Moral relativism

perception wrote:

I'd like some sort of informal vote here:

Do we (the US) have a moral obligation to push for intervention :

1.In some cases.

2. Never

I'm with Joe on this one, Perception.

In some cases, yes! I might even be able to make a case for "definitely."

But in the case of this Iraq thing -- a loud NO.

0 Replies

If it's not innate than where does it come from?

I'm not saying that people have to be flawless, just that a complete morality should completely explain all human action.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

If it's not innate than where does it come from?

I'm not saying that people have to be flawless, just that a complete morality should completely explain all human action.

From the same place so many other intangibles come from.

In Japan, a burp indicates satisfaction with a meal. In the United States, it indicates a boor.

A pat on the head of a youngster is considered a sign of affection here; but in some cultures it is considered a sign of disrespect.

Shaved legs on women/unshaved; shaved faces on men/wearing beards; wearing a hat in a holy place/covering the head; eating with utensils/eating with fingers -- and who knows how many other things.

Learned; tradition; habit; custom; etc.

Relative. subjective. Seldom objective.

0 Replies

You think it's immoral to burp at the dinner table?

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

You think it's immoral to burp at the dinner table?

Get your brain in gear, Rufio, and read what I said.

0 Replies

Joe and Frank

Glad you're back and I anticipated your veto of the moral imperative for Iraq----of course we disagree Laughing

but I won't hold it against either of you.

It is enough of a victory that you allow for it sometimes. There follows some information about the work of the International criminal
tribunal in Rwanda. Seems they have been attempting to try 4 thugs for genocide which happened in 1994. They have spent nearly half a BILLION dollars and have accomplished Zippo. It also shows that the UN allocated the Interantional Criminal Tribunal a budgest of $ 177 million and change.

This is the first link http://www.ictr.org/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2003/368.htm

Second link: http://www.ictr.org/default.htm

Here's a couple of little tidbits about objective morality vs subjective morality

This is for objective morality:
http://www.percepp.demon.co.uk/morality.htm

This for subjective morality:
http://www.nadiineseden.mybravenet.com/faithp81.html

0 Replies

What I'm saying, Frank, is that none of those things have anything to do with morality.

0 Replies

What I am saying, Rufio, is that the answer to your question:

Quote:

If it's not innate than where does it come from?

...is...

Quote:

From the same place so many OTHER INTANGIBLES come from.

People simply make morality up.

Some of it makes sense -- and is needed in order to allow society to function.

Don't murder -- or society cannot function reasonably.

Don't steal -- or society cannot function reasonably.

Some of it makes no sense at all -- and is simply a function of prejudice:

Love of gods, for instance.

Prohibitions against homosexual behavior.

Taboos against what is perceived as blasphemy.

Read what I wrote.

I never said that any of the items I mentioned were morality items.

They are the "other intangibles" that I was trying to use to illustrate my point.

0 Replies

I wouldn't consider various taboos or organized religions as morality either, just more cultural constructions. I'm talking about morality that you see when you look beyond your own culture. Consider this - no matter how strange or immoral people's actions might seem at first, once the reasons behind them are explained, they are nearly always understandable, if not condonable. Why do you suppose that is? Culture is quite tangable - morality isn't.

I actually remembered another interesting point here - where do you think those cultural ideas came from? What caused culture? Where did it start? You sound like you have a theory here.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

If it's not innate than where does it come from?

Well, that's the $64 question right there.

Many philosophers would argue that morality can be derived solely through reason. Kant is perhaps the best example of this. Aristotle, Bentham, and Mill could also be placed in this camp. Others would say that there is some sort of natural "sentiment" that inclines us toward morality. Hume is perhaps the best example. G.E. Moore could be put here, as could F.H. Bradley (although he's a tough case). And then there's Nietzsche, who viewed all morality as a kind of "class interest."

rufio wrote:

I'm not saying that people have to be flawless, just that a complete morality should completely explain all human action.

I don't think that's morality's proper role.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

rufio wrote:
If it's not innate than where does it come from?

