They're both drowning, you can save only one... (1 Viewer)

[rolyaTy]

So with moral relativity, what is right for you, could be wrong for another person...and objectively, you could both be right (simply because you're both following your specific morality) correct?

Only I can be right according to my moral beliefs if we disagree

But I dont subscribe to your moral beliefs...so saying I'm wrong according to your moral beliefs is pointless, because hypothetically I dont accept them.

 

[rolyaTy]

Trying to get other people to believe them to be truths is oppressive.

This is only true if there is no objective morality. As you cannot prove there is no objective morality, the statement that it's oppressive has no foundation and can be dismissed as nothing but an unfounded opinion.

I think you're taking the definition of oppressive the wrong way.It's oppressive in that's its being pushed upon some. Since neither your morals nor mine, or anyone else's for that matter, can be seen as absolute truths, then by trying to 'sway' others or 'get them to see the light' is being oppressive and overbearing.Since I am merely saying, "There is no right or wrong for everyone", I am being neither oppressive or overbearing. I am merely telling you that keeping an open mind is always the best way to approach things.

Would you consider a math teacher "oppressive" for teaching students the correct way to solve a math problem?

Not at all. Math is an absolute. There is no argument on mathematics.

So if you were to assume that there is an objective morality, you would no longer think that they were being "oppressive" in telling people the correct answers right?

 

[TheIronSheik]

But there is no absolute right and wrong....I'm not saying my choice is right or wrong.  And I'm certainly not telling anyone else that their choice is moral or immoral.  My whole point is that depending on who you are, what religion you are, what you believe in, and many other factors, there is not absolute right answer to a question based on moral beliefs.  We can agree that not everyone has the same moral beliefs.  And we can agree that no one's moral beliefs are perfect over another person's.  So why should this question call for such black and white answers?

I disagree with you that there is no absolute right and wrong. That's why some moral questions require black and white answers.A Christian can bellieve Hinduism is wrong. A Hindu might believe that Christianity is wrong. One of them might be right, or both of them might be wrong, but THEY CAN'T BOTH BE RIGHT.Therefore, they can discuss in black and white terms which of them is incorrect. Neither probably believes that both are wrong, since they wouldn't profess the belief system if they thought it was an incorrect belief system.Either morality is absolute or it isn't. That's what we're really arguing about in this thread (since I and a few others have managed a pretty solid hijacking here ).

Morality is only absolute in each person's mind.That's what I'm getting at. Don't you think with all the variables in the world, that absolute morality only pertains to an individual or a group of individuals?If I saved my dog over a human, could I be punished by our court systems? If not, then discussion over. If yes, then you have to look, would I be punished worldwide?While I agree that some morals are followed by large groups of individuals, there are very few moral beliefs that are absolute worldwide.

This doesn't mean that there IS no absolute morality...only that not everyone on earth is agreed on a specific morality.

Fair enough. I could possibly see your point there.But with that in mind, wouldn't you say that there's a possibility that yours is not correct?

Of course. It's possible my beliefs are incorrect. But while I still believe them to be correct, and I also believe that morality is universal and we all are trying to approach the universal morality, i'll try to convince others that i disagree with that their moral compass is not pointing to the True North.

If you are wrong, you could be leading them off of the correct path, then.Why not just hold their head under the water while your dog watched from the beach? Don't you think you should have facts before you try and sway other people's belief systems?

 

[Politician Spock]

Trying to get other people to believe them to be truths is oppressive.

This is only true if there is no objective morality. As you cannot prove there is no objective morality, the statement that it's oppressive has no foundation and can be dismissed as nothing but an unfounded opinion.

I think you're taking the definition of oppressive the wrong way.It's oppressive in that's its being pushed upon some. Since neither your morals nor mine, or anyone else's for that matter, can be seen as absolute truths, then by trying to 'sway' others or 'get them to see the light' is being oppressive and overbearing.Since I am merely saying, "There is no right or wrong for everyone", I am being neither oppressive or overbearing. I am merely telling you that keeping an open mind is always the best way to approach things.

Would you consider a math teacher "oppressive" for teaching students the correct way to solve a math problem?

Not at all. Math is an absolute. There is no argument on mathematics.

Absolutes exist within Math, but not all math is absolute.

