30
   

Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

 
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Dec, 2013 11:54 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I think the analogy holds pretty well. Someone who supports a caste system in a modern Western Culture is objectively wrong as measured from within that cultural context (errr frame of reference).

How about India, which did traditionally have a caste system? Are you saying that Ghandi acted immorally by trying to replace India's caste system with a democracy?
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Mon 23 Dec, 2013 11:55 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Fox News is an immoral organization.

I'm inclined to agree, but then again I'm not a moral relativist.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2013 12:10 am
@Thomas,
Which frame of reference are you asking this in?

From my cultural context... of course Ghandi acted morally. A caste system goes against the moral values of Western Culture. Interestingly, Ghandi himself was acting in a Western cultural context. He was brought up and educated with Western cultural values, and his techniques were particularly effective against the British.

Ghandi failed when it came to influencing people in the traditional Indian cultural context. After gaining independence from England, what happened next can only be called a complete disaster.


0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2013 09:46 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

That's where you are wrong Joe, of course I am a moral relativist. Cultural relativity is the same idea as scientific relativity.

"Cultural relativity" just means you're a moral absolutist within a cultural boundary. It's an inherently incoherent position to take, but that's what you are.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2013 09:48 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Moral relativity doesn't say there isn't an objective right answer.

Actually, it does. That's pretty much the definition of moral relativism.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2013 09:54 am
@joefromchicago,
Would you like to join the discussion Joe?

Thomas and I were discussing the relativity, as we use in Physics, as a metaphor for Moral relativity (actually I was proposing the metaphor and Thomas was challenging it). Thomas is intelligent and thoughtful and I get a lot from his posts even when I disagree with him. There is nothing more helpful than an intelligent person who can show you weaknesses in your point of view (and I hope I am returning the favor).

Making statements with no support, and expecting to be taken as fact isn't really participating in the discussion. I already know your position on the topic. It would be interesting if you could discuss your position with a little more thought as part of the overall discussion. Maybe you could provide more reasoning behind your position, particularly in line with the ongoing discussion.
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2013 10:02 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
Actually, it does. That's pretty much the definition of moral relativism.


You are talking to a box of rocks. Max is here to impress himself, and he is the only one that can do it. But your comment is spot on. Moral relativity compilation of a list of excuses to ignore the truth.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2013 10:09 am
@coldjoint,
Somehow I don't think Joe appreciates your support Cold Joint. Wink
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2013 10:14 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Fox News is an immoral organization.


FOX News...is propaganda...not news.

It is to news...what White Castle hamburgers are to haute cuisine.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2013 10:19 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
FOX News...is propaganda...not news.


What is MSNBC and NBC? They are party line sycophants and have less compulsion than our president in spreading lies. Any network so thoroughly biased, as the two I mentioned, make Fox look pretty good.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2013 10:19 am
@Frank Apisa,
Sure Frank, But that line was meant as a humorous point to show that a moral relativist can make a valid moral judgement. (I don't want to sidetrack the discussion on moral relativity again).
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2013 10:25 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Somehow I don't think Joe appreciates your support Cold Joint. Wink


Guess what asshole? I don't need support from anyone. I am not here to impress anyone. What I say and think are good enough for me. And the facts back me up.

But they seem to bother the Hell out of you.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2013 10:28 am
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
FOX News...is propaganda...not news.


What is MSNBC and NBC?


I have not mentioned them. You can rate them if you want. But whatever you say about them is not going to make FOX News suck any less.

Quote:
They are party line sycophants and have less compulsion than our president in spreading lies.


Okay. But that doesn't make FOX News suck any less.

Quote:
Any network so thoroughly biased, as the two I mentioned, make Fox look pretty good.


Nothing anyone mentions makes FOX look good, cj.

FOX News sucks!
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2013 10:32 am
@Frank Apisa,

Quote:
Nothing anyone mentions makes FOX look good, cj.

FOX News sucks!


And I have the closed mind?
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2013 10:41 am
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:


Quote:
Nothing anyone mentions makes FOX look good, cj.

FOX News sucks!


And I have the closed mind?


Yes, indeed you do...although you recognizing the problem is a step in the right direction.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2013 10:46 am
@Frank Apisa,

Quote:
Yes, indeed you do...although you recognizing the problem is a step in the right direction.


Frank, heal yourself.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2013 11:43 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Making statements with no support, and expecting to be taken as fact isn't really participating in the discussion. I already know your position on the topic. It would be interesting if you could discuss your position with a little more thought as part of the overall discussion. Maybe you could provide more reasoning behind your position, particularly in line with the ongoing discussion.

What facts do you want? The fact that you're a moral absolutist? All of your posts in this thread are evidence of that fact. I don't need to add anything else.

Or perhaps you want some facts to support my assertion that your position is incoherent. Again, I direct your attention to your own posts. You condemn certain acts as objectively immoral, yet claim that you're a moral relativist. You claim that morality is based on cultural values, but you refuse to accept that your own culture has endorsed acts that you consider immoral. You maintain that moral relativism allows for objective "right answers" regarding morality. Seriously, what could be more incoherent than that?

I don't think I need to give my position a "little more thought." I've given the question of moral relativism quite a bit of thought over the years, and I'm satisfied that my position is the only logically defensible one. If anyone needs to devote more thought to their position, this thread amply demonstrates that it's you.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2013 05:32 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
A cultural Lorentz transformation, interesting.... Wink

Nothing to wink about. You're the one who chose relativity in physics as a metaphor for relativity in morals. I'm just pointing out to you that the implications of this metaphor are not even close to what you think they are.

For one thing, if you run a correct measurement relative to one frame of reference, and another correct measurement of the same phenomenon relative to another frame of reference, the measurements will differ by no more than a coordinate transformation (Galilei or Lorentz, depending on the velocities involved). That's a lot less wiggle room than you claim for moral judgments in different cultures.

Second, the same laws govern the outcome of any given physical experiment, no matter what frame of reference you measure it against. That is emphatically not the case in morals as you describe them.

Not untypically for a moral relativst, you are trying to recruit the authority of the hard sciences for your moral philosophy while refusing to play by these sciences' rules and ignoring their findings.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2013 05:32 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
I don't think I need to give my position a "little more thought." I've given the question of moral relativism quite a bit of thought over the years, and I'm satisfied that my position is the only logically defensible one [\quote]

Well then. That explains it.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2013 05:43 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
I don't think I need to give my position a "little more thought." I've given the question of moral relativism quite a bit of thought over the years, and I'm satisfied that my position is the only logically defensible one.

Speaking of which . . . what was your position again? I don't mean to be snarky, but you're so good at playing Jiu-Jitsu with Socratic dialog, deflecting your correspondents' own energy against themselves, that I forgot the position you took in the first place yourself. Can you restate it?
 

Related Topics

Define Morality - Question by neologist
Relativity of morality - Discussion by InkRune
Killing through a dungeon - Question by satyesu
Morality. - Discussion by Logicus
Creationism in schools - Question by MORALeducation
Morality (a discussion) - Discussion by Smileyrius
Morality Concerning Prostitution - Discussion by brainspew
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/28/2022 at 11:54:20