Moral Relativism

[Unkotare]

"Nothing more"

 

[PK1]

Anyone capable of thinking should be able to realize that morality, good, bad, etc., are all human terms for human concepts. They exist only in the mind of a human. Fear of our human potential provokes the effort to make rules absolute. Society wants to protect itself from the people who compose it. Nothing more.

---
Armchair "philosophers" don't have many experiences in the real world.
At least academically, they should take classes in anthropology and other social sciences, esp developmental psychology, to understand what you wrote.
The guy can't even define or conceptualize his own thoughts on the subject, and seems dependent on what some others wrote that sounds good to his amygdalae.
.

 

[Unkotare]

Anyone capable of thinking should be able to realize that morality, good, bad, etc., are all human terms for human concepts. They exist only in the mind of a human. Fear of our human potential provokes the effort to make rules absolute. Society wants to protect itself from the people who compose it. Nothing more.

---
Armchair "philosophers" don't have many experiences in the real world.
At least academically, they should take classes in anthropology and other social sciences, esp developmental psychology, to understand what you wrote.

.

You fail again, kid.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Then let's do this one...

All mature willing companions should be allowed to marry as they choose because it's neither the governments nor your business... Therefore multiple partner, close relative, and interspecies, marriage should be allowed.

---
I view "Moral Relativism" as realistic, flexible, tolerant, and having Normative components.
Therefore, its position needs not reflect your conclusion that "if you're a moral relativist both sides are right".

In your example, I believe it's OK for the mature/responsible individuals to make their own decisions re: who to marry, and the gov should simply record for legal implementations.
I am a Libertarian, with a "social responsibility" flavor. Ethically, i take the "Live & Let Live" position, which has both relative (to each their own) & normative (Golden Rule) features.
Just like the "Nature vs Nurture" debate is senseless (it's usually both), the Normative/Universal vs Relative Morality debate is extreme & unrealistic at both ends.

Back to your example ...
I favor individuals choosing multiple partners if they take responsibility over their children (if they have any), but NOT agree with marriage among close relatives; two genetically similar adults are more likely to give a child two copies of a defective gene (not fair to the child).
Also, interspecies coupling is difficult to defend; the other species is not likely to understand the relationship's commitments from the human perspective.
.

I see... You want everyone to stay out of everyone else's bedrooms so long as they are only relationships that you approve of... Sort of sounds like what the nuclear heterosexuals wanted until the progressives decided that they should stay out of the bedrooms and marriage rights of homosexuals.

What business is it of yours to judge other relationships if the premise of the homosexual argument was that others should stay out of their bedrooms and business?

Why isn't it the right of all mature willing companions to form relationships as they choose in your little world?

Why do you accept that people with known genetic defects such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, inheritable diabetes, etc,... can marry but in turn you deny those same right to close relatives because of only possible genetic defects?

Do you really believe that 'all people' understand a relationships commitments when they form a marriage vow?

What makes you think that your view of marriage any better than the nuclear heterosexual view if you're going disallow other marriages that are between other mature willing companions?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[PK1]

Anyone capable of thinking should be able to realize that morality, good, bad, etc., are all human terms for human concepts. They exist only in the mind of a human. Fear of our human potential provokes the effort to make rules absolute. Society wants to protect itself from the people who compose it. Nothing more.

---
Armchair "philosophers" don't have many experiences in the real world.
At least academically, they should take classes in anthropology and other social sciences, esp developmental psychology, to understand what you wrote.

.

You fail again, kid.

---
Boy, you are full of insight again.

.

 

[PK1]

Then let's do this one...

All mature willing companions should be allowed to marry as they choose because it's neither the governments nor your business... Therefore multiple partner, close relative, and interspecies, marriage should be allowed.

---
I view "Moral Relativism" as realistic, flexible, tolerant, and having Normative components.
Therefore, its position needs not reflect your conclusion that "if you're a moral relativist both sides are right".

In your example, I believe it's OK for the mature/responsible individuals to make their own decisions re: who to marry, and the gov should simply record for legal implementations.
I am a Libertarian, with a "social responsibility" flavor. Ethically, i take the "Live & Let Live" position, which has both relative (to each their own) & normative (Golden Rule) features.
Just like the "Nature vs Nurture" debate is senseless (it's usually both), the Normative/Universal vs Relative Morality debate is extreme & unrealistic at both ends.

Back to your example ...
I favor individuals choosing multiple partners if they take responsibility over their children (if they have any), but NOT agree with marriage among close relatives; two genetically similar adults are more likely to give a child two copies of a defective gene (not fair to the child).
Also, interspecies coupling is difficult to defend; the other species is not likely to understand the relationship's commitments from the human perspective.
.

