100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Right vs. Wrong | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Ok, so now we have a baseline. It is immoral to hurt a single child but it is moral to destroy all the children in the world. No. It's immoral to hurt a child. The other option is that everyone dies, not that I kill them. Interesting choice. In the example you do not perform any action at all. You simply decide which events will or will not occur. Doesn't this analogy seem really silly to you? But it is you who are insisting on the absolute nature of right and wrong. And in order for it to be absolute, it must necessarily be able to cover all conceivable situations. So I don’t really see the analogy as being any sillier than absolute moralism itself. Well since “doing nothing” would result in both events occurring and there is no fourth alternative given, yes, I believe that hurting one child is morally superior to destroying the entire human race. Okay...do you agree that hurting the child is wrong?You feel it's the less wrong of the two choices, but it's still wrong, correct? Actually, no. Just as one option is more wrong than the other, one option is more right than the other. That is the one I call “right”. So I guess you could actually say that “right”, in my vocabulary, is simply a synonym for “most right” (which is also synonymous with “least wrong”). Bravo my friend. I have never seen such an impressive performance before in my life. Such incredible contortions so that you don't have to say that raping a child is always wrong. I did not read that in there myself. What is your obsession with rape anyway? A little obsessive about it, me thinks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bravo my friend. I have never seen such an impressive performance before in my life. Such incredible contortions so that you don't have to say that raping a child is always wrong. Well I'm sorry but I cannot return the kudos, considering that last sentence. False assumptions and accusations are extremely easy to invent, especially when they appear to support a position. But really, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the issues. Unless the issue has now been changed to "what I do or do not have to do". So if you want to go with that one, have at it. I'm game. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is your obsession with rape anyway? A little obsessive about it, me thinks. Are you suggesting something? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bravo my friend. I have never seen such an impressive performance before in my life. Such incredible contortions so that you don't have to say that raping a child is always wrong. Well I'm sorry but I cannot return the kudos, considering that last sentence. False assumptions and accusations are extremely easy to invent, especially when they appear to support a position. But really, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the issues. Unless the issue has now been changed to "what I do or do not have to do". So if you want to go with that one, have at it. I'm game. You said the following... Actually, no. Just as one option is more wrong than the other, one option is more right than the other. That is the one I call “right”. So I guess you could actually say that “right”, in my vocabulary, is simply a synonym for “most right” (which is also synonymous with “least wrong”). So that you wouldn't have to say "Rape is always wrong". Because if rape is always wrong, then Spider is right and absolute morality exists. And so that you know, I wasn't mocking you, I really was impressed with the way you handled that. I wouldn't do it myself, because I would consider it dishonest to dissemble like that, but it was impressive nonetheless. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a philosophy. Moral relativists talk a good game, but they can't play. Moral relativists complain when they are victimized. They complain when they feel wronged. Every complaint reveals that they actually believe in a natural law that applies to all and they demand that they are treated fairly. That's why moral relativism has no redeeming value, because it only exists in the minds of those who claim to believe it. You're quick to superficially denounce anything you disagree with. But you objections simply don't stand up to serious consideration. First off, you totally misrepresent the concept of 'moral relativity'. You do this by pretending that it would only apply to individuals and not to societies which is a fallacy on your part to begin with. The whole concept of society is the concept of cooperation. And that's true whether it be a democracy or a dictatorship as you favor. And yes, you absolute favor a dictatorship if you favor the Biblical picture of God because that would be the ultimate example of fascism where God is the dictator. So you favor fascism obviously. All you're truly saying is that in a dictatorship morality would be an absolute because only the dictator would decide what's moral. In your religious scenario the dictator is God. You denounce democracy as being meaningless because democracy is indeed an example of relativistic morality. (majority rules) So all you're truly doing is arguing that a dictatorship is more meaningful than democracy simply because a single dictator would have the last word.  That's truly all your arugment amounts to. I'd take it a step beyond even that. His arguments show a trend to reduce humanity to being Fundy God's chattel and that uppity chattel always deserves what it gets, while the supposedly meek chattel inherits the Earth. There's a quote from Darwin that I think often fits some religious fundamentalists: For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey who braved his dreaded enemy to save the life of his keeper; or from that old baboon, who, descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs-- as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency and is haunted by the grossest superstitions." -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Mon 09/28/09 09:17 PM
|
|
The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind - such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. They possessed hardly any arts, and like wild animals lived on what they could catch; they had no government, and were merciless to every one not of their own small tribe. He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins. For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs - as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practises infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions. ‘the most abject and miserable creatures I anywhere beheld’ and as existing ‘in a lower state of improvement than in any part of the world.’ … ‘These poor wretches were stunted in their growth, their hideous faces bedaubed with white paint, their skins filthy and greasy, their hair entangled, their voices discordant, and their gestures violent. Viewing such men, one can hardly make oneself believe that they are fellow creatures and inhabitants of the same world. It is a common subject of conjecture what pleasure in life some of the lower animals can enjoy; how much more reasonably the same question may be asked with respect to these barbarians. At night, five or six human beings, naked and scarcely protected from the wind and rain of this tempestuous climate, sleep on the wet ground coiled up like animals.’ The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said. Non-Whites: Your "inferiority" was clear to Darwin. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
spider wrote...
