Can we ever change anything?

Kuv, I'm gonna email that sweet song to all the beer bottle philosphers I know....

"I drink; therefore I am".
Wasn't that on a Drink Responsibly commercial?! by the Manitoba Liquor Commission. Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

I am somewhat confused, actually. What else could you define morality as except "what one perceives as right and wrong"? Could you clarify what you're arguing? Thanks.

Alright, in my example of slavery, the slaveowner, if he or she were to be forced to work for someone else against his or her will, would think that they are wronged. Now, he or she might say that slavery is not wrong morally, but yet how can this be when he or she knows how wrong it is to be enslaved? In this case, there is a distinction between what one think to be moral, and what is an actual moral truth.

Maybe I am a sort of moral realist. I think that there is such a thing as an objective morality, and it is the only moral point of view that makes sense.

So why are you a moral relativist?

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

Quote:

What I'm saying is I've decided to place "Do not harm another" as the fundamental building block of morality, since there's nothing more socially disruptive than causing harm to one of its citizens.

Quote:

I suppose I hold the tenet that one should do what's best for the individual and the group as a whole(i.e., don't do something that harms the group unless not doing it would harm you), and I base that on the "Golden Rule"

Next time your eating a steak, if you eat such things, as your digging your teeth into the flesh, ask yourself about the GR, "Would I want to be tortured, killed and eaten?"

*

Are the Golden rule and moral relativism compatible?

0 Replies

Quote:

Next time your eating a steak, if you eat such things, as your digging your teeth into the flesh, ask yourself about the GR, "Would I want to be tortured, killed and eaten?"

In my opinion, it is arguable that an animal can actually think. Pigs or cows certainly do not have any rational capacity. This does not mean that it is alright to be cruel to animals, on the contrary, torturing animals is wrong, and killing them without a good reason is also just as wrong. You may ask, what about humans? Humans are people, meaning that we are sentient, and I think that is related to our capacity to be rational.

Quote:

Are the Golden rule and moral relativism compatible?

I agree that they both are not related. I think that saying that there is an absolute moral is a contradictory claim to moral relativist.

0 Replies

Ray: Your example is still not making sense to me. You've presented a hypothetical slave who both thinks slavery is wrong and yet...doesn't? This person is deeply disturbed. Laughing

To further illustrate my point using your slavery example, the slave owner(along with most people, even the north) would not think slavery is wrong, but we today(most of us) find it abhorrent. This moral shift shows that morals change over time, and vary between cultures. How, then, can we say that there is any objective morality? I can think slavery is wrong, and I can even be agreed with by the entire population, but, since that agreement might be nullified in a centuries time, we can only say that "everyone thinks this is wrong", not "this is wrong".

Do you get the point I'm trying to make? I look forward to your response.

0 Replies

Okay, let me try to clarify. A slaveowner owns a slave. He claims that it is not wrong for there to be slavery. Yet, if the slaveowner were to be forced to work for someone against his or her will, the slaveowner would feel that he or she has been wronged. Do you get it? How can the slaveowner's claim be true when he or she feels that it would be wrong for himself or herself to be enslaved?

There is no sense in the slaveowner's argument. He is excluding the slave's existing feelings and personage in following a societal standard that claimed itself to be moral. He or she values his or her freedom, but he or she is applying it only to him or herself. Such a position is irrational.

I have distinguished between what one thinks to be moral to what is actually moral. In this case, the former might equate to the latter, but it can also be not equal to the latter.

It's like this. We know that 1 + 1 = 2. A person may very well make the mistake that 1 + 1 = 3. The person may believe the latter to be true, but in actuality 1 + 1 is always equal to 2.

Also, societal standards change over time, and it did not change because a person one day decides that it would be neat to make such and such right or wrong. They analyzed the circumstances and believed firmly that they found such and such to be wrong. They did not believe that they simply made it all up, like a fiction novel, but that they have found moral truths.

You have also claimed that there may be one absolute morality, no harming. This ultimately contradicts moral relativism in that it states the principle that harm is wrong, to be absolute. It could also be said that this principle is the basis of all moral principles (djbt's utilitarianist beliefs come to mind).

0 Replies

Ray: Okay, I think I understand your point, now. However, I still disagree with it. Slaveowners held the view that the africans were inferior to themselves, so owning slaves and not wanting to be slaves would not necessarily contradict slaveowners' ethics. It's ignorant as anything, but not (to them) hypocritical.

Quote:

Also, societal standards change over time, and it did not change because a person one day decides that it would be neat to make such and such right or wrong. They analyzed the circumstances and believed firmly that they found such and such to be wrong. They did not believe that they simply made it all up, like a fiction novel, but that they have found moral truths.

Yes, society's ethics do change over time, and that only serves to illustrate my point, since we can't know that we've finally found "the real morality". All we can do is guess. It could be that, a decade from now, the Christian right decides that homosexuality was inherent all along, and that "we're all God's people", or everyone else could decide that homosexuality is evil and wrong, and they should be purged from the earth. My point is that we don't know who's right or wrong, so we can only do what's right for us. That's what my rule about "do not harm another" was about. That's not something I hold everyone to (though, obviously, I think they should abide by it); that's just what I'm going to do.

I look forward to the next round.

Very Happy

0 Replies

morality
Morality is, like anything else, subjective and based on one's belief system. There is a mutually accepted mass morality which is used in society which is formed by the current mass world-view. There is no objective morality or some kind of innate morality. It is all based on beliefs of mankind. The slave would only think it wrong to be a slave if that is what he had been taught.

