Moral Relativism

---Apparently, you don't know what hypocrisy is, and take your "critical thinking" black/white simpleton mantras from your groupthink's conservative handbook.

I'm well aware of what hypocrisy is and my critical thinking isn't from any groupthink tank like your progressive liberal responses. It's pure Eagle which is obvious from your inability to cope with the current argument.

Of course bigots like yourself want to deny your own bigotry because they think they're morally superior.

Oh wait! Isn't that what progressives like yourself accuse the Christians and other religions of? I do believe it is!

Morality is about rational judgments. You don't have any? If you do, who are you to judge others? (your criticism)

I see... So now I have no morals because I want you to get out of everyone else's bedrooms.

I do believe that makes you four for four on the hypocrite list.

Moral behaviors,
as one/group may judge, is often not related to a culture's laws. The more extreme examples should be, however, such as "do not kill, unless it's self-defense". Laws against end-of-life personal decisions are unethical.

Why should I accept your definition of morality?

Regarding your 3 scenarios, my focus was/is on the welfare of innocent offspring, not only on the adults who make uneducated or irresponsible decisions. To help protect innocent children & society overall, assisting these young/naive adults or teens in PLANNING for PARENTHOOD is a wise investment.
Now, about your 3 "choices" ...

The welfare of the offspring was covered when you became a hypocrite for not demanding that know carriers of genetic defects not be allowed to marry and reproduce.

1) Obviously, as i repeatedly said, my socially-responsible Libertarian morality advocates FULL freedom for adults UNLESS they victimize others (e.g., children).

Then demand that the government not allow carriers of known genetic defects to marry and reproduce or quit being a bigot and get out of everyone else's bedroom.

If they are poor, uneducated, irresponsible, then i believe gov's assistance is a good investment for society as a whole.

I thought you posted that people who reproduce were supposed to be prepared and take full responsibility for their children... Yep! You sure did back in post #134.

2) Legally, gov should leave loving couples alone with their reproductive plans (legal perspective), but morally, in my opinion, couples not genetically suitable (probability-wise) should take precautions to NOT victimize their offspring, and Planned Parenthood is an excellent resource for poor/uneducated women.

If they're supposed to be prepared and take FULL responsibility like you stated in post #134 then they don't need government assistance. So all you're proving here is that you're a hypocritical bigot.

3) Obviously, Planned Parenthood is a valuable resource for ALL citizens to help them take FULL responsibility with future child care. There's no "or" here. Black/White thinking in this case reflects financial/religious selfishness, an icon of conservative ideology.
.


Then get out of other people's bedrooms and quit violating the 14th Amendment or accept the fact that you are a hypocritical bigot who thinks he has to mind what other people do in their bedrooms because of that bigotry.

*****CHUCKLE*****

:)
---
I no longer believe you are misinterpreting my comments & opinions about my view of morality; you are ignoring them. Instead, you are playing a broken record from your conservative political handbook. And you cannot propose your own definition of "morality"? Incompetent? Afraid? No independent thoughts?

I was very clear about my definition:
Morality represents "Live & Let Live" lifestyles and involves "social responsibility", which reflects the Golden Rule.

Also as mentioned repeatedly, i believe mature adults should be left alone to make their own decisions, but they should take FULL responsibility to care for their offspring if they ignore precautions or fail to abort their deformed embryos.
To aid prospective parents in making informed, rational decisions, EDUCATION is a valuable tool gov has to benefit society. Or, do you think gov should not provide free PUBLIC education to immature citizens?
Children feel bad if they are born with deformities, or would YOU enjoy being a mutant?

My ideas are rational & fair toward ALL kids and prospective babies.
Please learn the common meanings of words you twist from your con's bigot handbook.
Bigot = "a person whose habitual state of mind includes an irrational or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own".

If i disagree with you and your group of cons, i have rational reasons for doing so.
So, please explain how my moral OPINIONS violate the 14th Amendment, while your accusation doesn't violate my rights to the 1st Amendment?
:)

Here's another word you don't understand:
Hypocrisy = "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform".

I practice exactly what i advocate. How about you?
Like Unk, you can't even propose a definition of "morality"?
:)
 
---
I no longer believe you are misinterpreting my comments & opinions about my view of morality; you are ignoring them. Instead, you are playing a broken record from your conservative political handbook. And you cannot propose your own definition of "morality"? Incompetent? Afraid? No independent thoughts?

I provided you my stance on morals and agreed with what you said about it... So what's the problem? Just because your inflexible and incapable of changing your latent closet religious beliefs is of no consequence to how I feel about your hypocritical bigotry.

I was very clear about my definition:
Morality represents "Live & Let Live" lifestyles and involves "social responsibility", which reflects the Golden Rule.

And been very consistent in proving that your morals and beliefs are just as bigoted as those you criticize.

Also as mentioned repeatedly, i believe mature adults should be left alone to make their own decisions, but they should take FULL responsibility to care for their offspring if they ignore precautions or fail to abort their deformed embryos.

No you don't because you believe that they require government assistance and intervention.

Which is very hypocritical of you!

