Attention moral relativists... (HOF thread)

[Projill]

Originally posted by ClaypoolKid
; 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?

Ummm...you're resorting to highly emotive posting. I think Zak will be able to handle the rest of this post fine so I'll just respond to this point...seeing as how I am a woman and have experienced rape.

Morality, as has been brought up before by many people on this forum, is directly relative to the culture in which we live. Morally, in our society, we view rape as a "bad" thing. I think the western world is, for the most part, agreed on this point. However, there are places in the world where rape is considered a "normal" part of interrogating people in custody...not by law, per se, but in practice (I believe the term is "folkways".) Juvenile male prisoners sometimes wind up in adult prisons in certain areas of the world and they are treated as property by the prisoners (as well as many of the guards). Officially this doesn't happen, but behind closed doors it's not even shocking to those who live in those societies. Do I find these practices horrid? Of course! I'm a member of Amnesty International and what we do is try to put an end to inhumane treatment, human to human, around the world. But it's an uphill battle because these people have been brought up to think that this kind of treatment is okay.

It's perfectly acceptable to kill rape victims in some of our more religiously-fueled countries around the world. It's called an "honor crime" and the family's honor is more important than the woman's life. Do I find this terrible? Again, of course. But they see it as necessary.

Are you beginning to understand how the mores, folkways, and values of our culture influence our behavior? Do you understand how different standards invoke quite different and, as far as we can grasp it, outrageous and shocking behavior?

It's only by, through the generations, doing away with inhumane treatment of people in our own country that we've come as far as we have...and America's still far from being number one when it comes to being humane. Our very own country is little more than a hundred some odd years away from a time when we considered subjecting whole races into slavery as perfectly acceptable (even promoted by preachers from their pulpits at the time.)

You might not like the idea of moral relativism...but think about what you might consider to be moral or immoral if you had been born a mere one hundred fifty years ago.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by ClaypoolKid
“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.

It's nice to see we agree on something before you launch into the rest of your post, (or should I say "tirade")...

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.

If it made my point, it's not a waste 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. I was the END of Nazi law!

A bit touchy there, eh Claypool! Does your hatred for Nazi's extend to the individual party members as well? It's good that I do not feel similarly about the evils perpetrated by Christians throughout the centuries..

Of course, the dead did not go to Israel, only the escapees, many from Britain. They were forced to emigrate and the Brits were forced to come up with a solution because of German aggression.

Was this a benefit for Zionism? Certainly.

What do you mean by your rather cryptic commeint that you were "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?

No, once again your emotionalism causes you to miss the point.

The point of this argument has always been that I do not believe in absolute morality. Humans can always, it seems, find some way to illustrate depraved behavior. If find it curious how frequently the allegedly "Christian" posters on this site jump to deviant sexual behavior to justify their points. I wonder why the fixation with raping women?

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?

Forcing Jews out of Europe, good for those who disliked and hated them, bad for Jews, .
Zionism, good for Israel, bad for the Palestinians.
Establisment of Israel, good for Jews, bad for Palestinians.

Were they absolutely ‘good’ or is that just another meaningless statement by you?

See my preceding comments about not accepting the concept of "absolute" morality.

Once again, how can a moral relativist declare anything ‘good’ or ‘bad’?

In short, by experience and the rules of the society in which they have been raised.

Ok, now you want some examples of a liberal’s shrinking vocabularies here on TOL. All quotes are pulled from this thread... snipped examples...I was going to go through and search for more examples but these should be sufficent...This is only my 8th post.

Since you're new here, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are merely ignorant, and not as obnoxious as you sound. The person I was discussing this with (not you, BTW) is infamous, on this board, for playing verbal gymnastics with the meanings of words..

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.”)

If you are as experienced a debator as you try to present yourself then you know the answer to your own question and are merely baiting me.

As your own post points out, your debate opponents were attempting to clarify the meaning of the terms you were using while you were so intent on drubbing them that you ignored the reason for the clarification. It's called "communication", claypoolkid. In your youthful enthusiasm (my youngest kids are about your age), you missed the fact that your opponents were seeking to communicate with you and chalked up their attempts at understanding as some nefarious liberal consipracy.

One last quote from Zakath:

“I'm not really a LIBERal, I'm more of a LIBERtarian.”

???!!!???..Explain that one Zakath…???!!???

To answer your question, try using a dictionary to research the difference between the definitions of "liberal" and "libertarian".

 

[Eireann]

What do you mean by your rather cryptic commeint that you were "the END of Nazi law"?

I think that was probably a typo, meant to read "It was the END of Nazi law." Am I right?

 

[Zakath]

Good thought! After rereading it, that makes sense.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

it seems that the basic argument for moral relativism rests on the idea that we can not know everything. Is that correct?

