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

[Smoo]

The moment you start to judge other peoples actions based on your moral code, you're assuming that all morality isn't relative.

No, I could judge them if I wanted to. People force their morality on others all the time. Look at the gay marriage thing.Sometimes you'll feel strongly enough about your position that you'll try to change somebody's outlook and morality, and sometimes you won't care. Religious people tend to feel extremely strongly about their morality and try to change people's views all the time, and judge them.One addendum I'd like to put out there - somebody can claim that their morality is a certain way, but I'm not buying it until they can justify it in some way. Somebody tells me they'd save their dog over a stranger, I don't have to agree but I can certainly understand the justification and concede them their morality with neither being 'right' or 'wrong'. Somebody would have an extremely difficult time convincing me that their position of genocide or child rape being okay was a validly moral position.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

But if you have mutually exclusive perspectives, then although neither of you may be "empirically" right or wrong, one of you is right and one of you is wrong.

Yes. From my perspective, I'm right and he's wrong. From his perspective, he's right and I'm wrong. Neither of us are independently right or wrong. Morality depends on perspective.

Do you believe there are any moral absolutes or are you comfortable in asserting that morality is self-generated due to perspective?

I do not believe there are any moral absolutes.

So raping a child is okay in some circumstances? Trust me if anyone touches any of my five children they will quickly discover whether or not I feel that they are obliged to making this moral decision of their own accord.

You're not following this very well.

How so? I am not asking you if you personally feel it is okay. I am asking you if it is okay if some people do this because it is not a moral absolute.

You're not following this because you immediately responded to my saying that I don't believe in moral absolutes by asking me if I believed in a moral absolute. Saying that 'raping a child is ok' is a statement of moral absolute, so of course I don't believe it.What I do believe is that some stranger may believe that raping a child is okay. That's their morality. It may happen. What that stranger needs to realize, though, is that their morality is in disagreement with pretty much everybody else's morality, to the point where society has enacted some pretty strict laws against raping a child. So whether that stranger believe raping a child is okay or not, they'd best not be trying it.

There are moral absolutes though. You just refuse to admit to them. I don't know how they are formed (outside of my personal belief that they were given to us by God....but let's not hijack the thread yet again on that tangent).I was following you perfectly, I just chose a topic that is so blatantly obvious and yet you still denied the existence of a moral absolute. Maybe your world is considerably greyer than mine. I just don't get it.

 

[Psychopav]

Wait. Are you using the Bugs Bunny trick on me?

*Is too!-Is not!*Is too!-Is not!*Is too!-Is not!*Is not!-Is too!*Is NOT!-Is TOO!*Fine, have it your way then! - *

 

[Smoo]

It seems that all smoo would have to do to make the two ideas compatible was to say he doesn't believe genocide is wrong for anyone other than himself.

I had already asked him if it was wrong just when he does it, or if it's wrong when others do it as well.

Yes, and I didn't lie. I do believe it's wrong when others do it. That doesn't mean they have to believe that.

But how can they be doing something wrong, when relative morality only applies to you? In relative morality, the only way someone can be wrong is if they do something against their own moral code. For you to say someone did something wrong in your opinion, you are supplanting THEIR moral code with your own, therefore yours is no longer relative but takes on an objective role.

They're not doing something 'wrong', they're doing something I believe is wrong.

 

[660]

hope that makes you feel better, when some ##### decides to let your mother drown, so he can take his dog to a Korean restaurant.

I would thank him, my mom is a b***h, so technically he might be hesitent because he wouldn't know which one was the female dog...

LOLso odviously you are either a sychopath hoping for the death of his mother..or are just arguing to argue at this point. So either way, I am done with you.

I am not hoping for her death, but if she dies then I won't be terribly upset.

 

[rolyaTy]

The moment you start to judge other peoples actions based on your moral code, you're assuming that all morality isn't relative.

No, I could judge them if I wanted to. People force their morality on others all the time. Look at the gay marriage thing.Sometimes you'll feel strongly enough about your position that you'll try to change somebody's outlook and morality, and sometimes you won't care. Religious people tend to feel extremely strongly about their morality and try to change people's views all the time, and judge them.One addendum I'd like to put out there - somebody can claim that their morality is a certain way, but I'm not buying it until they can justify it in some way. Somebody tells me they'd save their dog over a stranger, I don't have to agree but I can certainly understand the justification and concede them their morality with neither being 'right' or 'wrong'. Somebody would have an extremely difficult time convincing me that their position of genocide or child rape being okay was a validly moral position.

