What is "moral relativism"?

[Upchurch]

...or rather, what isn't moral relativism?

Listening, as I sometimes do, to conservative talk radio, I occasionally hear the term "moral relativism" thrown around. Generally, it is used to describe liberals and meant to show their weak moral character.

However, isn't all morality relative? Even within most religions there are rarely any moral absolutes. In Christianity, for example, it is sometimes okay to kill depending on the circumstances.

So, does "moral relativism" have any actual meaning or is basically redundant?

[mummymonkey]

It does seem to get flung around as a kind insult. It is a hard position to maintain though and I doubt that anybody truly believes that all notions of what's right and wrong are acceptable.
If we found a previously unknown village in the Andes where they practiced human sacrifice would we allow it to continue? Should we? If we should then why not in Washington or London?

[Dancing David]

As was discussed in the Incest thread and many others. morals are relative and personal, they are defined by our cultures and ourselves.

There are those who are very uncomfortable with this stance, they want to believe that morals are absolute and always true.

Generaly this is code for: homo phobia and anti abortion.

As was discussed most recently in the Rape thread, there can be acts which are always wrong but considered moral in thier cultural context. Like certain Xians in Colorado who think it is pkay to be polygamists and force fourteen year old girls to be thier wives. i view it a child rape, they view it as sanctioned marriage.

[frisian]

It is redundant and I would think similiar to situational ethics.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Upchurch
...or rather, what isn't moral relativism?

Listening, as I sometimes do, to conservative talk radio, I occasionally hear the term "moral relativism" thrown around. Generally, it is used to describe liberals and meant to show their weak moral character.

However, isn't all morality relative? Even within most religions there are rarely any moral absolutes. In Christianity, for example, it is sometimes okay to kill depending on the circumstances.

So, does "moral relativism" have any actual meaning or is basically redundant?


Are not conservative talk radio host and followers engaged in or support what is "moral relativism"?

“ drug addicts should all be put in jail” Rush

Thou shall not kill, unless there is oil profit involved or you wish to be the Governor with the record for executing the most inmates ever?

Thou shall not lie, unless you need to? etc

[hammegk]

I'd say moral relativists believe a man's actions (stemming from thoughts, donchaknow) are controlled not by the man himself, but by societal influences "Beyond his control".

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Are not conservative talk radio host and followers engaged in or support what is "moral relativism"?Well, I was shooting for more of a philosophical discussion on the nature morality and wondering if there was a context in which "moral relativism" had any real meaning rather than delving into a political discussion about meangingless insults that particians throw at one another and their hypocracy in doing so.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk
I'd say moral relativists believe a man's actions (stemming from thoughts, donchaknow) are controlled not by the man himself, but by societal influences "Beyond his control". That's not a context that I'm familiar with concerning the phrase. Can you give an example?

[The idea]

Even within most religions there are rarely any moral absolutes. In Christianity, for example, it is sometimes okay to kill depending on the circumstances.


What does that have to do with moral relativism?

It should be possible to distinguish between:
(a) One set of moral rules that is more complicated than you expected; and
(b) The claim that there are various, alternative sets of moral rules that produce mutually incompatible results and that all the results are equally legitimate.

Here is an astronomical analogy:

(a) Revolution of Large and Medium satellites: Direct (same direction as the planets) except Triton.

Now, you could try to use the existence of an "astronomical exception" to support the 1984 O'Brien point of view:

(b) "What are the stars? They are bits of fire a few kilometers away. [...] For certain purpose, of course, that is not true. When we navigate the ocean, or when we predict an eclipse, we often find it convenient to assume that the earth goes round the sun and that the stars are millions upon millions of kilometres away. But what of it? Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy? The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them. Do you suppose our mathematicians are unequal to it? Have you forgotten doublethink?"

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by The idea

What does that have to do with moral relativism?So, is there any such thing as moral relativism, then? Or is anything that is label morally relative simply not understood in its complexity?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Upchurch
That's not a context that I'm familiar with concerning the phrase. Can you give an example?

Perhaps he means "there is no form of free will TLOP made me do it'

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Perhaps he means "there is no form of free will TLOP made me do it' In which case, morality would be moot. Or, at least, the responsibility for immoral acts would be non-existant, I suppose.

[slimshady2357]

Upster, it just means that you don't believe that ther is some absolute source for morality (or I would prefer ethics).

If you believe that what is right and wrong is dictated by God, for instance, then you are not a moral relativist. If you believe that all men are born with a list of certain 'rights' that are unquestionable, then you are not a moral relativist.

Make sense?

