"Moral Relativism" is a buzz word when used by conservatives attempting to stop social changes in our society. Moral Relativism as a philosophical study is something different.
Do you believe in any absolute truths?
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
Hi, Classics major here, from very respectable NY private college. Most of my professors in major were liberals yes, but the reason I was attracted to the major and this group of educators was because they were teaching something whole different from the rest of the college. This was not a "I am going to ask you how you feel about a subject, explain to you how I came to my decision and expect yours to similarly fall in line" type of major. Rational disagreement and discourse was expected, encouraged and even demonstrated (every student in the major was allowed to attend faculty discussions on topics with huge grey areas where more often then not 2 or more of the professors would have differing understandings and teachings regarding the subject). One of the greatest things I learned early on in my Classics classes was that it was niether better or worse back then then it is today. There was no gilded age of the Romans or Greeks or Eygptians. And they were not dumb or stupid for not inventing cars, phones, and TVs. They just were. And what they mostly just were is human. With that said:
This modernist view that we are better now then we were 3000 years ago is incorrect. Look at the things that are discussed in this forum on a daily basis (global politcs, world enviornmental destruction, education, weapon control). All of these concerns that meant little or nothing to the Athenian sheep herder 2000 years ago but also mean little or nothing to the 1000s of sheep herders in our present time. There has been no evolution, there has been no enlightment, humans are today the same as they have been for around the last 50,000+ years. I would even toss out that slavery to some extent continues in legalized morally acceptable forms as we speak. Are the Israelis not benefitting from cheap labor from the Palastenians, are US farmers not using Mexican labor. Both of these are acceptable today but we may look back in 50/100/150 years and feel morally at that time that what we do today is abhorent.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
"Moral Relativism" is a buzz word when used by conservatives attempting to stop social changes in our society. Moral Relativism as a philosophical study is something different.
However, you're dodging my point. I'm saying that what you - you specifically - are calling moral relativism is in actuality the discovery of a "universal truth". For example, in hindsight slavery is wrong. That's the absolute truth. At the time, however, it was considered morally relative by the conservatives to abolish it. After all, it is condoned by the Bible; as is the abuse of women.
Sounds like what you're accusing the Muslims of. Would you call these teachings immoral? If so, are you being morally relative? Or, is it that the universal truth is it's immoral to treat women this way even though changing society from a Biblical, faith-based model is often accused of being morally relative.
Look, you're trying to say that a lack of belief in universal truth is a universal truth. If you do not believe in universal truths, then universal truths cannot be a part of your argument. You must defend moral relativism based on its merits. You cannot.
You're pretty much calling moral relativism a "universal truth" and that is no better of an argument than defending moral relativism itself. If moral relativism is false, then moral relativism as a universal truth is false too.
Is it immoral to beat your wife? Yes. Did Jesus Christ say it was immoral to beat your wife when he was alive? Yes. Nothing else to say regarding Christianity's views of beating women.
I think you're confusing yourself by trying to defend moral relativism. It's indefensible.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Look, you're trying to say that a lack of belief in universal truth is a universal truth. If you do not believe in universal truths, then universal truths cannot be a part of your argument. You must defend moral relativism based on its merits. You cannot.
No, I'm not. You are missing my point. And I'd thank you not to tell me what I can and cannot do.
You're pretty much calling moral relativism a "universal truth" and that is no better of an argument than defending moral relativism itself. If moral relativism is false, then moral relativism as a universal truth is false too.
I never said moral relativism is false. I'm saying what you think is moral relativism isn't moral relativism.
Is it immoral to beat your wife? Yes. Did Jesus Christ say it was immoral to beat your wife when he was alive? Yes. Nothing else to say regarding Christianity's views of beating women.
Plenty else to say about Christianity's views on women in general. I'm not familiar with what Jesus said about wife beating; though I do know he was rather egalitarian towards women, at least for his time.
I think you're confusing yourself by trying to defend moral relativism. It's indefensible.
I'm not confusing myself; though I seem to have confused you. I'm saying that whenever conservatives throw around the term "moral relativism" they are using it solely to argue against change in society without regard to what may in fact be "right."
That's the point. "Everything" is not education. When you start calling it that, you cheapen it.
I wonder what you would think if a professor of yours started a pro-Nazi speech and that jews really are evil. I wonder if you would sit back and say, "it's all education. everything is entwined." Or how about if someone started evangelizing in the name of Jesus or Islam.
