Any more Democrats??

[dilloduck]

My thinking on what happened here is that moral relativist are confusing punishment with the crime. Certain things are always wrong but the punishment can be flexible due to certain extenuating circumstances. They have taken this reasonable approach one step further and simple say it was never wrong in the first place. They don't like ANYTHING that causes them any incovenience !

 

[Bonnie]

My thinking on what happened here is that moral relativist are confusing punishment with the crime. Certain things are always wrong but the punishment can be flexible due to certain extenuating circumstances. They have taken this reasonable approach one step further and simple say it was never wrong in the first place. They don't like ANYTHING that causes them any incovenience !

Some seem to have trouble admitting there are absolute truths. It's much more comfortable for them to say Im open minded, I make no judgements, I just constantly make assessments as they warrant.

Look at the way religion is under attack from some it's own so called followers. There is a giant scism in the Catholic church which started with the second vatican counsel, they called it changing with the times. Problem is they are trying to move the church away from it's foundational tennents.........This is simply a move to water down the church and make it more user friendly to those who refuse to accept the moral standards of the church because it's too inconvenient for them to make the attempt to abide by them, so they are molding the church to fit their morality or lack there of.
Same thing with the constitution, by saying it's a living breathing document, the Liberals are changing it through the courts to suit their liking. Classic example of this is gun control activists saying the fore fathers never took into consideration that there would eventually be automatic weapons, so that gives us license to change the meaning of the Second Amendment.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'd say Mjduncan just got publicly flogged here. I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

 

[Bonnie]

My theory on MJ is that he is one of the original authors of "How To Serve Man" cookbook.

Just kidding MJ

 

[MissileMan]

it is not... That's the prob with libs--- no conception of right or wrong just relative... Morals relative,,, history relative.... No one is right ever.. I'd find that a very difficult way to go through life... But hey I once thought like that....
When I was young and naive... You know naive, like Kerry, only young, with no botox, or fake tan, or $1000 haircut, or $100 manicure, or rich widow... come to think of it nothing like Kerry...

Just because my point of view doesn't come from the religious far right, that doesn't mean I'm a liberal. I am very much far from it. I have never claimed that there is no right or wrong. I have argued however that there are few absolutes.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

mj, the problem with that line of thinking is that people usually use it to justify bad deeds

"its normally not okay to cheat on my spouse, but in this occasion,(insert excuse/situation here)"

"genocide is normally terrible, but in this case (insert excuse/situation here)"

"murder is wrong, but in this case (insert excuse/situation here)"

I agree that many people take the idea to places unintended and unreasonable.

The examples you give are good examples. However, it seems each one may be validated with a proper quality.

It seems to me it is a matter of which sphere one is operating.

Your first example: One must first accept the notion that it is always wrong to cheat on a spouse. Are there no circumstances where it would be reasonable to? The answer is no if you agree with the proposition that it is never reasonable to cheat on one's spouse but that is in some way circular. What if one gets married under pressure from the parents and there is no love? And one spouse finds another where love exists? Will we deny the exercise of love to uphold a proposition that it is always unreasonable to cheat? I agree that many people use excuses that are not reasonable. However, I cannot believe that that means that there are no excuses that are reasonable.

I do not hold in respect those who use the idea which I believe in for reasons unintended by the idea. It seems to be an error of a particular human and not the the idea of situational ethics.

Second example: Genocide has within its definition something, in my opinion, that would not create many instances where it would be permitted. However, what about the mass killing of a group of people who only believe that they should kill the rest of humanity and can not be stopped unless by force. It is an extreme example but one that shows that it is possible for genocide to be reasonable. Again, however, that is not the case with most instances of genocide and those who attempt to use situational ethics to justify their actions do not do so honestly.

Third Example: This one, to me, is quite easy to understand. It seems that "murder" implies a wrongful killing. In that case, murder can never be justified with situational ethics. If one was to say that a "murder" was committed within reason it would seem they would be attacking the very idea that the death was wrongful. But yes, I agree that murder is never justified because the definition of murder seems to imply an element of unjustifiability.

It seems to me that the error is with the application of the rule and not the rule itself.

I can't help being reminded of Javert from Les Mis who holds to the principles of his sphere to the neglect of the countless other spheres within life.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

My thinking on what happened here is that moral relativist are confusing punishment with the crime. Certain things are always wrong but the punishment can be flexible due to certain extenuating circumstances. They have taken this reasonable approach one step further and simple say it was never wrong in the first place. They don't like ANYTHING that causes them any incovenience !