Our minds cannot comprehend the reasons or justifications of God's actions, we simply have to trust in God's nature. If you don't want to, that is fine. The classic transcendental safety net. When given an irrefutable argument, theists often resort to the claim that our minds cannot comprehend the reasons or justifications for 'Gods' actions. The irony here is this... You are the only one attempting to justify what you believe about 'God'. The rest of us do not hold to that belief system. So if your claim above is true, then shut up about it, because you cannot know 'Gods' reasoning and justifications any better than us.  If you are forced to choose between lying and allowing someone to be murdered, then you have to choose the lesser of the two sins. You cannot simply say "Both are sins, so I won't do either". That is what you chose to do in the earlier example I gave. No, your example offered a choice of rape or allowing someone to die. Huge difference. Everyone lies, it's ingrained into human nature. But rape and murder are violations of human dignity, our own and our victims. Rape and murder are never justified. You chose to do nothing, which caused more harm(the violation of human dignity regarding eleven people) than violating one. Now if violating human dignity is wrong, to prove absolute morality, you must show me exactly how it goes from a human dignity violation(which is what is) to being wrong(which is what ought to be). This isn't about justification. It is about right and wrong. As a matter of fact, the existence of different justifications for the same actions necessitate the existence of the relative nature by which those justifications are formed - the personal sense of ought. With that being demonstrated as such, it necessarily follows that whatever situation is being morally assessed by an individual is relative to exactly what that particular individual thinks is moral. Unfortunately, it takes extreme examples sometimes to show the absurdity in a belief of absolute morals. An absolute moral code holds true in every possible case in which it can be applied. Anything else is relative to the specific conditions and circumstances and is not absolute. Your have given several examples of limitations and conditions, thereby simultaneuosly confirming and denying moral relativism. Now to address your fallacious description of that... This claim, of moral relativism, is absolutely false and cannot possibly be true. As I have pointed out the flaw again and again. If something is necessarily false, it cannot possibly be true. That much I agree with. However, you have not shown moral relativism to be false, in fact your arguments support it much more than they deny it. Many arguments have been given which show the relative nature of morality. History shows it quite accurately as well. Biblical times had a far different moral code than today, wouldn't you agree? Moral Relativists cannot make such a judgments, they cannot complain about the behavior of others. The core belief of the moral relativists is that everyone's morality is right for them. Is this to be considered as a valid argument? Because moral relativism exists, it necessarily follows that one cannot complain about another's morality? Show me how that follows. You reveal the fact that you aren't moral relativists every time you say that morals aren't absolutes! Because you are JUDGING, which a moral relativism rejects as unnecessary. Moral relativism is a garbage pit of philosophy, it has no redeeming value. Judging does not make one a moral absolutionist. Moral relativism does not reject judgment. In fact, it is the acknowledgment of the differences upon which we base our judgments. Your argument here is very weak, and does not even address moral relativism. Your sense of ought comes from your personal belief system as does mine. Our different views are necessarily dependant upon our individual personal sense of ought. To prove moral absolutes you must go from showing what is, to showing why it ought to be right or wrong. It cannot be logically done spider. Hume's guillotine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bravo my friend. I have never seen such an impressive performance before in my life. Such incredible contortions so that you don't have to say that raping a child is always wrong. Well I'm sorry but I cannot return the kudos, considering that last sentence. False assumptions and accusations are extremely easy to invent, especially when they appear to support a position. But really, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the issues. Unless the issue has now been changed to "what I do or do not have to do". So if you want to go with that one, have at it. I'm game. You said the following... Actually, no. Just as one option is more wrong than the other, one option is more right than the other. That is the one I call “right”. So I guess you could actually say that “right”, in my vocabulary, is simply a synonym for “most right” (which is also synonymous with “least wrong”). So