Attention moral relativists... (HOF thread)
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Zakath states...
You continue...
So you Zakath could NOT by any means stated (so far) condemn the hypothetical democracy for their instituting sexual slavery law. Correct?
You continue...
You opened with this statement....
Well, your new criteria "time did tell" is contradictory to your "time will tell" criteria.
You continue...
Exactely my point!
So you Zakath could NOT by any means stated (so far) condemn the hypothetical democracy for their instituting sexual slavery law. Correct?
You continue...
Only from your perspective as a moral relativist. From my perspective I can make a determination ahead of time if a law is "good" or "bad" or even "evil"!
You opened with this statement....
In your opinion is your subjective sense of right and wrong any more right or wrong than my sense?
That is true and I agree with you.
However, it is far more relevant to determine if such a thing exists than it is to discuss its attributes.
If absolutes exist, a god exists. If no god exists than there is nothing more to reality than atoms and molecules and atoms and molecules cannot be "evil" or "righteous". I think there is AMPLE evidence to suggest that moral absolutes do indeed exist and the vast majority of these absolutes are acknowledged by the vast majority of humans living and that have ever lived on this planet.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
It merely demonstrates that there are multiple tools available. For some jobs I use a hammer and for others a pair of pliers, metaphorically speaking. You sound like you are searching for the mother of all Swiss Army Knives, kind of a "one tool does it all"...
Then we agree. Wasn't that easy?
You know Knight, we could really carry on meaniful dialogue if you'd read my previous responses before firing off a response to something I haven't said...
Well good for you. So can I, based upon the criteria we've already discussed.
Since I do not know you personally, I can't reasonably be expected to make a general statement. Other than your postings on this website, I have little by which to measure your "sense".
Zakath states...
Apparently we have a different idea of what "subjective" means.
Zakath,states...
You said...
Why should I define a word that you used to describe your world view? Wouldn't it make more sense for you to define "subjective" since it was you who used the word initially????
You said...
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Because you stated that you do not think we use the word the same way...
If you've got a variant meaning differing from the standard dictionary definition, let's hear it, otherwise drop it and see if you can provide some evidence of your, much touted, "moral asolutes".
Failing that, pack it in fella, you're firing blanks.
By Zak
That was exactly my point.
By Knight
I would disagree with you there Knight. To put it simply I would much rather have on this planet all Atheist who had "relative" morals that mainly encompassed doing unto others as you want them to do unto you than to have all devout religious people that had absolute morals of their way or the highway, or vice versa. But that's just me.
You mean like murder is absolutely wrong...... Yeah, but everyone has a different definition of murder. Everyone acknowledges them but no one agrees on what they are.
That was exactly my point.
By Knight
I would disagree with you there Knight. To put it simply I would much rather have on this planet all Atheist who had "relative" morals that mainly encompassed doing unto others as you want them to do unto you than to have all devout religious people that had absolute morals of their way or the highway, or vice versa. But that's just me.
You mean like murder is absolutely wrong...... Yeah, but everyone has a different definition of murder. Everyone acknowledges them but no one agrees on what they are.
ClaypoolKid
New member
Don't be scared.
Don't be scared.
“I would suggest that the "right" and "wrong" of a law should be evaluated by its effects.”--- Zakath
Sorry Zakath, but by your standards alone this would be a completely unworkable method and does not provide any solutions. If you can’t determine the “right” or “wrong” of a law how could you determine the “right” or “wrong” of the effect? Laws implemented by the Nazis resulted in millions of dead Jews. For the Nazis this was the desired effect of the laws and thus they declared the laws “good”. (I hope you would not agree with this.) So with this evaluation method moral relativist are left with their tires spinning.
I also get a bit annoyed with how the vocabularies of liberals (a.k.a. moral relativist) seem to shrink when talking about morality. I think this discussion should be able to move forward without all the squabbles concerning the definitions of the words “right”, “wrong” and “absolute”. I am sure that Zakath and other liberals have used these words in other conversations many times without the confusion. We are talking about simple issues of right and wrong. There is nothing for you liberals to be scared of. Unless you have a fear of truth.
Don't be scared.
