Moral Relativism Revealed

[rtwngAvngr]

OK. It's real popular on the left these days to ridicule the very notion of right and wrong. They say it's wrong to believe in right and wrong. Isn't that a moral code in and of itself? It is and the only sin it recognizes is having convictions.

Moral Relativism is a way of removing discussion of right and wrong from public discourse, by villifying those with any fixed point of view and the ability and motivation to defend it. This is the left's way of reducing humanity to an unthinking quivering mass, unsure of itself, malleable to the whims of the self appointed liberal elite. There's nothing open minded about it. It's sinister and sick, and ultimately detrimental to society.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

"Wrong to believe in right and wrong"

That is not a moral statement. The first "wrong" in that statement is not a moral claim like the second is.

I don't believe that most people who do not believe in a universal idea of right and wrong would use that word to denounce it. Probably more along the lines of:

"It is not factually accurate to believe in the concepts of right and wrong"

Or something like that.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

"Wrong to believe in right and wrong"

That is not a moral statement. The first "wrong" in that statement is not a moral claim like the second is.

I don't believe that most people who do not believe in a universal idea of right and wrong would use that word to denounce it. Probably more along the lines of:

"It is not factually accurate to believe in the concepts of right and wrong"

Or something like that.

Nice try. but no. They think it is morally wrong to have a fixed set of beliefs. They believe it is closeminded and well, WRONG in the moral sense. They most certainly do. I've talked to them. I've read their crap. It's just a way of convincing people to turn off their own judgement in deference to the dictates of government. It most certainly is.

 

[Zhukov]

There is no right or wrong, good or evil, except for anything that disagrees with their point of view.

You can't call homosexuality wrong, but if you want to defend traditional marriage you're an evil homophobic bigot.

Letting people keep more of their own money is selfish and wrong. It's perfectly alright to steal productive people's income and give it to individuals who have done nothing to deserve it.

You can't call the Soviet Union evil, because that's wrong; it's just another ideology. Oh, and capitalism is greedy and evil.

You can't discriminate against minorities, but opposing discriminating in favor of minorities makes you a hateful evil person.

President Clinton commited U.S. military forces more than any other single President in the history of our country, with no discernable gain, and not a word. President Bush liberates 50 million people with two campaigns and is the evilest man alive.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There is no right or wrong, good or evil, expect for anything that disagrees with their point of view.

You can't call homosexuality wrong, but if you want to defend traditional marriage you're an evil homophobic bigot.

Letting people keep more of their own money is selfish and wrong. It's perfectly alright to steal productive people's income and give it to individuals who have done nothing to deserve it.

You can't call the Soviet Union evil, because that's wrong; it's just another ideology. Oh, and capitalism is greedy and evil.

You can't discriminate against minorities, but opposing discriminating in favor of minorities makes you a hateful evil person.

President Clinton commited U.S. military forces more than any other single President in the history of our country, with no discernable gain, and not a word. President Bush liberates 50 million people with two campaigns and is the evilest man alive.

Scathing, man, Scathing!



Thanks for adding some concreteness to the mix!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Right and wrong...good an evil...These concepts rest upon the consequences of one's action's to another. Actions which lead to the harm of oneself , another, or both are wrong and/or evil. Actions which are beneficial to oneself, another or both are right and/or good. With such an objective standard, moral relativism is not an issue. There is no arbitrary, capricious divine will dictating morality, which is true moral relativism.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Right and wrong...good an evil...These concepts rest upon the consequences of one's action's to another. Actions which lead to the harm of oneself , another, or both are wrong and/or evil. Actions which are beneficial to oneself, another or both are right and/or good. With such an objective standard, moral relativism is not an issue. There is no arbitrary, capricious divine will dictating morality, which is true moral relativism.

Abortion harms babies.
socialism causes economies to shrink, forcing people out of work and into starvation; this is also harmful. Please show how your own views are consistent with your own stated metric, the metric of harm.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Abortion harms babies.
socialism causes economies to shrink, forcing people out of work and into starvation; this is also harmful. Please show how your own views are consistent with your own stated metric, the metric of harm.

You don't know me...You don't know my "metric". Abortion terminates a pregnancy, it doesn't kill a baby...Socialism has long been proven a failure.

 

[Avatar4321]

You don't know me...You don't know my "metric". Abortion terminates a pregnancy, it doesn't kill a baby...Socialism has long been proven a failure.

Then why continue to advocate it? Changing its name doesnt make it better. Socialism is still socialism. Just like Abortion is still infanticide.

Relative truth is BS. The whole concept of relative truth is defeated in a simple logical proof.

1) There is no absolute truth
2) Statement 1 is an Absolute truth
3)Law of contradiction says that statement 1 cannot be true.

Hence there has to be absolute truth.

That is just the first problem with the relativists. Thats hardly the last.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You don't know me...You don't know my "metric". Abortion terminates a pregnancy, it doesn't kill a baby...Socialism has long been proven a failure.

You said yourself you judge policy by harm. That is your metric. I know this about you because you said it.

RE: "terminates a pregnancy" v. "Kill a baby", covering over the truth with better sounding words doesn't change the truth of what abortion is. It's killling live babies. Maybe you believe your lies, but we don't

Socialism is a proven failure, yet libs still keep espousing it.