I see... You want everyone to stay out of everyone else's bedrooms so long as they are only relationships that you approve of... Sort of sounds like what the nuclear heterosexuals wanted until the progressives decided that they should stay out of the bedrooms and marriage rights of homosexuals.

What business is it of yours to judge other relationships if the premise of the homosexual argument was that others should stay out of their bedrooms and business?

Why isn't it the right of all mature willing companions to form relationships as they choose in your little world?

Why do you accept that people with known genetic defects such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, inheritable diabetes, etc,... can marry but in turn you deny those same right to close relatives because of only possible genetic defects?

Do you really believe that 'all people' understand a relationships commitments when they form a marriage vow?

What makes you think that your view of marriage any better than the nuclear heterosexual view if you're going disallow other marriages that are between other mature willing companions?

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
"What business is it of yours to judge ..."

I responded to your example(s) about moral disputes, and provided rational explanations.
That's what "morality" reflects: rational judgements.
I also implied tolerance is a part of my moral relativism; if another culture practices inbreeding responsibly, for example, i would not impose my rational preferences on them.
However, if another culture killed its members for behaving against its irrational preferences (religion), then i would have a moral problem with them.

What are YOUR rational judgements for the examples you provided?
.

 

[Unkotare]

Anyone capable of thinking should be able to realize that morality, good, bad, etc., are all human terms for human concepts. They exist only in the mind of a human. Fear of our human potential provokes the effort to make rules absolute. Society wants to protect itself from the people who compose it. Nothing more.

---
Armchair "philosophers" don't have many experiences in the real world.
At least academically, they should take classes in anthropology and other social sciences, esp developmental psychology, to understand what you wrote.

.

You fail again, kid.

---
Boy, you are full of insight again.

.

What exactly do you need, kid? "Many experiences in the real world," or "academically "?

 

[PK1]

Anyone capable of thinking should be able to realize that morality, good, bad, etc., are all human terms for human concepts. They exist only in the mind of a human. Fear of our human potential provokes the effort to make rules absolute. Society wants to protect itself from the people who compose it. Nothing more.

---
Armchair "philosophers" don't have many experiences in the real world.
At least academically, they should take classes in anthropology and other social sciences, esp developmental psychology, to understand what you wrote.

.

You fail again, kid.

---
Boy, you are full of insight again.

.

What exactly do you need, kid? "Many experiences in the real world," or "academically "?

---
Let's start with something easy ...
1) Which definition of "morality" do you prefer?
Then, for brownie points ...
2) Provide a logical argument for why it must be universally observed by humans.
.

 

[Unkotare]

Anyone capable of thinking should be able to realize that morality, good, bad, etc., are all human terms for human concepts. They exist only in the mind of a human. Fear of our human potential provokes the effort to make rules absolute. Society wants to protect itself from the people who compose it. Nothing more.

---
Armchair "philosophers" don't have many experiences in the real world.
At least academically, they should take classes in anthropology and other social sciences, esp developmental psychology, to understand what you wrote.

.

You fail again, kid.

---
Boy, you are full of insight again.

.

What exactly do you need, kid? "Many experiences in the real world," or "academically "?

---
Let's start with something easy ...
1) Which definition of "morality" do you prefer?.....
.

It means ONE thing. Stop begging for answers until or unless you are willing to grow up and/or demonstrate any capacity to learn.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[PK1]

---
Armchair "philosophers" don't have many experiences in the real world.
At least academically, they should take classes in anthropology and other social sciences, esp developmental psychology, to understand what you wrote.

.

You fail again, kid.

---
Boy, you are full of insight again.

.

What exactly do you need, kid? "Many experiences in the real world," or "academically "?

---
Let's start with something easy ...
1) Which definition of "morality" do you prefer?.....
.

It means ONE thing. Stop begging for answers until or unless you are willing to grow up and/or demonstrate any capacity to learn.

---
Why don't you grow up and answer the SIMPLE question?
What is that ONE "thing"?
.

 

[Igrok_]

Moral relativism is very close to the ideology of liberalism, which stands for people since their born are good. So, the more people have freedom, the better conditions of living are in a whole society. Maybe some could hesitate, but for me is obviuos that people are not good and need to be overseed. So, there is no reality which leads to the peoples' wishes. There is only reality which sometimes is against sensivity and comfort living.

The love, which is so adorable for extreme liberals, could hurt a lot. And that is the point!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

"in zugzwang" relatively speaking

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Then let's do this one...

All mature willing companions should be allowed to marry as they choose because it's neither the governments nor your business... Therefore multiple partner, close relative, and interspecies, marriage should be allowed.

---
I view "Moral Relativism" as realistic, flexible, tolerant, and having Normative components.
Therefore, its position needs not reflect your conclusion that "if you're a moral relativist both sides are right".

