@marcus cv,
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote: Grouch;65583 wrote:Sure and yet Culture is still part of any individuals circumstance or life situation. However, if I were to grant you your claim, you’ll be forced to concede that different cultures can have equally legitimate but vastly different responses to these circumstances and situations.
And why must I concede that?
As a matter of fact many cultures responses to some actions are not legitimate.
If A child lies, do i find it a legitimate response to stone that child to near death? certainly not.
Then make a stand and provide evidence that a response as such is not legitimate. If it is not legitimate you are now appealing to a higher authority of reason and morality. Since you are making that appeal, what is it?
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote:
Never said they did.
Really? Do you just forget what you posted in the thread already?
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote:
So then i should judge them by their morals when their morals are so obviously tainted?
I don't care how society was at the time, what is wrong today was wrong yesterday and was wrong a hundred years ago and was wrong a thousand years ago. Morality does not flex, it does not bend to our thoughts and deeds. Morality does not conform to society, society must conform to morality. You are about to fall into the paradox of the moral relativist.
Your moral relativism is intellectually bankrupt. There is no merit with such a position and the ensuing paradox is inescapable. Society does not define morality, no person or group defines it. If that was true would it be moral to murder you and your family if society deemed it acceptable? If society decided it was okay to kill all differing ethnic groups, would it then be okay. If I decided it was okay to hurt you then you could have no objections. In your view morality is entirely arbitrary and without base, shifting as the wind, absolutely anything society thought was good must be acceptable, but that is not the case is it? You must at least have a rudimentary understanding of ethics to know the base and foundation of it. You must understand why morality exists to understand what it is and why. We know morality does to some degree have a common foundation and purpose by simply examining different cultures. Different cultures have different ideas of morality but it is the similarities that tells us the basis of morality. Something you don't seem to comprehend.
Slavery didn't BECOME immoral, it always was immoral.
Simply because it was acceptable doesn't make it morally correct.
Morality didn't change, society changed.
There is a reason why isolated cultures share common ideas of morality, there is a reason why murder of innocents is condemned in virtually every culture, why stealing is considered wrong, if morality was arbitrary there would be no common ground, but there is. Different cultures share similar but varied ideas of morality because they share a common foundation of morality, a foundation they themselves didn't understand very well, yet they acted and thought upon these principals.
ideas of morality =/= morality
Everything you have stated above appeals, begs for a higher moral authority than any one culture or any amount of “good” that can come from the outcome of action provides.
If neither view allows for a higher authority why do you keep making statements that if true, force the existence of one?
You claim to be utilitarian, yet again Utilitarian morality IS at the least, a subjective form of morality, if not outright moral relativism, because “Good” if never fully defined. Educate yourself on the subject further. YOU NEED TOO! Utilitarian morality most certainly allows for the murder of pure innocents for the greater good.
Utility monster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote:
But your examples don't further your position.
I’m absolutely astounded by the huge depth of your counter argument. Oh what you just said “No it’s not!!” in more words. Never mind, come back again when you actually produce one, I’m still waiting.
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote:
Um? Excuse me? You call me a liar and you say I ignored it but if you go back and re-read the post you will see that i did answer it. This is what i wrote:
"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."
So who is the liar now? You said I ignored it but, look here is what i wrote.
And it still does not even broach the topic. You make nothing but grand and unsupported claims and ZERO in examples. You have not provided anything to support your argument other than blanket denials that you can be wrong.
Yes you still are a liar, and remain an intellectual coward, and what little argument you produce continues to appeal to a higher moral authority I’m sorry.
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote:
Again these examples do nothing to further your case. To say what society believes says nothing of what is actually true. At one time society believed the earth was flat, does that mean the earth flattened itself to conform to what society believed? Of course not, so why would morality be any different?
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote: You've only given examples of what societies believed.
Which both moral subjectivity, moral relativism and utilitarianism all support positive and negative moral values as dictated by the context of time and culture.
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote: Is =/= ought
Belief =/= reality
The above statement of yours is not an argument. Your own claimed moral system allows for abortion, slavery, genocide, rape, all to be moral actions. You don’t understand Utilitarianism.
NEXT!
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote:
Liar!
re-read what was written:
"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."