that you wouldn't have to say "Rape is always wrong". Because if rape is always wrong, then Spider is right and absolute morality exists. And so that you know, I wasn't mocking you, I really was impressed with the way you handled that. I wouldn't do it myself, because I would consider it dishonest to dissemble like that, but it was impressive nonetheless. If the moral code for a society says "rape" by whatever definition you might use is not wrong then by that society it is not wrong. Moral code has changed in recent times to make rape, child abuse, animal abuse, etc... all wrong in our society but in times gone by it wasn't wrong it was a part of the moral code of our society. Moral code is designed by the group of people with the power to make the moral code and is therefore the determinors of what is right and wrong. There is no absolute morality on this planet and never will be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is this to be considered as a valid argument? Because moral relativism exists, it necessarily follows that one cannot complain about another's morality? Show me how that follows. If there is no absolute foundation for morality, then no morality is better than the other. How can you judge between to moralities, when you have nothing to judge by? In moral relativism, you have no absolute measure of right and wrong. If you accept that morality is relative, then you accept that you don't have the right to question another's morality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is your obsession with rape anyway? A little obsessive about it, me thinks. Are you suggesting something? No just curious. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is your obsession with rape anyway? A little obsessive about it, me thinks. Are you suggesting something? No just curious. Okay, I'll explain it to you, since you are curious. First, I asked a question if rape was always wrong. Later, I was answering an analogy presented first by CreativeSoul and later by SkyHook. I order to discuss the analogy, I had to refer to it. The first analogy was "If you don't rape a child, 10 people will be killed". Later it was changed to "Either a young child gets raped or everyone in the world dies, your choice". Me, I would rather we didn't talk about that particular subject, but there are like 10 pages of us discussing it now. I was just crazy to assume that everyone would agree raping a child was wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is your obsession with rape anyway? A little obsessive about it, me thinks. Are you suggesting something? No just curious. Okay, I'll explain it to you, since you are curious. First, I asked a question if rape was always wrong. Later, I was answering an analogy presented first by CreativeSoul and later by SkyHook. I order to discuss the analogy, I had to refer to it. The first analogy was "If you don't rape a child, 10 people will be killed". Later it was changed to "Either a young child gets raped or everyone in the world dies, your choice". Me, I would rather we didn't talk about that particular subject, but there are like 10 pages of us discussing it now. I was just crazy to assume that everyone would agree raping a child was wrong. I am sure everyone on this forum agrees that raping a child is wrong...lol That is not the issue here. If the moral code of a society says it not wrong to rape a child then it is not wrong in that society. Who is going to say it is wrong if that is what is considered right? Man creates moral codes and that governs what is right and wrong in societies or groups or communities or whatever you want to call them. Moral codes then make the laws of the land and design punishment of crimes against the man made moral codes. But you have to have a group of people say what is moral and what is not before you will have right and wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Mon 09/28/09 10:02 PM
|
|
Moral Relativists cannot make such a judgments, they cannot complain about the behavior of others. The core belief of the moral relativists is that everyone's morality is right for them. Is this to be considered as a valid argument? Because moral relativism exists, it necessarily follows that one cannot complain about another's morality? Show me how that follows. If there is no absolute foundation for morality, then no morality is better than the other. How can you judge between to moralities, when you have nothing to judge by? In moral relativism, you have no absolute measure of right and wrong. If you accept that morality is relative, then you accept that you don't have the right to question another's morality. Absolute morality is unnecessary for judgment. The baseline is always personal. You compare against yours, which is often of a biblical nature, and I compare against mine. We all judge by our personal sense of ought. The differences in what those are based upon exactly correlate to the differences in our belief systems. There is no absolute recipe for carrotcake either, but I certainly can and do judge them. Spider, your arguments are getting really, really weak. By accepting moral relativism, then I accept the fact that different people have different ideas of what constitutes right and wrong and why that is the case. It has nothing to do with whether I have a right to assess another's morality base. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Partisan?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Mon 09/28/09 10:11 PM
