Pro-Life Women Shift to Majority?

[Sabastian]

MFA, hypothetically speaking of course imagine society where it was common place to beat and sexually abuse children younger then ... 2, would this be acceptable?

simply put yes.

Thanks for that. We can see that indeed moral relativism is a sick mentality.

EDIT: heh, I would have edited it too. I even have it cashed still and saved a print screen of it.

although to the point I felt it overly provocative.

ie flamebait.

EDIT:

no, thank you..

EDIT: heh, I would have edited it too. I even have it cashed still and saved a print screen of it.

er..why?

on second thoughts don't answer that.

Well I don't have a problem with making moral judgements if you couldn't tell.

 

[Sabastian]

MFA, hypothetically speaking of course imagine society where it was common place to beat and sexually abuse children younger then ... 2, would this be acceptable?

Answer the question please.

In most cases relativist refuse to answer such questions as it shows the flaw in moral relativism. Go ahead and ask any moral relativist "thinker" a professor or whoever thinks that moral relativism is ironically the right way to think about morality. If you answer the question yes as notafanb did then you are morally bankrupt if you answer no then you abandon the principles of moral relativism and you are not a relativist at all.

Moral relativism is a farce that is being taught as genuine science and it ought to be ended.

 

[V3]

You say we were all once a fetus, I say well we have parts of us that was derived from non sentient food as well. Part of you was once a vegetable =)

Fetus is just a stage, like once you are a baby, teen, adult. They are just stages of human life that begin at conception.

If a human died when at teen stage, than that's it, the end of that particular human life. The same when Fetus died, that be it as well.

Its different, when human cut nail, lost a few strands of hair or shed dead skin cells.

 

[MfA]

MFA, hypothetically speaking of course imagine society where it was common place to beat and sexually abuse children younger then ... 2, would this be acceptable?

Another example in the murder is bad series ... it would neither be acceptable to me nor to them. The interesting examples are which would be unaccaptable to me, but acceptable to them (this difference of opinion is the proof of moral relativism after all). Take ancient Greece's pedastery for example.

You have stripped yourself of the right to judge using the highly unqualified grounds of moral relativism.

Might doesnt need right.

Moral relativism is a farce. In actuality moral relativism says that anything goes as long as I believe it is ok.

Moral relativism says morals are culturally and personally dependent. It is a simple statement of fact. You can believe in that and still impose your morals on others, you simply have to come to terms with the inherent egocentrism in doing so.

After all morals are simply a matter of socializations and humans really do not have the ability to objectively determine what is right or wrong, right? Me believing it is ok, whatever the matter, is all that is really required to rationalize any act or choice. If you think your morals are better then mine you are not a moral relativist.

I believe mine are better by simple virtue of being mine, so are yours to you ... you just have to pretend they are absolute truth instead of just recognizing their only distuingishing feature are that they are yours. I dont see any contradiction, we simply disagree. In some cases a disagreement cant be solved without someone losing out, another sad fact of life.

Marco

PS. for someone so accusing of people not answering questions you might want to adress the moral issues already mentioned which are clearly entirely culturally dependent.

 

[Sabastian]

MFA, hypothetically speaking of course imagine society where it was common place to beat and sexually abuse children younger then ... 2, would this be acceptable?

Another example in the murder is bad series ... it would neither be acceptable to me nor to them. The interesting examples are which would be unaccaptable to me, but acceptable to them (this difference of opinion is the proof of moral relativism after all). Take ancient Greece's pedastery for example.

Why is it not exceptable for them? and you? In the case of anceint greece why was that acceptable for them and not you? Why?

Any reasons at all discredit moral relativism.

Anyhow you show that you really don't believe in moral relativism that is what I thought anyhow.

Moral relativism means all morals are equal. Meaning you are not really even given the right through virtue of the relativness of morality to say that your morals are better in any way, you are not a moral relativist and moral relativism is a farce. Just admit it.

 

[horvendile]

The interesting examples are which would be unaccaptable to me, but acceptable to them (this difference of opinion is the proof of moral relativism after all).

No it's not.
In moral philosophy it's very important to keep ontology and semantics apart, i.e. how the world is constituted vs how people think it's constituted. In the above situation it may well be that there are objective moral facts but we haven't found (or proven) them.
(As I've stated earlier, I don't think that there are totally objective moral facts, but people disagreeing doesn't help that case much.)

Moral relativism means all morals are equal.

Again, not necessarily. It depends on what you really mean with moral relativism. I do acknowledge though that such a stance could be possible for someone calling himself moral relativist, but not really for those maintaining that there are absolute moral facts.