Where in there does it say anything about me being a utilitarian?
Who needs that statement when you already publicly stated it here?
http://www.conflictingviews.com/society/history/crusades-3362-7.html#post65041
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote:
I espouse neither absolutism nor Moral relativism. I am a Utilitarian.
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote:
You're asking me to prove something I don't believe.
Then why does so much of your argument hinge on the appeal to a higher moral authority.?
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote:
Philosophy Dictionary: ethical relativism
1
n. The view that the truth of ethical claims is relative to the culture or way of life of those who hold them.
At least you can used an online dictionary. Maybe someday you’ll learn to use wikipedia too.
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote:
read definition above.
Great, ethical relativism. You’ll have to humor me and the forum and explain how by posting a dictionary definition without commentary denies the existence of moral relativism.
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote:
Here you go again twisting my words.
What I said was that morality doesn't change DEPENDING ON WHAT SOCIETY BELIEVES!
You forgot that little bit in the bold which changes the meaning.
Then it changes on circumstance? Society creates all circumstance. Morality does change, X action is never always immoral(bad) or moral(good).
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote:
I do not believe in an absolute morality. How many times must i repeat myself?
Then why have you posted the following?
Slavery didn't BECOME immoral, it always was immoral.
So then i should judge them by their morals when their morals are so obviously tainted?
There is a reason why isolated cultures share common ideas of morality, there is a reason why murder of innocents is condemned in virtually every culture, why stealing is considered wrong, if morality was arbitrary there would be no common ground, but there is. Different cultures share similar but varied ideas of morality because they share a common foundation of morality, a foundation they themselves didn't understand very well, yet they acted and thought upon these principals.
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote:
You are incapable of arguing against my position which is why you keep trying to associate me with moral absolutism.
Remind us what your position is again? Because your above quotes are prefect examples of moral absolutism. They absolutely are not those of a Utilitarian.
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote:
No actually I was pointing out that you committed a logical fallacy in your argument, known as the argument from ignorance.
Try not to make any more fallacies.
Then you should make a point by pointing out (WITH EXAMPLES) the ignorance. Take this opportunity to go back and do so….
Try to make an argument this time.
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote:Like I said before.
Your asking me to prove something I don't believe. Your argument simply put is.....pathetic.
Then why have you posted the following?
Slavery didn't BECOME immoral, it always was immoral.
So then i should judge them by their morals when their morals are so obviously tainted?
There is a reason why isolated cultures share common ideas of morality, there is a reason why murder of innocents is condemned in virtually every culture, why stealing is considered wrong, if morality was arbitrary there would be no common ground, but there is. Different cultures share similar but varied ideas of morality because they share a common foundation of morality, a foundation they themselves didn't understand very well, yet they acted and thought upon these principals.
Remind us what your position is again? Because your above quotes are prefect examples of moral absolutism. They absolutely are not those of a Utilitarian.
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote:
I do not believe in an absolute morality. How many times must i repeat myself?
You are incapable of arguing against my position which is why you keep trying to associate me with moral absolutism.
I’ve save the batch quotes this time just to state that you’ve made multiple claims that various acts are always and have always been immoral. In addition you refuse to make a position better supported than “I’m a utilitarian and your moral relativism is b.s.” Please, again I beg, I plead, actually make an argument, and try to be a little more consistent in your statements this time.
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote:
The burden is yours to bare.
And you keep using the wrong words…the one you were looking for is BEAR.
Fatal_Freedoms;65590 wrote:
No both were spelled correctly, using the wrong form is not a spelling error, but if that's the best you can do then I think it speaks for itself.
You should stop making a trend of it then…
So in short again:
You've made multiple statements which support Absolutist Morality on more than one time and on more than one action.
You've claimed to be Utilitarian, then you claim not to be or question why I keep calling you one? Yet you don't know enough about Utilitarianism to understand that it is just another form of Moral Relativism and its sole guiding factor is an desire to do to Good or Give Pleasure, and that that guidance can flip an actions moral value form one situation to the next.
You're very confusing.
NEXT!
___________________
Edited the post to fix a couple of those ever so argument ruining spelling/word use errors and to fix a quote format. lulz
