Moral Relativists are so evil

[Lucifer_Carroll]

So there has emerged on the right's list of major bullshit the interesting cause of moral absolutism and the belief that moral relativists are against everything we stand for and the greatest threat, yadda yadda. The argument goes that moral relativists aid terrorists, give them comfort, sabotage the war on terror by failing to see the black and white dichotomies that keep our society together.

But the interesting thing is that these proud moral absolutists (they'd have you read that as moral period) is that they're moral relativists. And not the good kind. In fact true moral relativists are far more absolutists than these moral absolutist.

Don't believe me? Consider the crowing belief of a moral absolutist: that one morality dictates right and wrong for all and that there are no gray areas. Given that there are only good acts and evil acts and these can only be committed by good people or evil people, they should line up on one side or the other and stay there. So when they support a "moral good" against "evildoers" they must also support that that act is good no matter who its done against.

This is where their absolutism shows its intense relativist (not in the good way) flaws. They fully support "right and good" invasions, tortures, repeal of civil rights, mishandlings by police, capital punishments, second class citizenry for being female, an unliked minority, or fucking the wrong sex, and support banning the marriage of two people who love each other for being sinners.

Nonetheless, if you were to do the same thing to these rock-hard pillars of society. If being male meant a loss of sexual rights, if they or their family members are tortured or killed or shot by an unfortunately incompetent police officer, or if their religion was being persecuted and marginalized and demonized they immediately turncoat on those absolutist stances of morality.

The real life evidence of this abounds. Look at the paranoia-induced cries against the "War on Christmas", the cries of reverse racism by whites who have gotten passed by for college or a job or who have lost a job, look at the panic over 9/11, the constant cries against anti-american statements and persons abroad, etc...

Moral absolutism doesn't work like that. You can't make a "line in the sand" stance on morality that doesn't apply to you, your family, your friends, your country, your religion, your race. Every stance you make against every other person, country, race, sex, religion, must take into account a surefire knowledge that you would fully support it happening to you. You don't get special dispensation for being "good guys" or "on the right side".

Good guys under absolutist morality are "do no wrong" good guys because they always do the morally right thing. They aren't allowed to do evil to fight evil. Not in an absolutist morality.

At least the moral relativists are usually consistent there. The most hard-pressed strawman among them at least considers moral issues in terms of their subsequent use against them. They think, how would I be in those circumstances, would I want this occuring to me. By that they are at least consistent with their relativism.

So called "absolutists" by comparison are relativist hypocrites and frankly immoral by their adherence and support of evil deeds.

 

[rgraham666]

Hey Luc. Nice to see you back.

It will be nice to see the usual suspects comment on this. We don't see them here that much these days though.

 

[floweringquince]

Let's take the classic: "Thou Shalt Not Kill."


Easy enough, right? If I walk up to you on the street and kill you, I have committed a Great Moral Wrong.

But what if I walk up to you on the street and make an unquestionably sincere and competent attempt to kill you, and it is only by killing me that you can save your own life?

What if I make an unquestionably sincere and competent attempt to kill a prostitute (who just happens to be Black, drug-addicted, and an unwed mother) and it is only by killing me that you can save her life?

What if I weren't trying to kill the prostitute, but to rape her - but you still had no way to stop me without killing me?

What if I were trying to rape and/or kill not a prostitute, but a pretty, young, white, blonde girl wearing a prep school uniform?

What if I were a prison guard whose job it was to execute the convicted rapist and killer of a pretty, young, white, blonde girl wearing a prep school uniform?

What if I were a soldier fighting the Nazis in the heat of a WWII battle?

What if I were a sniper with a clear shot at Osama bin Laden?


Self-Defense? Justifiable Homicide? Capital Punishment? The duty of a soldier in a just and properly declared war? Nope, no such things.
All of the above must be Great Moral Wrongs, if you want to be an absolutist who subscribes to "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

To say that there's a difference between me walking up to you on the street and killing you without warning or provocation; and a prison guard executing the convicted rapist and killer of a pretty, young, white, blonde girl wearing a prep school uniform; is to be a Moral Relativist.


BZZZZZZZTTT Sorry! Thanks for playing "The Moral Absolutism Game."
(...And all you folks at home, be sure to Tune In Tomorrow for "Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Ass."

- Quince

 

[rgraham666]

BZZZZZZZTTT Sorry! Thanks for playing "The Moral Absolutism Game."
(...And all you folks at home, be sure to Tune In Tomorrow for "Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Ass."

- Quince

Oh crap. I'm in trouble.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Thanks Rob, see you got a book published in my absence, very shiny. I'll have to buy a copy.

Quince, you do realize that my post was on how those claiming that moral relativists are evil and that they themselves are moral absolutists are relativists of a worse character than the relativists they decry, right?

But good statement on the ubiquity of moral relativism and the fact that it often occurs no matter how absolutist we may think ourselves. There is always room to consider the whatifs and every stance has to be fully consistent even if negatively applied to oneself. That's what being a moral absolutist means.

