Kant's whole moral theory is an argument against rational consequence.
Moral relativism
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
Bentham never said that.
The best for the most is his motto. " "the greatest happiness of the greatest number"
Kant in fact argued against rationalism.
ZenMode
Well-known member
I've never said anything about a universal code.
Ok, because I have never seen an argument for morality not based on universals. Because that is my point about moral relativism, it is not universal.
ZenMode
Well-known member
If by "universal" you mean that intentionally doing something that causes physical and mental pain, yes. That's not about a god or opinion. That's based on the experience of conscious creatures. As I said, nobody would see it as immoral to perform FGM on a female statue or plastic female doll.
Unless done as part of post partum depression in live birth abortions such as those from Lindsay Clancy.
The honest scientific answer is that Darwinian evolution does not scientifically explain a moral duty outside your kin group, tribe, or pack
The honest scientific answer is we don't know where we get a sense of universal moral conscience
Alfred Russell Wallace, who was the co-discoverer of evolution by natural selection, did not believe scientific evolutionary theory could explain a universal moral conscience in humanity.
Nothing I said is related to science.
Nor dependent on science to support or refute.
Purely social theory.
So is your claim that something beyond science explains the concept of moral duty?
Moral duty is something Kant discusses, something I completely disagree with.
All the public programs out there intended to help babies, children, mothers like SNAP, Medicaid, WIC, CHIP, AFDC were invented by liberals, usually over the opposition of conservatives
Could have sworn I did in the post you quoted.
ZenMode
Well-known member
This is the post I quoted:
Because it isn't "opinion". It isn't an "opinion" that allowing random murder will inherently destabilize a social network.
No.
No.
Nice Red Herring.
But of course you ducked the point - you don't oppose
"Torturing babies or burning children alive" as long as it's done to promote abortion.
It absolutely is an opinion. Your subjective opinion.
Other primates living in social networks use violence occasionally or even frequently. It is to their benefit in a survival-of-the-fittest Darwinian landscape. Chimpanzees, gorillas, baboons will practice infanticide to eliminate the babies of rivals, or engage in troop warfare and killing to acquire the territory and resources of rival troops. They aren't thinking about the "destabilization of networks".
In a strictly physical materialist worldview there is no universal moral duty to refrain from killing, stealing, or self-interested conquest. The only thing that matters in a scientific Darwinian landscape is to protect and propagate the genetic information of you and your kin group.
.
Last edited:
ZenMode
Well-known member
Ok. I'll go with murder.
So, if there are competing groups of people... tribes for example... and murdering members of Tribe A benefits Tribe B, it becomes moral right?
ZenMode
Well-known member
Right, a scenario can be created where ANY action, no matter how horrible, no matter how destructive and damaging, can be rationalized as moral.
So, morality doesn't exist in the world of moral relativism.