To aid prospective parents in making informed, rational decisions, EDUCATION is a valuable tool gov has to benefit society. Or, do you think gov should not provide free PUBLIC education to immature citizens?

Why should the government be involved in any social programming? They've already proven that they're a failure at providing public education. So using that as an example of how great government is at providing any sort of societal benefits is very bright of you.

Children feel bad if they are born with deformities, or would YOU enjoy being a mutant?

We're all mutants. Otherwise we'd all look the same, talk the same, think the same, etc...

Do you have a problem being different?

My ideas are rational & fair toward ALL kids and prospective babies.

What makes you think your ideas are rational and fair? All I've seen is a hypocritical bigot so far.

Please learn the common meanings of words you twist from your con's bigot handbook.

No handbook here. Just a mind that can think all for itself.

= "a person whose habitual state of mind includes an irrational or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own".

Yep! You fit that definition to a T.

You sound more and more like the conservatives that you criticize every time you post.

If i disagree with you and your group of cons, i have rational reasons for doing so.

You haven't shown me any so far.

Are you going to refer to some religious text to do so?

Don't you think that would make you an even bigger hypocritical bigot?

So, please explain how my moral OPINIONS violate the 14th Amendment, while your accusation doesn't violate my rights to the 1st Amendment?
:)

United States Constitution

14th Amendment


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside
. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Looks like all mature willing companions should be given the same right to marry however they choose to me.

Here's another word you don't understand:
Hypocrisy = "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform".

It's pretty obvious that it's you that needs to read that definition a few times then sit back and contemplate what it truly means.

I practice exactly what i advocate.

If you mean your being a hypocritical bigot then I completely agree.

How about you?

I am the wind!

Like Unk, you can't even propose a definition of "morality"?
:)

This really bothers you doesn't it? Why don't you just accept that I'm perfectly willing to grant you SSM under my conditions. After all you don't have a religious text to fall back on to tell you what to believe and not believe.

upload_2015-12-28_19-48-33.jpeg


Now let's see how well your moral relativism works...

In other words you need to compromise or accept that you're a class A1 hypocritical bigot.

*****CHUCKLE*****



:cool:
 
---
I no longer believe you are misinterpreting my comments & opinions about my view of morality; you are ignoring them. Instead, you are playing a broken record from your conservative political handbook. And you cannot propose your own definition of "morality"? Incompetent? Afraid? No independent thoughts?

I provided you my stance on morals and agreed with what you said about it... So what's the problem? Just because your inflexible and incapable of changing your latent closet religious beliefs is of no consequence to how I feel about your hypocritical bigotry.

I was very clear about my definition:
Morality represents "Live & Let Live" lifestyles and involves "social responsibility", which reflects the Golden Rule.

And been very consistent in proving that your morals and beliefs are just as bigoted as those you criticize.

Also as mentioned repeatedly, i believe mature adults should be left alone to make their own decisions, but they should take FULL responsibility to care for their offspring if they ignore precautions or fail to abort their deformed embryos.

No you don't because you believe that they require government assistance and intervention.

Which is very hypocritical of you!

To aid prospective parents in making informed, rational decisions, EDUCATION is a valuable tool gov has to benefit society. Or, do you think gov should not provide free PUBLIC education to immature citizens?

Why should the government be involved in any social programming? They've already proven that they're a failure at providing public education. So using that as an example of how great government is at providing any sort of societal benefits is very bright of you.

Children feel bad if they are born with deformities, or would YOU enjoy being a mutant?

We're all mutants. Otherwise we'd all look the same, talk the same, think the same, etc...

Do you have a problem being different?

My ideas are rational & fair toward ALL kids and prospective babies.

What makes you think your ideas are rational and fair? All I've seen is a hypocritical bigot so far.

Please learn the common meanings of words you twist from your con's bigot handbook.

No handbook here. Just a mind that can think all for itself.

= "a person whose habitual state of mind includes an irrational or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own".

Yep! You fit that definition to a T.

You sound more and more like the conservatives that you criticize every time you post.

If i disagree with you and your group of cons, i have rational reasons for doing so.

You haven't shown me any so far.

Are you going to refer to some religious text to do so?

Don't you think that would make you an even bigger hypocritical bigot?

So, please explain how my moral OPINIONS violate the 14th Amendment, while your accusation doesn't violate my rights to the 1st Amendment?
:)

United States Constitution

14th Amendment


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside
. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Looks like all mature willing companions should be given the same right to marry however they choose to me.

Here's another word you don't understand:
Hypocrisy = "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform".

It's pretty obvious that it's you that needs to read that definition a few times then sit back and contemplate what it truly means.

I practice exactly what i advocate.

If you mean your being a hypocritical bigot then I completely agree.

How about you?

I am the wind!

Like Unk, you can't even propose a definition of "morality"?
:)

This really bothers you doesn't it? Why don't you just accept that I'm perfectly willing to grant you SSM under my conditions. After all you don't have a religious text to fall back on to tell you what to believe and not believe.

Now let's see how well your moral relativism works...

In other words you need to compromise or accept that you're a class A1 hypocritical bigot.