“I would suggest that the "right" and "wrong" of a law should be evaluated by its effects.”--- Zakath
Sorry Zakath, but by your standards alone this would be a completely unworkable method and does not provide any solutions. If you can’t determine the “right” or “wrong” of a law how could you determine the “right” or “wrong” of the effect? Laws implemented by the Nazis resulted in millions of dead Jews. For the Nazis this was the desired effect of the laws and thus they declared the laws “good”. (I hope you would not agree with this.) So with this evaluation method moral relativist are left with their tires spinning.
I also get a bit annoyed with how the vocabularies of liberals (a.k.a. moral relativist) seem to shrink when talking about morality. I think this discussion should be able to move forward without all the squabbles concerning the definitions of the words “right”, “wrong” and “absolute”. I am sure that Zakath and other liberals have used these words in other conversations many times without the confusion. We are talking about simple issues of right and wrong. There is nothing for you liberals to be scared of. Unless you have a fear of truth.
Re: Don't be scared.
Re: Don't be scared.
Re: Don't be scared.
What a fantastic observation!
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Re: Don't be scared.
Re: Don't be scared.
How about an illustration...
The state of New York has recently passed a law adding a large additional sales tax to packs of cigarettes raising the price to about $6.50 per pack. This law is percieved of as "good" by those who wish to reduce cigarette consumption, since it does reduce the number of packs sold and would boost state tax revenues.
What has actually occured is the development of a black market in cigarrettes from out of state. Since it is involving interstate commerce, the crime is (at least partially) federal. This will require the hiring of more staff by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (yes, those "jack booted thugs" of Waco fame) to police the illegal traffic. This will require the raising of federal taxes (or diversion of monies from other federal programs) to pay the costs. NY state troopers are now being diverted from other duties to run interdiction on the highways. The question is now being raised of how long before the gangs from the city get involved and we start having "turf wars" over territories for illegal cigarette sales, similar to those that exist for narcotics.
In addition, the decline of cigarette usage has lowered the projected revenues so the state did not make as much money as projected, resulting in a budget shortfall. This will require the state to raise general sales taxes to try to recoup the "lost" funds.
So the question is raised:
Is raising the tax on cigarettes "good" or "bad"?
That's why I press for defintions. So all the parties involved have a common set of reference for the discussion.
Re: Don't be scared.
Governments make laws affecting many areas of life including those not directly "moral" or where "morality" is a bit fuzzy.
How about an illustration...
The state of New York has recently passed a law adding a large additional sales tax to packs of cigarettes raising the price to about $6.50 per pack. This law is percieved of as "good" by those who wish to reduce cigarette consumption, since it does reduce the number of packs sold and would boost state tax revenues.
What has actually occured is the development of a black market in cigarrettes from out of state. Since it is involving interstate commerce, the crime is (at least partially) federal. This will require the hiring of more staff by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (yes, those "jack booted thugs" of Waco fame) to police the illegal traffic. This will require the raising of federal taxes (or diversion of monies from other federal programs) to pay the costs. NY state troopers are now being diverted from other duties to run interdiction on the highways. The question is now being raised of how long before the gangs from the city get involved and we start having "turf wars" over territories for illegal cigarette sales, similar to those that exist for narcotics.
In addition, the decline of cigarette usage has lowered the projected revenues so the state did not make as much money as projected, resulting in a budget shortfall. This will require the state to raise general sales taxes to try to recoup the "lost" funds.
So the question is raised:
Is raising the tax on cigarettes "good" or "bad"?
On the other side, it also forced millions of Jews to leave Europe and promoted the cause of Zionism and the founding of the Israeli state in 1948.
Not really, what we are left with is the idea of relativism; that what is bad for one group may be good for another.
Example , please. Here on TOL, it's usually the religionists that are running around re-defining terms to suit their theories...
I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I use the terms "right" and "wrong" frequently. The issue, as I mentioned above is that the religionist side keeps shifting meanings. For example, I am unaware to which of the tens of thousands of religious sects in the world that you belong. One of the reasons those sects exist is because they see things differently. Were we to have any ongoing discussion I might ask you to define your terms to make certain we were both referring to similar ideas during the discussion.
That's where we disagree. The issues are very commonly, not simple at all.
I seem to sense a bit of malice dripping from that term "liberal". Firstly, I'm not really a liberal, I'm more of a libertarian. And secondly, I have no fear of actual truth when I am exposed to it. It's just that "absolute truth" gets lost in dispensationalism and other verbal sleight of hand when religionists use the term...