 

[660]

So with moral relativity, what is right for you, could be wrong for another person...and objectively, you could both be right (simply because you're both following your specific morality) correct?

Only I can be right according to my moral beliefs if we disagree

But I dont subscribe to your moral beliefs...so saying I'm wrong according to your moral beliefs is pointless, because hypothetically I dont accept them.

Saying it might be pointless, but me thinking you are wrong and judging you based on that is human nature.

 

[rolyaTy]

The ironic thing here is that moral relativists, by the definition of their belief that morality is relative, have no right or cause to say anyone else is wrong based on their morality.  All that makes someone "right" or "wrong" is whether that specific person is doing the correct thing according to THEIR morality.

Sorry, I'm reading along and have long replies for some previous stuff, but only time for a short reply now.I have the right to judge anybody however I like. I think you're misusing the word 'right' here. 'Right' is a legal term. Whether my judgement will mean anything to said other person is a different story. They're likely to think I'm full of bologna. Good on 'em.

Substitute "logical/rational basis" for "right" and we'll get around the disagreement on definition.Either you believe that your set of beliefs can be applied to other people or you dont.

If you believe that it can, you can say "I dont believe what they did was right." Right in this sense, is specific to YOUR set of beliefs. Therefore you are applying YOUR set of beliefs to them, which is ok because you beleive that your set of beliefs can be applied to other people.

If you believe that your set of beliefs CANNOT be applied to other people, in other words you believe that morality is relative and that no one persons morals are right or wrong compared to anothers...then there is no basis for you applying YOUR set of beliefs to another persons action, and saying that what they did was "wrong" based on YOUR set of beliefs.

Because in moral relativity, right and wrong is defined by the person who is doing the action.

If I believe that the answers to math problems are arbitrary (same thing as saying morality is relative), I have no right to say that one person has the WRONG answer...because in doing so, i'm appealing to an objective CORRECT answer, and saying that person is not in line with the correct answer. If all answers are equally correct and incorrect, I have no logical basis for saying one is right or one is wrong.

Of course I can apply my belief to other people's actions. I believe everybody should adhere to my beliefs. Everybody, of course, isn't going to, because they have THEIR OWN beliefs.

Why should everyone adhere to your beliefs? You've already stated that you're not more correct than anyone else.

 

[rolyaTy]

So with moral relativity, what is right for you, could be wrong for another person...and objectively, you could both be right (simply because you're both following your specific morality) correct?

Only I can be right according to my moral beliefs if we disagree

But I dont subscribe to your moral beliefs...so saying I'm wrong according to your moral beliefs is pointless, because hypothetically I dont accept them.

Saying it might be pointless, but me thinking you are wrong and judging you based on that is human nature.

And it's also operating under the assumption that morality is not relative, which contradicts one of your stated beliefs.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Trying to get other people to believe them to be truths is oppressive.

This is only true if there is no objective morality. As you cannot prove there is no objective morality, the statement that it's oppressive has no foundation and can be dismissed as nothing but an unfounded opinion.

I think you're taking the definition of oppressive the wrong way.It's oppressive in that's its being pushed upon some. Since neither your morals nor mine, or anyone else's for that matter, can be seen as absolute truths, then by trying to 'sway' others or 'get them to see the light' is being oppressive and overbearing.

One can "sway" others or "get them to see the light" without being oppressive or overbearing.

This is true. But not by berating them and saying they are evil, stupid people.Am I wrong on that assumption?

 

[Politician Spock]

Trying to get other people to believe them to be truths is oppressive.

This is only true if there is no objective morality. As you cannot prove there is no objective morality, the statement that it's oppressive has no foundation and can be dismissed as nothing but an unfounded opinion.

I think you're taking the definition of oppressive the wrong way.It's oppressive in that's its being pushed upon some. Since neither your morals nor mine, or anyone else's for that matter, can be seen as absolute truths, then by trying to 'sway' others or 'get them to see the light' is being oppressive and overbearing.

One can "sway" others or "get them to see the light" without being oppressive or overbearing.

This is true. But not by berating them and saying they are evil, stupid people.Am I wrong on that assumption?

You're not wrong. But apparently you've got issues.

 

[rolyaTy]

Trying to get other people to believe them to be truths is oppressive.

This is only true if there is no objective morality. As you cannot prove there is no objective morality, the statement that it's oppressive has no foundation and can be dismissed as nothing but an unfounded opinion.