What exactly is wrong with your brain bully. You've been saying the same crap for months and having it wholly and effectively refuted again and again, and again... try learning.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Avatar

Do you really think it would distrurb a relativist to have to admit that there is one absolute truth and that is that there are no absolute truths? Plus the reliativists which are most often discussed, moral, would have their first statement as:

There are no absolute moral truths

This would not be defeated by admitting that that statement itself is an absolute (non-moral) truth.

Also, I am not aware of a Law of Contradiction in Logic. I do know of a Law of Non-Contradiction that states that there cannot be P and not P at the same time. Also, "Statement 1 is an absolute truth" is not the logical negation of "There are no absolute truths".

And RtwngAvngr,

I do not know of any relativists who say it is morally wrong. Most I know and read about (Nietzche) simply deny the existence of moral truths. It is not a moral claim they are making. More along the lines of a philosophical or factual claim. If I personally were to say that it is wrong to believe in right and wrong I would be saying it in the same way as I would that it is wrong to believe in unicorns. You don't mean to say that my denial of unicorns is in some way a moral declaration do you? Neither is a moral statement in itself.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And RtwngAvngr,

I do not know of any relativists who say it is morally wrong. Most I know and read about (Nietzche) simply deny the existence of moral truths. It is not a moral claim they are making. More along the lines of a philosophical or factual claim. If I personally were to say that it is wrong to believe in right and wrong I would be saying it in the same way as I would that it is wrong to believe in unicorns. You don't mean to say that my denial of unicorns is in some way a moral declaration do you? Neither is a moral statement in itself.

Now you're just bickering with semantics, so like a lib.

Let's put it this way. There are standards of conduct which are more conducive to a peaceful, cooperative, well functioning, society. These principles are strikingly similar across religions and throughout history. The most important ones: Personal responsibility for your life and actions, hard work, not stealing, no entitlement attitude. These are the things we're talking about. Libs seek to subvert these undeniable truths to win votes from people who don't want to accept that maybe their own behavior is not optimal. Do you tell people lies (you are perfect), or do you tell them the hard truths(maybe for yourself and others you should be more responsible and change your ways)? Conservatives tell the hard truths. Libs tell people what they want to hear.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Libs seek to subvert these undeniable truths to win votes from people who don't want to accept that maybe their own behavior is not optimal. Do you tell people lies (you are perfect), or do you tell them the hard truths(maybe for yourself and others you should be more responsible and change your ways)? Conservatives tell the hard truths. Libs tell people what they want to hear.

So Alan Keyes is a closet Liberal? :teeth:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So Alan Keyes is a closet Liberal? :teeth:

Who knows what he is.

He's a superfreak. superfreak. he's superfreaky.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Who knows what he is.

He's a superfreak. superfreak. he's superfreaky.

Don't be dissing the dead man. you dig? :soul:

 

[Avatar4321]

Avatar

Do you really think it would distrurb a relativist to have to admit that there is one absolute truth and that is that there are no absolute truths? Plus the reliativists which are most often discussed, moral, would have their first statement as:

There are no absolute moral truths

This would not be defeated by admitting that that statement itself is an absolute (non-moral) truth.

Also, I am not aware of a Law of Contradiction in Logic. I do know of a Law of Non-Contradiction that states that there cannot be P and not P at the same time. Also, "Statement 1 is an absolute truth" is not the logical negation of "There are no absolute truths".

And RtwngAvngr,

I do not know of any relativists who say it is morally wrong. Most I know and read about (Nietzche) simply deny the existence of moral truths. It is not a moral claim they are making. More along the lines of a philosophical or factual claim. If I personally were to say that it is wrong to believe in right and wrong I would be saying it in the same way as I would that it is wrong to believe in unicorns. You don't mean to say that my denial of unicorns is in some way a moral declaration do you? Neither is a moral statement in itself.

So exactly how is the statement "There is no absolute truth" an absolute truth? You offer nothing but semantics.

Also, while its not addressing me directly, Nietzchie isnt that impressive. If read some of his work. You do realize there is a reason he was committed to a mental institution dont you?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So exactly how is the statement "There is no absolute truth" an absolute truth? You offer nothing but semantics.

Also, while its not addressing me directly, Nietzchie isnt that impressive. If read some of his work. You do realize there is a reason he was committed to a mental institution dont you?

Relativists will always contradict themselves. That's why liberals are so loony. They are a figment of their own imagination.

:scratch:

 

[deaddude]

A few quick questions RWA,

1. are humans the only creatures who are subject to these absolutes?

2. Is the act of killing children considered absolutely moraly wrong?

3. is the act of kinslaying absolutely moraly wrong?

4. Is God sending people to an eternity of pain and suffering absolutely moraly wrong?

5. Is the practice of any religion other than christainity absolutely moraly wrong?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

A few quick questions RWA,

1. are humans the only creatures who are subject to these absolutes?

Which absolutes?

2. Is the act of killing children considered absolutely moraly wrong?

By whom?

3. is the act of kinslaying absolutely moraly wrong?

Not in your family.

4. Is God sending people to an eternity of pain and suffering absolutely moraly wrong?

Hmmm. Maybe.

5. Is the practice of any religion other than christainity absolutely moraly wrong?

No. Not in my book.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This is my code deaddude. Follow your bliss so long as you do not interfere with another through force or fraud.