You can judge whoever you want, whenever you want...but know that as soon as you're judging them according to your own morality, you're using your morals in an objective sense, rather than simply relative. If you truly believed your morals were relative, there would be no sense in judging others according to your morals...as much as you would be crazy to tell someone they're "Wrong" for thinking something tastes good that you think tastes bad. Those who force their morality on others believe that morality is universal, and that their concept of morality is universally right, whereas others are wrong. This enables them to say others are wrong, like in the gay marriage situation.Why would you ever want to change someones outlook and morality? If there is no right and wrong morality, what sense is there in changing it? Why not just let people believe what they want to believe and live a happy life, as long as they're not hurting others?Once again, religious people try to change peoples views all the time because they believe there is an absolute morality. When they see a person not in agreement with their concept of the absolute morality, they try to change the person to more fit that concept. I should be able to convince you genocide or child rape is okay as a valid moral position simply using your concept of morality as being relative....If all morality is relative, you have no right to call another persons actions "wrong"...only what you do according to your own morality can be right or wrong. If another person has a morality which allows for genocide or rape, what they are doing is "right" according to their morality, and if all morality is relative, you have no ability to say what they've done is wrong...it'd only be wrong if YOU did it.

 

[rolyaTy]

It seems that all smoo would have to do to make the two ideas compatible was to say he doesn't believe genocide is wrong for anyone other than himself.

I had already asked him if it was wrong just when he does it, or if it's wrong when others do it as well.

Yes, and I didn't lie. I do believe it's wrong when others do it. That doesn't mean they have to believe that.

But how can they be doing something wrong, when relative morality only applies to you? In relative morality, the only way someone can be wrong is if they do something against their own moral code. For you to say someone did something wrong in your opinion, you are supplanting THEIR moral code with your own, therefore yours is no longer relative but takes on an objective role.

They're not doing something 'wrong', they're doing something I believe is wrong.

Same thing, you saying something is wrong is the same as saying "I think it is wrong". The problem here is that you are saying it's wrong for someone else to do something, simply according to your own moral code. There is no basis for you applying YOUR moral code to someone else, if all morality is relative. So even saying "I think it is wrong", unless you're talking about whether or not it's wrong for YOU, it can't be applied to others.

 

[Smoo]

But "immoral" isn't like "yummy." If you say genocide is immoral and Hitler says it isn't, at least one of you is wrong. "Immoral" is like "schmuckiness" (or "purple" or "spherical"): it's a unary predicate. That's how people use it in everyday speech.

"Immoral" is more like "yummy" than you're willing to admit. Immoral is a 'unary predicate' (side note: could you please stick to english for the remainder of your posts? tia) only within a limited scope - that being one person's outlook. In that way it's very unlike 'purple'.How people use it in everyday speech is uninteresting to me. People use words wrong all the time in everyday speech.

If you want to express the idea that genocide may be unpleasant-to-you, but pleasant-to-others, that's fine. But find some different words to express that concept. "Immoral" is already taken, and it doesn't mean unpleasant-to-you. It has objective, normative connotations.

If you want to claim that there's no such thing as right or wrong, and that morality is all a load of crap, don't follow it up by saying you think genocide is wrong. Say that it sucks, or that it's a total bummer. But "wrong" already has a definition, and it doesn't mean anything that's compatible with moral relativism.

I can certainly assert that something is right or wrong to me without forcing it to be universally right or wrong. For every example that's been brought up of an action that is 'wrong', an exception has been found that has made it 'right'. So circumstances, observers and participants can all change the moral value of an action. There are no certainties.If your beef is just with the statement 'genocide is wrong', then I clarify it by saying 'I can not think of a situation where genocide would be morally right, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one'. I didn't feel like typing that much.

 

[Smoo]

The moment you start to judge other peoples actions based on your moral code, you're assuming that all morality isn't relative.

