Moral Relativism

[WriterDom]

How do you define it and is it a part of your belief system?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

The only reason I'm asking is because I came upon the term yesterday and remembered having a conversation with DR about it months ago. Of course she is a practicing Catholic and the term seems to be a buzz word for several of the Popes in the last 40 years or so.

 

[Seurat]

How do you define it and is it a part of your belief system?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

The only reason I'm asking is because I came upon the term yesterday and remembered having a conversation with DR about it months ago. Of course she is a practicing Catholic and the term seems to be a buzz word for several of the Popes in the last 40 years or so.

I've a Roman Catholic upbringing and a Buddhist mindset; I would have to say that it comes down to the basic belief system in a theological presence in your life, and how much a part the presence plays a part in what you do.

At both extremes (which are most certainly not the narrow line at the ends) I think you find people that say, "there is no god, so penalties for what I do are purely set upon me by society and truths change; I can therefore do whatever I want" as well as "God sees all and knows all, and directs me and my actions with his thoughts. If I do wrong, it is something (a sin) that I commit against him/her, myself, and the people around me."

For me, I had a brain fry at seventeen, and have been putting together things ever since. I'll think a bit more about it, if you want a long, boring, and drawn out philosophy.

 

[JMohegan]

How do you define it and is it a part of your belief system?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

The only reason I'm asking is because I came upon the term yesterday and remembered having a conversation with DR about it months ago. Of course she is a practicing Catholic and the term seems to be a buzz word for several of the Popes in the last 40 years or so.

Who is DR, and what the heck does moral relativism have to do with the Catholic Church?

The pope speaks for god, god's word trumps anything anyone else has to say on any subject, and anyone who disagrees is going to hell.

Am I missing something here? Doesn't that sum things up?

 

[WriterDom]

The argument is usually framed as universal truth vs moral relativism. I read where someone said they believed in moral relativism and not universal truth. I'm just curious as to what moral relativism is to people here, if anything.

DR is Desert Rose. An old poster who left these parts.

 

[intothewoods]

Can you provide a little more context?

I typically hear it in sort of a disdainful retort (that's just moral relativism!) to the whole "who am I to judge" sort of philosphy.

I don't shy away from making moral judgments, but it's just my opinion. Obviously morality is a product of society, culture, personal experience, etc.

 

[Netzach]

There are a few universal basics- not everything is completely and utterly relative, or everything breaks down into total noise and pointlessness.

EG:

One can be moral and religious or moral and secular, but one should be moral.

 

[JMohegan]

The argument is usually framed as universal truth vs moral relativism. I read where someone said they believed in moral relativism and not universal truth. I'm just curious as to what moral relativism is to people here, if anything.

DR is Desert Rose. An old poster who left these parts.

Oh, okay.

I would say that moral relativism is mostly a pain in the ass. Part of the confusing and frequently inconvenient set of realizations that develop with the maturation process.

Realizations acknowledging that the profoundly satisfying black & white distinctions of childhood do not, in fact, exist. That context matters, that there's an up & down side to nearly every conceivable behavior, and that perspective depends on where one sits. The world is grey, the lines are fuzzy, and all we can do is try the best we can.

 

[satindesire]

Realizations acknowledging that the profoundly satisfying black & white distinctions of childhood do not, in fact, exist. That context matters, that there's an up & down side to nearly every conceivable behavior, and that perspective depends on where one sits. The world is grey, the lines are fuzzy, and all we can do is try the best we can.

Do we need to continue the thread past this post?

 

[Etoile]

This makes my brain hurt. I am all about cultural relativism, but moral relativism is beyond me.

Everybody called her ADR here though. "A Desert Rose" was her full screen name. I miss her, we don't talk much, even though I have her on Facebook.

 

[Homburg]

There is no universal truth.

That said absolute moral relativism is nothing more than intellectual dithering. "Who am I to judge?" taken to its' logical conclusion, simply leads to inaction even in the face of dire evil. No thank you.

It is up to each sentient being to draw a line somewhere. For some, that line is roughly where their cultural mores dictate. For others, it is elsewhere, be that more strict or less.

Still, at the end of the day, the old saw about "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose beings," is something I find useful.

 

[ImOnIt]

I talk about this with my sweetheart often. She questions whether it is right to step in (say in the case of a cult). We disagree over whether willingness matters, what one may do to their own children, and the definition of fistswinging.