That's why I press for defintions. So all the parties involved have a common set of reference for the discussion.
Eireann
New member
Bad example, goose. What is "socially acceptable" is generally a status quo, something that is agreed upon by the majority of the society. The extermination of the Jews in Nazi Germany was something that was opposed by the majority of German society; it was carried out by a minority who ruled by fear. German society allowed the travesty to occur out of fear for their own skins, fear of the punishment that the Nazis would visit upon them if they interfered. That doesn't mean they agreed with what was happening or that they thought it was right. Most didn't.
What is "socially acceptable" is not always what is done, and what is done is not always "socially acceptable," if those who are doing it have the power and the means to exploit that power. But history has shown again and again that when it is only the minority interest that is represented, they can only maintain power for so long. Eventually, the majority will either rebel or remove themselves to greener pastures. In the latter case, the social order changes more slowly over time, but it does change. Modern-day Cuba is a good example of that process in action. No government can stay in power for very long when it doesn't passify the majority. South Africa is a good example of that.
Last edited:
Eireann
New member
Re: Don't be scared.
Re: Don't be scared.
Sorry, ClaypoolKid (I hope you're not referencing Les Claypool, because I would really hope a Primus fan would be able to argue better than this), but no wheels spinning here.
You hope to dance around the issue of objective morality by playing word games, which you hope will hide the fact that you really have no meritable argument in favor of absolute morality.
Let me make it simple for you: absolute morality means that the moral value in question is both shared and defined equally by everyone. Pay close attention to that word. everyone. Now if that is the case, if there is an absolute moral value out there in the moral universe, then when you speak of it from your point of view, you can accurate speak from the point of view of every ... single ... human ... being ... in ... the ... universe! Can you do that? Can you say with unequivocal certainty that any given moral value that you hold is viewed the same way by every single human being in the universe? If you can't, then your morality is not absolute. It is relative only to you and to those who share your view. Now, that relative group may be every human on the planet but one. It may even account for all the people on the planet (or any other planet, if there are others with life), but it doesn't account for those yet unborn, it doesn't account for any and all future interpretations. See, that's another property of an absolute morality -- it does not and cannot be changed, ever. If it's changeable, then it isn't absolute. An absolute morality is one that not only is universally and unanimously agreed upon now, but will always, throughout eternity, be universally and unanimously agreed upon.
See, absolute morality doesn't encompass the majority; it doesn't encompass 99.99999% of the people; it encompasses 100% of the people. Why? Because morals are dictated by society, and society is comprised of individuals, and all component members of a society must agree unanimously for an idea to be absolute within that society, and all societies must not only be absolute within their own mezocosms (my word; microcosm = individual, mezocosm = individual societies, macrocosm = collective of all societies), but must be in universal agreement in the macrocosm. Therefore, if even one human being does not share your value or definition, then your "absolute" does not exist.
What's that I hear? Is that the sound of ... why, yes, I believe it is ... moral absolutists spinning their wheels! Glory be!
Re: Don't be scared.
Sorry, ClaypoolKid (I hope you're not referencing Les Claypool, because I would really hope a Primus fan would be able to argue better than this), but no wheels spinning here.
You hope to dance around the issue of objective morality by playing word games, which you hope will hide the fact that you really have no meritable argument in favor of absolute morality.
Let me make it simple for you: absolute morality means that the moral value in question is both shared and defined equally by everyone. Pay close attention to that word. everyone. Now if that is the case, if there is an absolute moral value out there in the moral universe, then when you speak of it from your point of view, you can accurate speak from the point of view of every ... single ... human ... being ... in ... the ... universe! Can you do that? Can you say with unequivocal certainty that any given moral value that you hold is viewed the same way by every single human being in the universe? If you can't, then your morality is not absolute. It is relative only to you and to those who share your view. Now, that relative group may be every human on the planet but one. It may even account for all the people on the planet (or any other planet, if there are others with life), but it doesn't account for those yet unborn, it doesn't account for any and all future interpretations. See, that's another property of an absolute morality -- it does not and cannot be changed, ever. If it's changeable, then it isn't absolute. An absolute morality is one that not only is universally and unanimously agreed upon now, but will always, throughout eternity, be universally and unanimously agreed upon.
