is BS, I shall die before I allow the masses to empose upon me false beliefs that I do not personally believe in.

 

[disregard]

I do think that there are things that are just plain wrong. I'm not that well-read on moral relativism.. what would that make me?

 

[Hexis]

I couldnt explain it perfectly, try looking it up on: Wikipedia

 

[Wandering]

You have a psycho mass murder running around... Is it wrong to kill him? I DARE YOU TO SAY THAT IT'S WRONG TO KILL HIM!

If they insist it's wrong, have him aim at their kid

And to make things even more interesting: he's killing people because of a non-self-imposed brain chemical imbalance that causes him to think that some people are in fact alien invaders intent on overtaking the Earth. Or something.

Good luck figuring out what's right and what's wrong then... Especially in the split second you have left before he blows a hole in your kid's head...

 

[nemo]

LOL

nemo...

my alter ego with a set of balls.

Haha

I guess I can be your alter ego, but I get to wear the cape.

 

[nightning]

I do think that there are things that are just plain wrong. I'm not that well-read on moral relativism.. what would that make me?

What things do you think are plain wrong?

The only things I know of with absolute right and wrong is mathematics... but that because we defined it to be that way... For everything else... it's either right or wrong depending on a certain set of conditions. To make things less complicated so that we poor humans can make decisions in time to react/survive, we make up general cases and base our rights and wrongs on that.

You don't need to be well-read on this... I don't even know what the exact definition of the term means. It's just what you believe in... No right or wrong in beliefs. For that's what moral relativism implies. So what does that make you? Human. *gives Dana a Cheshire cat grin*

 

[disregard]

What specifically I find right and wrong is irrelevant.

 

[The Ü™]

I like the way LaVey worded it: "Do unto others as they do unto you."

 

[bluebell]

Eh, I'm probably going to regret replying to this. Wandering's POV is mostly closely aligned to mine. The 'absolute morality' idea kinda sickens me. I share a lot of those 'absolute moralities' but I'm very much aware that it's the result of my culture. If I was brought up in any other society or culture now, or in the past, I know that my personal morality would be very different to what I have now.

It's part of the feeling connected to the past and now. 'Others' aren't alien - they're us, but with a different environment that moulded their brains in particular ways. In my opinion, you can't truly understand others until you at least suspend all the baggage you have from your own culture and try to picture what it would be like to be them through their eyes, not yours. Understanding that we're all human, all the same underneath, is part of being human. For me. (so sayeth the atheist moral relativist)

It's possible to both acknowledge that an act violates your concept of morality, and recognize that it is accepted within another culture. Recognition is not approval.

Exactly.

(and I am amused at some level that everyone can somehow agree with this, even though they disagree with everyone else /end badly worded ramble)

 

[Mole]

Intuitive, Counter-Intuitive and again the Intuitive Environment

All value systems are contained within an environment.

And all environments are invisible.

However over the last 200,000 years we have been contained within three environments.

An intuitive environment, then a counter-intuitive environment and once again we are moving into an intuitive environment.

In fact this environment we are in right now, the internet or the noosphere, is an intuitive environment.

For instance, over most of the last 200,000 years we have leant to speak our language at home intuitively.

But not so long ago the printing press gave rise to the dream of universal literacy.

And almost no one learns to read and write intuitively at home rather the State provides Free, Compulsory and Secular Education.

We are compelled by State law to leave our homes and go to special institutions with specially trained staff to learn to read and write.

So we are compelled to learn to read and write counter-intuitively. But most importantly we learn to think counter-intuitively. And very soon we take this for granted and so we have the invisible, counter-intuitive environment.

And the counter-intuitive environment has given rise to science, modern democracy and modern economics.

Almost all of science is counter-intuitive. For instance we know intuitively that the sun goes round the earth but science tells us counter-intuitively that the earth goes round the sun.

For the best part of 200,000 years we could see that the sun went round the earth - we only had to look - it was intuitive.

And modern democracy is counter-intuitive because the defining trait of modern democracy is the limitation of power (see the Constitution), while the intuitive aim of any politician is to maximise their power.

And modern economics is counter-intuitive as who would have guessed, before Adam Smith, that private greed creates public prosperity.

And of course Biology and Physics are counter-intuitive like most of modern life, even some of modern art is counter-intuitive.

In short, modern life is based on literacy and the counter-intuitive environment it creates.

But something is afoot, at home we learn to use the telephone, the television and now the internet intuitively. We are no longer compelled by the State to leave our intuitive homes and go to a special institution to learn how to use the telephone or the television or the internet.

So once again we are returning to an intuitive environment like the one we are in right now.

And naturally you object and say, but look, we are writing, but I, for instance, am moving away from writing. I have joined www.seesmic.com and I am having conversations in video - there is no need for me to write anymore.

So for most of the last 200,000 years we have lived in an intuitive environment and over about the last 200 years we have lived in a counter-intuitive environment and now, just now, we are moving into an intuitive environment once again.

And because we are half way between a counter-intuitive environment and the new intuitive environment, we quite naturally can't make up our minds. And it is this uncertainty that gives rise to Relativism - after all, things look relative.

And they only look relative because our environment is changing.

But as you know, all environments are invisible and now our present enviroment is becoming visible - so what will be our new invisible environment - I don't know.

But my guess is Presence.

Victor.

 

[Geoff]

Eh, I'm probably going to regret replying to this. Wandering's POV is mostly closely aligned to mine. The 'absolute morality' idea kinda sickens me. I share a lot of those 'absolute moralities' but I'm very much aware that it's the result of my culture. If I was brought up in any other society or culture now, or in the past, I know that my personal morality would be very different to what I have now.

It's part of the feeling connected to the past and now. 'Others' aren't alien - they're us, but with a different environment that moulded their brains in particular ways. In my opinion, you can't truly understand others until you at least suspend all the baggage you have from your own culture and try to picture what it would be like to be them through their eyes, not yours. Understanding that we're all human, all the same underneath, is part of being human. For me. (so sayeth the atheist moral relativist)



Exactly.

(and I am amused at some level that everyone can somehow agree with this, even though they disagree with everyone else /end badly worded ramble)

Nah, not badly worded at all, quite a helpful ramble. This is exactly how I feel. The difficulty in discussing all of this is that some people want a "why morals at all" conversation, and others will see this as an attack on their personal morals. To me it seems self evident that morals are a result of our upbringing and social moulding!