You are an ethical relativist if you think all ethics are based on environment and upbringing.

You could be a combination of both.... well you would be an absolutist for some ethical questions and a relativist for others.

But your example of killing be allowed for some reasons in Christianity misses the mark. There would be a definite answer of what is right for every situation, and all the answers would come from God.

Adam

[The idea]

Originally posted by Upchurch
So, is there any such thing as moral relativism, then? Or is anything that is labelled morally relative simply not understood in its complexity?

Even within most religions there are rarely any moral absolutes. In Christianity, for example, it is sometimes okay to kill depending on the circumstances.
This is not an example of moral relativism. This simply indicates that the Christian rule on killing is more complicated than a blanket condemnation. That's hardly surprising. For example, war heroes who kill enemy soldiers in battle are not subject to criminal penalties for such killings.

Moral relativism is this:
The claim that various, alternative sets of moral rules that produce mutually incompatible results are all equally legitimate sets of moral rules.

You can probably find a mathematical crank who, when backed into a corner, will defend a "proof" by saying "well, it works for me."

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Upchurch
In which case, morality would be moot. Or, at least, the responsibility for immoral acts would be non-existant, I suppose.

So it would seem.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


Perhaps he means "there is no form of free will TLOP made me do it'

No, that's the materialist/atheist view, apparently your view (and Uppie's I guess): certainly not mine. Free will would be a bitch for ya'all, wouldn't it?

Example? Sure:

Homosex: Libs; as ok as all else-- let's teach "the kids" that lifestyle is as societally advantageous as any other and that private acts have no societal (adverse) consequences.

Non-libs: private acts may well have adverse consequences imposed by society, and among other choices celibacy is available.

Originally posted by Upchurch

In which case, morality would be moot. Or, at least, the responsibility for immoral acts would be non-existant, I suppose.

You got the materialist/atheist view down, anyway. ;)

[Upchurch]

Okay, maybe the killing thing was a bad example, but it seems to me that a commandment like Exodus 20:13Thou shalt not kill. (no stipulations given) is basically inconsistant with, say, Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.Now, based on your definition:Originally posted by The Idea

The claim that various, alternative sets of moral rules that produce mutually incompatible results are all equally legitimate sets of moral rules.This seems to fit the defintion of moral relativism. In one instance, we are told that we are not allowed to kill and in another we are told that we are allowed to kill in a specific circumstance. That seems to fit the bill.

Worse, however, it is logically inconsistant:

Rule 1: ~kill
Rule 2: if adultry, then kill

But that's another thread topic.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

You got the materialist/atheist view down, anyway. ;) Calm down, hammie. It was an "if, then" statement. I was just saying that if Pahansiri's guess was correct, then my question was pointless. That's all. Not everything is about materialism/immaterialism. You're as polarizing about that issue as many talk show hosts are about being liberal/conservative.
Example? Sure:

Homosex: Libs; as ok as all else-- let's teach "the kids" that lifestyle is as societally advantageous as any other and that private acts have no societal (adverse) consequences.

Non-libs: private acts may well have adverse consequences imposed by society, and among other choices celibacy is available. I still don't understand. What you've presented are two different views by two different groups of people on one subject. Wouldn't moral relativism refer to inconsistant opinions on a moral subject based on the circumstances by a single group of people? For example, if liberals thought female homosexuality were okay but male homosexuality was not.

I'm not saying that's the case, just trying to make an example.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Upchurch
a commandment like
"Thou shalt not kill" (no stipulations given)
is inconsistent with, say,
"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

Now, this seems to fit the definition of moral relativism. In one instance, we are told that we are not allowed to kill and in another we are told that we are allowed to kill in a specific circumstance.

Given that those rules were actually enforced somewhere, it is fairly obvious that either some kind of stipulation needs to be added to the first rule you quoted or some kind of reformulation is required.

This is a matter of communication. Some people repeat the word "not" for emphasis, but you typically can tell the difference between emphasis and denial.

Consider this explanation of leap years:

(1) If the year is divisible by 4 then it's a leap year.
(2) However, if the year is divisible by 100 then it's not a leap year.
(3) On the other hand, if the year is divisible by 400 then it actually is a leap year after all.

Now, technically that may involve a contradiction, but the above formulation may be clearer than a single legalistic statement.

[spejic]

Originally posted by The idea
Now, technically that may involve a contradiction, but the above formulation may be clearer than a single legalistic statement. The problem is that after you follow all the rules for determining a leap year (even if there is a temporary inconsistency), you end up with a certain judgement of leap-yearness or not. But you can read the Bible and still end up uncertain if you are supposed to do a certain action or not.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Upchurch
...or rather, what isn't moral relativism?