*****CHUCKLE*****

:cool:
---
Again, like a broken record, you misrepresent my comments as if you're trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Are you really that dense? Or, blinded by your politics and/or religion?

YOU: "you believe that they require government assistance and intervention."
ME: I never said that MATURE adults require gov intervention.

YOU: "Looks like all mature willing companions should be given the same right to marry however they choose to me."
ME: I agree.
And i also support the 14th Amendment, as well as the 1st.

I mentioned that LAW is not synonymous with ETHICS, and we're talking MORALITY here. Capisce?
My flexible morality tolerates procreation between MATURE/informed relatives, as long as they don't victimize offspring with significant genetic deformities.

You still cannot contribute your own definition of MORALITY?
Therefore, you must agree with my definition, or your incompetence is noted.

I stand by my comments in Post #161 & prev posts. If you still have disagreements, please be specific in your example(s) to minimize your confusion.

Happy New Year!
:)
 
This appears to have gone off track, no, you are, you are, no, you are..............

"If by relativism one means a cast of mind that renders you unable to prefer your own convictions to those of your adversary, then relativism could hardly end because it never began. Our convictions are by definition preferred; that's what makes them our convictions. Relativizing them is neither an option nor a danger. ¶ But if by relativism one means the practice of putting yourself in your adversary's shoes, not in order to wear them as your own but in order to have some understanding (far short of approval) of why someone else might want to wear them, then relativism will not and should not end, because it is simply another name for serious thought." Stanley Fish

"Acts are not made right or wrong simply by people believing that they are right or wrong. ... Relativists think that moral absolutism is a bad view, encouraging intolerance and so on. But I ask them: Is absolutism only bad in a relative way -- only wrong for them and not necessarily for others? If so, then it might not be wrong for me. I can believe in it and act on it. On the other hand, if it is wrong for everybody, then it is absolutely wrong, which contradicts the relativist's [own] position. So moral relativism is either self-refuting or it has no claim on my moral beliefs." Colin McGinn

"Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation." Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory by Hugo Mercier, Dan Sperber :: SSRN
 
This appears to have gone off track, no, you are, you are, no, you are..............

"If by relativism one means a cast of mind that renders you unable to prefer your own convictions to those of your adversary, then relativism could hardly end because it never began. Our convictions are by definition preferred; that's what makes them our convictions. Relativizing them is neither an option nor a danger. ¶ But if by relativism one means the practice of putting yourself in your adversary's shoes, not in order to wear them as your own but in order to have some understanding (far short of approval) of why someone else might want to wear them, then relativism will not and should not end, because it is simply another name for serious thought." Stanley Fish

"Acts are not made right or wrong simply by people believing that they are right or wrong. ... Relativists think that moral absolutism is a bad view, encouraging intolerance and so on. But I ask them: Is absolutism only bad in a relative way -- only wrong for them and not necessarily for others? If so, then it might not be wrong for me. I can believe in it and act on it. On the other hand, if it is wrong for everybody, then it is absolutely wrong, which contradicts the relativist's [own] position. So moral relativism is either self-refuting or it has no claim on my moral beliefs." Colin McGinn

"Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation." Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory by Hugo Mercier, Dan Sperber :: SSRN
---
I like your Fish quote the most.
Here is another that i favor:

"Why is it people of different moral persuasions - such as liberals and conservatives - just can't seem to see eye to eye on many issues? The latest research in evolutionary biology, moral and political psychology and game theory suggests a startling revelation: we have an evolved moral faculty, but that this faculty operates in different ways in different people - and it does so for very good evolutionary reasons. The end result is a 'moral ecology', with a vast plurality of moral approaches that enables us to respond to a wide range of environmental situations."
Tim Dean, 2011.
.
 
Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.

I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.
.
 
... moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.
---
Only a philosophy simpleton would believe that "implication".
Most brains perceive many shades of gray ... and color too!
:)
.
 
Can anyone provide just one absolute objective moral?
---
Do not "victimize" an "innocent" person.

If feasible, help a person who is "significantly" less fortunate than you.
.

Victimize and innoncence are subjective terms.
Do not torture infants might be closer to objective. ...

If feasible is a subjective determination. Significantly is a value judgement and so also subjective.
---
You sound like a moral relativist!
I agree about the subjectivism involved in many judgements; that's why i used quotes for those elements.

However, once we define those variables AND agree to their meanings, then we, as a social group, can deploy those moral concepts objectively.
.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone provide just one absolute objective moral?
---
Do not "victimize" an "innocent" person.

If feasible, help a person who is "significantly" less fortunate than you.
.

Victimize and innoncence are subjective terms.
Do not torture infants might be closer to objective. ...

If feasible is a subjective determination. Significantly is a value judgement and so also subjective.
---
You sound like a moral relativist!
I agree about the subjectivism involved in many judgements; that's why i used quotes for those elements.

However, once we define those variables AND agree to their meanings, then we, as a social group, can deploy those moral concepts objectively.
.

I think morality is relative and I agree with your post.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: PK1

Forum List

Back
Top