No, I could judge them if I wanted to. People force their morality on others all the time. Look at the gay marriage thing.Sometimes you'll feel strongly enough about your position that you'll try to change somebody's outlook and morality, and sometimes you won't care. Religious people tend to feel extremely strongly about their morality and try to change people's views all the time, and judge them.One addendum I'd like to put out there - somebody can claim that their morality is a certain way, but I'm not buying it until they can justify it in some way. Somebody tells me they'd save their dog over a stranger, I don't have to agree but I can certainly understand the justification and concede them their morality with neither being 'right' or 'wrong'. Somebody would have an extremely difficult time convincing me that their position of genocide or child rape being okay was a validly moral position.

You can judge whoever you want, whenever you want...but know that as soon as you're judging them according to your own morality, you're using your morals in an objective sense, rather than simply relative. If you truly believed your morals were relative, there would be no sense in judging others according to your morals...as much as you would be crazy to tell someone they're "Wrong" for thinking something tastes good that you think tastes bad. Those who force their morality on others believe that morality is universal, and that their concept of morality is universally right, whereas others are wrong. This enables them to say others are wrong, like in the gay marriage situation.Why would you ever want to change someones outlook and morality? If there is no right and wrong morality, what sense is there in changing it? Why not just let people believe what they want to believe and live a happy life, as long as they're not hurting others?Once again, religious people try to change peoples views all the time because they believe there is an absolute morality. When they see a person not in agreement with their concept of the absolute morality, they try to change the person to more fit that concept. I should be able to convince you genocide or child rape is okay as a valid moral position simply using your concept of morality as being relative....If all morality is relative, you have no right to call another persons actions "wrong"...only what you do according to your own morality can be right or wrong. If another person has a morality which allows for genocide or rape, what they are doing is "right" according to their morality, and if all morality is relative, you have no ability to say what they've done is wrong...it'd only be wrong if YOU did it.

This is incorrect. Yes, all of it.

 

[Thorn]

The moment you start to judge other peoples actions based on your moral code, you're assuming that all morality isn't relative.

No, I could judge them if I wanted to. People force their morality on others all the time. Look at the gay marriage thing.Sometimes you'll feel strongly enough about your position that you'll try to change somebody's outlook and morality, and sometimes you won't care. Religious people tend to feel extremely strongly about their morality and try to change people's views all the time, and judge them.One addendum I'd like to put out there - somebody can claim that their morality is a certain way, but I'm not buying it until they can justify it in some way. Somebody tells me they'd save their dog over a stranger, I don't have to agree but I can certainly understand the justification and concede them their morality with neither being 'right' or 'wrong'. Somebody would have an extremely difficult time convincing me that their position of genocide or child rape being okay was a validly moral position.

You can judge whoever you want, whenever you want...but know that as soon as you're judging them according to your own morality, you're using your morals in an objective sense, rather than simply relative. If you truly believed your morals were relative, there would be no sense in judging others according to your morals...as much as you would be crazy to tell someone they're "Wrong" for thinking something tastes good that you think tastes bad. Those who force their morality on others believe that morality is universal, and that their concept of morality is universally right, whereas others are wrong. This enables them to say others are wrong, like in the gay marriage situation.Why would you ever want to change someones outlook and morality? If there is no right and wrong morality, what sense is there in changing it? Why not just let people believe what they want to believe and live a happy life, as long as they're not hurting others?Once again, religious people try to change peoples views all the time because they believe there is an absolute morality. When they see a person not in agreement with their concept of the absolute morality, they try to change the person to more fit that concept. I should be able to convince you genocide or child rape is okay as a valid moral position simply using your concept of morality as being relative....If all morality is relative, you have no right to call another persons actions "wrong"...only what you do according to your own morality can be right or wrong. If another person has a morality which allows for genocide or rape, what they are doing is "right" according to their morality, and if all morality is relative, you have no ability to say what they've done is wrong...it'd only be wrong if YOU did it.

This is incorrect. Yes, all of it.

I think we found your incorrect belief.

 

[Smoo]

It seems that all smoo would have to do to make the two ideas compatible was to say he doesn't believe genocide is wrong for anyone other than himself.

I had already asked him if it was wrong just when he does it, or if it's wrong when others do it as well.