It's interesting that those with situational ethics or other forms of relativism often end up with the most consistent moralities over the "absolutist" hypocrites.

 

[rgraham666]

Thanks Rob, see you got a book published in my absence, very shiny. I'll have to buy a copy.

Quince, you do realize that my post was on how those claiming that moral relativists are evil and that they themselves are moral absolutists are relativists of a worse character than the relativists they decry, right?

But good statement on the ubiquity of moral relativism and the fact that it often occurs no matter how absolutist we may think ourselves. There is always room to consider the whatifs and every stance has to be fully consistent even if negatively applied to oneself. That's what being a moral absolutist means.

It's interesting that those with situational ethics or other forms of relativism often end up with the most consistent moralities over the "absolutist" hypocrites.

Thanks Luc. it's two books actually. I don't have a banner for the other one.

On topic. Moral absolutism is based on the fallacy that a person knows, or can know, everything of importance. And that the events of the world will fall into a clearly defined set of pre-imagined circumstances.

Snerk. In other words they get really confused about who God is.

 

[floweringquince]

Quince, you do realize that my post was on how those claiming that moral relativists are evil and that they themselves are moral absolutists are relativists of a worse character than the relativists they decry, right?

Um, yes. Sorry - I should have made it clearer that my "BZZZZZT!" was not meant for you, but for those those half-baked hypocrites out there somewhere smugly claiming to be Moral Absolutists.
And that I considered you to be the lead singer in the choir I was having so much fun preaching to

But good statement on the ubiquity of moral relativism and the fact that it often occurs no matter how absolutist we may think ourselves.

Thanks

- Quince, whose clarity is often highly relativist

 

[Liar]

"Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Ass."

I shall and I bloody well do. That's one glorious ass.

 

[floweringquince]

Originally Posted by floweringquince
"Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Ass."

I shall and I bloody well do. That's one glorious ass.

I often suspect the inventor of the English lexicon* of deliberately making "ass = donkey" synonymous with "ass = derriere" just to facilitate that classic pun for all future generations

- Quince

(*As is well known, it was just the one fellow, who worked out of his attic in Sodbury-upon-Quim.)

 

[Liar]

Oh, and on a serious note:

It's not about whether there's an absolute moral or not. It's about if we can know which it is, which we can't. And if it matters that you're good or evil, which it doesn't. Moral relativism is to take your head out of your rectum and realize that however absolute morlas may be, perception sure as sunshine isn't. And you don't win in a world of over six billion perceptions by merely being right.

Believing anything else is naive idiocy. Relatively speaking.

 

[rgraham666]

But being right relieves you of responsibility and thought.

Which is why moral absolutism is so popular.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Oh, I'll nibble.

I think that there is an absolute right.

I think it's unlikely any human being can know it clearly.

I think it even less likely that any human can know it and be certain that it is the one truth and not something masquerading thereas.

I think that humans being what they are, a great many people will be sure they have it, and great many of those will be motivated by self-interest.

I do not think that this absolves us of a responsibility to seek right.

I do not think "I'll do whatever gets me what I want, and you do whatever gets you what you want, with every horse for itself" is a particularly good alternative.

I don't think we're likely to achieve much on the topic by attacking a straw man.

I think that those whose course of determining what is right involves some genuine self-discipline and sacrifice stand a better chance of achieving their goals.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

But straw men can't fight back.

And they make a satisfying 'thump' when they hit the ground.

40 AirMiles to any one who knows where I stole that last line from.

 

[Liar]

But being right relieves you of responsibility and thought.

Only if you really, really, really don't thinkh.

Personally, I can't stop myself from at least thinking a little. Not much, I'm the first to admit, but I have, like greay matter, and something is being shuffled about up there. I try to stop it sometimes, but to no avail.

 

[Liar]

I think that those whose course of determining what is right involves some genuine self-discipline and sacrifice stand a better chance of achieving their goals.

And if they find the absolute right... then what?

Therein lies the rub, o equine one.

 

[rgraham666]

And if they find the absolute right... then what?

Therein lies the rub, o equine one.

Then comes trying to teach others about it without being nailed to a chunk of wood or being forced to drink hemlock.

 

[BlackShanglan]

And if they find the absolute right... then what?

Therein lies the rub, o equine one.

I suppose that personally I consider it one of those quests that one undertakes knowing that it cannot be completed. There's just the honor of planting one's flag as far foreward into the wilderness as possible, and of doing one's utmost on the way.

But then I suppose that I think that the closer one gets to the goal, in all likelihood, the more one realizes that humility and patience are part of it.

 

[rgraham666]

Oh no! Not humility!

How can humanity worship me if I can't even worship myself?

I'm thinking I should stop drinking soon.

And thank God for spell checkers.

 

[elsol]

Moral Relativist are evil, far more evil than an absolutist could ever be.

I understand, and I'll still pull the trigger.