In your example, I believe it's OK for the mature/responsible individuals to make their own decisions re: who to marry, and the gov should simply record for legal implementations.
I am a Libertarian, with a "social responsibility" flavor. Ethically, i take the "Live & Let Live" position, which has both relative (to each their own) & normative (Golden Rule) features.
Just like the "Nature vs Nurture" debate is senseless (it's usually both), the Normative/Universal vs Relative Morality debate is extreme & unrealistic at both ends.

Back to your example ...
I favor individuals choosing multiple partners if they take responsibility over their children (if they have any), but NOT agree with marriage among close relatives; two genetically similar adults are more likely to give a child two copies of a defective gene (not fair to the child).
Also, interspecies coupling is difficult to defend; the other species is not likely to understand the relationship's commitments from the human perspective.
.

I see... You want everyone to stay out of everyone else's bedrooms so long as they are only relationships that you approve of... Sort of sounds like what the nuclear heterosexuals wanted until the progressives decided that they should stay out of the bedrooms and marriage rights of homosexuals.

What business is it of yours to judge other relationships if the premise of the homosexual argument was that others should stay out of their bedrooms and business?

Why isn't it the right of all mature willing companions to form relationships as they choose in your little world?

Why do you accept that people with known genetic defects such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, inheritable diabetes, etc,... can marry but in turn you deny those same right to close relatives because of only possible genetic defects?

Do you really believe that 'all people' understand a relationships commitments when they form a marriage vow?

What makes you think that your view of marriage any better than the nuclear heterosexual view if you're going disallow other marriages that are between other mature willing companions?

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
"What business is it of yours to judge ..."

I responded to your example(s) about moral disputes, and provided rational explanations.
That's what "morality" reflects: rational judgements.
I also implied tolerance is a part of my moral relativism; if another culture practices inbreeding responsibly, for example, i would not impose my rational preferences on them.
However, if another culture killed its members for behaving against its irrational preferences (religion), then i would have a moral problem with them.

What are YOUR rational judgements for the examples you provided?
.

No you haven't. You've evaded the whole issue by implying that multiple partners and close relatives have to be responsible while you've placed no conditions on any currently 'approved' marriages.

Why should any other forms of not currently approved marriage types be held to a higher standard than your 'approved' marriage types?

You hypocrisy is starting to show.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[PK1]

Moral relativism is very close to the ideology of liberalism, which stands for people since their born are good. So, the more people have freedom, the better conditions of living are in a whole society. Maybe some could hesitate, but for me is obviuos that people are not good and need to be overseed. So, there is no reality which leads to the peoples' wishes. There is only reality which sometimes is against sensivity and comfort living.

The love, which is so adorable for extreme liberals, could hurt a lot. And that is the point!

---
Yes, i agree that liberalism and moral relativism can be compatible.
However, people are not born "good" or "bad". They are born "neutral" with varying temperamental dispositions.
Their psychological development will decide if their learned behavioral patterns are "good/bad" according to their cultures.
.

 

[PK1]

"in zugzwang" relatively speaking

---
LOL. Zugzwang may explain Unk's reluctance to provide his definition of morality that "means ONE thing" (his words).

Instead of a Japanese name that indicates dripping poop, he should have adopted a handle reflecting anal retentiveness.

.

 

[PK1]

Then let's do this one...

All mature willing companions should be allowed to marry as they choose because it's neither the governments nor your business... Therefore multiple partner, close relative, and interspecies, marriage should be allowed.

---
I view "Moral Relativism" as realistic, flexible, tolerant, and having Normative components.
Therefore, its position needs not reflect your conclusion that "if you're a moral relativist both sides are right".

In your example, I believe it's OK for the mature/responsible individuals to make their own decisions re: who to marry, and the gov should simply record for legal implementations.
I am a Libertarian, with a "social responsibility" flavor. Ethically, i take the "Live & Let Live" position, which has both relative (to each their own) & normative (Golden Rule) features.
Just like the "Nature vs Nurture" debate is senseless (it's usually both), the Normative/Universal vs Relative Morality debate is extreme & unrealistic at both ends.

Back to your example ...
I favor individuals choosing multiple partners if they take responsibility over their children (if they have any), but NOT agree with marriage among close relatives; two genetically similar adults are more likely to give a child two copies of a defective gene (not fair to the child).
Also, interspecies coupling is difficult to defend; the other species is not likely to understand the relationship's commitments from the human perspective.
.

I see... You want everyone to stay out of everyone else's bedrooms so long as they are only relationships that you approve of... Sort of sounds like what the nuclear heterosexuals wanted until the progressives decided that they should stay out of the bedrooms and marriage rights of homosexuals.