See, absolute morality doesn't encompass the majority; it doesn't encompass 99.99999% of the people; it encompasses 100% of the people. Why? Because morals are dictated by society, and society is comprised of individuals, and all component members of a society must agree unanimously for an idea to be absolute within that society, and all societies must not only be absolute within their own mezocosms (my word; microcosm = individual, mezocosm = individual societies, macrocosm = collective of all societies), but must be in universal agreement in the macrocosm. Therefore, if even one human being does not share your value or definition, then your "absolute" does not exist.
What's that I hear? Is that the sound of ... why, yes, I believe it is ... moral absolutists spinning their wheels! Glory be!
Last edited:
ClaypoolKid
New member
“Governments make laws affecting many areas of life including those not directly "moral" or where "morality" is a bit fuzzy.”---Zakath
Zakath, what is your point? I completely agree. I would say that throughout history governments have proven time and time again that they are capable of making moral laws, immoral laws, and even A-moral laws. I doubt that many conservatives would disagree. So I hope that you did not take a long time to come up with the cigarette sales example because it was a waste of your time.
Then you go on to write what you think were the ‘good’ effects of Nazis laws.
“On the other side, it also forced millions of Jews to leave Europe and promoted the cause of Zionism and the founding of the Israeli state in 1948.”---Zakath
First, I would like to question whatever disgusting motives you had to list some ‘good’ that occurred after the Holocaust. These events were not ‘good’ effects of Nazi law. If Nazi law had continued to reign in Germany, ALL of the Jews would have been killed and there would have been none left to leave Europe. Thus, Zionism would have never occurred and Israel would have never been re-established. It was not Nazi law that allowed these things to occur. It was the END of Nazi law!
You then summarize your filthy words by saying:
“..what we are left with is the idea of relativism; that what is bad for one group may be good for another.”
So what your saying is that if a man rapes a woman it would be a ‘bad’ experience for her but it could be a ‘good’ experience for him and therefore we can’t declare the rape incident as morally ‘good’ or morally ‘bad’. Is this correct?
With that aside let me ask you this. Were the forcing of millions of Jews out of Europe, Zionism and the establishment of Israel ‘good’ things? Were they absolutely ‘good’ or is that just another meaningless statement by you? Once again, how can a moral relativist declare anything ‘good’ or ‘bad’?
Ok, now you want some examples of a liberal’s shrinking vocabularies here on TOL. All quotes are pulled from this thread.
1. “From my perspective, this depends mainly on the definition of "wrong."”—Zakath-- 06-20-2002 08:34 AM--- (You were the first to squabble about definitions on this very thread.)
2. “No, we've actually discussed my definition of wrong several times and you don't accept it as "relevant."--Zakath- 06-20-2002 06:43 PM (With this quote you basically admit to my point. YOU have your OWN definition of ‘wrong’? What don’t you like about the standard definition or how the word is generally used?)
3. “I press for definitions.”---Zakath--- 07-06-2002 02:46 PM (Again, you make my point for me.)
I was going to go through and search for more examples but these should be sufficent. I have had many debates with liberals in person and they always want to define terms. I think there must be some handbook titled ‘A Liberals Guide to Debating.’ (Page 1: “Whenever you find yourself loosing a debate obfuscate by asking for definition of words.”) Maybe knight or somebody who has been more involved in the forums here can provide more examples from TOL. This is only my 8th post.
One last quote from Zakath:
“I'm not really a LIBERal, I'm more of a LIBERtarian.”
???!!!???..Explain that one Zakath…???!!???
"It depends on what the defintion of 'is' is."-- Bill Clinton
P.S. Eireann, You next on my list…)
Zakath, what is your point? I completely agree. I would say that throughout history governments have proven time and time again that they are capable of making moral laws, immoral laws, and even A-moral laws. I doubt that many conservatives would disagree. So I hope that you did not take a long time to come up with the cigarette sales example because it was a waste of your time.
Then you go on to write what you think were the ‘good’ effects of Nazis laws.