Her position is something like 'If they're happy then let them be, our world isnt better or worse', and I take issue on points of happiness, consent, non-interference and other things.

Of COURSE morality is relative.

 

[KoPilot]

Morality is a construct that we invented to help us get along in our crazy world.

I could go on about a bunch of other stuff, like how the universe isn't really there until we look at it, my personal beliefs as a deist, and so on... but I'm not really smart enough to string all of that stuff together in a meaningful way.

 

[Ravenwind]

Personally, I see things as being mostly black-and-white (well, black, dark grey, light grey, and white). All other shades of gray inbetween can thus be make to be one or the other, based upon the choices made and any underlying selfish or selfless motives present.

For example... imho, to kill someone is murder, and murder is unconditionally evil. But, being a cop, and killing someone who has a gun to the heads of innocents innocents, makes it right. Not necessarily "good", but "right". Likewise, giving to a poor person is unconditionally good. But giving to a poor person just so you can brag about it makes it wrong. Not necessarily "evil", but "wrong".

In the end, for me, morality boils down to "Are you trying to treat everyone else the way you'd want to be treated? Are you trying to treat them good?", and if you aren't, you're part of the problem instead of being part of the solution.

 

[hoodooman]

So I guess I might kill Adolf Hitler before he went on his mad pursuits and save millions of lives, if I knew what was going to happen before it happened.

But what if I'm insane and I kill without really knowing? Killing to stop abortion is one example in the real world.

If i saw you needed help on the highway I may stop to help. If you try to harm or rob me I may shoot or otherwise disable you.

Making decisions on what you will or will not tolerate is handy if the time comes and perhaps the awareness of potential dangerous situations may keep us from some of these situations.

 

[FungiUg]

I think where I have since this hit hard is in the differences between cultural morality. Some cultures routinely practice what my culture would decry as "evil". So who draws the line? Is there a final arbiter?

You can insert your diety of choice I guess, but then we just move the responsibility away from the people involved. Last I looked, most dieties talk about "free will", and along with that come responsibility, including morality.

I don't see much in black and white any more.

 

[FungiUg]

I think the issue with this kind of argument is quite simple: we don't have time machines. Morality has to be based on what we know now, not on hindsight.

 

[WriterDom]

would it save millions of lives? are you sure? Sure there were attrocities and concentration camps, but the political atmosphere leading into world war 2 was such that another war was even then seen as practically inevitable, so the common time travel theory is; if not Hitler then probably someone else, and possibly someone worse. )

I don't buy that at all. The world is not filled with Obamas, JFKs, Reagans, Lincolns, or Hitlers. Take Obama. Do you think any person of color could have defeated Hillary? Really? Throw out some names if you believe that.

 

[intothewoods]

I don't buy that at all. The world is not filled with Obamas, JFKs, Reagans, Lincolns, or Hitlers. Take Obama. Do you think any person of color could have defeated Hillary? Really? Throw out some names if you believe that.

It's interesting to think about the exact combination of factors that propel a person to power. I read a bio of Mao by one of my favorite authors a few years back, and I could barely get through it because the material was just so bleak. This guy wasn't all that smart, wasn't inspiring or charming, wasn't a particularly good strategist. He was just ruthless, a sociopath, singleminded in pursuing power and lucky. I mean, if certain circumstances had turned out differently, he wouldn't have gone as far as he did.

I just read Game Change not too long ago, and while Obama is obviously a gifted orator, who transcended race in many ways, and ran a great campaign (with a great team), there were definitely some key moments that could have turned things a different way. Of course, the weak playing field was a huge component. McCain's campaign was really a mess. I do wonder what would have happened if he'd chosen Lieberman. I don't think he would have won, but it would have been a different race for sure.

 

[WriterDom]

Republicans don't have to win every election. Its undemocratic. No republican could have been elected after eight years of Bush. It's very difficult for any party to hold the White House for more than eight years. People get weary.

I was happy to see McCain try because he is Methuselah. Might as well throw his tired old ass to the wolves.

The election was always between Obama and Hillary and he won because of her arrogance. She assumed she was the Queen elect and didn't even look past SuperTuesday. And the coolness factor of voting for the black guy. Yeah, we haven't had a women yet either but Hillary, is well, Hillary.

 

[NaughtyBiBBW]

Actually, I do not agree with you at all. The Nazi's were in power at the same time as certain technological advances because such sciences/technology was developing naturally, and they had access and absolute power over those brilliant minds who created such technologies.