 

[MfA]

Why is it not exceptable for them? and you?

It is contrary to human nature in general. You'd never find a large group which could keep that kind of lifestyle up.

In the case of anceint greece why was that acceptable for them and not you? Why?

It is merely contrary to my nature.

Moral relativism means all morals are equal.

Only for a detached observer, no human being can be detached where morals are concerned.

Meaning you are not really even given the right through virtue of the relativness of morality to say that your morals are better in any way,

You dont need the right, only the might. The only absolute thing about morals is the absolute certainty of disagreement and that ultimately might settles the outcome.

Moral absolutism is a nice tool for controlling the masses, instead of having to convince them that all the views they hold are wrong you only have to convince them of this one thing and after that they will latch onto whoever controls the "truth" (the media now, the church in the past) which they now believe they should actively seek for (and they cant just look inside themselves, cause that just results in disagreement which clashes with their believe in moral absolutism ... evidenced in how some people cant even acknowledge all the fundamental disagreements on morality apparent throughout history). I dont think this is a bad thing, a homogenous moral view in society makes for a more stable society. Just because moral relativism is not helpfull doesnt make it wrong though. In the end believing either has the same effect, "might" makes right ... if everyone believed in moral absolutism it might simply be done with a little less conflict (unless the "might" is equally divided between opposing fronts).

As I've stated earlier, I don't think that there are totally objective moral facts, but people disagreeing doesn't help that case much.

Nothing can be proven outside of math, which is not something Ill agree on with most alpha scientist I am sure (although that article I linked to before did ackowledge morals on a fundamental level always come down to intuition, although he couldnt surpress a but after that sentence). As such morals can fundamentally not be made objective ... to continue speculating about objective morals is like most cosmology or alpha scientists discussing wether AI is possible or not, good for a laugh but utterly useless. So the truth of moral absolutism IS relegated to a simple finding of agreement, or alternatively a stabilization of mores throughout history (indicating a convergence and near universal agreement in the future). Neither is present.

As I said before, postulating an absolute set of true morals and at the same time acknowledging they will in the end never be found or even approached is like saying our entire race is sociopathic. It is a silly proposition.

 

[Sabastian]

Why is it not exceptable for them? and you?

It is contrary to human nature in general. You'd never find a large group which could keep that kind of lifestyle up.

Oh! Why? Your answer suggests that there is something wrong with their morality or lack of it. Must be something absolute in there to suggest that it is contrary to human nature. I got stuff I have to do now I would like to continue this but don't have the time. I am sorry though it seems even you don't really believe in moral relativism.

 

[MfA]

Why can almost all people agree on certain aspects of morality?
It is part of human nature.

Why cant almost all people agree on all aspects of morality?
Not all aspects of morality are part of human nature.

Why are not all aspects of morality part of human nature?
Not all aspects of modern morality were of relevance to our evolution.

Why were not all aspects of modern morality of relevance to our evolution?

Repeat ad nauseum.

Mom/Dad says : BECAUSE, now stop asking why.

Why? The eternal question ... ask it enough times and there is only one answer possible (even for the religious, although they often do not dare ask the question the one final time).

 

[Fred]

I disagree with the notion that you are either a moral relativist or a moral absolutest.

I can for instance, believe in nothing. So would I be a moral absolutist? (after all there is absolutely nothing), or would I be a moral relativist (Since nothing exists, your belief is equally as valid or flawed as mine) or maybe neither.

Also I could be a skeptic. Namely, I have no idea which one I think is correct. Picking either 'absolutely' is a display of tremendous ego.

Regardless, ethical absolutes are almost by definition subjective. No amount of proof is possible, nor is there a way to empirically test such a thing. (Contrast this with scientific theory which has an objective truth that is both falsifiable and testable) I mean, there could be an ethical absolute, but forever is it hidden from any way to distinguish it objectively from bunk.

You say murder and rape is bad, I say prove it. Maybe there is an absolute truth, (say the viking deity existed and you were absolutely wrong) but there is no evidence for such so the Viking would have a hard time convincing you. Assume there wasnt a deity, we would still be back to the original question. Prove that murder is wrong.

 

[notAFanB]

You say murder and rape is bad, I say prove it. Maybe there is an absolute truth, (say the viking deity existed and you were absolutely wrong) but there is no evidence for such so the Viking would have a hard time convincing you. Assume there wasnt a deity, we would still be back to the original question. Prove that murder is wrong.

do we still have to do this is there is reasonable consensus among this (or any) society that we'd rather not have it?