“On the other side, it also forced millions of Jews to leave Europe and promoted the cause of Zionism and the founding of the Israeli state in 1948.”---Zakath
First, I would like to question whatever disgusting motives you had to list some ‘good’ that occurred after the Holocaust. These events were not ‘good’ effects of Nazi law. If Nazi law had continued to reign in Germany, ALL of the Jews would have been killed and there would have been none left to leave Europe. Thus, Zionism would have never occurred and Israel would have never been re-established. It was not Nazi law that allowed these things to occur. It was the END of Nazi law!
You then summarize your filthy words by saying:
“..what we are left with is the idea of relativism; that what is bad for one group may be good for another.”
So what your saying is that if a man rapes a woman it would be a ‘bad’ experience for her but it could be a ‘good’ experience for him and therefore we can’t declare the rape incident as morally ‘good’ or morally ‘bad’. Is this correct?
With that aside let me ask you this. Were the forcing of millions of Jews out of Europe, Zionism and the establishment of Israel ‘good’ things? Were they absolutely ‘good’ or is that just another meaningless statement by you? Once again, how can a moral relativist declare anything ‘good’ or ‘bad’?
Ok, now you want some examples of a liberal’s shrinking vocabularies here on TOL. All quotes are pulled from this thread.
1. “From my perspective, this depends mainly on the definition of "wrong."”—Zakath-- 06-20-2002 08:34 AM--- (You were the first to squabble about definitions on this very thread.)
2. “No, we've actually discussed my definition of wrong several times and you don't accept it as "relevant."--Zakath- 06-20-2002 06:43 PM (With this quote you basically admit to my point. YOU have your OWN definition of ‘wrong’? What don’t you like about the standard definition or how the word is generally used?)
3. “I press for definitions.”---Zakath--- 07-06-2002 02:46 PM (Again, you make my point for me.)
I was going to go through and search for more examples but these should be sufficent. I have had many debates with liberals in person and they always want to define terms. I think there must be some handbook titled ‘A Liberals Guide to Debating.’ (Page 1: “Whenever you find yourself loosing a debate obfuscate by asking for definition of words.”) Maybe knight or somebody who has been more involved in the forums here can provide more examples from TOL. This is only my 8th post.
One last quote from Zakath:
“I'm not really a LIBERal, I'm more of a LIBERtarian.”
???!!!???..Explain that one Zakath…???!!???
"It depends on what the defintion of 'is' is."-- Bill Clinton
P.S. Eireann, You next on my list…
)
Last edited:
Eireann
New member
Let's get our terminology right
Let's get our terminology right
We've been discussing morals, but I think we've been using the wrong terms, especially when it comes to discussing right and wrong. See, morals don't deal with what is "right" or "wrong," they deal with what is "proper" or "improper," and what is "normal" or "abnormal." Right and wrong would be ethics, not morals.
Morals and morality are mechanisms to govern, regulate and facilitate the smooth and orderly interaction of members of a given society. Morals establish an acceptable code of behavior, but that code is relative to the society.
Morals consist of "mores" and "folkways"
Mores: formal rules, usually written down, that establish acceptable codes of behavior and provide a range of sanctions for following (reward) or breaking (punishment) the mores. Laws are an excellent example of mores.
Folkways: informal rules, unwritten, that are generally understood within a given society.
Mores can become folkways outside the society in question. For instance, in Amish society, the manner of dress, restriction of makeup on women, and abstinance from electricity and technology are mores. They are laws. They are written and strictly enforced, with set punishments (you can be kicked out for breaking these). But in the wider society, beyond the borders of Amish society, these things are viewed as folkways, because they don't exist as a part of our laws and mores. There are some ultraconservative women who refuse to wear cosmetics for a variety of reasons -- religious, activist, whatever -- but unless they are following a formal and written rule, it is a folkway moral.
Lets examine some more relative morals:
Here in the US, it is neither normal nor proper for a woman to go topless on a public beach. In some places this is a rigid more, a written law, and the offending woman can be arrested for it. In some states it exists only as a folkway, but is still widely recognized as improper behavior. It is "immoral" in American society for a woman to go to a public beach topless.