Listening, as I sometimes do, to conservative talk radio, I occasionally hear the term "moral relativism" thrown around. Generally, it is used to describe liberals and meant to show their weak moral character.

However, isn't all morality relative? Even within most religions there are rarely any moral absolutes. In Christianity, for example, it is sometimes okay to kill depending on the circumstances.

So, does "moral relativism" have any actual meaning or is basically redundant?

All morality is relative to the holy text of your choice.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by The idea

Consider this explanation of leap years: Fair enough, but it leads me back to my original question, what is moral relativism? Your definition sounds good, but can you provide an example that cannot be explained away as a modification rather than a contradiction of another moral rule or law?

If there is no real example that matches your definition, then moral relativism (as far as you have defined it) is only a hypothetical notion, is it not?

[The idea]

Originally posted by spejic
The problem is that after you follow all the rules for determining a leap year (even if there is a temporary inconsistency), you end up with a certain judgement of leap-yearness or not. But you can read the Bible and still end up uncertain if you are supposed to do a certain action or not.
I'm not going to try to defend the entire Bible, but the specific example that was put forward was begging for a consistent interpretation.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Fair enough, but it leads me back to my original question, what is moral relativism? Your definition sounds good, but can you provide an example that cannot be explained away as a modification rather than a contradiction of another moral rule or law?

If there is no real example that matches your definition, then moral relativism (as far as you have defined it) is only a hypothetical notion, is it not?

Maybe you missed my earlier post, or maybe it didn't address the question you're asking, I don't know.

But you seem to be thinking that the term applies to a particular moral question, like "Is abortion ok?".

I think the term moral relativist can be applied in singular situations, but in general it just means that you don't believe there are absolute answers to moral questions. Which isn't to say just that all moral questions are context specific, it means much more than that.

Consider the question "killing people is wrong", both an ethical relativist and an absolutist could agree that the statement is too vague and needs to be more specific. "what about killing someone in self-defense?" they could both ask.

The difference comes in why they answer either 'right' or 'wrong' to any specific question. An absolutist will believe that there is some absolute source for the answer (say, God, or unquestionable 'rights'). A relativist thinks the answer depends on what culture you were raised in and what the preferences of the time-period were like.

I can never tell if I'm making sense as I write, that's a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad thing :D

I hope that helps a little.

Adam

[The idea]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Fair enough, but it leads me back to my original question, what is moral relativism?
Here's an example of moral relativism: the belief that a given country's laws are automatically legitimate in that country.

For example, suppose the law says that if someone tells other people about a dream in which you are future leader of the country, then you must go to jail. Here are words in support of that version of moral relativism: (1) Since there are no moral absolutes, the only thing we can go by is the law; (2) Well, if you are so innocent, then why wasn't the person dreaming about someone else as the future leader? (3) We are devoted to our current leader and we will not tolerate the idea of the leader being replaced by you or anyone else.

On the other hand, you might believe that there are some moral absolutes:
(1) You are not responsible for someone else's actions except, perhaps, if that person is your agent or child or you incited that person's actions, etc.
(2) The content of a dream is not, in itself, justification for anyone to be punished since dreams are involuntary.
(3) For you to appear in a dream does not involve any action or negligence on your part, so it cannot be a basis for you to be punished.

[Dancing David]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hammegk


No, that's the materialist/atheist view, apparently your view (and Uppie's I guess): certainly not mine. Free will would be a bitch for ya'all, wouldn't it?

QUOTE]

I asume that you are just being hyperbolic today. that i am aware of there are many materialists who believe in free will. Or is that you making materialists fit into your PC bed?

There are no absolute morals hamme, i would like to see your proof of them if they do exist, and will await my education.

To all:

Take the sixth comandement: Thou shall not kill.

(I have seen many different translations of this term, kill, but lets take it as it stands).

It says thou shalt not kill, there are no exception listed in this particular version. So you may not kill criminals, and you may not kill the enemy and you may not kill animals. That is what the comandment says in this version.
But I am quite sure that there are those who relativize this comandment and say, well it says thou shalt not commit murder.

So moral relativity is built into all morals systems.

Why condemn homosexuality, we don't really know what god thinks and therefore god may have created homosexuals just as they are.

So are we to follow the Bible and say that a woman shall submit to her husband? Another oft cited biblical quote: I guess it is okay gor her to be raped by him because that is submission and that it is okay for her to be beat by him. More fine morals.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David
......i am aware of there are many materialists who believe in free will. Or is that you making materialists fit into your PC bed?
Does a "belief" in free will make it so? Materialists/atheists have no mechanism to suugest it being possible: determinism vs random chance are their only choices, so far as I've ever seen.