These discussions didn't "lead" to other topics. They WERE the topics that she presented. Our only assignment in the class was writing a "cultural history" of ourselves, and EVERYONE got an A if they finished it.
I was under the impression that she was leading into these side topics with a connection she recognized....which I see as perfectly fine.
Everything that you learn is education. Obviously some education might have more merit than others....it all depends on your perspective and personal bias. Some people view teaching children laws from the bible (esp ones which require a condemnation of certain groups of people) to be just as wrong as your tried and true Nazi reference.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
No, I'm not. You are missing my point. And I'd thank you not to tell me what I can and cannot do.
I never said moral relativism is false. I'm saying what you think is moral relativism isn't moral relativism.
Plenty else to say about Christianity's views on women in general. I'm not familiar with what Jesus said about wife beating; though I do know he was rather egalitarian towards women, at least for his time.
I'm not confusing myself; though I seem to have confused you. I'm saying that whenever conservatives throw around the term "moral relativism" they are using it solely to argue against change in society without regard to what may in fact be "right."
Conservatives base their morality on moral objectivism. That is: big government is NEVER okay, welfare is NEVER okay, etc. Liberals suggest that tax cuts are okay sometimes but not other times.
What is "right" is judged by discerning what history and reason teach us about that subject.
Perhaps some conservatives call any change whatsoever "moral relativism," but that is not what the majority perceive it as. They perceive it as "this is right for me but not right for you," which is moral relativism in a nutshell.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Conservatives base their morality on moral objectivism. That is: big government is NEVER okay, welfare is NEVER okay, etc. Liberals suggest that tax cuts are okay sometimes but not other times.
Well, tax cuts are okay sometimes but not other times. Just like in an individual's life, sometimes it's O.K. to spend a bunch of money, and sometimes it isn't. And if big government is NEVER okay, why the conservative push for war and police state measures? Government doesn't get any bigger than that.
Perhaps some conservatives call any change whatsoever "moral relativism," but that is not what the majority perceive it as. They perceive it as "this is right for me but not right for you," which is moral relativism in a nutshell.
No, it's not - but again, that's beside the point. I don't subscribe to total moral relativism anymore than I subscribe to total moral absolutes. It's not either or.
Conservatives base their morality on moral objectivism. That is: big government is NEVER okay, welfare is NEVER okay, etc. Liberals suggest that tax cuts are okay sometimes but not other times.
What is "right" is judged by discerning what history and reason teach us about that subject.
Perhaps some conservatives call any change whatsoever "moral relativism," but that is not what the majority perceive it as. They perceive it as "this is right for me but not right for you," which is moral relativism in a nutshell.
Well, you simply can't dismiss circumstances and shades of gray in life.
Also, history doesn't show us what is right and wrong. It can show us what has worked and what has failed but to a certain extent that's really irrelevant. Anything that is wrong today was also wrong then...how much we chose to rationalize it depended on circumstances of the time. We are today a different people than in the past..with different circumstances, views, abilities, technologies, etc...history can not rule out possibilites of what can be done to further advance our species in the future.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well, tax cuts are okay sometimes but not other times. Just like in an individual's life, sometimes it's O.K. to spend a bunch of money, and sometimes it isn't. And if big government is NEVER okay, why the conservative push for war and police state measures? Government doesn't get any bigger than that.
Good to see you dropped that "faith" argument and replaced it with history.
No, it's not - but again, that's beside the point. I don't subscribe to total moral relativism anymore than I subscribe to total moral absolutes. It's not either or.
The fact is, if you believe in ANY moral absolutes whatsoever, you cannot believe in any moral relativism.
And faith and history run hand in hand, my friend.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Well, you simply can't dismiss circumstances and shades of gray in life.
Also, history doesn't show us what is right and wrong. It can show us what has worked and what has failed but to a certain extent that's really irrelevant. Anything that is wrong today was also wrong then...how much we chose to rationalize it depended on circumstances of the time. We are today a different people than in the past..with different circumstances, views, abilities, technologies, etc...history can not rule out possibilites of what can be done to further advance our species in the future.
If you forget who you are, you forget where you're going.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
If you forget who you are, you forget where you're going.
You're constantly changing, every single second. You can't hold on to the past. You can be aware of the past but the past is dead. You must adapt and learn to change with the times or be left behind.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And faith and history run hand in hand, my friend.