Yes, and I didn't lie. I do believe it's wrong when others do it. That doesn't mean they have to believe that.

But how can they be doing something wrong, when relative morality only applies to you? In relative morality, the only way someone can be wrong is if they do something against their own moral code. For you to say someone did something wrong in your opinion, you are supplanting THEIR moral code with your own, therefore yours is no longer relative but takes on an objective role.

They're not doing something 'wrong', they're doing something I believe is wrong.

Same thing, you saying something is wrong is the same as saying "I think it is wrong". The problem here is that you are saying it's wrong for someone else to do something, simply according to your own moral code. There is no basis for you applying YOUR moral code to someone else, if all morality is relative. So even saying "I think it is wrong", unless you're talking about whether or not it's wrong for YOU, it can't be applied to others.

Sure there is. How are you missing this.If I believe it's wrong for me to do something, I likely believe it's wrong for others to do so. I can judge as much as I want from there. Other people with different morality will disagree with me and judge me back. The best example that this happens is THIS VERY THREAD!

Me believing it is wrong for anybody to perform (ACTION X) is NOT the same as me believing that everybody should think performing (ACTION X) is wrong.

 

[Psychopav]

Me believing it is wrong for anybody to perform (ACTION X) is NOT the same as me believing that everybody should think performing (ACTION X) is wrong.

Seems like you and MT have disagreed on this point. Can you clarify your position on this? Can you define "wrong" in this context? I agree with MT on this, but I'd like to hear your explanation of what you think morally wrong means.

 

[Smoo]

Okay, I have to do some work now or I'm going to get in significant trouble. I'll try to pop in periodically, this is fun!

 

[rolyaTy]

It seems that all smoo would have to do to make the two ideas compatible was to say he doesn't believe genocide is wrong for anyone other than himself.

I had already asked him if it was wrong just when he does it, or if it's wrong when others do it as well.

Yes, and I didn't lie. I do believe it's wrong when others do it. That doesn't mean they have to believe that.

But how can they be doing something wrong, when relative morality only applies to you? In relative morality, the only way someone can be wrong is if they do something against their own moral code. For you to say someone did something wrong in your opinion, you are supplanting THEIR moral code with your own, therefore yours is no longer relative but takes on an objective role.

They're not doing something 'wrong', they're doing something I believe is wrong.

Same thing, you saying something is wrong is the same as saying "I think it is wrong". The problem here is that you are saying it's wrong for someone else to do something, simply according to your own moral code. There is no basis for you applying YOUR moral code to someone else, if all morality is relative. So even saying "I think it is wrong", unless you're talking about whether or not it's wrong for YOU, it can't be applied to others.

Sure there is. How are you missing this.If I believe it's wrong for me to do something, I likely believe it's wrong for others to do so. I can judge as much as I want from there. Other people with different morality will disagree with me and judge me back. The best example that this happens is THIS VERY THREAD!

Me believing it is wrong for anybody to perform (ACTION X) is NOT the same as me believing that everybody should think performing (ACTION X) is wrong.

I'm not missing what you're saying. I understand what you're saying...but i'm trying to say there are implications in what you're saying that contradict one of your fundamental beliefs - namely that all morality is relative.Lets start with this one. If all morality is relative, can it ever be justified to call someone elses action "wrong" without knowing their moral code?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I can certainly assert that something is right or wrong to me without forcing it to be universally right or wrong.

But that's not what "right" and "wrong" mean. Words mean what people use them to mean, and "right" and "wrong" don't stand for any concepts that moral relativists subscribe to. When someone who believes that there's no such thing as right or wrong says "genocide is wrong," he is necessarily misusing the term "wrong."

For every example that's been brought up of an action that is 'wrong', an exception has been found that has made it 'right'. So circumstances, observers and participants can all change the moral value of an action. There are no certainties.

Yeah, but that's totally different. Shooting someone for fun is wrong. Shooting someone in self-defense isn't. So circumstances, etc., matter. Everyone agrees with this, and it doesn't really have anything to do with whether certain things can be right or wrong.Torturing puppies solely for amusement is wrong. Can you think of an exception to that? (An exception besides, "Well, Al Davis doesn't think it's wrong, so it's not wrong for him.")