There are no absolute morals hamme, i would like to see your proof of them if they do exist, and will await my education.



As I await your education as to the meaning of randomness (for a start) and then the discussion of free will in a materialist/atheist world.

As to absolute morals, I agree they exist only momentarily and at the societal level; change is usually slow as I read history. Societies that do not share an agreed moral basis don't seem to be longer-term winners in the overall scheme of humanity imo.

As I've also mentioned ad nauseum, a preisthood who can point to a greater-than-man source of a moral code has a way of enforcing that code with minimum physical violence; a society can otherwise can achieve adherence only by ongoing use of raw force by the current power structure.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk

Does a "belief" in free will make it so? Materialists/atheists have no mechanism to suugest it being possible: determinism vs random chance are their only choices, so far as I've ever seen.

That is very similar to the argument that Wraith used in the fatalism thread. I would suggest that while Wraith chose to view it that way, that is not the way that materialists view it.

I can not prove free will anymore than Wriath was able to disprove it. I would say that the element of random in the human system leads to quasi-random behavior. I can not believe in absolute determinism for a number of reasons:
a. the interaction of so many parts leads to chaotic interactions where a small change in initial conditions leads to a wide variety of potential outcomes
b. Having worked with humans wanting to make changes in thier lives, I have seen a process where by making small choices in the moment a person can have an effect on thier outer and inner determinants.

The mechanisms for a materialist free will were presented to Wraith, he didn't like them either.


As I await your education as to the meaning of randomness (for a start) and then the discussion of free will in a materialist/atheist world.


Random is such a cool thing, but often it is more a product of the chaotic interaction of the parts. One of the stumbling blocks is that true random will still create percievable patterns. A random system does not have to be an evenly distributed one. It can have clusters of outcomes and patterns.

I would say that random would be a undetermined system, where from a set of initial conditions a definable outcome can not be predicted.

Brownian motion is the best one I can think of, although I am aware of the omniscence argument.


As to absolute morals, I agree they exist only momentarily and at the societal level; change is usually slow as I read history. Societies that do not share an agreed moral basis don't seem to be longer-term winners in the overall scheme of humanity imo.


I would suggest that all societies have self cohesive morals, and that therefore they are rising and falling based upon other conditions.


As I've also mentioned ad nauseum, a preisthood who can point to a greater-than-man source of a moral code has a way of enforcing that code with minimum physical violence; a society can otherwise can achieve adherence only by ongoing use of raw force by the current power structure.

Interesting idea, and not one that I agree with on the surface.
My first thought is that society is held together by the acts of the individuals, not by the priesthood, they are very similar to 'petty chieftans' in pre agrarian societies.

As for the use of ongoing force, political structures do that any how and have ofeten subverted the religous political structure.

It is a great idea however. Bears thinking upon.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk


No, that's the materialist/atheist view, apparently your view (and Uppie's I guess): certainly not mine. Free will would be a bitch for ya'all, wouldn't it?

Example? Sure:

Homosex: Libs; as ok as all else-- let's teach "the kids" that lifestyle is as societally advantageous as any other and that private acts have no societal (adverse) consequences.

Non-libs: private acts may well have adverse consequences imposed by society, and among other choices celibacy is available.


You got the materialist/atheist view down, anyway. ;)




Greetings my friend hammegk.

I have not seen you in some time and hope you are well and happy.

No, that's the materialist/atheist view, apparently your view (and Uppie's I guess): certainly not mine.


LOL my great friend I can not speak for “Uppie” or anyone else and for sue not materialist/atheist as you should know I am not one. I am Buddhist remember while I am atheist ( well until you can prove to me the existence of a God or Gods and at that time I will no longer be an atheist) I am not a materialist/ atheist.

Now as to that being my view please again allow me to post your statement;

hammegk wrote:

I'd say moral relativists believe a man's actions (stemming from thoughts, donchaknow) are controlled not by the man himself, but by societal influences "Beyond his control".

Now you say here that “moral relativists” believe that their actions are not controlled by the man but by some outside force.

But do not you as one who believes in no form of free will and that TLOP control all things believe the same?

Sure you do.

You can not have it both ways.

If there is no form of free will i.e. thought and resulting actions as TLOP and fate control all mans actions they how is the man responsible for his actions?

Have you really thought out what you believe?


Will you go to court when you get a ticket and demand you are innocent because TLOP made you park in a no parking or handicapped zone?