I think you're taking the definition of oppressive the wrong way.It's oppressive in that's its being pushed upon some. Since neither your morals nor mine, or anyone else's for that matter, can be seen as absolute truths, then by trying to 'sway' others or 'get them to see the light' is being oppressive and overbearing.

One can "sway" others or "get them to see the light" without being oppressive or overbearing.

This is true. But not by berating them and saying they are evil, stupid people.Am I wrong on that assumption?

Being a bad math student because you dont know how to correctly work math problems is the same as saying someone is an immoral person because their morality doesn't match the objective/universal morality (if one believs that). Both are simply statements than a person does not match a truth.

 

[TheIronSheik]

...I am merely saying, "There is no right or wrong for everyone"...

How do you propose laws be decided?

The country I live in already has laws. No need to make up new ones.Are you implying that speeding is immoral?

 

[rolyaTy]

...I am merely saying, "There is no right or wrong for everyone"...

How do you propose laws be decided?

The country I live in already has laws. No need to make up new ones.Are you implying that speeding is immoral?

It could be.Actually anything could be immoral in moral relativism.

 

[Politician Spock]

Actually anything could be immoral in moral relativism.

DING DING DING!

 

[TheIronSheik]

Trying to get other people to believe them to be truths is oppressive.

This is only true if there is no objective morality. As you cannot prove there is no objective morality, the statement that it's oppressive has no foundation and can be dismissed as nothing but an unfounded opinion.

I think you're taking the definition of oppressive the wrong way.It's oppressive in that's its being pushed upon some. Since neither your morals nor mine, or anyone else's for that matter, can be seen as absolute truths, then by trying to 'sway' others or 'get them to see the light' is being oppressive and overbearing.Since I am merely saying, "There is no right or wrong for everyone", I am being neither oppressive or overbearing. I am merely telling you that keeping an open mind is always the best way to approach things.

Would you consider a math teacher "oppressive" for teaching students the correct way to solve a math problem?

Not at all. Math is an absolute. There is no argument on mathematics.

So if you were to assume that there is an objective morality, you would no longer think that they were being "oppressive" in telling people the correct answers right?

Correct. If there was an absolute, then telling people to follow along the proclaimed path would not be oppressive. It would be enlightening.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Trying to get other people to believe them to be truths is oppressive.

This is only true if there is no objective morality. As you cannot prove there is no objective morality, the statement that it's oppressive has no foundation and can be dismissed as nothing but an unfounded opinion.

I think you're taking the definition of oppressive the wrong way.It's oppressive in that's its being pushed upon some. Since neither your morals nor mine, or anyone else's for that matter, can be seen as absolute truths, then by trying to 'sway' others or 'get them to see the light' is being oppressive and overbearing.

One can "sway" others or "get them to see the light" without being oppressive or overbearing.

This is true. But not by berating them and saying they are evil, stupid people.Am I wrong on that assumption?

You're not wrong. But apparently you've got issues.

Why do I have issues?

 

[rolyaTy]

Trying to get other people to believe them to be truths is oppressive.

This is only true if there is no objective morality. As you cannot prove there is no objective morality, the statement that it's oppressive has no foundation and can be dismissed as nothing but an unfounded opinion.

I think you're taking the definition of oppressive the wrong way.It's oppressive in that's its being pushed upon some. Since neither your morals nor mine, or anyone else's for that matter, can be seen as absolute truths, then by trying to 'sway' others or 'get them to see the light' is being oppressive and overbearing.Since I am merely saying, "There is no right or wrong for everyone", I am being neither oppressive or overbearing. I am merely telling you that keeping an open mind is always the best way to approach things.

Would you consider a math teacher "oppressive" for teaching students the correct way to solve a math problem?

Not at all. Math is an absolute. There is no argument on mathematics.

So if you were to assume that there is an objective morality, you would no longer think that they were being "oppressive" in telling people the correct answers right?

Correct. If there was an absolute, then telling people to follow along the proclaimed path would not be oppressive. It would be enlightening.

Ok, well, just so you know, most of the religious people believe there is an objective morality...so they feel they are "enlightening" rather than "oppressing"...which isn't such a bad intent.

 

[Politician Spock]

Trying to get other people to believe them to be truths is oppressive.