If your beef is just with the statement 'genocide is wrong', then I clarify it by saying 'I can not think of a situation where genocide would be morally right, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one'.

It's easy to think of situations where genocide would be morally right. That's not the point. (Unless it is the point because the reason you can't think of any such situations is that there's no such thing as right or wrong, so obviously genocide can't be right -- or wrong.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If I believe it's wrong for me to do something, I likely believe it's wrong for others to do so. I can judge as much as I want from there. Other people with different morality will disagree with me and judge me back. The best example that this happens is THIS VERY THREAD!

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.

 

[660]

I'm not missing what you're saying. I understand what you're saying...but i'm trying to say there are implications in what you're saying that contradict one of your fundamental beliefs - namely that all morality is relative.Lets start with this one. If all morality is relative, can it ever be justified to call someone elses action "wrong" without knowing their moral code?

I would think so, because we act according to own own moral code and judge others accordinly. You can be wrong in my eyes, but not wrong in your own. Since morality is relative, so is being 'wrong'.

 

[rolyaTy]

I'm not missing what you're saying. I understand what you're saying...but i'm trying to say there are implications in what you're saying that contradict one of your fundamental beliefs - namely that all morality is relative.Lets start with this one. If all morality is relative, can it ever be justified to call someone elses action "wrong" without knowing their moral code?

I would think so, because we act according to own own moral code and judge others accordinly. You can be wrong in my eyes, but not wrong in your own. Since morality is relative, so is being 'wrong'.

So you're saying someone can be wrong and right at the same time?

 

[660]

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.Apples and Oranges...

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So you're saying someone can be wrong and right at the same time?

I think the obvious answer is yes; but then again, no.

 

[satch]

You should save the human stranger bc human life is inherently more valuable than a dog's

This is the biggest sticking point in the entire thread. I've yet to read a logical explanation as to why human life is more valuable than a dogs. Please, somebody convince me with more than "it's that simple", or "becuase it is" or "if you disagree your a disgrace". How about some logical information, or factual evidence, or anything other than subjective opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not a fact.

It is tempting for me to say - you should just know this. But it seems like an honest question, so I'll resist that urge and give an answer.Because humans are conscious on a level that animals aren't. I don't think that dogs can have complex emotion, or reason, or raise a family, or organize into societies. I know that they are capable of simpler versions of each.

There are some humans that can't do those things due to mental disabilities. Using your gauge, a mentally disabled person's life is less valuable than a human who is not mentally disabled. Is that how you feel?The fact that humans are more intelligent does not make their life more valuable. Are you saying that the smarter you are, the more valuable your life is?

What you are doing is basing the value of all living things lives upon human values and desires. That doesn't seem fair to the species who don't share those same values and desires.

 

[rolyaTy]

I'm not missing what you're saying.  I understand what you're saying...but i'm trying to say there are implications in what you're saying that contradict one of your fundamental beliefs - namely that all morality is relative.Lets start with this one.  If all morality is relative, can it ever be justified to call someone elses action "wrong" without knowing their moral code?

I would think so, because we act according to own own moral code and judge others accordinly. You can be wrong in my eyes, but not wrong in your own. Since morality is relative, so is being 'wrong'.

So you're saying someone can be wrong and right at the same time?

Actually, to answer my own question, i'll explain what I think is meant when people say wrong.Moral Objectivists: You are wrong compared to the universal code of morality.Moral Relativists: You are wrong compared to MY code of morality.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.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Right, but just bc some moral questions are difficult, or because usually there are multiple acceptable answers, does not mean that there are NO questions with one right answer.BTW, although I've only been reading since about page 30, I don't see people putting up religion as a reason, only you putting it up as a counter.

Don't kid yourself.Almost everyone here is basing their moral and belief system off of their religions.And if they aren't, they are using the same tactics religious people use. Kind of like when someone says, "If you don't accept the Lord, Jesus Christ, as our Saviour, then you're going to hell.""But I don't believe in hell.""Then you're really going there!"Having beliefs is great. Trying to get other people to believe them to be truths is oppressive.

 

[Psychopav]

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.

Side note:MT, knowing the divergence in our belief systems, I'm very interested in where you end up going with this...[/hijack of the hijack]

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Using your gauge, a mentally disabled person's life is less valuable than a human who is not mentally disabled. Is that how you feel?