I agree in part although I might not fully understand what you are implying. I feel there can be certain extenuating circumstances where no punishment would be warranted because the intent of such a principle was not violated.

As may be the case with some unfaithful spouses. It seems marriage has one, of many, intents that is to join two people in love. If there is no love, is the denial of the proposition of marriage in violation of the intent of marriage?

It is situational ethics, as many have identified, but it is not inherent to the idea every "wrong" is justifiable. If you define something as Injustifiable then there is no way to justify it within the sphere which is under discussion.

And I am not an advocate of the idea for convenience, to me it is a matter of truth and the truth of a situation depends upon that sitution

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Some seem to have trouble admitting there are absolute truths.

I do, in fact, have that trouble because I am not sure they exist. Believing in an absolute truth entails consequences of believing in it which may not be warranted.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

My theory on MJ is that he is one of the original authors of "How To Serve Man" cookbook.

Just kidding MJ

No offense taken. What is this cookbook? A real book?

 

[no1tovote4]

No offense taken. What is this cookbook? A real book?

No, that makes reference to a Twilight Zone episode in which tall Aliens came to earth to take humans to their planet. They find a book but are only able to translate the name "To Serve Man" and everybody thinks it is great that they are here to serve us. One guy translates the book at the end of the episode and figures out it is a cook book, he is forced onto the ship before he could break the news to the world.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

No, that makes reference to a Twilight Zone episode in which tall Aliens came to earth to take humans to their planet. They find a book but are only able to translate the name "To Serve Man" and everybody thinks it is great that they are here to serve us. One guy translates the book at the end of the episode and figures out it is a cook book, he is forced onto the ship before he could break the news to the world.

Ah I see, but how does that relate to what I said?

 

[no1tovote4]

Ah I see, but how does that relate to what I said?

Dunno. You will have to get that answer from her.

However, situational ethics are usually accounted for in law. That is why there is a difference between Murder 1 and 2, as well as Self-defense or the direct defense of another.

By simplifying it to killing, you can say in some ways it is okay to kill, but in others it is not. That is clear to everybody and why we have the differences written into law.

By your first scenario, one was assault by the definition in the law but one was defense of another by those same laws. You assume that everything is looked at by its simplest means then judged by people who believe that in some cases there is an absolute truth, but they are not usually as evidenced by the actual supported law.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Dunno. You will have to get that answer from her.

However, situational ethics are usually accounted for in law. That is why there is a difference between Murder 1 and 2, as well as Self-defense or the direct defense of another.

By simplifying it to killing, you can say in some ways it is okay to kill, but in others it is not. That is clear to everybody and why we have the differences written into law.

By your first scenario, one was assault by the definition in the law but one was defense of another by those same laws. You assume that everything is looked at by its simplest means then judged by people who believe that in some cases there is an absolute truth, but they are not usually as evidenced by the actual supported law.

Which "first" scenario are you referring to? If it was my account of the second example it is not assault.

I do not understand what you mean when you say what I assume. can you explain further?

 

[no1tovote4]

Which "first" scenario are you referring to? If it was my account of the second example it is not assault.

I do not understand what you mean when you say what I assume. can you explain further?

Your scenario that I first read in this thread talked about punching somebody in the face. If you do it for satisfaction as in your first scenario that would be assault, if you do it to protect the old lady as in your second scenario it would be defense of another.

You were using these as examples of how there could be differences in ethical situations, I give examples where that was already thought of and most would not argue that.

Your assumption is that those who believe that there are absolute truths don't think things through and have closed minds. That of course is inferenced by your remarks shown previously about how somebody that does believe absolutes would have a hard time understanding that type of reasoning. I was just giving you absolutes that were written into law to set your examples into perspective. People that believe in absolutes can absolutely make a moral legal system that deals with your scenarios quite nicely.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Your scenario that I first read in this thread talked about punching somebody in the face. If you do it for satisfaction as in your first scenario that would be assault, if you do it to protect the old lady as in your second scenario it would be defense of another.

You were using these as examples of how there could be differences in ethical situations, I give examples where that was already thought of and most would not argue that.

Your assumption is that those who believe that there are absolute truths don't think things through and have closed minds. That of course is inferenced by your remarks shown previously about how somebody that does believe absolutes would have a hard time understanding that type of reasoning. I was just giving you absolutes that were written into law to set your examples into perspective. People that believe in absolutes can absolutely make a moral legal system that deals with your scenarios quite nicely.

The first scenario would be a battery. Assault does not include actual touching.

And yes I was using those examples to show why believing in a principle such as: Punching someone is bad, should not be held without fail. I was merely showing that the less qualifiers a principle has, the more exceptions exist.