0 Replies

True, however the slave might come up with that notion on his own. Culture (including its morals) does change, however slowly, over time because of the innovativeness of its carriers. It's referred to often as "cultural drift". Then there are cultural revolutions, often the products of philosophical "deviants" such as Jesus, Ghandi, Marx, etc..

0 Replies

Cultural Drift
Yes, the world-view does change. The paradigm shifts. Beliefs change.

The slave might feel envious of the perceived freedom of others or whatnot but there is no right or wrong about slavery, or anything else for that matter. No good, no evil, no victims no accidents.

0 Replies

Quote:

However, I still disagree with it. Slaveowners held the view that the africans were inferior to themselves, so owning slaves and not wanting to be slaves would not necessarily contradict slaveowners' ethics. It's ignorant as anything, but not (to them) hypocritical.

Which shows how invalid his beliefs are.

Quote:

Yes, society's ethics do change over time, and that only serves to illustrate my point, since we can't know that we've finally found "the real morality". All we can do is guess. It could be that, a decade from now, the Christian right decides that homosexuality was inherent all along, and that "we're all God's people", or everyone else could decide that homosexuality is evil and wrong, and they should be purged from the earth. My point is that we don't know who's right or wrong, so we can only do what's right for us. That's what my rule about "do not harm another" was about. That's not something I hold everyone to (though, obviously, I think they should abide by it); that's just what I'm going to do.

A society's change in its belief of ethics over time does not justify moral relativism. Society's ethics may be different but is it not possible, and probable, that certain ethical belief systems are more valid than others?
If a moral belief is invalid, how does it hold ground in reality? If it is invalid then it is merely a fantasy or an error in the part of the person.

We might not know everything, but we do know to the best of our knowledge. When a person decides such and such is right or wrong, he or she is not saying that this merely applies to him or her, but that it applies to everyone! Therein lies the contradiction within moral relativism; where there is a person claiming that morals are not absolute, yet him or herself believing in something that he or she thinks are absolute. The social darwinist, which plays a role in the massacre of millions during WWII, believed in a set of ethics but an invalid set of ethics. Most of us would see their mistake right away.

Moral relativism hides in the guise of tolerance, but there is really a huge difference between tolerance and appeasement.

Quote:

I look forward to the next round.

:wink:

0 Replies

World views do change; I remember a time when homosexuality was kept in the closet.

From those times to now have seen a change for the beter; many are now even comfortable with the idea of gay marriage.

Yes, world views do change.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter.

That's rather provincial

0 Replies

I'm a provincial kind of guy.

0 Replies

World wide, I suspect the vast majority of homosexuals are in the closet because exposure would be detrimental to their life.

0 Replies

Especially those in sports. It's sad really.

0 Replies

We still have restrictions for gays in the military. That too is sad.

0 Replies

I did not know that...

0 Replies

Quote:

Society's ethics may be different but is it not possible, and probable, that certain ethical belief systems are more valid than others?
If a moral belief is invalid, how does it hold ground in reality? If it is invalid then it is merely a fantasy or an error in the part of the person.

One ethical belief is not more valid than the other. More people might agree with the belief, but that doesn't mean that it's true for everyone. If everyone had the same core morals, then there would be no crime or laws. Laws come out of people's need to protect themselves against the minority of dangerous people.

I'm not saying anyone's moral beliefs are invalid (illogical, maybe), but I am saying that it only applies to that person, even if others share his views. Morality is a societal invention that serves to reinforce cultural norms. I'm not saying it isn't a good one, or one that I don't agree with, but it's still varies from person to person and culture to culture, and is therefore subjective/relative.

Quote:

Therein lies the contradiction within moral relativism; where there is a person claiming that morals are not absolute, yet him or herself believing in something that he or she thinks are absolute. The social darwinist, which plays a role in the massacre of millions during WWII, believed in a set of ethics but an invalid set of ethics. Most of us would see their mistake right away.

People can see their morals as absolute, and yet not apply it to others. Most ethical rules are for guiding personal behavior anyway, such as "brush your teeth", or "don't hurt others", or don't curse". The key to making a "good" set of morals is to be as logical as possible. If people were capable of complete logic, then I would say we have a set of concrete, objective morals...since nobody is completely logical, however, there isn't.

Quote:

Moral relativism hides in the guise of tolerance, but there is really a huge difference between tolerance and appeasement.

I see moral relativism as a person's recognition of the fact that their morals are not the same as everyone else's, and are thus not infallible, which leads to questioning/improvement. I do see myself as tolerant of other people's views, but that doesn't mean I won't tell someone they're wrong if I think they are...it just means that I'll accept it if they decide not to listen to me.

Always a pleasure. Very Happy

0 Replies

Existentialism
I'm writing a term paper on existentialism. In the process I have found that it branches into several different areas of philosophy, freedom vs. determinism, ethics, or just trying to find meaning in ones' life.

I agree, for the most part, with what is said about morals being subjective/relative to that person or society. Which just so happens to intermingle with cultural anthropology.

I have no question. Just wanted to start a discussion on the subject of existentialism.

Oh, by the way, homosexuality may have been a closet subject for many years, however, it was widely accepted in many different cultures. Such as the Greek societies and many other european countries. It can be found throughout American history. It is accepted more than a person might think, its just not talked about.

0 Replies

Can we ever change anything?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know