Faith is a part of history like an air conditioner is part of a home. I'm just glad you broadened your interpretation a little bit. An air conditioner in an open field doesn't do you any good.
That's wrong. In fact, there's actually a term for exactly what you describe here: Moral Pluralism.
Faith is a part of history like an air conditioner is part of a home. I'm just glad you broadened your interpretation a little bit. An air conditioner in an open field doesn't do you any good.
False. Moral relativism cannot exist within Moral Objectivism. It's either one or the other. Nice try though!
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
You're constantly changing, every single second. You can't hold on to the past. You can be aware of the past but the past is dead. You must adapt and learn to change with the times or be left behind.
You've been talking about the past being dead quite a bit lately. Whenever someone brings up Clinton, you say, "That was in the past. Live in the present tense, etc."
Does this mean that Bush and Co. get the same pass once Bush's term is over. Will he simply be "the past"?
I doubt it.
MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
"...history can not rule out possibilites of what can be done to further advance our species in the future."
Wait! We have a choice in how our species advances? Its smart sounding half answers like these that VDK in the original post is saying are making college educated people today idealists and not intellects. What you attempted to put forth as fact was just regurgitated opinion that you strongly agree with.
Unfortunately the human species is no further advanced then it was at the end of the last ice age. Same chemistry, same organs, same life just different settings, gods, leaders, and wars.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
"...history can not rule out possibilites of what can be done to further advance our species in the future."
Wait! We have a choice in how our species advances? Its smart sounding half answers like these that VDK in the original post is saying are making college educated people today idealists and not intellects. What you attempted to put forth as fact was just regurgitated opinion that you strongly agree with.
Unfortunately the human species is no further advanced then it was at the end of the last ice age. Same chemistry, same organs, same life just different settings, gods, leaders, and wars.
define "advanced"...? you say we have not "advanced" yet you go on to mention advancements in thinking and beliefs...
Moral Pluralism. Answer my question, if murder is always wrong, is killing?
"Value pluralism (also known as ethical pluralism or moral pluralism) is the idea that there are several values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other."
I haven't said that once so I'm not sure where you're getting that neat buzz word. Maybe you heard it from one of your beanie-wearing pals at Starbucks.
I've said that moral relativism cannot exist if moral objectivism is true. Moral objectivism is true. Therefore, moral relativism cannot exist.
If any morally objective statement is true, then moral relativism fails. Moral relativism is never the correct way to find the answer to a moral problem. It assumes that morality changes with time and attitudes, but it does not. It remains the same. We are the ones trying to discern it. We are changing, becoming closer to the correct moral outlook with time. Human rights are more important today than they were 1000 years ago. That is a drift toward right moral thinking, based on the dignity of human life.
As for murder vs. killing, I'm not sure where to begin.
Murder is wrong by definition - killing innocent people can never be justified. Killing can be justified if it is in defense of innocent life.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Murder is wrong by definition - killing innocent people can never be justified. Killing can be justified if it is in defense of innocent life.
hmmm...that's interesting....so the shock and awe campaign at the onset of the occupation was wrong, you know, bombing the shit out civilian homes (innocent people), was that "wrong"...I say so, do you...?
You've been talking about the past being dead quite a bit lately. Whenever someone brings up Clinton, you say, "That was in the past. Live in the present tense, etc."
Does this mean that Bush and Co. get the same pass once Bush's term is over. Will he simply be "the past"?
I doubt it.
Certainly you can learn from past experiences but new circumstances will always play a bigger role than using the past as an example for future decisions. New things can become possible once new circumstances arrive.
Man, I don't even talk about Bush anymore hardly. Everyone knows he's a fuck up and there's no need in harping on it constantly in order to move forward. Yes, Bush will be the past. I can reference how much of a failure he WAS but what does that have to do with the future?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
hmmm...that's interesting....so the shock and awe campaign at the onset of the occupation was wrong, you know, bombing the shit out civilian homes (innocent people), was that "wrong"...I say so, do you...?
Well now you're trying to discuss a just war. War will always result in civilian deaths. The question is: are we honestly trying to kill civilians?
I disagree with this war, but I support our methods in WWII and we killed many civilians in that war. The guilt of those civilians is debatable, I admit, but we were also saving innocent lives by ending the war.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
"...history can not rule out possibilites of what can be done to further advance our species in the future."
