Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Is Morality Relative?

Stryc-9

Stryc-9

New member
I was having this argument with a friend of mine...and it's quite an intriguing problem...

She was claiming that morality is entirely relative and that there can be no universal truths...her position could be reduced to maintaining that: What is right, is what is right for me.

I had a migraine at the time and couldn't be bothered to argue - but there is something very dangerous about this position of moral relativism that disturbs me to no end...

In simple, subjective matters - i.e., matters of personal taste, etc., - I see no problem. If you like strawberries and I don't like strawberries - we can agree to disagree, calling the matter "relative" and each of us will go on our merry way....

But this solution of resorting to relativism doesn't satisfy all cases - specifically ones dealing with morality....for instance, the pedophile enjoys having sex with small children - and it's cases like these where it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, to shrug and say, "To each his own..."
 
strongchick said:
If I ever said anything like that, my grandma would say

"Girl, you need JESUS!"

I miss my granny.
Click to expand...

Grandparents hold the true wisdom. Mine were somewhat racist, but a product of their times. While I don't hold it against them, I did silently disagree with some things they said.
 
Stryc-9 said:
I was having this argument with a friend of mine...and it's quite an intriguing problem...

She was claiming that morality is entirely relative and that there can be no universal truths...
Click to expand...

I believe that there are indeed moral absolutes, Providential in nature, and that our Judeo-Christian ethic, and entire legal system is based on them.
 
Morality, in my opinion, works like this:

You behave the same way you'd appreciate other people to behave around and towards you. If you can honestly say that you made this attempt, then you have done all that you can.

It all goes back to the golden rule--that's all.
 
68GT350 said:
It all goes back to the golden rule--that's all.
Click to expand...

The story of two marriages entangled with each other in a complex and almost incestuous relationship. The place is England, the years 1903 to 1909.

Prince Amerigo, an impoverished Italian aristocrat, has married Maggie, the daughter of Adam Verver, an enormously rich American tycoon and art collector. The Prince has a prior affair with another American girl, Charlotte Stant, as poor as himself. Their last outing together is in search of a wedding present for Maggie. They find a golden bowl but finally reject it as being flawed.

By a strange twist of fate. Charlotte marries Adam Verver so that the lives of the four of them -- father and daughter and the two former lovers -- becomes entwined into one family. Bored by their new state of luxury, the Prince and Charlotte resume their old relationship. Maggie suspects and then discovers their affair through the fortuitous purchase of the same golden bowl that they had left behind.

The Prince and Charlotte may have thought to outwit the simpler and less worldly couple of father and daughter. But it is now Maggie who takes charge and manipulates the situation in an attempt to save the marriages. And finally, Maggie's father, who all this time has kept his knowledge of the adulterous affair to himself, takes the decisive step that brings the story to its startling conclusion.





oh wait, that's the golden bowl. nevermind.
 
ok bratwurst and christinka

you are asking people to abide by "the golden rule" which is a christian code of ethics...

that's not saying you don't have noble intentions, but think about it. or tits.
 
smallmovesal said:
ok bratwurst and christinka

you are asking people to abide by "the golden rule" which is a christian code of ethics...

that's not saying you don't have noble intentions, but think about it. or tits.
Click to expand...

The "Golden Rule" is not a christian code of ethics, despite it's origins.

Mmmmm, nipples. Ouch..now i'm in pain!
 
Life in itself is never black and white, it is kind of grey.

What I might consider wrong in one instance, might be more acceptable in another. There are never going to be absolutes in life. You do the best you can, and hope it works out.
 
68GT350 said:


The "Golden Rule" is not a christian code of ethics, despite it's origins.

Mmmmm, nipples. Ouch..now i'm in pain!
Click to expand...

well i wouldn't then say that the golden rule was originated by christians because it is by far not one of the oldest religions.
 
smallmovesal said:


well i wouldn't then say that the golden rule was originated by christians because it is by far not one of the oldest religions.
Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure of it's origins, other than it originating from SOME religion. Regardless, my point stands.

mmm, aerola...oof, that smarts.
 