This is only true if there is no objective morality. As you cannot prove there is no objective morality, the statement that it's oppressive has no foundation and can be dismissed as nothing but an unfounded opinion.

I think you're taking the definition of oppressive the wrong way.It's oppressive in that's its being pushed upon some. Since neither your morals nor mine, or anyone else's for that matter, can be seen as absolute truths, then by trying to 'sway' others or 'get them to see the light' is being oppressive and overbearing.Since I am merely saying, "There is no right or wrong for everyone", I am being neither oppressive or overbearing. I am merely telling you that keeping an open mind is always the best way to approach things.

Would you consider a math teacher "oppressive" for teaching students the correct way to solve a math problem?

Not at all. Math is an absolute. There is no argument on mathematics.

So if you were to assume that there is an objective morality, you would no longer think that they were being "oppressive" in telling people the correct answers right?

Correct. If there was an absolute, then telling people to follow along the proclaimed path would not be oppressive. It would be enlightening.

What if your lifestyle was based on the equation 2+2=5?

 

[dgreen]

...I am merely saying, "There is no right or wrong for everyone"...

How do you propose laws be decided?

The country I live in already has laws. No need to make up new ones.Are you implying that speeding is immoral?

Why are certain actions illegal?

 

[TheIronSheik]

...I am merely saying, "There is no right or wrong for everyone"...

How do you propose laws be decided?

The country I live in already has laws. No need to make up new ones.Are you implying that speeding is immoral?

It could be.Actually anything could be immoral in moral relativism.

With that statement, you have been saying what I have said all along.

 

[jplvr]

Why the #### is this thread still alive?

 

[Politician Spock]

Trying to get other people to believe them to be truths is oppressive.

This is only true if there is no objective morality. As you cannot prove there is no objective morality, the statement that it's oppressive has no foundation and can be dismissed as nothing but an unfounded opinion.

I think you're taking the definition of oppressive the wrong way.It's oppressive in that's its being pushed upon some. Since neither your morals nor mine, or anyone else's for that matter, can be seen as absolute truths, then by trying to 'sway' others or 'get them to see the light' is being oppressive and overbearing.

One can "sway" others or "get them to see the light" without being oppressive or overbearing.

This is true. But not by berating them and saying they are evil, stupid people.Am I wrong on that assumption?

You're not wrong. But apparently you've got issues.

Why do I have issues?

How often have you been called an evil, stupid person?

 

[The noD]

40 pages? This must be a tough riddle. I'm not reading the whole thing, but I'd like to know the answer. It's the dog, isn't it? The human's too obvious. Probably a trick question. It's gotta be the dog.

 

[Politician Spock]

...I am merely saying, "There is no right or wrong for everyone"...

How do you propose laws be decided?

The country I live in already has laws. No need to make up new ones.Are you implying that speeding is immoral?

It could be.Actually anything could be immoral in moral relativism.

With that statement, you have been saying what I have said all along.

Nobody is confused as to what you've been saying.

 

[rolyaTy]

40 pages? This must be a tough riddle. I'm not reading the whole thing, but I'd like to know the answer. It's the dog, isn't it? The human's too obvious. Probably a trick question. It's gotta be the dog.

:rotflmao:

 

[TheIronSheik]

Trying to get other people to believe them to be truths is oppressive.

This is only true if there is no objective morality. As you cannot prove there is no objective morality, the statement that it's oppressive has no foundation and can be dismissed as nothing but an unfounded opinion.

I think you're taking the definition of oppressive the wrong way.It's oppressive in that's its being pushed upon some. Since neither your morals nor mine, or anyone else's for that matter, can be seen as absolute truths, then by trying to 'sway' others or 'get them to see the light' is being oppressive and overbearing.Since I am merely saying, "There is no right or wrong for everyone", I am being neither oppressive or overbearing. I am merely telling you that keeping an open mind is always the best way to approach things.

Would you consider a math teacher "oppressive" for teaching students the correct way to solve a math problem?

Not at all. Math is an absolute. There is no argument on mathematics.

So if you were to assume that there is an objective morality, you would no longer think that they were being "oppressive" in telling people the correct answers right?

Correct. If there was an absolute, then telling people to follow along the proclaimed path would not be oppressive. It would be enlightening.

What if your lifestyle was based on the equation 2+2=5?