 

[Fred]

Just b/c a majority think its true, doesn't mean that it is.

We can take it as an axiom, but then that doesn't help us much.

 

[Sabastian]

I disagree with the notion that you are either a moral relativist or a moral absolutest.

I can for instance, believe in nothing. So would I be a moral absolutist? (after all there is absolutely nothing), or would I be a moral relativist (Since nothing exists, your belief is equally as valid or flawed as mine) or maybe neither.

As hard as it must be to believe in nothing, considering that there is so much of everything, I don't see how that would qualify you a moral absolutist. I would conclude that your ideal would fall in the moral relativist arena I suppose simply because of a similar zero right and wrong morality would logically fall out of such a vague belief. Moral relativist are absolutist as well I might add, just not moral.

Also I could be a skeptic. Namely, I have no idea which one I think is correct. Picking either 'absolutely' is a display of tremendous ego.

Well, if you look at the logic they are diametrically opposed, so the way I look at it is that no one really believes that there is no right and wrong and all morality is equivalent so that basically gives my justification for being biased for the idea that there is an underlying truth in morality no matter how complicated it seems to substantiate.

Regardless, ethical absolutes are almost by definition subjective. No amount of proof is possible, nor is there a way to empirically test such a thing. (Contrast this with scientific theory which has an objective truth that is both falsifiable and testable) I mean, there could be an ethical absolute, but forever is it hidden from any way to distinguish it objectively from bunk.

You say murder and rape is bad, I say prove it. Maybe there is an absolute truth, (say the viking deity existed and you were absolutely wrong) but there is no evidence for such so the Viking would have a hard time convincing you. Assume there wasnt a deity, we would still be back to the original question. Prove that murder is wrong.

Argh, I give up! You guys are right somehow. However now that you have convinced me that there is nothing that is absolutely right or wrong I have come to the conclusion that sense moral relativist are convinced that I can do no absolute wrong I would like to begin killing any whom hold that belief exclusively. Fred, Marco if you would please state your real names and addresses so that I may visit you and we could entertain the idea that I can do no wrong. When I come to visit you I will bring an extremely long sharp chefs knife with which I will use to implement my new found moral relativism. I expect that there would be little in the way of protest from my moral relativist acquaintances as that would suggest that indeed I was doing something wrong. First I would incapacitate you in some manner so that you are not dead and in pain but not able move or act against me. Then if your wife or girlfriend is present I would make a visit with her and in front of you rape her then merely cut her throat. Then while she is dieing in front of you with your last breath pending I would dismember you until you succumb to death. After I do that then I will start a campaign that any whom are moral relativist should have similar visits. Would it be absolutely wrong to kill only moral relativist or should I take a wider mark? Would this be acceptable? Wouldn't the protest from each and everyone of the intended victims be an indication that indeed I am doing something wrong or no?

[action]Shivers[/action] I am sorry for writing that above I never would do such a thing as I believe doing something like that is absolutely wrong no matter whom is the intended victim. So if something similar to that should ever come to be I want you to know I would discourage that absolutely with no exceptions. It was a hypothetical situation to prove my point.

I should not expect any protest from a real moral relativist. Of course I contend that there really are not such people as moral relativist and moral relativism is a complete fraud. Because deep down you know bloody well that actions can be wrong and absolutely so. If there are wrongs then there are actions that can be right and a hierarchy of moral values flow naturally from this arrangement and humans do so as soon as there are more then one in the group.

I found Marco's explanation for why humans would never accept the beating and raping of children less then 2 intriguing. Mayhap the inclination to determine right and wrong actions is a natural thing ingrained on the human spirit. I don't know ether Marco I was asking you why because I want to know the truth. I refuse to throw the towel in on the truth or the process of looking for it (science) on the tenants of moral relativism.

I believe the truth is inherently good to know while believing the fallacies could only result in something bad. Moral relativism is one of these things that I believe are false and therefore it is junk science that is inherently bad for mankind as a whole. Moral relativism is a phony and the proliferation of the mentality ought to be ended.

@ Marco: Because why?

 

[MfA]

Because deep down you know bloody well that actions can be wrong and absolutely so.

On some actions we can disagree obviously, given the original topic of the thread.

If there are wrongs then there are actions that can be right and a hierarchy of moral values flow naturally from this arrangement and humans do so as soon as there are more then one in the group.

Godel showed that even with math you need an infinity of axioms to make it unambigious (simplified that a bit obviously). Yet you expect it to work with something as ethereal as morals?

Sorry, life isnt that simple ...

I don't know ether Marco I was asking you why because I want to know the truth.