Morality is not relative. Generally speaking, right and wrong is a pretty black and white thing. We, however, make a lot of it gray so it's convient for our lives. We all do it. We all rationalize stuff. But most everyone can also sit down and look at every choice and decide correctly which is right and which is wrong. It is harder for some than others, but most people can do it.
 
Absolute morality:

With your actions, you not only condone your own behavior, but acknowledge that this same behavior is acceptable when doen by ANYONE.
 
Essentialism and relativism themselves are predictable and ancient disagreements.

To my mind, there are essential experiences and concerns but the value attached to these challenges -- the way we live them -- is inflected by the culture and individual choice. Love for example will always blindside us and cause us to throw our brains out the window, but the meaning we make of our experience of love, how we "work" with it, depends a lot on our cultural and family contexts.

To the Greek imagination there were gods who were personifications of archetypal experiences -- beauty (Aphrodite), chaos (Pan), thievery (Hermes), memory and the arts (the Muses), rationality (Apollo), irrationality (Dionysos), domesticity (Hera), etc. But none of these experiences contained an inflexibly true value. Thus Aphrodite, as personification of beauty, caused delight but also caused insane jealousy -- a conflict she lives out in stories about her. The Greek did not say, "this is good or this is bad," but "this is inevitable and uncomortable" or "this is inevitable but transient." One had to respond situationally. Thus Oedipus -- in the foundational myth of psychology -- sacrifices his children to gain peace.

It was the arrival of monotheism that set the world into black and white -- an essentialistic, dualistic way of seeing life. The postmodern project -- the one arguably inaugurated by the "death of god" -- displaces the center, all essentialistic claims, and in a way re-establishes a pagan cosmology. That is one reason why "pagan" equates to "sin" in many Christian minds and, of course, why the postmoderns are dismisssed as "nonsensical."
 
Morality IS most positively relative.
What is morally right and ethical in society
changes with the times.
THE ONLY RIGHT IS MIGHT!
The strong enforces laws,the winner writes history...


http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/m/m-relati.htm
"Arguments for moral relativism often involve two principal contentions:

Primacy of De Facto Values: our conceptions of morality should be based on how people actually behave (de facto values), and not on an ideal standard how people should behave (ideal values).
Cultural Variation: in point of fact, our main moral values vary from culture to culture.
As to the first of these, moral relativists note that there are two ways that we can approach morality: as de facto morality or as ideal morality. De facto morality concerns they way people in fact behave, and involves the moral principles that are actually in place in a given culture. By contrast, ideal morality concerns the way people should behave, irrespective of their actual behavior.

Regarding the second of the above claims, moral relativists emphasize the variation in values that we see in cultures around us. It is indisputable that some values vary from culture to culture, such as wearing clothes, child marriages, and eating the bodies of dead relatives. Although many of these values are more like rules of etiquette than rules of morality, it is clear that at least some important moral values vary from culture to culture. For example, in Mainland China, abortion is recognized as an important tool for population control. In the Republic of Ireland, though, abortions are not readily available even when the life of a mother is at risk. But moral relativists defend an even stronger claim that our main moral values vary in at least some cultures. According to many relativists, then, moral standards of different cultures are like isolated islands of values, each of which gains its justification through the social customs of that particular culture."
 
musclebrains said:
Essentialism and relativism themselves are predictable and ancient disagreements.

To my mind, there are essential experiences and concerns but the value attached to these challenges -- the way we live them -- is inflected by the culture and individual choice. Love for example will always blindside us and cause us to throw our brains out the window, but the meaning we make of our experience of love, how we "work" with it, depends a lot on our cultural and family contexts.

To the Greek imagination there were gods who were personifications of archetypal experiences -- beauty (Aphrodite), chaos (Pan), thievery (Hermes), memory and the arts (the Muses), rationality (Apollo), irrationality (Dionysos), domesticity (Hera), etc. But none of these experiences contained an inflexibly true value. Thus Aphrodite, as personification of beauty, caused delight but also caused insane jealousy -- a conflict she lives out in stories about her. The Greek did not say, "this is good or this is bad," but "this is inevitable and uncomortable" or "this is inevitable but transient." One had to respond situationally. Thus Oedipus -- in the foundational myth of psychology -- sacrifices his children to gain peace.

