Moral Relativism

[Votto]

While there are good faith differences in what constitutes "right" and "wrong," those concepts do not wander from place to place based on changing times. For example, if homosexual sodomy was morally unacceptable 50 years ago, the fact that homosexuals are "celebrated" now doesn't make their sexual behavior "moral."

Why not? Why was homosexuality immoral, and do those reasons still hold true? It's my contention that when life-spans were short and infant mortality was high it was right to discourage open homosexuality, and reinforce heterosexual relationships as much as possible in order to increase procreation (as homosexuals would be pressured into heterosexual relationships) and preserve the species. But that's not necessary now. There are no currently practical reasons to discourage homosexual behavior.

Really?

Gay males in the US account for well over half the new AIDS and STD cases every year even though they are only about 5% of the population.

Is this really a healthy life style?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[PK1]

Moral Relativism is mental quicksand. It essentially means that there is no such thing as an objective reality. It's quite difficult to engage in the world when there is no truth and no reality.

Anything statable as truth can be statable as false by changing the observer's frame of reference.

The sky is blue. = True

The sky is not blue, it's black. = Also true. Same place, but different time.

I'm not aware of anything universally true other than hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe.

Reality is entirely subjective. What we see is nothing close to reality. Our senses can only inform us about a tiny fraction of the respective spectrums. We don't see infrared or ultraviolet light for instance (unless you have a genetic thing where you can see a bit into UV.) Don't hear very high or low frequencies, can't smell or taste the whole range of smells and tastes, etc. Consequently, our impression of reality is only the smallest fraction of reality.

---
You are absolutely correct ... from a psychological perspective, which is a SUBJECTIVE domain.

However, we also gather information thru other beings we communicate with (primarily same species) that we ourselves don't experience, but can input into our brain-matrix field of reality. That is the OBJECTIVE domain, which only reflects the overall fields of experiences of our species in our solar system.

The combination of SUBJECTIVE & OBJECTIVE info processed in our brains reflects our RELATIVE REALITY, including the humanoid concepts we define as. "moral" or "ethical".
.

 

[PK1]

Morality is subjective...​

---
Yes, it's a human concept, shared among humans.

The evolutionary process does not care about "morality".
.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

...

 

[Unkotare]

Seems many are misunderstanding normative morality.

 

[PK1]

Seems many are misunderstanding normative morality.

---
Are you going to tell us how we ought to live, or are you going to define/describe what you are referring to?
.

 

[Unkotare]

Seems many are misunderstanding normative morality.

--- are you going to define/describe what you are referring to?
.

I just did.

 

[PK1]

Seems many are misunderstanding normative morality.

--- are you going to define/describe what you are referring to?
.

I just did.

---
Instead of being indirect, simply complete this sentence:
I define normative "morality" as ...

 

[Unkotare]

Seems many are misunderstanding normative morality.

--- are you going to define/describe what you are referring to?
.

I just did.

---
Instead of being indirect, simply complete this sentence:
I define normative "morality" as ...

What is your first language?

 

[PK1]

Seems many are misunderstanding normative morality.

--- are you going to define/describe what you are referring to?
.

I just did.

---
Instead of being indirect, simply complete this sentence:
I define normative "morality" as ...

What is your first language?

---
Russian.
Why can't you answer a simple question?
Or is it not that simple?
.

 

[Unkotare]

Seems many are misunderstanding normative morality.

--- are you going to define/describe what you are referring to?
.

I just did.

---
Instead of being indirect, simply complete this sentence:
I define normative "morality" as ...

What is your first language?

---
Russian.
Why can't you answer a simple question?
Or is it not that simple?
.

Which word don't you understand?

 

[Indeependent]

--- are you going to define/describe what you are referring to?
.

I just did.

---
Instead of being indirect, simply complete this sentence:
I define normative "morality" as ...

What is your first language?

---
Russian.
Why can't you answer a simple question?
Or is it not that simple?
.

Which word don't you understand?

Goggled "normative morality"...not found.
Goggled "normative ethics"...found.

 

[Unkotare]

"Googled".........

 

[September]

Can't google "normative morality" but you can google "Unkotare" LOL​

 

[PK1]

Can't google "normative morality" but you can google "Unkotare" LOL​

---
You can also google "Kakatte koi" and link it to Unkotare.
.

 

[PK1]

--- are you going to define/describe what you are referring to?
.

I just did.

---
Instead of being indirect, simply complete this sentence:
I define normative "morality" as ...

What is your first language?

---
Russian.
Why can't you answer a simple question?
Or is it not that simple?
.

Which word don't you understand?

---
Which word don't you understand?
I asked you to complete the following sentence:

I define normative "morality" as ...
.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

I'll start by pointing out The Republic in book one begins the discourse on Moral Dilemmas (MD). All who have taken the first course in Hist. of Western Philosophy will recall the MD in book one where one is faced with returning a weapon to a person not in his right mind which one has borrowed.

First try to tackle MD's. Is it moral to pay one's debts (return the weapon) if one suspects in doing so the weapon will be used to attack another?

Does the law enforce the duty to return an item borrowed? Does the law hold accountable the person who returns such a weapon and suspects is would be used it to kill?

Are laws moral obligations, or examples of moral relativism? And how is one to decide how to act?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I just did.

---
Instead of being indirect, simply complete this sentence:
I define normative "morality" as ...

What is your first language?

---
Russian.
Why can't you answer a simple question?
Or is it not that simple?
.

Which word don't you understand?

---
Which word don't you understand?
I asked you to complete the following sentence:

I define normative "morality" as ...
.

"Normative ethics, that part of moral philosophy, or ethics, concerned with criteria of what is morally right and wrong. It includes the formulation of moral rules that have direct implications for what human actions, institutions, and ways of life should be like.

"The central question of normative ethics is determining how basic moral standards are arrived at and justified. The answers to this question fall into two broad categories—deontological and teleological. The principal difference between them is that deontological theories do not appeal to value considerations in establishing ethical standards, while teleological theories do. Deontological theories use the concept of their inherent rightness in establishing such standards, while teleological theories consider the goodness or value brought into being by actions as the principal criterion of their ethical value. In other words, a deontological approach calls for doing certain things on principle or because they are inherently right, whereas a teleological approach advocates that certain kinds of actions are right because of the goodness of their consequences. Deontological theories thus stress the concepts of obligation, ought, duty, and right and wrong, while teleological theories lay stress on the good, the valuable, and the desirable. Deontological theories set forth formal or relational criteria such as equality or impartiality; teleological theories, by contrast, provide material or substantive criteria, as, for example, happiness or pleasure."

Link: normative ethics | philosophy

 

[Unkotare]

I just did.

---
Instead of being indirect, simply complete this sentence:
I define normative "morality" as ...

What is your first language?

---
Russian.
Why can't you answer a simple question?
Or is it not that simple?
.

Which word don't you understand?

---
Which word don't you understand?
I asked you to complete the following sentence:

I define normative "morality" as ...
.

Why do you put morality in quotation marks?