30
   

Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 12:45 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

How can anyone doubt that moral systems are cultural constructions?

How could anyone believe that? Oh, wait, I forgot who I was talking to.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 12:47 pm
@maxdancona,
The one thing you really don't want anything to do with is gold, either gold itself of money backed by gold.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 01:23 pm
@JLNobody,
Most of the Jews in Israel believe they are on the side of morality. This is a simple truth that "moral systems are cultural constructions."

MWal
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 01:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Morality is cultural construct, but its also made up of universal principals.
timur
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 02:02 pm
@MWal,
Well, some principals seem to be really secondary..
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 02:03 pm
@MWal,
What might those universal principles be?

Was it morally okay to eat their fellow travelers to stay alive at Donner Pass?
MWal
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 02:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Salvation, peace, existence, knowledge...
timur
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 02:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Now you know where the "Donner kebab" comes from..
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 02:17 pm
@MWal,
You wrote,
Quote:
Salvation.
But what is sin? Who determines whether killing is right or wrong? God certainly approved of both.

You wrote,
Quote:
peace.

Quote:
peace
pēs/
noun
1.
freedom from disturbance; quiet and tranquility.

Who determines which kind of peace; where and when?

You wrote,
Quote:
existence.

Quote:
ex·ist·ence
igˈzistəns/
noun
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
"the plane was the oldest Boeing remaining in existence"
continued survival.
"she helped to keep the company alive when its very existence was threatened"
synonyms: actuality, being, existing, reality; More
a way of living.


How is existence guaranteed? Who determines who lives or dies, fed or starved, provided medical care or not, when to fight wars or not, given freedom or not. How is moral values determined by those who have the power to control others?

You wrote,
Quote:
knowledge.

Quote:
knowl·edge
ˈnälij/
noun
1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, command, mastery; More
true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion.
2.
awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.


Who determines what knowledge is according to what is considered moral or not moral?

As the title of this forum begins with "Moral Relativity," we cannot determine what it is from only one viewpoint.
MWal
 
  0  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 02:27 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I don't know what you are saying.

I think things are absolute, and things are relative at the same time, its just a meter of perspective and what you need when you need it.
MWal
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 02:27 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I don't know what you are saying.

I think things are absolute, and things are relative at the same time, its just a mater of perspective and what you need when you need it.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 03:21 pm
@MWal,
That figures. No problem; almost everybody else who reads it probably will.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 05:00 pm
I do believe that everything is absolute--absolutely what it is at any particular moment. But all thinking and valuing about it is relative or comparative. This means that experience is unitary but thinking is dualistic.
(I also think that Joe is an absolutist, a professional lawyer and a closet catholic priest).
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 05:05 pm
@JLNobody,
Maybe the immediate reaction may be absolute, but some can change their minds after more information becomes available.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 07:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
That's so. I see "immediate reaction" as absolute (if it's truly immediate or pre-reflective), but when I think about it, or reflect on it (or as you say change one's mind with more information--from without or within) that's another matter.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2014 07:17 pm
@JLNobody,
However, we must also acknowledge that 'immediacy' has many different consequences. I think soldiers are confronted with this immediate reaction issue that they must act upon it or not; to save or kill.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2014 01:16 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Obviously any moral judgement is, by definition, subjective.
joefromchicago wrote:
By whose definition?
maxdancona wrote:
"by my definition of course." (I can't help chuckling a bit even as I type this).

That's a cute maneuver indeed, but it comes at a cost: By this reasoning, you can't logically say that joefromchicago's position on moral judgments is wrong. All you can say is that he's using definitions other than your own. And to a relativist like yourself, how could this possibly be a problem?
Germlat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2014 01:19 pm
@MWal,
If things were absolute it'd be very simple. Black and white...then you'd get to choose between the goodies and the badies.
MWal
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2014 01:22 pm
@Germlat,
If you don't believe you won't see the omniscience. I imagine omniscience. Do you see love between knowledge and the imagination who are both setinent, whether they be humanoids, or air Gods.

It's very simple, virtue is absolute, there is no other way. Things exist as absolutes, we need the belief to apply that to everything, like absolute knowledge making omniscience.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2014 01:35 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

maxdancona wrote:
Obviously any moral judgement is, by definition, subjective.
joefromchicago wrote:
By whose definition?
maxdancona wrote:
"by my definition of course." (I can't help chuckling a bit even as I type this).

That's a cute maneuver indeed, but it comes at a cost: By this reasoning, you can't logically say that joefromchicago's position on moral judgments is wrong. All you can say is that he's using definitions other than your own. And to a relativist like yourself, how could this possibly be a problem?


The amusing contradiction here is in Joe's logic not in mine.

My argument is based on my assertion that any absolute moral system must be based on something objective and universal (I argue this is true by definition; this is the definition of "absolute moral system").

I then argue that there is nothing objective and universal (hence my statement that a moral system must be subjective).

Obviously as soon as you suggest a objective and universal source for a moral standard, for example the existence of God, then this implies that an absolute morality is possible. Other than God, I haven't found any other argument that meets this criterion (although I admit that your Utilitarianism is an interesting attempt at this, it is clearly not Universal).

 

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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 08:27:32