It was the arrival of monotheism that set the world into black and white -- an essentialistic, dualistic way of seeing life. The postmodern project -- the one arguably inaugurated by the "death of god" -- displaces the center, all essentialistic claims, and in a way re-establishes a pagan cosmology. That is one reason why "pagan" equates to "sin" in many Christian minds and, of course, why the postmoderns are dismisssed as "nonsensical."
Click to expand...

Musclebrains should but a disclaimer before every post that says you should use a thesaurus before taking on the lofty task of reading his posts.

You remind me of Dennis Miller, dude. Do you talk like this to your boyfriend in bed???!!!
 
One of the major critisims of contemporary anthropology, is the emphasis placed on moral differences in human culture.

Since Anthropology was founded, the feild has been guided by the "tableu resa" - blank slate, personality paradigm. As a result, anthropoligists and sociologists have looked for, found, and emphasised, confirming evidence that displays the disparity between moral values in different cultures, since common morality was unassummed.

Sociobiology, an adjunct discipline created in response to the widespread acceptance of evolutionary theory, suggests all humans share a common morality, which enhances the species inclusive fitness and the greater health of society. Because species that learn to cooperate and avoid infighting function more efficently than competiting organisms, their offspring are more likely to survive relative to competiting organisms. Thus, genes that code for innate morality in species that exhibit moral behavour, are more likely to propogate throughout the gene pool.

Recent Sociological retroactive research has confirmed the majority of human culture share common taboos prohibiting murder of kin and ingroup members, stealing, and incest. This evidence supports sociobiologys contention that humans share a common morality. Of course, culture can shape intrinsic moral inclinations, which explains the existence of cultures that participate in incestous rituals or commonly regarded "deviant" behavour. However the prevelence of cultures that exhibit "deviant" moral behavour, are infrequent, which further supports the idea that a "common morality" enhances the probablity of a species reproductive success - or else cultures that exhibit "immoral" behavour would be much more frequent.

Personally, I think the argument for relativistic morality is pretty weak. People that support moral relativism usually only do so in situations where sociological values are more useful in guiding behavour, rather than social morality, which acts more as an overarching code of laws that governs humans acts that have potentially serious repercussions on receipent(s) well being.

Absolute moral relativists think something like this:

Murder is ok, unless it happens to me or my loved ones.
Stealing is ok, unless it happens to me or my loved ones
Abuse, both mental and physical, is ok, until it happens to me or my loved ones.

ect .....
Moral relativism seems to be more of a theoritical moral paradigm having very little practicle application.
 
Last edited:
68GT350 said:


Musclebrains should but a disclaimer before every post that says you should use a thesaurus before taking on the lofty task of reading his posts.

You remind me of Dennis Miller, dude. Do you talk like this to your boyfriend in bed???!!!
Click to expand...

I have had breakfast many many mornings with Dennis Miller in Montecito...at the Drug Store, seriously. Funny thing is, since I never watch television, I had no idea who he was. Then some classmates asked me, "How the fuck do you rate a place at Dennis Miller's table?" I said: Who? I used to tell him he dressed like a pig, which he does.
 
buddy28 said:
Absolute moral relativists think something like this:

Murder is ok, unless it happens to me or my loved ones.
Stealing is ok, unless it happens to me or my loved ones
Abuse, both mental and physical, is ok, until it happens to me or my loved ones.

ect .....
Moral relativism seems to be more of a theoritical moral paradigm having very little practicle application.


Click to expand...

"Absolute moral relativist" is an oxymoron.
 
musclebrains said:


I have had breakfast many many mornings with Dennis Miller in Montecito...at the Drug Store, seriously. Funny thing is, since I never watch television, I had no idea who he was. Then some classmates asked me, "How the fuck do you rate a place at Dennis Miller's table?" I said: Who? I used to tell him he dressed like a pig, which he does.
Click to expand...

Wow, you totally surprised me. One, because I could actually understand your post and two, because you actually speak to Mr. Miller.

Well, I guess I'll just ask if he's as intelligent as he sounds on television and does HE have problems understanding you, like I do? If you ever see him again, you'd do him a favor by recommending to get out of the football announcer biz.
 