What business is it of yours to judge other relationships if the premise of the homosexual argument was that others should stay out of their bedrooms and business?

Why isn't it the right of all mature willing companions to form relationships as they choose in your little world?

Why do you accept that people with known genetic defects such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, inheritable diabetes, etc,... can marry but in turn you deny those same right to close relatives because of only possible genetic defects?

Do you really believe that 'all people' understand a relationships commitments when they form a marriage vow?

What makes you think that your view of marriage any better than the nuclear heterosexual view if you're going disallow other marriages that are between other mature willing companions?

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
"What business is it of yours to judge ..."

I responded to your example(s) about moral disputes, and provided rational explanations.
That's what "morality" reflects: rational judgements.
I also implied tolerance is a part of my moral relativism; if another culture practices inbreeding responsibly, for example, i would not impose my rational preferences on them.
However, if another culture killed its members for behaving against its irrational preferences (religion), then i would have a moral problem with them.

What are YOUR rational judgements for the examples you provided?
.

No you haven't. You've evaded the whole issue by implying that multiple partners and close relatives have to be responsible while you've placed no conditions on any currently 'approved' marriages.

Why should any other forms of not currently approved marriage types be held to a higher standard than your 'approved' marriage types?

You hypocrisy is starting to show.

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
No hypocrisy. No fallacy. Apparently, my consistent "moral relativism" position is difficult to understand, esp for inflexible traditionalists. Therefore, i'll review & elaborate further ...

As i mentioned previously, i take the "Live & Let Live" position, with a "social responsibility" amendment.
If one lives alone on an island, there's no need for "morality", which is a SOCIAL concept.
Morality reflects social responsibility with rational judgments.
Therefore, in a social environment, the "Let Live" portion of my definition reflects avoidance of victimization.

In your marriage examples, my morality position focuses on the innocent children. Willing adults are free to relate with each other as they wish, but when children are involved, then marriage as a moral & legal obligation reflects fairness & protection for minors.
My morality says a baby "ought" to be born healthy (without maladaptive genetic mutations), and if the couple/society chooses not to abort the mutant, then THEY should take on the responsibility for the child's best development.
IMO, there should be no legal marriage until a child is born or adopted. Otherwise, the childless adults are just "partners".

Therefore, my marriage morality has a Normative component (must take responsibility for child's development), and is tolerant with Relative cultural laws that may or may not allow genetically related couples to reproduce.
.

 

[PK1]

Then let's do this one...

All mature willing companions should be allowed to marry as they choose because it's neither the governments nor your business... Therefore multiple partner, close relative, and interspecies, marriage should be allowed.

---
Did you answer my Q?
"What are YOUR rational moral judgments for the examples you provided on marriage?"
Also, how about putting forward YOUR definition of "morality"?
You & Unk write about what morality is NOT, but avoid indicating what it IS ...
.

 

[Igrok_]

Moral relativism is very close to the ideology of liberalism, which stands for people since their born are good. So, the more people have freedom, the better conditions of living are in a whole society. Maybe some could hesitate, but for me is obviuos that people are not good and need to be overseed. So, there is no reality which leads to the peoples' wishes. There is only reality which sometimes is against sensivity and comfort living.

The love, which is so adorable for extreme liberals, could hurt a lot. And that is the point!

---
Yes, i agree that liberalism and moral relativism can be compatible.
However, people are not born "good" or "bad". They are born "neutral" with varying temperamental dispositions.
Their psychological development will decide if their learned behavioral patterns are "good/bad" according to their cultures.
.

so, you approve that for some cultures there is "good" to commit mass murders, don't you? Do you accept if some people will start killing your neighbours only because it is their free choice according to their culture?

 

[PK1]

Moral relativism is very close to the ideology of liberalism, which stands for people since their born are good. So, the more people have freedom, the better conditions of living are in a whole society. Maybe some could hesitate, but for me is obviuos that people are not good and need to be overseed. So, there is no reality which leads to the peoples' wishes. There is only reality which sometimes is against sensivity and comfort living.

The love, which is so adorable for extreme liberals, could hurt a lot. And that is the point!

---
Yes, i agree that liberalism and moral relativism can be compatible.
However, people are not born "good" or "bad". They are born "neutral" with varying temperamental dispositions.
Their psychological development will decide if their learned behavioral patterns are "good/bad" according to their cultures.
.

so, you approve that for some cultures there is "good" to commit mass murders, don't you? Do you accept if some people will start killing your neighbours only because it is their free choice according to their culture?

---
Why don't you understand my morality position of "Live and Let Live"?
Killing others without rational justification is not moral in my book.
Please read my previous posts carefully. Religion, a cultural artifact, is not rational.
.