Moral relativism

Hume said:
ution of the United States was signed and ratified into power in 1787.
The Bill of Rights are AMENDMENTS, ratified into power in 1791.

NEITHER are any rights.
Rights are inherent. They do not come from a piece of paper.

For example:
The 2nd amendment does not provide any right. It DOES discuss to related inherent rights of self defense: The right of a government (in this case the State governments) to defend themselves, and the right of the individual to defend themselves.

The 2nd amendment does not give this right. It is inherent. I
Click to expand...

You're so childish, Hummer.

Grow up, seriously.
 
Into the Night said:
You are trying to declare your morals as 'absolute'. There is no such thing as an 'absolute moral', just as there is no such thing as an 'absolute reality'.


...according to your morals.

...because to them is was moral to do so.

Depends on who you ask.

That is exactly what they are.

This is also true.

Morals are not a consensus. Your set of morals are unique to you, and to you alone. My set of morals is unique to me, and to me alone. Hugo seems to be mostly amoral. He shifts with the context.

Morals are dangerous. Such conflict of morals has been the cause of every war.


Law is not a moral.

Depends on who you ask.
To some, it is perfectly moral to share their spouse with another.
It is not moral to you or me, but to some, it is. Such people are often called 'swingers'.


Slavery is not sentient. It has no morals.

To a slave owner, it was perfectly moral to own slaves. Many of his neighbors thought nothing of it. It was moral to them as well.
To you, it is not moral to own slaves. Those are YOUR morals. I happen to agree. Those are MY morals.
They are NOT the morals of slave owners or of their neighbors when slavery was legal.

Slavery still exists in the United States (illegally). My morals and your morals don't shift here. We both still consider the practice of slavery to be against our morals.

But to those slave owners, it is still moral, even if the practice is illegal.


A chicken is a bird. It is not a moral. False equivalence fallacy.

Irrelevance fallacy. Association fallacy.
To a slave owner, he bought and paid for those slaves. To him, that is completely moral. To him, they are his property.


Hugo is trapped. He is not playing a game. He is just trapped.
I think he knows this, which is why he isn't participating at this point.

You have asked him some specific questions. He chose to evade all of them. He never answered any of them.
Click to expand...
No Im not trying to declare my morals as absolute Im saying there are moral absolutes. As evidence of that I point to slave owners who thought it was fine to own slaves would not have wanted to be salves themselves. Thats hardly irrelevant to the discussion of moral absolutes. If slavery was a good thing why didnt they want to be slaves themselves. Oh right, because slavery sucks and is nhumane.

Slavery isnt sentient but being slave is.

The chicken was an analogy and the reasoning is exactly the same. The nature of a chicken doesnt change even if you think its something else. Telling me slave owners thought slavery was moral is nonsensical and it didnt make slavery moral.

There is an absolute reality. You will one day cease to be.

Sharing is not cheating. I said cheating.

Hume is not a serious person or thinker. I have a low regard for hume. Not that it matters to anyone I just dont think intelligent when I think, Hume.
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
The first uniting document was not the Constitution of the United States. It was the Confederation of America.
Click to expand...

The Articles of Confederation. Correct.

Into the Night said:
It didn't work out so well, so the Confederation was dissolved and the Constitution of the United States was created instead.
Click to expand...

It was never intended to continue past the war for independence.

The Articles of Confederation did the job they were intended for. They were never intended to establish a lasting union.
 
ZenMode said:
What does it mean to say an action is moral?
Click to expand...

Does it serve to maintain a stable social network for the social animal whose actions are being judged.

Or, it MIGHT just be whatever God commands at the time. Genocide? Not always immoral according to God. Murder? Again, not always an immoral action per the author of the Universe. Wearing mixed fabrics? Well, that's objectively always wrong eternally.

Personally I'm more comfortable with the former but so many people seem to function with the latter.
 
murph63 said:
Does it serve to maintain a stable social network for the social animal whose actions are being judged.
Click to expand...

So, no matter how heinous and/or mentally/physically hamful is an action, as long as the people around you say the action is ok, it becomes moral?
 
ZenMode said:
So, no matter how heinous and/or mentally/physically hamful is an action, as long as the people around you say the action is ok, it becomes moral?
Click to expand...

That's a gross mischaracterization. It must improve the chances of survival for the social group. Objectively. Not just by opinion.

Murder is a good example: if a social network allows for members to randomly murder each other then it would make that social network much less stable and safe for the individual members.

Obviously in human history the people that believe morality is from on-high (Eg God) have decided that murder is "OK" in some situations (usually when they really want something and one of them decides God has commanded this). But it is objectively destabilizing to the larger social network of humans. Arbitrary murder is a bad thing for social cohesion and stability.

Humans, like ants and countless other animals, are "social creatures" meaning that we survive in no small manner due to our ability to work collectively.

ANd it also explains why we don't hold the well-fed housecat to be morally culpable for murdering a songbird.
 
murph63 said:
That's a gross mischaracterization. It must improve the chances of survival for the social group. Objectively. Not just by opinion.

Murder is a good example: if a social network allows for members to randomly murder each other then it would make that social network much less stable and safe for the individual members.

Obviously in human history the people that believe morality is from on-high (Eg God) have decided that murder is "OK" in some situations (usually when they really want something and one of them decides God has commanded this). But it is objectively destabilizing to the larger social network of humans. Arbitrary murder is a bad thing for social cohesion and stability.

Humans, like ants and countless other animals, are "social creatures" meaning that we survive in no small manner due to our ability to work collectively.

ANd it also explains why we don't hold the well-fed housecat to be morally culpable for murdering a songbird.
Click to expand...
I don't see how it's a mischaracterization. In the right situation, any action, no matter how horrible, could be justified as part of "Improving a groups chances of survival", right? So, no action, no matter how physically or mentally injurious is potentially moral?
 
ZenMode said:
I don't see how it's a mischaracterization. In the right situation, any action, no matter how horrible, could be justified as part of "Improving a groups chances of survival", right? So, no action, no matter how physically or mentally injurious is potentially moral?
Click to expand...
Okay. What is the problem?
 
ZenMode said:
I don't see how it's a mischaracterization.
Click to expand...

Because it isn't "opinion". It isn't an "opinion" that allowing random murder will inherently destabilize a social network.

ZenMode said:
In the right situation, any action, no matter how horrible, could be justified as part of "Improving a groups chances of survival", right?
Click to expand...

No.

ZenMode said:
So, no action, no matter how physically or mentally injurious is potentially moral?
Click to expand...

No.
 
Hume said:
Okay. What is the problem?
Click to expand...
The problem is that you, in an effort to fit it into what you want to believe, are redefining "moral" to mean something it doesn't while ignoring how the action is actually effecting conscious creatures..which is what morality is really about.
 
Hume said:
Your Christian/Platonic idea of transcendent moral codes is what YOU want to believe.
Click to expand...
Odd claim since I'm atheist, but ok.... Also, any morality that comes from a god isn't objective; it's just divine preference.

So, again, in an effort to justify your belief in moral relativism, you are redefining 'moral' to mean 'anything that a group of people agree is ok' regardless of the physical/mental impact of the actions on any person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top