Certainly the political atmosphere leading to world war 2 meant a war may still have happened and certainly if *not Hitler then someone else*, however *someone else* may not have chosen to systematically order the torture and deaths of millions of people.

WW2 happened also in the Pacific, and while there was also a terrible loss of life there, and prisoner of war camps, there were not concentration camps and there was not the systematic slaughtering of innocent civilians. And the Japenese Australians and everyone else fighting in the Pacific in WW2 also had access to brilliant minds and strategists who developed innovative technologies.

As for the war helping the US out of the depression, well while war is profitable, and the US made much money selling arms to both sides, prior to their late entry into it, Roosevelt also had "the new deal", which while it didn't involve slaughtering people in war, offered employment and hope to people.

While the war was an effective way to kickstart the economies of several nations, there are other ways, which may not have left enormous scars for generations.

would it save millions of lives? are you sure? Sure there were attrocities and concentration camps, but the political atmosphere leading into world war 2 was such that another war was even then seen as practically inevitable, so the common time travel theory is; if not Hitler then probably someone else, and possibly someone worse. Furthermore, the technological advances that arose from world war 2 are far too easily understated. Can you say for sure how many other wars were avoided as a result? How many lives have since been saved by the technological advances of that era, or who the superpowers would be if world war 2 hadn't helped the US out of the great depression?

*snip*

cutting that rant short: time travelers can't kill hitler.

I guess part of your premise was "if you knew what was going to happen," and my point is, just because you know one way that it worked out, doesn't mean you have any ability to be certain that going back and changing things would make it turn out "for the better."

**
Had originally gone on to write much more that was actually on topic, but i'm sooo tired I'm not sure it made sense. (got the evening shift for taking care of the new baby... I'm sure i'll get rest; eventually)

 

[Etoile]

Speaking of the Pacific theater...I went to Hiroshima last weekend. That's some fucked up shit. You cannot justify that. Oh, I know about Operation Downfall. I know about Truman. But there is no moral justification for the use of nuclear weapons. None whatsoever.

 

[intothewoods]

Republicans don't have to win every election. Its undemocratic. No republican could have been elected after eight years of Bush. It's very difficult for any party to hold the White House for more than eight years. People get weary.

I was happy to see McCain try because he is Methuselah. Might as well throw his tired old ass to the wolves.

The election was always between Obama and Hillary and he won because of her arrogance. She assumed she was the Queen elect and didn't even look past SuperTuesday. And the coolness factor of voting for the black guy. Yeah, we haven't had a women yet either but Hillary, is well, Hillary.

I was kind of going for a broader point, but sure, let's talk about the election.

Obama is just as "arrogrant" as Hillary. And one person's arrogance...

Every politician at that level has a pretty big ego. It wasn't a bad strategy to behave as though she were the frontrunner, but her team had no clue how the Iowa caucuses worked, for example, and they really were specatcularly disorganized. Plus, the Clintons are just a whole lot of issues. They're a bit like the Bushes, only the Bushes are smart enough to keep that shit behind closed doors. The Clintons just work through all of their weird family bullshit in public. Then again, in comparison to the Edwards, they're the fucking picture of emotional health. And above all of them are the No-drama Obamas. Anyway, Game Change is a fun book, and I think it's pretty balanced and sensitive to the candidates. I felt sympathy for all of them. Well, maybe not John Edwards.

 

[00Syd]

Speaking of the Pacific theater...I went to Hiroshima last weekend. That's some fucked up shit. You cannot justify that. Oh, I know about Operation Downfall. I know about Truman. But there is no moral justification for the use of nuclear weapons. None whatsoever.

Yeah, my cousin is working in Hiroshima so when we went to Japan we stayed with him and explored the city for a couple of days. It was pretty heavy, and really bummed me out for a long time. I agree with you.

 

[WriterDom]

Speaking of the Pacific theater...I went to Hiroshima last weekend. That's some fucked up shit. You cannot justify that. Oh, I know about Operation Downfall. I know about Truman. But there is no moral justification for the use of nuclear weapons. None whatsoever.

The fire bombing of Tokyo was just as horrific to me. They can only guess how many people were killed in that.

About 500,000 counting all the 67 cities that were fire bombed. Or more.

War is hell.

 

[WriterDom]

Powell might have scared Bill in 1996 with thoughts of running but against Hillary as a democrat? Hillary would have said "You and George Bush" 1ooo times during the first debate and Powell would have been lucky to do as well as as Biden.