Hmmm what will the judge say?

May I ask with great respect what Law of Physics made you park in a no parking zone?

Allow me to ask this in hope you will answer all my questions as I answer yours.

If you have a little girl, we will say 10. You call her over to the china cabinet and take her hand forcing her to lift into the air a most expensive and treasured plate. You then force her hand down at great speed smashing the plate against the table breaking into many small pieces.

Do you then punish her? Is it “her” fault or yours?

I look forward to your answers on all my points and questions so as we can conduct a respectful logical examination of thoughts and beliefs as friends.



Free will would be a bitch for ya'all, wouldn't it?

Are you still struggling with your anger issues? No need to be angry we are friends sharing thoughts.


Now why would free will be a bitch for me ?

Do you know how I view “free will”?

First before I again tell you how I see “free will” allow me to say your believe of no free will is what I, just personally would call a Beyoch.

As to your belief a child is born, someone’s baby under complete control he grows and as to no fault of his own kills 10 little girls. It was also not the little girls fault no their families, TLOP has decided that they must die and TLOP would make this poor man do it. They are dead and not this man will be executed, many thousands of volts run through his body until after great pain he is dead.

It seems TLOP and your God are cruel puppet masters does it not?


Now as to my belief of “free will”.

Too many look at things and see only black and white where no exist at all.

It is not all and complete free will that is illogical. It is not all and complete “fate” that is illogical.

Truth can always be found in the middle of extremes. Do causes and conditions in a persons life have a “ controlling factor”.

Oh yes from a very slight to perhaps a great controlling factor.

All things all events are the result of causes and conditions. But the bottom line as to most cases of actions ( karma intentional actions) the mind is the forerunner of all actions.

'The mind is the forerunner of all actions. All deeds, good or bad, are led by mind, created by mind. If one speaks or acts with a corrupt mind, suffering follows, as a wheel follows the hoof of an ox pulling a cart. If one speaks or acts with a serene mind, happiness follows as surely as one's shadow follows one on a bright day.'

Again if you can tell me what was the exact law of physics that made you park in the no parking zone we can discuses this more.

As to a “all” free will belief that too is illogical. Using again the killer of the girls, what of their free will not to be killed and the free will of their families?


Example? Sure:

Homosex: Libs; as ok as all else-- let's teach "the kids" that lifestyle is as societally advantageous as any other and that private acts have no societal (adverse) consequences.

Hmmmm do you know all “Homosex: Libs;” ?

You know all and every one of them and what they “believe” and or think or do?

Silliness.

Your bigotry is showing but also your illogical thought. Allow me to demonstrate.

1- IF TLOP control all things and all is fate then these “Homosex: Libs;” do not THINK or TEACH or believe anything. They are doing what TLOP demands.
2- You saying they choose to “teach anything” requires thoughts and choices and actions of their choosing.
3- If you were right they have no choice and are just pupputs doing the masters bidding so relax and don’t make the master angry, no wait are you just expressing your free will, thoughts etc to get angry and be prejudice?
4- Remember if these people are “Homosex: Libs;” it is because your God made them that way and who are you to question God?
5- Wait you have no free will so you have no ability to question or any ability at all.

You are contradicting yourself.

Non-libs: private acts may well have adverse consequences imposed by society, and among other choices celibacy is available.

LOL, now really do you think out what you say before you say it?

choices

choices= free will.

If these people are controlled by God/TLOP so “he” made them gay, right? If not he is not all powerful and in control and there is a form, of free will.

Now relax and think out what you believe and say.:rub:




You got the materialist/atheist view down, anyway. ;)

And again you are wrong..:rub:

Be well my friend and good to see you again.
:biggrin:

[Soapy Sam]

Is a "moral relativist" not someone who appreciates that many of society's rules and assumptions are arbitrary? He then leans over backward to accept that the assumptions and values of other cultures are as "valid" as those of his own culture. This of course is false, as the values and assumptions to a great extent ARE the other culture and cannot be meaningfully transferred.

So long as cultures are geographically isolate, all is well.

It can be entertaining, for example, to watch the hierarchy of the Church of England trying to equate religious brotherhood and morality, particularly when discussing Islamic fundamentalists who would cheerfully consign them to hell.

I actually find the odd moral fanatic (of whatever stamp) quite refreshing. At least he ain't wishy washy.

[Zero]

While there may be a useful context for the phrase "moral relativism", the term is meaningless when used by talk radio hosts...



Actually, their use of the term is really an example of moral relativism, if you think about it, since the standard is only applied to people they disagree with. :D

[hammegk]

You set up straw-men & chop 'em down as well as most.