You'd be a f**king re**rd and I would save the fully functional human over you.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Trying to get other people to believe them to be truths is oppressive.

This is only true if there is no objective morality. As you cannot prove there is no objective morality, the statement that it's oppressive has no foundation and can be dismissed as nothing but an unfounded opinion.

I think you're taking the definition of oppressive the wrong way.It's oppressive in that's its being pushed upon some. Since neither your morals nor mine, or anyone else's for that matter, can be seen as absolute truths, then by trying to 'sway' others or 'get them to see the light' is being oppressive and overbearing.

One can "sway" others or "get them to see the light" without being oppressive or overbearing.

This is true. But not by berating them and saying they are evil, stupid people.Am I wrong on that assumption?

You're not wrong. But apparently you've got issues.

Why do I have issues?

How often have you been called an evil, stupid person?

In this thread or in life?Either way, the number is high.The number has been significantly higher since 9/11.

 

[Politician Spock]

Trying to get other people to believe them to be truths is oppressive.

This is only true if there is no objective morality. As you cannot prove there is no objective morality, the statement that it's oppressive has no foundation and can be dismissed as nothing but an unfounded opinion.

I think you're taking the definition of oppressive the wrong way.It's oppressive in that's its being pushed upon some. Since neither your morals nor mine, or anyone else's for that matter, can be seen as absolute truths, then by trying to 'sway' others or 'get them to see the light' is being oppressive and overbearing.

Since I am merely saying, "There is no right or wrong for everyone", I am being neither oppressive or overbearing. I am merely telling you that keeping an open mind is always the best way to approach things.

Would you consider a math teacher "oppressive" for teaching students the correct way to solve a math problem?

Not at all. Math is an absolute. There is no argument on mathematics.

So if you were to assume that there is an objective morality, you would no longer think that they were being "oppressive" in telling people the correct answers right?

Correct. If there was an absolute, then telling people to follow along the proclaimed path would not be oppressive. It would be enlightening.

What if your lifestyle was based on the equation 2+2=5?

You'd I'd be a f**king re**rd and I would save the fully functional human over you.

Fixed it for you. The question I am leading to is that if there is in fact an obsolute truth, and your life is based on an something you just learned to be immoral based on absolute truth, would you be enlightened as you claim you would be, or would you reject absolute truth in order to keep your current lifestyle and stay moral in your own mind?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Nobody is confused as to what you've been saying.

What have I said that's so bad? I have not been condescending to anyone. I have listened to everyone's points and answered honestly. I am not saying anyone is wrong and I thought I've been very clear on that. The last thing I want to come off as is having issues. Sorry if I came off that way.

 

[rolyaTy]

Nobody is confused as to what you've been saying.

What have I said that's so bad? I have not been condescending to anyone. I have listened to everyone's points and answered honestly. I am not saying anyone is wrong and I thought I've been very clear on that. The last thing I want to come off as is having issues. Sorry if I came off that way.

I dont think you've been condescending at all. Been a pretty good convo so far and I doubt you have issues just from what you've said so far.

 

[Smoo]

Why should everyone adhere to your beliefs? You've already stated that you're not more correct than anyone else.

That's right. But I believe mine are better, even if they aren't. Plus, I'd be less angry all the time.

 

[Politician Spock]

Nobody is confused as to what you've been saying.

What have I said that's so bad?

Nothing

I have not been condescending to anyone.

Who said you had?

I have listened to everyone's points and answered honestly.

Who said you hadn't?

I am not saying anyone is wrong and I thought I've been very clear on that.

Post-modernist can't say anyone is wrong. You're consistent.

The last thing I want to come off as is having issues. Sorry if I came off that way.

If people are in fact calling you evil and stupid, then you probably don't have issues.

 

[rolyaTy]

Why should everyone adhere to your beliefs? You've already stated that you're not more correct than anyone else.

That's right. But I believe mine are better, even if they aren't. Plus, I'd be less angry all the time.

Better? How can something be better when there is no standard by which to judge things? To say something is "better" than something else, you're fundamentally comparing your beliefs to some other standard, and saying YOUR beliefs more match that standard than someone elses. This implies a form of objective morality.

 

[bueno]

I need to talk to those of you who saved the dog. It just took a dump in mu tulip bed.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Nobody is confused as to what you've been saying.