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
it seems that the basic argument for moral relativism rests on the idea that we can not know everything. Is that correct?

Basically. First, there is the idea that we cannot know everything. Second is the idea that we cannot speak for everyone when we define our values (and if any moral value were absolute, then we could necessarily speak for any and all rational beings). Third is the idea that any absolute must necessarily be immutable from past to present to future. There cannot be even the slightest alteration in the imperitives of that moral. Last, but not least, is the idea that for something to be morally absolute, it would almost certainly need to be tied together by something that is big enough and powerful enough to unite the thinking of any and all rational beings (in other words, it would require God's hand) -- yet, though many of us believe in such a power, we have no real proof of its existence, so we cannot call anything absolute when we cannot even prove the existence of the one thing that would be capable of enforcing an objective absolute.

 

[Zakath]

Succinctly stated, Eireann.

Though I'd have to say from an atheistic viewpoint, the 'big and powerful something' would have to be some sort of natural force (maybe the human genome in the case of morals) common to all affected or under the sway of the absolute.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Zakath
Succinctly stated, Eireann.

Though I'd have to say from an atheistic viewpoint, the 'big and powerful something' would have to be some sort of natural force (maybe the human genome in the case of morals) common to all affected or under the sway of the absolute.

True. Yet even though we know there is a human genome, there would still remain the task of proving it capable of such a uniformly binding function.

 

[Zakath]

My head hurts even thinking about trying to devise an experiment to test that kind of hypothesis...

 

[Pilgrimagain]

But here is the thing, I can know everything about SOME things. the fact that I can not know everything about all things does not prevent me (or society) from making absolute statments (or judgements) about some things.

 

[Zakath]

Yet, as an atheist, I am frequently beaten about the head and and shoulders (at least on this board) with the argument Eireann has raised as the reason that I cannot say there is not a deity.

What's sauce for the goose...

 

[Goose]

How could a theist prove to you that God exists if you aren't 100% sure that you yourself exists?

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
But here is the thing, I can know everything about SOME things. the fact that I can not know everything about all things does not prevent me (or society) from making absolute statments (or judgements) about some things.

People can, and often do make what seem to be absolute statements and/or judgements about some things, but that seemingness doesn't make them absolute. I don't believe that anyone can know everything about anything. There is always some new thing to learn about even the smallest matters.

 

[ClaypoolKid]

Sorry about the typo and thanks for the correction Projill. Of all the letters for me to miss that ‘t’ might have been the most crucial.

"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."-Zakath

"It's perfectly acceptable to kill rape victims in some of our more religiously-fueled countries around the world. It's called an "honor crime" and the family's honor is more important than the woman's life. Do I find this terrible? Again, of course. But they see it as necessary."-Projill

"It's relative, again, to the society. Underage drinking is acceptable in Amish society. To the Amish, it isn't wrong. However, that Amish society exists as a subset of a greater society, within which underage drinking is not only seen as wrong, but is regulated as a matter of law. It all depends on where you draw the boundaries of society."-Eireann

It seems that the moral relativist who are participating in this thread are approaching the discussion in the same manner. However, I am not sure what they are attempting to do. I am completely aware that different societies adhere to different moral codes. Different societies will implement different laws and practice different behaviors. These observations are not in question.

Knight asked:
Question #1: Can a government (ANY GOVERNMENT) pass or inact a law that is wrong?
Question #2: If a society (ANY SOCIETY) deems something socially acceptable, can the society be wrong?

He did not ask if government and societies could have contradicting laws or contradicting practices. But rather, can these laws or practices be wrong. Can a government (which is the supposed highest authority of the land) enact a law that is wrong? If so, then the government must not be the highest authority of the land and there must be an even higher authority of which the government is subject to. What is the source of this authority that is above the government? If there is no authority that overshadows the authority of the government, then a government, including the Nazi government, can do no wrong.

"Let me make it simple for you: absolute morality means that the moral value in question is both shared and defined equally by everyone."----Eireann

I don't think that is a very accurate portrayal of what we are debating. Obviously this is not what we theist believe or there would be no debate. Many cultures, both past and present, have not shared or defined their moral values the way present day Americans might. I do not know any theist who would claim that there is a morality that is both "shared and defined equally by everyone." We would say that there is a moral code that SHOULD be shared and defined equally by everyone. We would say that there are certain behaviors that SHOULD be discouraged and declared illegal 100% of the time.

But here is the thing, I can know everything about SOME things. the fact that I can not know everything about all things does not prevent me (or society) from making absolute statments (or judgements) about some things.---- Pilgrimagain

Thanks for the input Pilgrim. I like your insight and I agree.