Too bad you don't understand my position on the matters some of us are discussing. Care to try again?

"Be well" yourself. :)

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk
You set up straw-men & chop 'em down as well as most.

Too bad you don't understand my position on the matters some of us are discussing. Care to try again?

"Be well" yourself. :)

You are a very lovely dancer.

I am sure it is not your fault you did not answer even one question or address one point, it is my fault you can not answer, that is it you are not to blame I made you not answer.

No wait. It was TLOP that stops you from answering.

Fear not I nor I fear no one really expected you to be honest nor mature and answer. It is not your fault really it is clear you do not really know what you believe so to ask you to defend it is illogical on my part really.

Be well my friend.
:)

[hammegk]

Your major problem imo is comprehension, not logic.

If you think I believe *I* am controlled by TLOP, and that *I* have at best compatabilist "free-will", what is there for us to discuss, since *I* hold the opposite of both positions?

My turn for a question then. If you are atheist, yet not a materialist/atheist, what philosophy do you hold regarding the mind-body problem?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk
Your major problem imo is comprehension, not logic.

If you think I believe *I* am controlled by TLOP, and that *I* have at best compatabilist "free-will", what is there for us to discuss, since *I* hold the opposite of both positions?

My turn for a question then. If you are atheist, yet not a materialist/atheist, what philosophy do you hold regarding the mind-body problem?

Hello my friend.


Your major problem imo is comprehension, not logic.

My friend I comprehend well your statements move wildly around and greatly so you refuse to answer any questions.



If you think I believe *I* am controlled by TLOP, and that *I* have at best compatabilist "free-will", what is there for us to discuss, since *I* hold the opposite of both positions?


I am sure by compatabilist you mean Compatibilist.

Compatibility meaning you are “1. Capable of existing or performing in harmonious, agreeable, or congenial combination with another or others: compatible family relationships.”

Well as to this site your anger would say you are not capable of Compatibility.

Allow me to ask, do you believe in any form of free will if not please simply answer my questions. Simple really.



My turn for a question then. If you are atheist, yet not a materialist/atheist, what philosophy do you hold regarding the mind-body problem?

No, no, no. You have not answered any questions, now you know I always do so be so kind as to return my respect and answer mind, each one then I will answer yours for you.

A hint, read up on Buddhism you will see we see no problem at all. Knowledge is power.

Again relax and stop acting with such anger we should be all friends and share.

You remind me of a saying by the Buddha. when one is afraid, they are always so offensive about it. [Buddha]

[hammegk]

Try asking an actual question. Rhetorical nonsense about "oh, my friend, how can you speak for every person in class x" is wearing thin. Understanding is first is it not? Purpose next of course, and I have yet to see any purpose in your queries -- other than nit-picking rather addressing issues.

BTW, thanks for spellng corection.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk
Try asking an actual question. Rhetorical nonsense about "oh, my friend, how can you speak for every person in class x" is wearing thin. Understanding is first is it not? Purpose next of course, and I have yet to see any purpose in your queries -- other than nit-picking rather addressing issues.

BTW, thanks for spellng corection.

yet another fine dance yet no attempet to answer even one.

Question, what is you fear?

What I believe is old is your silly attempt to avoid answering questions by attempting to say the questions are flawed, etc… So transparent and immature. It reminds me of Pee wee Herman yelling “ I know you are but what am I, “ I know you are but what am I”




You failed even to give a yes or no to my simple question in my last post i.e.


Allow me to ask, do you believe in any form of free will if not please simply answer my questions.

As to my pointing out the flaws in your sweeping statements, do not let truth make you angry.

Now come on lets both be adults and really debate, go back to my post and answer the questions.

Your game of ‘skirting” around defending baseless beliefs then back peddling when confronted and saying you are not here to defend your beliefs is getting old and silly.

Make a stand tell us what you believe and then defend it.

Be well.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


Make a stand tell us what you believe and then defend it.

I have. Sorry you can't seem to grasp any of the concepts.



Be well.

You too, and that will be all from me to you in this thread. TTFN.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk

I have. Sorry you can't seem to grasp any of the concepts.




You too, and that will be all from me to you in this thread. TTFN.

I understand your reluctance to answer even the most simple question or to make a stand and really say what it is you believe and then try to defend it.


I would not ask an elephant to fly like a bird so I will not ask you to do what you can not..:rub:
Be well


I like the Tigger TTFN..