What have I said that's so bad? I have not been condescending to anyone. I have listened to everyone's points and answered honestly. I am not saying anyone is wrong and I thought I've been very clear on that. The last thing I want to come off as is having issues. Sorry if I came off that way.

I dont think you've been condescending at all. Been a pretty good convo so far and I doubt you have issues just from what you've said so far.

Thank you. I do apologize if I came off bad in ANY way. I am merely having a conversation/debate with a little humor thrown in every so often to lighten the mood.I do believe my moral ways to be right, much like you say you do. And I think that religion is great for people to help them do what they feel is right and keep an upstanding community intact. My problem is, I guess, (and I'm not saying anyone in particular has or hasn't done this here) is when people push ideas on others. Look at the Palestinians and the Jews in Israel. I saw a lot of that unnecessary violence and loss of life first hand and never want to again. If someone disagrees with my beliefs or thinks I'm wrong, that's fine. They can have their beliefs and I'll have mine. And we'll both be good people for that.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Since neither your morals nor mine, or anyone else's for that matter, can be seen as absolute truths, then by trying to 'sway' others or 'get them to see the light' is being oppressive and overbearing.

So? What's wrong with being oppressive and overbearing?You're not going to tell me it's morally wrong are you? How oppressive that would be! Also, overbearing.

 

[TheIronSheik]

If people are in fact calling you evil and stupid, then you probably don't have issues.

You'd be amazed what people say to a Muslim American in a post 9/11 world.

 

[Smoo]

Why should everyone adhere to your beliefs?  You've already stated that you're not more correct than anyone else.

That's right. But I believe mine are better, even if they aren't. Plus, I'd be less angry all the time.

Better? How can something be better when there is no standard by which to judge things? To say something is "better" than something else, you're fundamentally comparing your beliefs to some other standard, and saying YOUR beliefs more match that standard than someone elses. This implies a form of objective morality.

Because my moral framework matches my morality with 100% fidelity. Other people's moral frameworks match my morality with less than 100% fidelity. Therefore, mine is better. To me.

 

[rolyaTy]

I do believe my moral ways to be right, much like you say you do. And I think that religion is great for people to help them do what they feel is right and keep an upstanding community intact. My problem is, I guess, (and I'm not saying anyone in particular has or hasn't done this here) is when people push ideas on others. Look at the Palestinians and the Jews in Israel. I saw a lot of that unnecessary violence and loss of life first hand and never want to again. If someone disagrees with my beliefs or thinks I'm wrong, that's fine. They can have their beliefs and I'll have mine. And we'll both be good people for that.

How can you believe your morals are "right"...right compared to what? I think the best one can do who is a moral relativist is to say that their morals are...their morals. There is no right and wrong with respect to morality when one believes in moral relativity.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Why should everyone adhere to your beliefs? You've already stated that you're not more correct than anyone else.

That's right. But I believe mine are better, even if they aren't.

Better by what standard?

 

[dgreen]

If people are in fact calling you evil and stupid, then you probably don't have issues.

You'd be amazed what people say to a Muslim American in a post 9/11 world.

Whatever they said, they probably didn't think it was wrong, so it's okay.

 

[Politician Spock]

Why should everyone adhere to your beliefs?  You've already stated that you're not more correct than anyone else.

That's right. But I believe mine are better, even if they aren't.

Better by what standard?

A relative standard.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Since neither your morals nor mine, or anyone else's for that matter, can be seen as absolute truths, then by trying to 'sway' others or 'get them to see the light' is being oppressive and overbearing.

So? What's wrong with being oppressive and overbearing?You're not going to tell me it's morally wrong are you? How oppressive that would be! Also, overbearing.

It's not immoral. But it can lead to a lot of hatred for another person. Hatred that can turn to violence, or mass murder. Even genocide. All because one person's belief was different. Hitler believed his way was correct, and tried to point the world to the magnetic north. Look at all the people in this world who have suffered because of fighting over beliefs. I just think, until we know for sure what the absolute morals are, we should let each other side go about their business.

 

[rolyaTy]

Why should everyone adhere to your beliefs?  You've already stated that you're not more correct than anyone else.

That's right. But I believe mine are better, even if they aren't. Plus, I'd be less angry all the time.