Well, that's the $64 question right there.

Many philosophers would argue that morality can be derived solely through reason. Kant is perhaps the best example of this. Aristotle, Bentham, and Mill could also be placed in this camp. Others would say that there is some sort of natural "sentiment" that inclines us toward morality. Hume is perhaps the best example. G.E. Moore could be put here, as could F.H. Bradley (although he's a tough case). And then there's Nietzsche, who viewed all morality as a kind of "class interest."

rufio wrote:
I'm not saying that people have to be flawless, just that a complete morality should completely explain all human action.

I don't think that's morality's proper role.

I agree that morality can be derived solely through reason----I think Aristotle proved this and apparently he was the first----am I correct?

I also agree that the role of morality is NOT to explain anything but is rather a code that is adopted by a particular society to promote harmony and social interaction.

It is the role of science and philosophy to explain human actions.

0 Replies

truth
Something to consider. In the forward to his book, Situation Ethics, Joseph Fletcher gives the following anecdote.
"A friend of mine arrived in St. Louis just as a presidential campaign was ending, and the cab driver, not being above the battle, volunteered his testimony. 'I and my father and granfather before me, and their fathers, have always been straight-ticket Republicans.' 'Ah,' said my friend, who is himself a Republican, 'I take it that means you will vote for Senator So-andSo.' 'No,' said the driver, 'there are times when a man has to push his principles aside and do the right thing.'"
Consider the movie, The Cider House Rules. This film depicts beautifully the difference between morals, fixed, absolute, and imposed, and situationally sensitive ethics--the attempt to do what is right in a given situation. It may be argued that moral principles are general but all the situations in which we must make ethical decisions are particular. Sometimes the principles and the situations do not match up. At such times we must make-do, use our intelligence creatively rather than just looking for and following rules mechanically and irresponsibly.

0 Replies

Certainly morality is derived through reason, and if reason isn't innate, what is? If "society" derives the morality, than where does reason come in at all? What "reason" does a "society" have? What will or motivation? A "society" is not a thinking entity. It is made up of thinking parts, and the rules of a society are different from the morality of the parts.

JL, Morality transcends social influences - we've already established that, I think.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Certainly morality is derived through reason, and if reason isn't innate, what is? If "society" derives the morality, than where does reason come in at all? What "reason" does a "society" have? What will or motivation? A "society" is not a thinking entity. It is made up of thinking parts, and the rules of a society are different from the morality of the parts.

JL, Morality transcends social influences - we've already established that, I think.

I don't think so.

Individuals decide what morality will be in concert with other individuals.

0 Replies

In context, yes. But the contextual morality is based on a morality that is consistant regardless of context.

0 Replies

ne1 else accept this and find it depressing?

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

In context, yes. But the contextual morality is based on a morality that is consistant regardless of context.

Please give an example.

0 Replies

i dont think morality is consistant, ethics are consistant aslong as the group that the ethics are based on is consistant.

0 Replies

truth
Rufio is right. Principles (morals) ARE fixed, even carved in stone at times, while the contexts to which they must be applied vary. The problem is that sometimes the fixed principles and the changing contexts do not fit (e.g., if a Nazi was chasing a Jew and asked me which way he went, I would lie to him as an ethical obligation even though I broke the Commandment against lying). In short, I'd rather be ethical than moralistic. But it IS very convenient when my ethical efforts can be supported by society's moral conventions.
P.S., even the Golden Rule can be situationally challenged. G.B. Shaw once wrote: "Do NOT do unto others as you would have them do unto you--their tastes may be different."

0 Replies

Frank, I mean that when you make a moral (or even an ethical) judgement, you base it on a universal of some kind. People who are for abortion base their decision on the ideal moral that people have freedom to control their bodies. People who aren't base their decision on the ideal moral that life is more important than anything else. A pro-abortionist might also be pro-euthenasia for the same reason - that is, based on the same ideal moral - if it's really morality. If they answer differently and base their reasons in the material world or their emotions, I wouldn't call those moral decisions.

0 Replies

Moral relativism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know