[Krandal2]

Upchurch

As far as I can tell the Ethical Theory of Moral Relativism was invented/discovered by the anthropologist Ruth Benedict, who in her work "Anthropology And The Abnormal" made the observation that throughout most societies "Morality" was simply a set of behaviors customs and norms that within that are considered acceptable within that society, and that moral principles and laws of that society are for the most part simply ad hoc justifications for what is already considered acceptable.

Now Im not sure how well this relates to conservatives who accuse liberals of having weak moral character, but if you asked an ethical philosopher for a brief definition of "Moral Relativism" I think this is what you would get.

[Upchurch]

Thanks, Krandal2.

To be honest, I lost track of the discussion, but your definition from Benedict is approximately what thought moral relativism was. Or, at least, it is a different take on the idea that in a world with no moral absolutes, moral relativism is redundant.

As for its use as an insult, my guess is that one must assume that those who use the term (mostly conservative talk show hosts in my experience) are assuming or implying that there are moral absolutes. In which case, were that true, moral relativism would be something to look down on, I suppose. But, of course, such an implication would be an argument from ignorance.

[Christian]

Upchurch wrote:
In which case, morality would be moot. Or, at least, the responsibility for immoral acts would be non-existant, I suppose.

hammegk wrote:
You got the materialist/atheist view down, anyway.

I argued this point in a thread, morality is irrelevant if you are an materialist/atheist.


Pahansiri wrote:
Again relax and stop acting with such anger we should be all friends and share.

You call the guy a bigot and you expect him to be nice and friendly? Hey, you have to read your tone, it is pompous, self-righteous, and hypocritical. I didn’t know you wrote this way. I don’t buy your friendliness at all in this thread. You are behaving like a lot of posters here that only come to feel important at the expense of others. It is transparent, evident. I hope you are mature enough to see that.


You are a very lovely dancer.

I am sure it is not your fault you did not answer even one question or address one point, it is my fault you can not answer, that is it you are not to blame I made you not answer.

No wait. It was TLOP that stops you from answering.

Fear not I nor I fear no one really expected you to be honest nor mature and answer. It is not your fault really it is clear you do not really know what you believe so to ask you to defend it is illogical on my part really.

Be well my friend.


By the way, I can debate you and answer your questions. Hammegk position is very consistent in my book.

[Krandal2]

Upchurch

To be honest, I lost track of the discussion but your definition from Benedict is approximately what thought moral relativism was. Or, at least, it is a different take on the idea that in a world with no moral absolutes, moral relativism is redundant.

hmmm that depends on how broadly you define moral absolutes.
If by moral absolutes you mean 'absolute moral laws' (as you implied in your original post) then I disagree. A person can keep from believing in absolute moral laws and still fall short of being a moral relativist. Utilitarians for instance, recognize no absolute moral laws, but rather judge an action by its consequences, namely, how much pleasure or pain it causes overall, and they are not moral relativists in the sense that I used the term.

If instead by 'no moral absolutes' you mean 'no absolutes in morality whatsoever' (including the principles and standards assumed by utilitarianism or any other theory of ethics) then I agree.

As for its use as an insult, my guess is that one must assume that those who use the term (mostly conservative talk show hosts in my experience) are assuming or implying that there are moral absolutes. In which case, were that true, moral relativism would be something to look down on, I suppose. But, of course, such an implication would be an argument from ignorance.

The funny thing about this is that most conservative talk show hosts (at least in my experience), give very shoddy reasons for supporting the prejudices, customs, values etc. that are already established in society and considered acceptable. In other words
they are behaving exactly as a 'real' moral relativist would predict, while all the while condemning moral relativism! (to be fair liberals generally act the same way, for although they tend to argue for change instead of preservation those changes tend to
reflect norms and values that have already been accepted by large portions of society [especially amoung the young] but have yet to be assimilated by existing institutions, I somehow doubt
a liberal talk show host (if indeed one exists :D] would spend as much time ranting about the evils of moral relativism!)

Christian

You may not recall, but we once had a discussion about morality, where you claimed that a person should never commit an act that may cause any amount of harm unless absolutly necessary, wheras I argued that the degree to which someone should hold themselves responsible for the possible harm their actions cause should be measured by the degree of this possible harm, and the degree to which they can predict that the harm will occur. Assuming you still hold your position, and assuming that I can find the old thread and we can pick up where we left off, would you like to pursue it?

[The idea]

Originally posted by Krandal2
The funny thing about this is that most conservative talk show hosts (at least in my experience), give very shoddy reasons for supporting the prejudices, customs, values etc. that are already established in society and considered acceptable. In other words
they are behaving exactly as a 'real' moral relativist would predict, while all the while condemning moral relativism!
You make it sound as though a moral relativist is someone who has a hypothesis about human psychology.