Yes.

 

[satch]

Okay, I have to do some work now or I'm going to get in significant trouble. I'll try to pop in periodically, this is fun!

Work shmerk!

 

[Psychopav]

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

NO WAY.Forcing other people to endure pain and suffering in some manner unless they profess the same beliefs is oppression. Trying to get others to believe them to be truths, telling others that they are "wrong" is not oppression.

 

[660]

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.

No I judge people based on my view of morality, not theirs.

 

[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.

 

[Psychopav]

Okay, I have to do some work now or I'm going to get in significant trouble. I'll try to pop in periodically, this is fun!

Work shmerk!

Is that binary shmerk or unary shmerk?

 

[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.

No I judge people based on my view of morality, not theirs.

Do you believe that all morality is relative?

 

[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.

 

[Smoo]

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.

 

[rolyaTy]

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.

 

[660]

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.

No I judge people based on my view of morality, not theirs.

Do you believe that all morality is relative?

Yes. Morality is my personal view of what is acceptable. Some people share common morals or let morals be defined for them, but in the end we all have our own set of moral.

 

[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.

No I judge people based on my view of morality, not theirs.

Do you believe that all morality is relative?

Yes. Morality is my personal view of what is acceptable. Some people share common morals or let morals be defined for them, but in the end we all have our own set of moral.

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?

 

[satch]

Using your gauge, a mentally disabled person's life is less valuable than a human who is not mentally disabled. Is that how you feel?

Yes.

I'll give you credit for being honest, although I disagree with your "IQ Test score= Value of your life" theory.If a chimp scored higher than a mentally disabled person on a test, you think the chimp's life is more valuable than the disabled person?

 

[Thorn]

You should save the human stranger bc human life is inherently more valuable than a dog's

This is the biggest sticking point in the entire thread. I've yet to read a logical explanation as to why human life is more valuable than a dogs. Please, somebody convince me with more than "it's that simple", or "becuase it is" or "if you disagree your a disgrace". How about some logical information, or factual evidence, or anything other than subjective opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not a fact.

It is tempting for me to say - you should just know this. But it seems like an honest question, so I'll resist that urge and give an answer.Because humans are conscious on a level that animals aren't. I don't think that dogs can have complex emotion, or reason, or raise a family, or organize into societies. I know that they are capable of simpler versions of each.

There are some humans that can't do those things due to mental disabilities. Using your gauge, a mentally disabled person's life is less valuable than a human who is not mentally disabled. Is that how you feel?The fact that humans are more intelligent does not make their life more valuable. Are you saying that the smarter you are, the more valuable your life is?

What you are doing is basing the value of all living things lives upon human values and desires. That doesn't seem fair to the species who don't share those same values and desires.

I'm not really talking about intelligence, at least not in a pure sense. I'm talking about the premise that an animal's existence is on a level that can't concieve of reflection. That's what makes human life more valuable in general.

 

[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.

 

[Politician Spock]

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.

No you don't. You live in Canada. The word "anybody" includes non-Canadians as well. I'm pretty sure their are people in other countries who would say you have no right to judge them.

 

[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.

 

[Thorn]

Right, but just bc some moral questions are difficult, or because usually there are multiple acceptable answers, does not mean that there are NO questions with one right answer.BTW, although I've only been reading since about page 30, I don't see people putting up religion as a reason, only you putting it up as a counter.

Don't kid yourself.Almost everyone here is basing their moral and belief system off of their religions.And if they aren't, they are using the same tactics religious people use. Kind of like when someone says, "If you don't accept the Lord, Jesus Christ, as our Saviour, then you're going to hell.""But I don't believe in hell.""Then you're really going there!"Having beliefs is great. Trying to get other people to believe them to be truths is oppressive.

I actually edited that out of my post bc I went back and read some of the earlier posts and saw that earlier on people were doing that.FWIW, I'm not using "tactics," I just really think there is a right answer to whether a human life is worth more than an animal one.

 

[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?

 

[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?

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[rolyaTy]

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.

 

[dgreen]

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

How do you propose laws be decided?

 

[Smoo]

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.

 

[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.