<Must fight urge to make movie quote.>

I believe the truth is inherently good to know while believing the fallacies could only result in something bad.

There, finally. You believe because you want to believe. I dont because I am unable to take it on faith, and there is really no indication that a consensus on moral issues is ever going to form.

Marco: Because why?

In the end the answer cannot change. It is static, just because. Didnt you realise this rather simple truth about this game when you played it as a kid? Or were you religious enough not to question God and could block rational thought at the step which invoked his will? Rationally even a god doesnt change the final answer. Unless you want to postulate an infinity of Meta-god's who can pass down Truth without someone at the top needing a "because" to explain his truth (small t intended).

Even an absolute set of morals founded on an universally agreed on basic set expanded with clockwork like precision to unambiguously cover every possible human action would not change it. It would proove moral absolutism but fail to answer the question ... since you can always ask, why the axioms? (The basic set.) Because, that is what makes them axioms. Wether they are god's or anyone else's, self referencing reasoning cannot proove anything ... an axiom remains an axiom.

 

[Sabastian]

I believe the truth is inherently good to know while believing the fallacies could only result in something bad.

There, finally. You believe because you want to believe. I dont because I am unable to take it on faith, and there is really no indication that a consensus on moral issues is ever going to form.

You don't believe in the truth? Surely you don't believe in relativism as the absolute truth ether then. Anyhow that is what I thought. You have already given me enough information to determine that indeed you are not a moral relativist anyhow.

Your insistence that you are a moral relativist, somehow, and dogmatic assertion that there is no truth in morality or acts of right and wrong show you do indeed have faith or belief in the absolute nature of moral relativism as an absolute moral truth. But the logic is worse then that, relativism says there are no absolutes. What a confused rational. Even though you have shown me that their are absolutes, according to you, found in human nature.
:?

 

[MfA]

You don't believe in the truth?

I believe in rational thought, and intuitive intent.

There is no reason to being, there is no reason to morality ... there is no reason to anything. Let go of reason, you want to know the truth? There is no truth.

I know what is right and wrong. That is the beginning and the end of it.

Surely you don't believe in relativism as the absolute truth ether then.

Occam's razor can be wrong, one day I might wake up and agree with everyone in the world. Dont think it is going to happen though.

Your insistence that you are a moral relativist, somehow, and dogmatic assertion that there is no truth in morality or acts of right and wrong show you do indeed have faith or belief in the absolute nature of moral relativism as an absolute moral truth.

Wether moral relativism is right or wrong in the moral sense is of no consequence, what is of issue is wether it is right or wrong in a factual sense. Moral relativism says nothing about factual determination of reality, it acknowledges no relationship between factual truths and morality after all unlike moral absolutism which postulates morality as a fundamental part of reality, it cannot be self referential in that respect.

You judge what moral relativism can say about itself from the perspective of moral absolutism, I dont know who you are trying to convince ... if it is me you are insulting my intelligence, if it is yourself have a ball.

But the logic is worse then that, relativism says there are no absolutes. What a confused rational. Even though you have shown me that their are absolutes, according to you, found in human nature.:?

I try to use phrases like "near universal agreement" and such for a reason. In the face of sociopaths it is hard to maintain the absolute for any set of morals.

 

[Sabastian]

You don't believe in the truth?

I believe in rational thought, and intuitive intent.

There is no reason to being, there is no reason to morality ... there is no reason to anything. Let go of reason, you want to know the truth? There is no truth.

I know what is right and wrong. That is the beginning and the end of it.

lol, how do you know what is right and wrong? Intuition? Magic?

Wether moral relativism is right or wrong in the moral sense is of no consequence

Oh, it most certainly is consequential.

what is of issue is wether it is right or wrong in a factual sense. Moral relativism says nothing about factual determination of reality, it acknowledges no relationship between factual truths and morality after all unlike moral absolutism which postulates morality as a fundamental part of reality, it cannot be self referential in that respect.

With the exception of itself of course. eg. "The truth is their is no truth." Even though we know that there is indeed truth and we are surrounded by truth.

You judge what moral relativism can say about itself from the perspective of moral absolutism, I dont know who you are trying to convince ... if it is me you are insulting my intelligence, if it is yourself have a ball.

What I am saying is that if moral relativism is true then itself is an absolute disqualifying itself. I am not trying to insult you what I am trying to do is determine how someone with your intellect could possibly hold such an absolute moral rational for immoral decadence.

I try to use phrases like "near universal agreement" and such for a reason. In the face of sociopaths it is hard to maintain the absolute for any set of morals.

