Moral relativism

ZenMode said:
Right, but the argument from the moral relativists is that clitorectomies are not objectively immoral. I'm saying, because of the impact on the child, they are objectively immoral and your religion, "race", ethnicity, culture, etc are irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Ok...I find it a waste of time to speculate about...but...have at it
 
ZenMode said:
Just a reminder of the first post in your thread:

What are the objections? Why should all morals be true every time in history and around the world?
Click to expand...
Clitorectomies are illegal in the US and most of Africa, to my knowledge. Your obsession is not interesting.
 
Hume said:
Clitorectomies are illegal in the US and most of Africa, to my knowledge. Your obsession is not interesting.
Click to expand...
The question wasn't a geographic one. The question was "what are the objections to moral relativism". One answer is that moral relativism allows truly horrific things to happen to children. From the child's point of view, her religion, culture, geographic location, ethnicity, etc mean absolutely nothing as it relates to what she goes through.
 
ZenMode said:
The question wasn't a geographic one. The question was "what are the objections to moral relativism". One answer is that moral relativism allows truly horrific things to happen to children. From the child's point of view, her religion, culture, geographic location, ethnicity, etc mean absolutely nothing as it relates to what she goes through.
Click to expand...
have at it. Lost interest.
 
ZenMode said:
Do you personally believe that female genital mutilation is immoral? If you do, why?
Click to expand...
I'm trying to get clarification here, so that I can accurately answer your question.

Do you personally believe that elective cosmetic surgeries are immoral? Do you believe that it is immoral for women to have their ears pierced?

Similarly, do you believe that root canals are immoral? What about bone spur removal?

Clear, thoughtful answers will go a long way to helping me understand your frame of reference.
 
IBDaMann said:
I'm trying to get clarification here, so that I can accurately answer your question.

Do you personally believe that elective cosmetic surgeries are immoral? Do you believe that it is immoral for women to have their ears pierced?

Similarly, do you believe that root canals are immoral? What about bone spur removal?

Clear, thoughtful answers will go a long way to helping me understand your frame of reference.
Click to expand...
The primary topic, since the start, is female genital mutilation.

Do you believe it's immoral? If yes, why?

Also @Into the Night .

Who will actually answer the question?
 
ZenMode said:
The question wasn't a geographic one. The question was "what are the objections to moral relativism".
Click to expand...
Nothing.
ZenMode said:
One answer is that moral relativism allows truly horrific things to happen to children.
Click to expand...
...according to your morals.
ZenMode said:
From the child's point of view, her religion, culture, geographic location, ethnicity, etc mean absolutely nothing as it relates to what she goes through.
Click to expand...
...according to her morals.
 
Into the Night said:
I clarified this. The tree itself is an object, therefore objective. It can be measured, therefore quantitative.

The observation of the tree is subjective. The discussion of the tree is subjective. It simply is the subject of the observation or conversation, therefore subjective.
Click to expand...
If a single sentence attempts to merge the personal experience, e.g. "If I see" with ambiguity as to the objective nature of the direct object, e.g. "a tree" then there is conflation of objective and subjective. The personal experience "If I see" allows for the possibility of a delusion, i.e. there is no objective tree. If I am dreaming of home far away, and "I see my favorite Maple tree" then it is not an objective tree that I see/experience. If you and I are lucid and we measure a tree, but we disagree about the measurements, we are nonetheless having an objective discussion about objective differences between objective measurements.

Hume's question strips away all clarifying information and simply merges something that is both potentially subjective and potentially objective, with something that is both potentially subjective and potentially objective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top