Wait! We have a choice in how our species advances? Its smart sounding half answers like these that VDK in the original post is saying are making college educated people today idealists and not intellects. What you attempted to put forth as fact was just regurgitated opinion that you strongly agree with.
Unfortunately the human species is no further advanced then it was at the end of the last ice age. Same chemistry, same organs, same life just different settings, gods, leaders, and wars.
Regurgitated? I said that off the top of my head based on my opinion. The term intellect is subjective, also.
We're simply not the same. Things have improved vastly for our species. The only thing that remains the same is that we are human. The rest all evolves.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well now you're trying to discuss a just war. War will always result in civilian deaths. The question is: are we honestly trying to kill civilians?
I disagree with this war, but I support our methods in WWII and we killed many civilians in that war. The guilt of those civilians is debatable, I admit, but we were also saving innocent lives by ending the war.
a pretty "gray" response....I thought this was about "absolutes"...and you said "killing innocent people can never be justified" but then you justify the killing of innocents...
Comments
Do you believe in any absolute truths?
It's good to hear we have an educator who's on the right side.
-Enoch Powell
Hi, Classics major here, from very respectable NY private college. Most of my professors in major were liberals yes, but the reason I was attracted to the major and this group of educators was because they were teaching something whole different from the rest of the college. This was not a "I am going to ask you how you feel about a subject, explain to you how I came to my decision and expect yours to similarly fall in line" type of major. Rational disagreement and discourse was expected, encouraged and even demonstrated (every student in the major was allowed to attend faculty discussions on topics with huge grey areas where more often then not 2 or more of the professors would have differing understandings and teachings regarding the subject). One of the greatest things I learned early on in my Classics classes was that it was niether better or worse back then then it is today. There was no gilded age of the Romans or Greeks or Eygptians. And they were not dumb or stupid for not inventing cars, phones, and TVs. They just were. And what they mostly just were is human. With that said:
This modernist view that we are better now then we were 3000 years ago is incorrect. Look at the things that are discussed in this forum on a daily basis (global politcs, world enviornmental destruction, education, weapon control). All of these concerns that meant little or nothing to the Athenian sheep herder 2000 years ago but also mean little or nothing to the 1000s of sheep herders in our present time. There has been no evolution, there has been no enlightment, humans are today the same as they have been for around the last 50,000+ years. I would even toss out that slavery to some extent continues in legalized morally acceptable forms as we speak. Are the Israelis not benefitting from cheap labor from the Palastenians, are US farmers not using Mexican labor. Both of these are acceptable today but we may look back in 50/100/150 years and feel morally at that time that what we do today is abhorent.
— Socrates
Look, you're trying to say that a lack of belief in universal truth is a universal truth. If you do not believe in universal truths, then universal truths cannot be a part of your argument. You must defend moral relativism based on its merits. You cannot.
You're pretty much calling moral relativism a "universal truth" and that is no better of an argument than defending moral relativism itself. If moral relativism is false, then moral relativism as a universal truth is false too.
Is it immoral to beat your wife? Yes. Did Jesus Christ say it was immoral to beat your wife when he was alive? Yes. Nothing else to say regarding Christianity's views of beating women.
I think you're confusing yourself by trying to defend moral relativism. It's indefensible.
-Enoch Powell
Then you believe that moral relativism is false.
-Enoch Powell
I never said moral relativism is false. I'm saying what you think is moral relativism isn't moral relativism.
Plenty else to say about Christianity's views on women in general. I'm not familiar with what Jesus said about wife beating; though I do know he was rather egalitarian towards women, at least for his time.
I'm not confusing myself; though I seem to have confused you. I'm saying that whenever conservatives throw around the term "moral relativism" they are using it solely to argue against change in society without regard to what may in fact be "right."
absolutely...!
This black and white shit you've signed on to will drive you nuts. I suggest a broader approach to the world.
I was under the impression that she was leading into these side topics with a connection she recognized....which I see as perfectly fine.
Everything that you learn is education. Obviously some education might have more merit than others....it all depends on your perspective and personal bias. Some people view teaching children laws from the bible (esp ones which require a condemnation of certain groups of people) to be just as wrong as your tried and true Nazi reference.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Conservatives base their morality on moral objectivism. That is: big government is NEVER okay, welfare is NEVER okay, etc. Liberals suggest that tax cuts are okay sometimes but not other times.
What is "right" is judged by discerning what history and reason teach us about that subject.