Better? How can something be better when there is no standard by which to judge things? To say something is "better" than something else, you're fundamentally comparing your beliefs to some other standard, and saying YOUR beliefs more match that standard than someone elses. This implies a form of objective morality.

Because my moral framework matches my morality with 100% fidelity. Other people's moral frameworks match my morality with less than 100% fidelity. Therefore, mine is better. To me.

Your framework matches your morality 100%? What does this mean? It seems to mean that "What I believe matches what I believe 100%". That seems like a pointless thing to say. It's also equally pointless to compare YOUR beliefs to someone elses beliefs and to say yours more closely matches YOUR beliefs because isn't that obvious? But oddly enough, even in saying that your set of beliefs are better that someone elses, you are putting your beliefs above theirs and saying that obviously some things they believe are wrong. You have inherently set up a universally correct moral code, and simply defined it as "Your beliefs", and thus you are no longer a moral relativist.

 

[Politician Spock]

Since neither your morals nor mine, or anyone else's for that matter, can be seen as absolute truths, then by trying to 'sway' others or 'get them to see the light' is being oppressive and overbearing.

So? What's wrong with being oppressive and overbearing?You're not going to tell me it's morally wrong are you? How oppressive that would be! Also, overbearing.

It's not immoral. But it can lead to a lot of hatred for another person. Hatred that can turn to violence, or mass murder. Even genocide. All because one person's belief was different. Hitler believed his way was correct, and tried to point the world to the magnetic north. Look at all the people in this world who have suffered because of fighting over beliefs. I just think, until we know for sure what the absolute morals are, we should let each other side go about their business.

Isn't that what Hitler did? He went about his business. Was what he did immoral to him?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Since neither your morals nor mine, or anyone else's for that matter, can be seen as absolute truths, then by trying to 'sway' others or 'get them to see the light' is being oppressive and overbearing.

So? What's wrong with being oppressive and overbearing?You're not going to tell me it's morally wrong are you? How oppressive that would be! Also, overbearing.

It's not immoral. But it can lead to a lot of hatred for another person. Hatred that can turn to violence, or mass murder.

So what's wrong with violence or mass murder?Are you saying it's unwise to be oppressive because you might end up getting into fights? Many of the most prosperous men in human history have also been the most oppressive. If you're arguing against being oppressive only on pragmatic grounds, it seems like a bad argument.

 

[tipsy mcstagger]

i would let them both drown. planets overcrowded.

 

[Keerock]

:blackdog:

 

[Smoo]

Your framework matches your morality 100%? What does this mean? It seems to mean that "What I believe matches what I believe 100%". That seems like a pointless thing to say.

That's exactly what it means, and of course it's pointless. Because I thought your question was pointless. It sounded like you were asking me why my beliefs were more important to me. Duh, because they're mine.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Disagreement doesn't imply subjectivity. People disagree about whether horses and frogs share a common ancestor. That doesn't prevent it from being an objective fact that some people are right about and others wrong.

Correct, but morality can neither be tested nor proven, so comparing that with science is a bit far fetched.

I don't think comparing them is all that far-fetched.1. Nothing in science can be proven, either, so they have that in common.2. I believe that using our moral intuitions to form theories about normative propositions is not all that unlike using our sense data to form theories about empiricial propositions. David Friedman compares our moral sense to a "sixth [physical] sense," and I think the analogy works okay. His description of the analogy:

If you take the sixth sense analogy seriously, the next step is to ask why you believe the other five senses. The answer is not "because I understand how they work." To begin with, you probably don't, and even if you do, Aristotle certainly didn't--and none of us are willing to argue that he ought to have denied the evidence of the senses.You believe your five senses because you have imposed on them all the consistency tests you can think of, and they have mostly passed. You see something, your eyes tell you an object is there, you reach out and sure enough you can touch it. The thing is a bell. Last time you tried hitting a bell your ears told you there was a sound; you try it again and it still works. Occasionally there is an apparent contradiction--you can't touch a holographic image, and when you hit a holographic image of a bell it doesn't make a noise. But as you get farther and farther into the structure of the physical world revealed by your senses more and more of those contradictions turn out to make sense after all.A second set of tests occurs to you. Your senses tell you that other people are very much like you. If so, they should perceive the same physical universe. You ask them, and sure enough they almost always do--again with very rare exceptions such as color blindness, exceptions that turn out, on further examination, to make sense. Note, however, that what you are finding to be consistent is observation of very primitive facts--there is a table there, there is not a lion sitting on the table. About the patterns implied by those facts--for example, whether capitalism or socialism results in higher standards of living, or whether the earth goes around the sun or the sun around the earth, or whether paying enough money to the Church of Scientology will turn you into a superman--there is lots of disagreement. You conclude that your senses give you a reasonably accurate picture of the base facts of physical reality, consistent with that of almost everyone else, but that reasoning up from there is sufficiently hard, and/or depends sufficiently on the particular subset of facts observed, so that people disagree a good deal--and your confidence about your beliefs on that level should be appropriately weaker. You accordingly conclude that the physical universe is really out there, and the parts you have observed really have about the characteristics you observe. If someone tells you that there is a lion on the table you conclude he is a lunatic. If he is very convincing, you ask a few other people first and then conclude he is a lunatic.Now apply the same approach to moral reality. Replace sense perceptions with moral judgements--not grand theories such as "you should never violate rights" but "perceptions" such as "in the following well described situation, person X acted wrongly." Checking with other people you find, pace the ethical relativists, a very high degree of agreement. The disagreement either involves the sort of situation that, on consideration, you find morally difficult or (far more often) disagreement about the assumed facts, not the judgements.

3. My theory is that there is an objective human morality the same way that there's an objective human physical form (and that both are a product of biological evolution). The human form objectively has two eyes, one nose, two arms, two legs that are longer than the arms, etc. There are various reasons why certain human forms will depart from the standard-issue version: genetic defects, battle wounds, leprosy, etc. But there is such a thing as a standard-issue version. Likewise, human morality objectively views kindness and empathy as moral, torturing puppies for fun as immoral, etc. There are again various reasons why certain humans may have a morality that departs from the standard-issue version: genetic defects, brainwashing, factual ignorance, an abusive childhood, etc. But there is such a thing as the standard-issue version.My theory of an objective human morality suggests that people will agree on moral issues a lot more often than they disagree; and this seems to be the case. A great deal of ordinary human interaction involves implicit moral choices people make without ever noticing, because they're so automatic. Disagreements and hard cases are naturally more visible, but that doesn't mean they're more common.Further, it suggests that in cases where people do disagree, the disagreement will usually be caused by people holding different factual assumptions (often based on different life experiences), which again seems to be the case. Moreover, where people have genuine differences of opinion on basic moral fundamentals -- where, for example, one of them sees nothing wrong with torturing puppies -- it will generally be because he has a moral defect with some identifiable cause. Maybe part of his brain isn't fully developed because of some genetic defect; or maybe part of his brain is non-functioning because he was dropped on his head as an infant; or maybe he was brainwashed by some cult; or whatever -- but there should be an explanation.There will also be a normal amount of variation at the margins. Some people have longer arms than others, and some people think a dog's life is worth twelve squirrel lives while others think it's worth fourteen.As for the poll results here, as I said very early in the thread, I'm at somewhat of a loss to explain them. Maybe a lot has to do with some people being dog-owners and others not. Or maybe it has to do with some people having generally positive experiences with strangers and others not. More likely it's something else, but I don't know what.

 

[rolyaTy]

Your framework matches your morality 100%? What does this mean? It seems to mean that "What I believe matches what I believe 100%". That seems like a pointless thing to say.

That's exactly what it means, and of course it's pointless. Because I thought your question was pointless. It sounded like you were asking me why my beliefs were more important to me. Duh, because they're mine.

You said you believe your beliefs were better...when what you really meant to say was that you believe your beliefs were YOURS????Rather, I believe what you meant was IN FACT that your beliefs were truly BETTER than other peoples...and in doing so, you are comparing your beliefs to some standard, and other peoples beliefs to some standard, and are saying that your beliefs more closely match that standard. Whether that standard is YOUR ENTIRE belief system, or something else, you're still assuming an objective moral code by making comparisons of value between your morals and someone elses.In moral relativity, no persons beliefs are better than anothers. If you believe yours are, you're not truly a moral relativist. I think there are few people who truly believe NO other persons more compass is more accurate than anothers. Those who do accept that, can NO longer say anything regarding right or wrong behavior in others, unless he knows their moral system and knows whether or not they are acting according to it.