The Crusades

Yes. Because you are. You have not talked about the Muslims taking of lands in any detail, you haven?t talked about culture in anyway but to quickly dismiss the whole idea of it attributing to the contributing anything to the situation. And millennialism is very important to understanding why the first Crusade happened. You will not find an academic book on the Crusades that does not explain the cultural significance it and on the Christian nations.

Yes, Muslims invaded and occupied Christian lands, stopped allowing Christians to pilgrimage there ect. Christians made the attempt to take back their lands, succeeded once but the lands were retaken. After that it was a cultural/religious war still about taking back their lands and eliminating the enemy. All of this was self-defense.

It is terribly ignorant to attempt to understand this using hind sight. Not a single modern historian does that in any respect.

Hopefully because you had some honest desire to learn about a very important period of time in world history. It seems as though you?ve admitting that is not the case.

Considering moral absolutism fails and you?ve personally failed to uphold it or support its existence. I hope in the 3rd or 4th attempt in asking you to prove its existence you do so.

You are talking to me?who btw only mentioned the start of the Crusades?you don?t miss much do you.

Really? That?s not what google says?

The First Crusade thus ended in victory. It was the only crusade that achieved more than ephemeral results. - Google Search

Your whole post here. #27 of the thread if this link does not work correctly is just an copy and paste.
Crusades: First Crusade — Infoplease.com
The Crusades
crusade: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com

Wow all 3 of them verbatim what you poster. Yeah you didn?t copy and paste and you didn?t just lie about it now.

Oh here they come more one liners so you don?t actually have to defend your position. Please try it for once.

If you cared to lean and understand history and not just be an intellectual coward trolling internet forums for attention on topic you know little more than C jr. high school student. Then yes you should, or at the very least provide a counter argument consisting of something more than. ?That irrelevant, invasion not = defense, they (really SOME) raped and pillaged their natural enemy.?

One must think you are physically incapable of doing more at this point.

Make a supported statement countering anything I?ve posted. Go ahead I?ll wait.

You?ve posted an un-academic and unfound opinion. One in which you refuse to back up with facts at all. The basis of your argument is not one of producing evidence, but one of denying the important of everything that counters your ignorance.

You have no understanding of social issues or culture other than whatever one you currently occupy. You?re a dishonest person, already proven to be a liar.

You?re lack of an argument isn?t getting much farther.

I remember when I had my first beer.

I?d love in your own words to see you write an argument against the self defense nature of the first crusade consisting of more than 3 sentences. That?s not asking for too much is it?

Oh end any support on this moral absolutism you seem to be so fond of? Come on?go pull that one out of the sky.

I can reply to all of your post later, but why when you freely admit you are a Classical Utilitarian (you can't be an Rule Utilitarian because then you would still be an absolutist of sorts). Which by default means that any action (lying, stealing, killing) out of context do not have moral value. It is ONLY the outcome of said actions that give them a positive or negative moral value.

You're a moral relativist plain and simple.

Not only that, but you just said that morality is dictated by survival. That moral actions befit the survival of those committing said action.

The Crusades were all about the survival Christiandom.

Now I'm sure you'll come back with some lame and repetitive retort about it doesn't matter what they thought was happening. But since you, I nor they could judge the present with the same ability we can judge threats in hind sight, it does matter if you want to be intellectually honest.

Wow I've never seen such a long post end if fail so easily. Did you really think that through at all before you hit the submit button?

So I'd like to revisit this.

FF you say you are a Utilitarian right? Act or Rule?

If you are an Act then you are in fact a moral relativist. Because then its the results of the actions that determine if its a morally good or bad act. Yet the act out of context hold no moral value.

If you are a Rule, then you make rules that have a general positive outcome for the society that collectively agrees to follow them. Correct? Yet do to there being exceptions to the rule, new rules are made, allowing for the same act to in one case be legal, and in another care illegal (ie. Murder is illegal, but there exists justifiable homicide in self-defense, or as a punishment).

Regardless of which version of Utilitarianism you pick, it comes down to the fact that actions out of context hold no inherent moral value, it is only the context in which the action is taken that give it moral value. Thus morals are relative.

Moral relativity has a specific definition, merely believing that morals are not absolute is not enough to qualify one as a moral relativist. Moral relativism specifies that morals are relative TO THE CULTURE THAT HOLDS THEM. This part in all caps is the important part and it is what separates myself from moral relativism.

So you accept that actions out side of context have no moral value. And that the same action in different contexts can have opposite moral values correct?

We have also already established that there are a significant number of "moral choices" that have had their positive or negative value change over time and between cultures.

There is no escaping the truth of moral relativism.

Yes. However I will add that these "contexts" are circumstance specific NOT culture specific.

No we have not. You tried to establish that...but failed miserably.

Since it's an unfalsifiable position....you shouldn't presume there is a truth to escape in the first place.

GROUCH FAILED ATTEMPT x2

Excellent, morality is changing and situational based. How can a culture not be a different circumstance?

You?re not making much of a argument.

Slavery (18th century America and Europe vs post 1860), abortion (pre and post Roe V. Wade), death penalty, genocide (Relgious Wars, commands from the Bible and Koran) homosexuality (Biblical teaching vs. accepted Greek and Roman male bonding); even rape and incest.

Hmmm all moral issues that based on what culture (or sub culture or time frame) you are a part of posses different and changing moral values.

Now last time I made this claim you side stepped it saying that you are a Utilitarian. And as we agree, utilitarians don?t believe in a rigid morality but a changing one.