Perhaps some conservatives call any change whatsoever "moral relativism," but that is not what the majority perceive it as. They perceive it as "this is right for me but not right for you," which is moral relativism in a nutshell.
-Enoch Powell
Good to see you dropped that "faith" argument and replaced it with history.
No, it's not - but again, that's beside the point. I don't subscribe to total moral relativism anymore than I subscribe to total moral absolutes. It's not either or.
Well, you simply can't dismiss circumstances and shades of gray in life.
Also, history doesn't show us what is right and wrong. It can show us what has worked and what has failed but to a certain extent that's really irrelevant. Anything that is wrong today was also wrong then...how much we chose to rationalize it depended on circumstances of the time. We are today a different people than in the past..with different circumstances, views, abilities, technologies, etc...history can not rule out possibilites of what can be done to further advance our species in the future.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The fact is, if you believe in ANY moral absolutes whatsoever, you cannot believe in any moral relativism.
And faith and history run hand in hand, my friend.
-Enoch Powell
If you forget who you are, you forget where you're going.
-Enoch Powell
You're constantly changing, every single second. You can't hold on to the past. You can be aware of the past but the past is dead. You must adapt and learn to change with the times or be left behind.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Faith is a part of history like an air conditioner is part of a home. I'm just glad you broadened your interpretation a little bit. An air conditioner in an open field doesn't do you any good.
False. Moral relativism cannot exist within Moral Objectivism. It's either one or the other. Nice try though!
-Enoch Powell
You've been talking about the past being dead quite a bit lately. Whenever someone brings up Clinton, you say, "That was in the past. Live in the present tense, etc."
Does this mean that Bush and Co. get the same pass once Bush's term is over. Will he simply be "the past"?
I doubt it.
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
what if I know who I am but forget where I'm going...?
Wait! We have a choice in how our species advances? Its smart sounding half answers like these that VDK in the original post is saying are making college educated people today idealists and not intellects. What you attempted to put forth as fact was just regurgitated opinion that you strongly agree with.
Unfortunately the human species is no further advanced then it was at the end of the last ice age. Same chemistry, same organs, same life just different settings, gods, leaders, and wars.
— Socrates
define "advanced"...? you say we have not "advanced" yet you go on to mention advancements in thinking and beliefs...
"Value pluralism (also known as ethical pluralism or moral pluralism) is the idea that there are several values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other."
I haven't said that once so I'm not sure where you're getting that neat buzz word. Maybe you heard it from one of your beanie-wearing pals at Starbucks.
I've said that moral relativism cannot exist if moral objectivism is true. Moral objectivism is true. Therefore, moral relativism cannot exist.
If any morally objective statement is true, then moral relativism fails. Moral relativism is never the correct way to find the answer to a moral problem. It assumes that morality changes with time and attitudes, but it does not. It remains the same. We are the ones trying to discern it. We are changing, becoming closer to the correct moral outlook with time. Human rights are more important today than they were 1000 years ago. That is a drift toward right moral thinking, based on the dignity of human life.
As for murder vs. killing, I'm not sure where to begin.
Murder is wrong by definition - killing innocent people can never be justified. Killing can be justified if it is in defense of innocent life.
-Enoch Powell
hmmm...that's interesting....so the shock and awe campaign at the onset of the occupation was wrong, you know, bombing the shit out civilian homes (innocent people), was that "wrong"...I say so, do you...?
Certainly you can learn from past experiences but new circumstances will always play a bigger role than using the past as an example for future decisions. New things can become possible once new circumstances arrive.
Man, I don't even talk about Bush anymore hardly. Everyone knows he's a fuck up and there's no need in harping on it constantly in order to move forward. Yes, Bush will be the past. I can reference how much of a failure he WAS but what does that have to do with the future?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well now you're trying to discuss a just war. War will always result in civilian deaths. The question is: are we honestly trying to kill civilians?
I disagree with this war, but I support our methods in WWII and we killed many civilians in that war. The guilt of those civilians is debatable, I admit, but we were also saving innocent lives by ending the war.
-Enoch Powell
Regurgitated? I said that off the top of my head based on my opinion. The term intellect is subjective, also.
We're simply not the same. Things have improved vastly for our species. The only thing that remains the same is that we are human. The rest all evolves.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
a pretty "gray" response....I thought this was about "absolutes"...and you said "killing innocent people can never be justified" but then you justify the killing of innocents...
this shit is confusing...