And I never said, nor implied that those who believe absolute truths do not think things through. I'd like if you can show me where that implication lies in my statements.

 

[no1tovote4]

The first scenario would be a battery. Assault does not include actual touching.

And yes I was using those examples to show why believing in a principle such as: Punching someone is bad, should not be held without fail. I was merely showing that the less qualifiers a principle has, the more exceptions exist.

And I never said, nor implied that those who believe absolute truths do not think things through. I'd like if you can show me where that implication lies in my statements.

I can using statements from previous posts in this thread.

It seems naive now to hold on to a principle to the end. Moderation is the key and a person with capable rational abilities views the situation and blends the aspirations of idealism with the down-to-earth understanding of practicality.

Holding on to either one is, in my opinion, foolish. I respect the man/woman who strives for principles but does it in a way that is realistic.

Here you say people who believe in absolutes to be foolish and naive, and suggest that they are not worthy of your respect.

Yes...as I've said before you can never know if you are right. An intelligent person always leaves a back door open in his mind for other opinions.

Here you infer they are unintelligent and that only people who think like you do are intelligent. That my friend is called arrogance, and a blind belief that you are always right. Are you being stubborn? Or do you really think you are right? You sir, have created a circular argument.

You are absolutely wrong (stupid, foolish, and naive) because you believe in abolutes, is definitely a circular argument.

I would keep going but what is the point. It doesn't take much to infer what you think of people that believe in absolutes.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I can using statements from previous posts in this thread.



Here you say people who believe in absolutes to be foolish and naive, and suggest that they are not worthy of your respect.



Here you infer they are unintelligent and that only people who think like you do are intelligent. That my friend is called arrogance, and a blind belief that you are always right. Are you being stubborn? Or do you really think you are right? You sir, have created a circular argument.

You are absolutely wrong (stupid, foolish, and naive) because you believe in abolutes, is definitely a circular argument.

I would keep going but what is the point. It doesn't take much to infer what you think of people that believe in absolutes.

I do not believe that naivette implies that one has not thought an issue through. It may mean there was no opportunity to do so. Children are naive. And I didn't say unworthy of my respect. I respect them but disagree that they understand the big picture of life.

I do not believe I am always right. That is the crux of my view...I always leave open the possibility that I am wrong.

For the purposes of this nice discussion, can you please explain the syllogism where I created a circular argument?

 

[no1tovote4]

I do not believe that naivette implies that one has not thought an issue through. It may mean there was no opportunity to do so. Children are naive. And I didn't say unworthy of my respect. I respect them but disagree that they understand the big picture of life.

I do not believe I am always right. That is the crux of my view...I always leave open the possibility that I am wrong.

For the purposes of this nice discussion, can you please explain the syllogism where I created a circular argument?

Foolishness does imply one has not thought through a topic, and by saying you "respected" one type of person in your previous assertions it clearly implies at least less respect for those that believe in the absolute.

You created the circular argument by implying you are better and more intelligent than those that believe in absolutes, thereby saying that your belief was right (intelligent and well thought out) and theirs wrong (unintelligent and not thought out). This creates an absolute where they are wrong and you are right. That is circular argument.

As I said before when I summarized the statements I quoted, "You are absolutely wrong because you believe in absolutes." is a circular argument.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Foolishness does imply one has not thought through a topic, and by saying you "respected" one type of person in your previous assertions it clearly implies at least less respect for those that believe in the absolute.

You created the circular argument by implying you are better and more intelligent than those that believe in absolutes, thereby saying that your belief was right (intelligent and well thought out) and theirs wrong (unintelligent and not thought out). This creates an absolute where they are wrong and you are right. That is circular argument.

As I said before when I summarized the statements I quoted, "You are absolutely wrong because you believe in absolutes." is a circular argument.

I'll admit that I respect those who understand what I believe should be understood. Yes that is circular but there comes a point where no believe has any foundation.

And I do not say you are absolutely wrong for believing in absolutes. It is my opinion that it is not wise but as I said before I always leave a door in my mind for the opposing opinion and welcome arguments to the contrary.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

My rational ability.

I am fine with trading predictability for truth.

My view may be Ad Hoc but I believe that every situation deserves its own deliberation.

It appears that you believe in Truth (the principle of Love).

That is good to hear, because when you get around to truly understanding Conservatives you will come to know that we base our political beliefs and laws upon the principles of Truth and Love as well as Reason. Are not Truth and Love absolutes as well as Principles to live by?

You must certainly agree that every society must have Law to provide for order and sanity. In our society every situation actually does get its own deliberation - in a Court of Law.