28
   

Moral Relativism. It may be right but it must be wrong.

 
 
Antonetta
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2011 12:09 pm
Hate crimes and discrimination exist because they are moral values.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2011 04:02 pm
From the inside a person's morals seem to be absolute, but from the outside morality is relative. Empirically we see that morals exist as aspects of cultural systems. And since there are many cultural systems it follows that morals are relative.
0 Replies
 
scientist12
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Apr, 2013 07:56 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Hi Finn,

Well Newton believed in God, and even stated "The solar system's existence is impossible without a God/Creator".

For believers, the Bible is the book of God. Therefore, all moral law and morality must come from it. Otherwise, we'll all just create our own "Bibles", and have different rules on right and wrong.

Man needs a divine Being, higher than him, to guide him. Thus only God can really give "absolute truths", right and wrong, etc. It's very logical really.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Apr, 2013 08:11 am
@scientist12,
Uh-huh . . . what about believers who don't read the "bible?" What about Muslims, Jains, Parsee, Hindus, Sikhs, etc.?
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Apr, 2013 10:30 am
@scientist12,
Scientist12 states a commonly held view, namely that "Man needs a divine Being, higher than him, to guide him. Thus only God can really give "absolute truths", right and wrong, etc. It's very logical really."

We should be troubled by this declaration of "arrested development." It asserts that we have a permanent need for a "father" to guide us according to values that are absolute by virtues of their parental source. With this perspective "religion" is a force for retardation.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Apr, 2013 11:13 am
@JLNobody,
It certainly seams true to me most humans need guidance parental or not...civilizations are built on that presupposition are they not ? On the contrary the naive idea of ethical and moral autonomy seams anarchically dangerous...God for all practical purposes is a "local authority Institution" for the established ethical guidance in each place with its own mythological view...not needing "God" as a guiding judge would also mean no need for the state nor the formal law system or any other variation of central power...the world is not "NASA" yet, nor it will be anytime soon...
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Apr, 2013 01:30 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
not needing "God" as a guiding judge would also mean no need for the state nor the formal law system or any other variation of central power...


This assertion is a non sequitur. Not needing "God" does not preclude needing a state or formal law system.

The need for a state a/o formal law systems can arise simply out of necessity for such. "God" as a guiding judge is unnecessary in that scenario.
imans
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Apr, 2013 02:54 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Quote:
not needing "God" as a guiding judge would also mean no need for the state nor the formal law system or any other variation of central power...


This assertion is a non sequitur. Not needing "God" does not preclude needing a state or formal law system.

The need for a state a/o formal law systems can arise simply out of necessity for such. "God" as a guiding judge is unnecessary in that scenario.


right, needin god is needing another that can handle everything instead of u, that is why usually who mean to keep callin god are subjects that enjoy having fun as constant way of existing

but who doesnt need a god bc they enjoy being responsable of their moves in life for dealin with objective existence as being truly present
those subjects or more real individuals would constantly look up to realize objective conceptions of everything positive in the need to free themselves from what they already know in order to keep moving on right

this is how western civilisations that broke its kind of reference to god, witness the need to multiply legislations for living rights and objective values protections
while the oriental civilisation still based on believing god, exist always in such archaic ways without order nor laws, where everyone seem to enjoy that god do everything even their language is primitive
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Apr, 2013 05:27 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Quote:
not needing "God" as a guiding judge would also mean no need for the state nor the formal law system or any other variation of central power...


This assertion is a non sequitur. Not needing "God" does not preclude needing a state or formal law system.

The need for a state a/o formal law systems can arise simply out of necessity for such. "God" as a guiding judge is unnecessary in that scenario.

oh dear you are beyond hope...are you so distracted that you can't see the point in my remark ? my assertion is not about God being a true entity but rather on the cultural need for such a referee...the quotations mark there has a purpose !
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Apr, 2013 10:19 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Yeah, I know you meant "God" as an idea. This does not change anything that I've written.

It's not a cultural need for a referee so much as it is an innate sense of morality that has kept humanity from destroying itself. Morality is organic.

The idea of "God"--while being a significant cultural rationalization--is an unnecessary middle man.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Apr, 2013 10:43 pm
@InfraBlue,
NO IT IS NOT ! Unless you don't understand what symbols are for...The State is a Symbol the formal Law another...real power is in social masses behavior and moral and ethics need an anthropomorphized symbol to get close to the masses, a parental figure has done the job well...proof is all around the world as people choose everywhere to believe this parental figure even in remote non contaminated cultures it is an emergent phenomena...it is a pity that outspoken ignoramus atheists don't have the slightest clue zero intuition on why it is so....
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Apr, 2013 10:58 pm
I stand partially corrected. I agree that while religion in its form of institutionalized superstition and origin myths is not something that the most evolved individuals should need for their personal fulfillment, it is functionally essential for the survival and stability of societies (I'm biting my tongue while I write this). After all, there are, as far as I know, no societies without some form of religion (not that all of their individuals participate wholeheartedly in them).
So, one might reasonably argue that their ubuiquity (empirical universality) can be taken as a kind of (perhaps dubious) evidence for their functional necessity.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Apr, 2013 11:13 pm
@JLNobody,
If it makes you feel better (it works with me) thrown away the loaded word religion and replace it for mythology...you can see mythology's everywhere far beyond the religious scope just think of pop stars politicians and even famous scientists like Einstein or Michio kaku...the fact of the matter is that symbols are needed and we have them everywhere...
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Apr, 2013 09:46 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
They are vestiges of the mythopoeic mind.

This is not to downplay the importance they've had in the world's societies and cultures, and the psycho/sociological role they play therein.

In terms of sociology, however, the moral instinct preceeds the mythopoeic mind.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Apr, 2013 10:19 am
@InfraBlue,
No grudge against that...none of it makes symbols any less important, if anything more compelling...
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Apr, 2013 09:40 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Absolutely, without symbols we wouldn't have culture. Symbols themselves are organic begining with language itself--sounds and gestures as representations of other things. We communicate in metaphors.

Are you familiar with the works of the Italian semiotician, Umberto Eco?

If not, among his novels I recommend The Name of the Rose, and of his essays Travels in Hyperreality.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 May, 2013 01:29 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Uh-huh . . . what about believers who don't read the "bible?" What about Muslims, Jains, Parsee, Hindus, Sikhs, etc.?
Are you saying there is a moral absolute, or not?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 May, 2013 09:24 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Well said Fil
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 May, 2013 09:29 pm
@InfraBlue,
The use of the term "vestiges" implies that the "mythopeic mind" is old hat. Do you really believe that?

Please explain how you have come to the conclusion that moral instinct preceeded mythological/religious themes. That would be a neat trick if you could.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 May, 2013 09:32 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil, don't get me wrong. I agree that we live in a symbolic world (one might call it today a virtual reality), indeed one made up almost totally of metaphors: Culture.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

is there a fundamental value that we all share? - Discussion by existential potential
The ethics of killing the dead - Discussion by joefromchicago
Theoretical Question About Extra Terrestrials - Discussion by failures art
The Watchmen Dilemma - Discussion by Sentience
What is your fundamental moral compass? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
The Trolley Problem - Discussion by joefromchicago
Keep a $900 Computer I Didn't Buy? - Question by NathanCooperJones
Killing through a dungeon - Question by satyesu
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 12:13:14