In France, however, it is socially acceptable. No such more or folkway exists that regulates a woman going topless at a public beach. It is not "immoral" in French society for a woman to go to a public beach topless. However, if a Frenchman were to look upon an American woman going topless at a French beach, he could look upon her as engaging in immoral behavior, if he knows that it is an immoral act among Americans, but he cannot judge a French woman the same way. He has to judge the person according to the morals of the society to which that person belongs, at least with folkways. With restrictive mores and folkways (those that define something as "socially unacceptable" as opposed to those that define something as "acceptable"), it's a little more complicated. If a French woman were to come to an American state where it is illegal to go topless on a public beach, she could be arrested for breaking the law. If she goes to a state where it isn't illegal, she can still be deemed immoral if she is aware of the local behavioral code. We are not only members of the society in which we reside, but we are at least temporarily members of the local society where we may be at any given moment. Thus, we are responsible to not significantly disrupt the lives of the local populace. If we go to Paris, we are responsible to follow, or at the very least, respect Parisian customs when we are aware of them, and Parisian laws at all times, whether those laws or customs are a part of American society or not.
Laws fall into the catagory of either moral law, ethical law, or fiscal law (and obviously we're not discussing fiscal law here). Moral law defines what is proper and improper behavior (e.g. public nudity is illegal), ethical law defines what is deemed right or wrong (e.g. murder is illegal).
So if you really want to discuss "right" and "wrong," we need to start a thread on ethics, and leave moral discussions to moral issues.
Let's get our terminology right
We've been discussing morals, but I think we've been using the wrong terms, especially when it comes to discussing right and wrong. See, morals don't deal with what is "right" or "wrong," they deal with what is "proper" or "improper," and what is "normal" or "abnormal." Right and wrong would be ethics, not morals.
Morals and morality are mechanisms to govern, regulate and facilitate the smooth and orderly interaction of members of a given society. Morals establish an acceptable code of behavior, but that code is relative to the society.
Morals consist of "mores" and "folkways"
Mores: formal rules, usually written down, that establish acceptable codes of behavior and provide a range of sanctions for following (reward) or breaking (punishment) the mores. Laws are an excellent example of mores.
Folkways: informal rules, unwritten, that are generally understood within a given society.
Mores can become folkways outside the society in question. For instance, in Amish society, the manner of dress, restriction of makeup on women, and abstinance from electricity and technology are mores. They are laws. They are written and strictly enforced, with set punishments (you can be kicked out for breaking these). But in the wider society, beyond the borders of Amish society, these things are viewed as folkways, because they don't exist as a part of our laws and mores. There are some ultraconservative women who refuse to wear cosmetics for a variety of reasons -- religious, activist, whatever -- but unless they are following a formal and written rule, it is a folkway moral.
Lets examine some more relative morals:
Here in the US, it is neither normal nor proper for a woman to go topless on a public beach. In some places this is a rigid more, a written law, and the offending woman can be arrested for it. In some states it exists only as a folkway, but is still widely recognized as improper behavior. It is "immoral" in American society for a woman to go to a public beach topless.
In France, however, it is socially acceptable. No such more or folkway exists that regulates a woman going topless at a public beach. It is not "immoral" in French society for a woman to go to a public beach topless. However, if a Frenchman were to look upon an American woman going topless at a French beach, he could look upon her as engaging in immoral behavior, if he knows that it is an immoral act among Americans, but he cannot judge a French woman the same way. He has to judge the person according to the morals of the society to which that person belongs, at least with folkways. With restrictive mores and folkways (those that define something as "socially unacceptable" as opposed to those that define something as "acceptable"), it's a little more complicated. If a French woman were to come to an American state where it is illegal to go topless on a public beach, she could be arrested for breaking the law. If she goes to a state where it isn't illegal, she can still be deemed immoral if she is aware of the local behavioral code. We are not only members of the society in which we reside, but we are at least temporarily members of the local society where we may be at any given moment. Thus, we are responsible to not significantly disrupt the lives of the local populace. If we go to Paris, we are responsible to follow, or at the very least, respect Parisian customs when we are aware of them, and Parisian laws at all times, whether those laws or customs are a part of American society or not.
Laws fall into the catagory of either moral law, ethical law, or fiscal law (and obviously we're not discussing fiscal law here). Moral law defines what is proper and improper behavior (e.g. public nudity is illegal), ethical law defines what is deemed right or wrong (e.g. murder is illegal).
So if you really want to discuss "right" and "wrong," we need to start a thread on ethics, and leave moral discussions to moral issues.