68GT350 said:


Wow, you totally surprised me. One, because I could actually understand your post and two, because you actually speak to Mr. Miller.

Well, I guess I'll just ask if he's as intelligent as he sounds on television and does HE have problems understanding you, like I do? If you ever see him again, you'd do him a favor by recommending to get out of the football announcer biz.
Click to expand...

This was four years ago. I don't know if he was doing his football gig then. It was while I was doing my coursework in Santa Barbara.

I thought he was very bright and funny so of course he didn't have your problem understanding me. :rolleyes: This may surprise you, but I don't talk about post-structuralism and my other academic interests over waffles. Mainly we talked politics and took turns insulting one another. I teased him mainly about his angst over being a rich Montecito asshole. It embarasses me that I had no idea who he was.
 
musclebrains said:


I have had breakfast many many mornings with Dennis Miller in Montecito...at the Drug Store, seriously. Funny thing is, since I never watch television, I had no idea who he was. Then some classmates asked me, "How the fuck do you rate a place at Dennis Miller's table?" I said: Who? I used to tell him he dressed like a pig, which he does.
Click to expand...

How have u managed to meet so many famous people?? your kinda like forest gump, except smarter ;)
 
buddy28 said:


How have u managed to meet so many famous people?? your kinda like forest gump, except smarter ;)
Click to expand...

I attribute it to:

A. Being ancient.

B. Working as a journalist.

But in this case, it was pure serendipity. Montecito, where many of my doctoral classes were held, is the richest community in America -- north of Santa Barbara and a primary refuge for the glitterrati of Beverly Hills. Them and me. Buds forever.
 
musclebrains said:
Essentialism and relativism themselves are predictable and ancient disagreements.

It was the arrival of monotheism that set the world into black and white -- an essentialistic, dualistic way of seeing life. The postmodern project -- the one arguably inaugurated by the "death of god" -- displaces the center, all essentialistic claims, and in a way re-establishes a pagan cosmology. That is one reason why "pagan" equates to "sin" in many Christian minds and, of course, why the postmoderns are dismisssed as "nonsensical."
Click to expand...


The term, post-modern, is applicable because we won;t see the fundamental shift from monotheism in our lifetimes....except if there is a cataclysmic event.

The Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians, Egyptians etc were all polytheistic and relativists. All the advances they made in sciences AND arts were negated, indeed reversed, by the arrival of Christianity.

Modern scientifc breakthroughs (outside the Arab world, which was central to scientific development) can be traced to originating around the period after the printing press was created, which - no surprise - made the Reformation possible. This was the beginning of the displacement of Christianity's iron grip on the western world.

Funny how history repeats itself.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:



The term, post-modern, is applicable because we won;t see the fundamental shift from monotheism in our lifetimes....except if there is a cataclysmic event.

The Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians, Egyptians etc were all polytheistic and relativists. All the advances they made in sciences AND arts were negated, indeed reversed, by the arrival of Christianity.

Modern scientifc breakthroughs (outside the Arab world, which was central to scientific development) can be traced to originating around the period after the printing press was created, which - no surprise - made the Reformation possible. This was the beginning of the displacement of Christianity's iron grip on the western world.

Funny how history repeats itself.
Click to expand...

Yup yup. We have the fantasy that mankind proceeds in an evolutionary way when the reality is that we've risen and crashed numerous times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dylangemelli
Video Tesofensine - The ULTIMATE Fat Loss Peptide now available at Umbrella Labs!
Replies
16
Views
3K
MasonicBodybuilder
MasonicBodybuilder
Richardbrown
Napsgear: Spot Reduction: Myth or Fact?
Replies
13
Views
3K
RoySimpson
RoySimpson
Richardbrown
Napsgear: 12 REASONS PEOPLE FAIL AT FITNESS
Replies
16
Views
4K
Tazz
Tazz
Richardbrown
Napsgear: 19 Moves to Amplify Your Grip Strength
Replies
12
Views
3K
Tiger Salman Khan
Tiger Salman Khan
jasonhill800
Napsgear Article: More and Better Sex (For the Ladies)
Replies
14
Views
4K
BodyMonster34
BodyMonster34
Top Bottom