"I'm a member of Amnesty International and what we do is try to put an end to inhumane treatment, human to human, around the world. But it's an uphill battle because these people have been brought up to think that this kind of treatment is okay."--- Projill

Projill, how do you define what is ‘inhumane treatment’? Can you give me an example of an “inhumane treatment”? If there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong then your battle is not only ‘uphill’, it is also futile.

Does your hatred for Nazi's extend to the individual party members as well?---Zakath

Well, I never used the word ‘hate.’ (Although it could be fitting.)But whatever feeling I have for the Nazi party I would also have for the Nazi individuals. Just because the individuals were doing what they were ordered to do does not make it right.

"It's good that I do not feel similarly about the evils perpetrated by Christians throughout the centuries.."-Zakath

Well you should. There have been Christians who have done some pretty evil things. But are you sure that what they did was “evil”? What do you mean by ‘evil’? Can you give me an example of one of these ‘evil’ acts?

Oh, and Zakath... The Libertarian party is very liberal. This is clear to any conservative who knows the party’s stance on issues like drugs, abortion, prostitution and pornography.

Parting question:
Is there an authority higher than a nation's Government? If so, what is that authority? If not, then on what ground can we criticize the laws of any government?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by ClaypoolKid
...There have been Christians who have done some pretty evil things. But are you sure that what they did was “evil”? What do you mean by ‘evil’? Can you give me an example of one of these ‘evil’ acts?

If you consider Martin Luther a Christian, how about his anti-semetic diatribes, preached from Lutheran pulpits for decades... The Jews and their Lies? Such rabid hatred by the church hierarchy merely reflected the thinking of the common people. It eventually found physical expression in the Holocaust.

Parting question:
Is there an authority higher than a nation's Government? If so, what is that authority? If not, then on what ground can we criticize the laws of any government?

In the country in which I live, the will of the people, as expressed through the democratic republican process, is the highest authority. It isn't expressed perfectly, but we manage to muddle through most decades...

 

[Eireann]

originally posted by Claypoolkid
I don't think that is a very accurate portrayal of what we are debating. Obviously this is not what we theist believe or there would be no debate. Many cultures, both past and present, have not shared or defined their moral values the way present day Americans might. I do not know any theist who would claim that there is a morality that is both "shared and defined equally by everyone." We would say that there is a moral code that SHOULD be shared and defined equally by everyone. We would say that there are certain behaviors that SHOULD be discouraged and declared illegal 100% of the time.

What SHOULd be shared and defined equally by everyone, and what SHOULD be discouraged and declared illegal 100% of the time I agree would amount to a moral absolute. But what exactly is it that determines just what should be universally so treated? God? That would certainly be the theists' argument, but lacking proof of God, you are left with nothing more than a guess that there is such an absolute. The relativist's case is observable while the absolutist's case is merely conceptual.

 

[ClaypoolKid]

If you consider Martin Luther a Christian, how about his anti-semetic diatribes, preached from Lutheran pulpits for decades... The Jews and their Lies? Such rabid hatred by the church hierarchy merely reflected the thinking of the common people. It eventually found physical expression in the Holocaust.---Zakath

Yes Zakath, I am aware of Martin Luther's anti-Semitism and I find it disturbing as well. But what I want to know is: Was it wrong for Luther and the common people to have this "rabid hatred" for the Jews? I find it puzzling that you deny the existence of absolute morality but yet you so eagerly point out the "evils" committed by people. (You used the word 'evils' in your previous post.)

In the country in which I live, the will of the people, as expressed through the democratic republican process, is the highest authority.---Zakath

I also see a conflict with how you criticize the "thinking of the common people" during the time of Luther yet you seem at ease with the present day democratic republican process. If “the will of the people” is the “highest authority” then by what authority do you criticize the “rabid hatred’ of Jews during the time of Luther? Wasn’t oppression against Jews a part of “the will of the people” at that time? Is the will of the people really the highest authority?

If 10 years from now our democratic republic re-legalizes slavery will you speak out against it? If so, what will you say? What grounds would you have to criticize 'the will of the people' which is the 'highest authority' of the land? Your authority could not be higher than the highest authority.

 

[ClaypoolKid]

Eireann,

Right now I am not trying to prove the existence of absolute morality. For now I am just trying to point out the conflicting ideas of moral relativist who think they can have a foundation for any level of morality without submitting to the idea of absolutes.

I am not saying that moral relativist ignore all moral code. People can live with certain moral standards without having any foundation for their standards.

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by Eireann
The relativist's case is observable while the absolutist's case is merely conceptual.

How is this observed?

 

[Dana Scully]

Claypool,

I admire your logical approach. Keep their feet to the fire!

Dana