Since it is proved through near countless examples of cultural change, it would seem that you are continuing the trend of intellectual cowardice. Morality changes, it changes through time, through location, through culture, through events.

Culture itself is not a circumstance, culture may affect circumstances.

I could say the same about you. Bald assertions will get you no where.

Again bald assertions will get you no where. There is no debating that different cultures have differing views of ethics however there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that it becomes true simply because we believe it so, in fact there is a plethora of instances that show that belief has no correlation with what is actually true.

Hitting a defenseless person, is not wrong because we believe it is wrong, but because you are causing harm upon another. Your moral code is completely arbitrary and for this reason it is -- useless!

Nope. more bald assertions.

views of morality =/= actual morality

Just because someone thinks something is right, doesn't make it so. Views of morality change, but views of morality are not the same thing as actual morality.

We do not live in a fantasy land, what we believe is not true simply because we believe it is. I can give you an abundant number of examples of things that people believe that are not true, so why don't you go ahead and explain to me why morality would be the exception to this?

GROUCH FAIL ATTEMPT x3
Your fighting a losing battle grouch, even I can see this.

Culture itself is not a circumstance, culture may affect circumstances.

I don't think I have a lot to add here except agreement. Cultural relativism basically claims that there is no such thing as morality except for what a culture says, and therefore there is no independent basis upon which to judge those claims. Various forms of consequentialism offer precisely this basis. In short, this debate ended a while ago.

TC

What you quoted in agreement and what you state are two different things.

In general, Consequentialism (which Utilitarianism is a branch of) agrees with the statement that actions outside of context (and consequence) have no moral value. Its the context and outcome which give them a moral value.

To who, and what are you agreeing too?

What has value are consequences, and the consequences of an action depend to some extent on the context. For example, shouting "Fire!" might have no consequence if I do it in my car as I'm driving, while having entirely different ones in a theater or when commanding troups. The other thing context does is limit our options, so an undesirable consequence might be entirely avoidable in one case but the lesser of evils in another.

Now, what this has to do with cultural relativism, I don't know. Cultural relativism just says that morality is whatever a particular culture decides. This is not the same thing as consequentialism, and is largely incompatible.

Does that clarify my stance?

TC

Cultural Relativism and Utilitarianism (Utilitarianism being a branch of Consequentialism) go hand in hand. They are not the same, but they can work together and are hardly incompatible.

Cultural Relativism decides what is Good, Utilitarianism provides the method and framework for archiving the most of it.

You are mistaken. Cultural relativism denies the existence of a transcultural basis for morality, which is precisely what consequentialism provides.

TC

uh no...

Consequentialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action (but see rule consequentialism). Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence.

That's the extent of basic Consequentialism.

Using Cultural Relativism, the culture makes its own determinations on what is valued as Good.

There is nothing over arching or unifying about it. Consequentialism and all its variations are little more than equations used to reach a positive moral action or judgment. It does nothing to establish a unified Good or Bad, culture does that.

If you disagree provide an example next time.

Culture is not a circumstance? That?s just a flagrant lie. Oh my god. Really man? The culture one is a member of is not a circumstance of their existence? Its not a key in developing their understanding of the world? To the development of their moral framework? Now that?s just laugh riot.

See the problem with that is, I?ve made arguments, I?ve cited examples, while the best you?ve able to muster is ?not its not!?

If you could actually produce an argument this is where you would have attempted to do so?.

Now please establish where you derive Truth from?Go on Mr. Self Admitted Utilitarian. I dare you? Don?t worry I don?t really expect you to.

And what?s the point of this? Other than another pitiful attempt to dodge the argument? I don?t believe I have ever argued that hitting a defenseless person, without there being other good greater than the harm to the defenseless person, would be a good and moral act.

Then please, I implore you, provide an argument that would correct me.

Now please establish where you derive Truth from?Go on Mr. Self Admitted Utilitarian. I dare you? Don?t worry I don?t really expect you to.

Ok

Now please establish where you derive Truth from?Go on Mr. Self Admitted Utilitarian. Because you have failed to even attempt to thus far.

Because you?ve been an utter failure at providing even one example of anyway to derive at creating a universal system of morality that doesn?t rely on specific, temporal, environment, or cultural influences.

And remember when you said you don?t make spelling errors?you just did.

No, you can have the same circumstance or situation in two completely different cultures.

And your only response has been "is so!"

I have given examples as well, even though you will only deny this. The difference is that my examples support my case your examples do not.

Attacking an argument instead of refuting it....this is all to common with you.

Truth of what?

That went completely over your head. The point was WHY hitting a defenseless person is immoral. Moral truths are not reached on consensus. No truths are reached upon consensus, so why would morality be any different?

Argument from ignorance.

Something isn't true simply because you are unaware of alternative explanations.

Once again. truth of what?

Address what I have said.

This is a sentence fragment. ^

Perhaps you want to finish this thought so I can respond to it!?

Which word did I spell incorrectly?

I have spell-checker so have fun finding a misspelled word. :thumbup:

Consequentialism, as such, is neutral about how we should rate one consequence above another.

Traditional formulations involve things like happiness, fulfillment, and so on, none of which are more than incidentally linked to culture.

Whether culture D thinks a particular consequence is desirable or not grants it no special authority, not even over members of its own culture. It's just another opinion that has to be evaluated according to its merits, if any.

The distinction between act and rule consequentialism is artificial. They're the same thing, applied to two different questions: What should I personally do? What social policy should we set?

Cultural relativism says nothing about consequences and does not need to be consequentialist in any way. In fact, a culture's code of ethics is more typically stated in deontological terms and can be quite apathetic about the context of decisions.