Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

@maxdancona,

Your ideas are bit in conflict; morals and diamonds cannot be compared in any sense of human value. Morals has to do with intercourse with other humans and living things. Diamonds are just a stone, and it has no value except for the people who are willing to pay money for it. What's the difference between a $100 diamond and a $1 million dollar diamond? Where and how does morals fit in? It can't.

Morals has as many varieties as one wishes to classify. Why is it that the morals of a culture or any group can be in conflict with itself?

Example; a culture based on one or more religions may seem to have some level of moral standard, but why is it that those same groups can treat others in their group with enough hate to kill them? Is killing morally wrong for all societies except in cases of self-defense?

What is morals? Can there be such a thing as a standard of behavior that satisfies all cultures, countries, peoples?

Is the US a moralistic country? I doubt that very much.

Are the people within it moralistic? In what way? Do these same moralistic people go to war and kill strangers? How about the pilots who just drops their bombs indiscriminately that they know will kill innocent people?

I think the idea of morals is idealistic and not possible. I believe laws has more to do with controlling antisocial behavior within the community, but immoral behavior will go on regardless.

0 Replies

@Arcades,

Arcades wrote:

Seriously frank , I Can't reply to a thread without you replying negatively right after?

Make a clear, unambiguous comment about something, Arcades. Pick the single thing you consider the most important part of your thesis...and state it without all the nonsense you think makes you sound exceptionally intelligent.

I will respond.

If you want to spout nonsense...I will reply in what you see as a negative fashion.

That is how these forums works.

0 Replies

@Arcades,

Arcades wrote:

I'm picturing you now my friend, in a packed townhall back in the 1800's , arguing vehemently that evolution is radical nonsense , the newly initiated towns people cheering in your favour , huxley and Darwin sitting to the side of you , composed but slightly bemused, wondering when are you going to come to terms

I doubt that.

If you presented a coherent argument about something new and radical...I would be receptive. In my opinion, you are spouting nonsense...so I am calling you on it.

Sorry that bothers you.

Perhaps the Internet Forum venue is not the best place for whatever it is you are trying to do.

What is your single most important item in this thesis. Present it in a clear, coherent way.

You will get responses.

0 Replies

I find the default claims of nonsense and poor English common, and tactical . I've shown the exact same excerpt to a number of individuals who were actually taken aback by the pellucidity of my writing,what do you think about that shocker frank?

1 Reply

@Arcades,

Arcades wrote:

I find the default claims of nonsense and poor English common, and tactical . I've shown the exact same excerpt to a number of individuals who were actually taken aback by the pellucidity of my writing,what do you think about that shocker frank?

I think it is more nonsense...and probably a deliberate untruth, Arcades.

To borrow from Howard Cossell...you ought learn to eschew obfuscation.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

All of a sudden this thread is here instead of there , Frank , are you administration?

1 Reply

@Arcades,

Arcades wrote:

All of a sudden this thread is here instead of there , Frank , are you administration?

Not at all, Arcades...and I hope they leave the thread right where you want it. Although I am chiding you for your confusion and lack of coherence, I am enjoying discussing these things with you.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Arcades wrote:

Sociology is very subjective. It is a representation of how we came to realize that our biology in proximities is significant. I say this for there was never an intent on our part to create it . All our set modes of behaviour , everything we expect from life, the very humanitas we self respectingly demand, represents us "becoming" conscious in the universe rather than already being conscious; put it like this : the "social mindness" in totality represents an early juncture of our finishing material relativism toward the rest of the universe. Our improvement requires us to face the deterministic nature of the universe as included in it rather than counterpoised to it. The less counterpoised we become the closer to the ultimate logic of reality we move. We have to understand that our biology preceded cognitive development and that this means psychology and sociology cater to our anatomical state . What I'm sugesting here is that there is something better than "thinking" , better than "biologicalized community"- we can't rationally see ourselves "other" than the totality of reality.

Individualism is psychologic. Community is sociologic. Both will recede as we engage a new human material relativism

Frank Apisa wrote:

If anyone is buying this nonsense...I know several members of the forum have bridges they want to sell.

Some folks like them big words, Frank.
Here's 2 new ones for ya
Flatulent bloviation. . . . . Certainly that would be "something better than "thinking"".

1 Reply

@neologist,

Flatulent bloviation.

Wow...I like 'em, Neo.

And they certainly seem to apply!

0 Replies

Morality can't just be relative, or we would end up fighting. Peace is an example of absolute morality.

1 Reply

@MWal,

MWal wrote:

Morality can't just be relative, or we would end up fighting. Peace is an example of absolute morality.

I can't tell if this is a joke or not. If you meant this as a joke, it is funny. (If not then screw you humorless scum sucker.)

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Peace is bad? What?

2 Replies

@MWal,

So you weren't joking (too bad, because I love irony).

Your statement is ironically funny because, in case you haven't noticed, humans are always fighting with each other (including several bloody wars happening right now).

0 Replies

@MWal,

MWal wrote:

Peace is bad? What?

Most cultures (including my own) accept the idea of a "moral war". We believe that in some situations peace is bad.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

I would say more like dominion is worth fighting for....

1 Reply

@Germlat,

If you can explain the difference between morality and dominion... you would have interesting point.

But that is a very big 'if'.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

No matter what you need some level of peace. At least with your people.

1 Reply

@MWal,

Of course MWal,

Humans are social creatures. We evolved to work together in tribes. Humans tend to support their tribe against all of the other tribes.

Take the Israel/Palestine conflict for example, each side feels morally justified in taking actions that result in civilians and children dying horrible bloody deaths. Each side considers it moral to do to the other side what they would consider immoral if it was done to them.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Not quite the correct relationship. It's actually the Israelis against Hamas with the Palestinians suffering the most casualties. The Palestinians don't have much freedoms, and most of them had their homes stolen or destroyed by the Israelis.

The Israelis feels justified in doing all they are doing, because god gave them the land of Israel.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

You are missing the point Cicerone.

1) Both sides are doing things that I find morally reprehensible (and result in the brutal deaths of children ). Of course this judgement is based on my moral beliefs.

2) Each side feels justified in what they are doing by their own set of moral beliefs.

So, in this case we have three different moral stances...

1 Reply

Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know