Isn't there a distinction between knowing a system and how to apply it and knowing about how to justify the system itself? For example, isn't there a difference between a doctor and a medical researcher or an auto mechanic and an engineer?

Originally posted by Krandal2
A person can keep from believing in absolute moral laws and still fall short of being a moral relativist. Utilitarians for instance, recognize no absolute moral laws, but rather judge an action by its consequences [...] and they are not moral relativists in the sense that I used the term.

That's an insightful observation.

[Krandal2]

The Idea

You make it sound as though a moral relativist is someone who has a hypothesis about human psychology.

If you read my first post to Upchurch, I think you'll find that thats loosely what I beleive moral relativism originaly was.



Isn't there a distinction between knowing a system and how to apply it and knowing about how to justify the system itself? For example, isn't there a difference between a doctor and a medical researcher or an auto mechanic and an engineer?


This is itself an insightful observation, and related to a criticism that many make about moral relativism; namely that it has nothing to say about what determines if an action is right or wrong (in the 'ought' sense), but is simply an anthropological observation, and therefore doesn't truly qualify as a ethical theory.

(To put it simpler, moral relativism only attempts to explain why certain actions are considered right or wrong, and unlike other theories of ethics has nothing to say about whether certain actions are right or wrong)

Ive heard it suggested though, that moral relativism could meet this qualification, by applying the morality of the society to its members. In other words whether an action is right or wrong would be decided by whether the action is considered right or wrong within the society in which it was commited. The problem with this is that such judgments do not follow naturally from (and are not assumed by) the theory itself and are unecessary for maintaining it.

Also, incidently, in this case Moral Relativism would lose its right to be synomymous with 'no moral absolutes' (in the broad sense).

[Christian]

Krandal2 wrote:
You may not recall, but we once had a discussion about morality, where you claimed that a person should never commit an act that may cause any amount of harm unless absolutly necessary, wheras I argued that the degree to which someone should hold themselves responsible for the possible harm their actions cause should be measured by the degree of this possible harm, and the degree to which they can predict that the harm will occur. Assuming you still hold your position, and assuming that I can find the old thread and we can pick up where we left off, would you like to pursue it?

I don't recall. Sure, if you can find the thread, maybe we can pick up where we left off.

[bjornart]

"Moral relativist" is human language, and as such subject to interpretation. There's the technical definition, which is boring, and then there's the definition "someone who thinks something they themselves consider bad has to be accepted because it is part of someone elses culture".
I assume that when religious conservatives in the US use it as a derogatory term they mean "Someone who doesn't want to convert all the heathens", which is silly, but it's in use (validly in my opinion) here in debates concerning the practices of other cultures. For instance female circumsicion. Someone who can say "Yes, it's very bad, and the parents should be punished, _but_ it's their culture" is a moral relativist, but possibly of a different kind than the technically defined one.

[gnome]

Originally posted by The idea
Here's an example of moral relativism: the belief that a given country's laws are automatically legitimate in that country.

For example, suppose the law says that if someone tells other people about a dream in which you are future leader of the country, then you must go to jail. Here are words in support of that version of moral relativism: (1) Since there are no moral absolutes, the only thing we can go by is the law; (2) Well, if you are so innocent, then why wasn't the person dreaming about someone else as the future leader? (3) We are devoted to our current leader and we will not tolerate the idea of the leader being replaced by you or anyone else.

Proposition (1) is inconsistent with moral relativism as I see it--it says, "There are no moral absolutes, so let's pretend there are by defining it according to law." ... nonsense.

Proposition (2) assumes the truth of the supernatural, and is based on that assumption, rather than moral philosophy.

Proposition (3) is a political statement, not a moralistic one.

Most moral positivists believe it is easy to distinguish right from wrong--they're right and you're wrong.

My take on the issue? I believe morals are generally relative... but there are some that are so universal they approach the absolute. Enough that one can condemn murderers and rapists and tyrants without being a hypocrite.

Most people that believe morals are not absolute, don't just give up on the idea of morality altogether... in fact they may dwell on it more than some "positivist" that has their favorite rules of thumb to respond by.

[WonderfulWorld]

"Moral Relativism" and "Moral Subjectivism" are frequently confused in vernacular conversation. I'm never quite sure what a speaker (esp. on the radio) means by the term.

[daenku32]

What they mean:

"How do these people DARE to question God's will [as it's defined by our Religion and our personal motives]!"

They are just upset that people won't follow them Religiously. It's a Preachiness-complex.