How do you judge a sociopath if you have no sense of right and wrong you are using the mentality they live by? Moral relativism is a sociopaths rational in my opinion. This isn't to say that everyone that *thinks* they are a moral relativist is a sociopath but rather they have been taught this morality as an absolute quality of human relations. Universal agreement is not necessary as many are ignorant or have impressions that there is no right or wrong and that is mainly due to the proliferation of moral relativist mentality.

 

[MfA]

lol, how do you know what is right and wrong? Intuition?

Bingo, right in one ... for simple archetypical situations in any case. For not so simple situations I guess there is some conscious thought involved to map them and weigh the options. The ways of doing that are all rather arbitrary though, leading to our present predicament.

Now intuition is of course a catch all phrase for certain forms of thought, and thought a catch all phrase for biological processes etc etc, but the fact that it is non rational at its core was the point. So no need to dig much further than that.

With the exception of itself of course. eg. "The truth is their is no truth." Even though we know that there is indeed truth and we are surrounded by truth.

It says something about morals, the concept of morals being related to Truth is ridiculous outside of moral absolutism. What you are describing is conceptual relativism (at least the term sounded right, and when I googled it it described exactly what you said).

How do you judge a sociopath if you have no sense of right and wrong

Majority rule.

Universal agreement is not necessary as many are ignorant or have impressions that there is no right or wrong and that is mainly due to the proliferation of moral relativist mentality.

Im sure it has nothing to do with the mixing of cultures which had different "absolute" sets of morals and the stock market imperative for publicly owned companies, among which the media, to be a-moral (consumer action is and always will be mostly a dud, you cant be informed about every company which somewhere down the line gets a share of your money ... not that many tried in the first place before "the proliferation of moral relativist mentality", coin has always been mighty).

 

[Fred]

The notion that fundamentally people know right from wrong intrinsically, I find problematic (empirically).

Would a psycopath know such a thing? He clearly suffers from a mental illness, but perhaps at one point all brains were like his.

There was a debate in academic circles about universality in emotions. It was thought for awhile that a mothers love for her child would statistically be found true in all environments/cultures. Alas, it was found to be false, several tribes throughout the ages were found as counter examples and were statistically significant. So something that complicated is already not subject to universality, so we have to dig to a deeper emotional lvl to find a common strain.

 

[Dave H]

The notion that fundamentally people know right from wrong intrinsically, I find problematic (empirically).

Would a psycopath know such a thing? He clearly suffers from a mental illness, but perhaps at one point all brains were like his.

There was a debate in academic circles about universality in emotions. It was thought for awhile that a mothers love for her child would statistically be found true in all environments/cultures. Alas, it was found to be false, several tribes throughout the ages were found as counter examples and were statistically significant. So something that complicated is already not subject to universality, so we have to dig to a deeper emotional lvl to find a common strain.

It seems both intuitively obvious and (AFAICT) supported by an overwhelming mass of anthropological and biological data that there is an evolutionarily developed, instinctual and ingrained sense of right and wrong intrinsic to humans as a species. Similarly, it seems obvious that this "moral" instinct is greatly supplemented by culture-specific norms to form the particular ethics of each society.

Just because one can find a culture in which a mother's love for her children is not a social norm does not mean that that love is not an intrinsic human emotion. Rather it just shows that cultures can evolve in ways that counteract ingrained instinct. Of course, the prescence of such an instinct would make us expect that most cultures would have a norm of strong maternal love, which is exactly what we see. The fact that maternal love is very strongly predominant among human cultures (along with similar traits observed among most mammals) is enough to demonstrate that it is probably a human instinct, albeit one that can be counteracted by the force of culture. The notion that evolved "moral" instincts can be overridden by cultural norms shouldn't be very surprising, given all the ways in which our own modern culture must differ from the conditions in which we evolved.

The existence of psychopaths presents no more a theoretical problem than do other mental illnesses to the notion of normal, evolved mental states for human beings. Does the existence of chronic depression mean that humans didn't evolve a desire to get out of bed in the morning? Does the existence of agoraphobia mean humans did not in fact evolve to thrive in the niche of the African plains? Presumably mental illness is a near-unavoidable risk when dealing with something so complex and finely calibrated as the human brain. In any case, it is obviously too rare to have been evolved out of the species.

Believing in a moral absolutism that applies to all or even most aspects of societal ethics seems, IMO, the height of myopia. Believing in a sort of moral tabula rasa, on the other hand (which, I realize, is a complete strawman of your position, Fred), seems, IMO, the height of dumb.