|
|
Spider, your arguments are getting really, really weak. Getting weak? That's news to me. Nothing personal, but I'm just saying. I haven't seem him make a valid point yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Mon 09/28/09 10:14 PM
|
|
Moral Relativists cannot make such a judgments, they cannot complain about the behavior of others. The core belief of the moral relativists is that everyone's morality is right for them. Is this to be considered as a valid argument? Because moral relativism exists, it necessarily follows that one cannot complain about another's morality? Show me how that follows. If there is no absolute foundation for morality, then no morality is better than the other. How can you judge between to moralities, when you have nothing to judge by? In moral relativism, you have no absolute measure of right and wrong. If you accept that morality is relative, then you accept that you don't have the right to question another's morality. Absolute morality is unnecessary for judgment. The baseline is always personal. You compare against yours, which is often of a biblical nature, and I compare against mine. We all judge by our personal sense of ought. The differences in what those are based upon exactly correlate to the differences in our belief systems. There is no absolute recipe for carrotcake either, but I certainly can and do judge them. There are some things that can easily be compared. Who is taller? Who is stronger? Which car weighs more. But you cannot compare two abstract ideas, because there is nothing concrete to compare them to. What you are claiming is that you can look at one societies moral code and compare one to your own. Well, your own societies moral code is 100%...it's exactly like itself. So the other societies moral code would have to be equal to or less than your own moral code. So basically everyone would say "My societies moral code is perfect." Or you could use your own moral code, which might be different from the societies, but it's still a subjective determination. A dollar and a subjective assessment of another's morals is worth about 50 cents. Spider, your arguments are getting really, really weak. Thanks for the unbiased opinion.  By accepting moral relativism, then I accept the fact that different people have different ideas of what constitutes right and wrong and why that is the case. It has nothing to do with whether I have a right to assess another's morality base. But you have nothing to base it on other than your own moral code, which would always mean you found yourself to be superior morally. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider, your arguments are getting really, really weak. Getting weak? That's news to me. Nothing personal, but I'm just saying. I haven't seem him make a valid point yet. Another unbiased opinion. Thanks guys for all of the constructive criticism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Mon 09/28/09 10:17 PM
|
|
But you have nothing to base it on other than your own moral code, which would always mean you found yourself to be superior morally. Acknowledging differences does not equate to assessing superiority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Mon 09/28/09 10:17 PM
|
|
Acknowledging differences does not equate to assessing superiority. CreativeSoul said... Absolute morality is unnecessary for judgment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of mans fatal flaws i believe is complicating things.
Most everyone in here is saying the same thing, just worded different. we have already established right and wrong is a matter of interpritation and judgment the question is, can it be possible, that there is a natural, instinctual, .... biological sense of right? (i prefer to use just, but the english language is not very expansive when it comes to breaking things apart) for example, a mother protecting her child. it is wired into her genes(cow, woman, mare..)to protect that child from harm. things happen sometimes that can disrupt that natural sense of R vs W IE a cow that has had tramatic experiences, especialy when calving, is usualy a bad mother and has to be repaired or culled(sold to slaughter) if thats the case, than that natural R vs W is not absolute (i hesitate to use that word) that is the best argument i have to counter my own argument. but i have an argument to counter that one to. not socialy, not spiritualy, but biologicly. i dont want to here what the 'right' answer is(spider), i want to discuss weather or not my argument is plausible...without bloodshed preferably ( = |
|
|
|
|
